Development of research on social work practice in mainland China: Context,challenges,and opportunities

Abstract

Research on social work practice is essential for developing an indigenized base of knowledge. In China, while social work education has grown rapidly, much of what is taught – and many social work priorities in research and practice – is influenced by rapidly changing national government policies. This policy environment creates both opportunities and challenges to building an infrastructure to support research on social work practice. This article reviews the context and challenges related to developing research on social work practice in mainland China, and the important role for social work education to support this development.

Keywords

Chinese social work mainland China practice research social work education social work research

Introduction

As a helping profession, social work is a discipline with a particular focus on integrating research and practice, which was advocated by early pioneers such as Jane Addams (1911). The call for a collaborative relationship between social work practice and research aims to examine the effectiveness and improvement of services or interventions (Franklin, 1999; Rubin, 1985). Currently, the field of social work has not agreed upon a single gold-standard definition for the concepts of ‘research on social work practice’, ‘practice research’, ‘social work research’, or ‘research on practice’. In the current article, we define research on social practice to include research that directly examines the provision of social work services, including both social work processes and outcomes (such as practice research, needs assessment, and evaluation studies). We use this definition to differentiate this research from the more general social science research of theory building and hypothesis testing, which characterizes the current state of social work research in mainland China. Practice research, as one of the key components of research on social work practice, refers frontline social workers conducting research evaluation to gain empirical insights. The main purpose of practice research is to systematically collect and examine evidence to understand the effectiveness and impact of services, which can then serve as a feedback mechanism for further improvement (Epstein et al., 2015; Uggerhøj, 2011).

Practice research is essential because it can not only help researchers to improve evidence from research but also help practitioners better interpret and apply findings/implications from research (Pain, 2011). As social work is still an emerging profession in China, embedding the social work process in its development can contribute to an indigenized knowledge base while making social work distinct from other helping professions (Sim and Lau, 2017). Thus, advocacy for conducting more social work practice research in China is one of the ways to enhance the profession and enrich the practice. To date, the majority of discussions on social work practice research are from western countries. The views from eastern countries, especially China, are under-represented in the field of social work (Lo et al., 2018). In order to enrich the international social work literature, this article outlines the context, challenges, and opportunities of social work practice and research in mainland China.

Objectives and conceptual framework

This article has the following two specific objectives. First, we seek to affirm and promote discussion of the context and challenges associated with building robust research on social work practice in China. We argue that the current state of research on practice in China has international relevance, so a specific goal is to promote cross-national discussions among Chinese and western scholars. Our second objective is to use the context and challenges as a backdrop for revealing opportunities for development of practice research in mainland China. An active discussion of context and challenges is essential for achieving sustainable growth of the field in general, and practice research specifically. In order to guide these objectives, we provide a conceptual framework to show the developmental process of practice research in China (see Figure 1) and the embedded feedback mechanisms.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for the development of research on social work (SW) practice in China.

Within the following framework, we first discuss the history of social work development in mainland China, including the background of governmental policies that have been critical in accelerating and shaping the current system (Wang, 1995; Wu et al., 2016; Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002). We then discuss the international relevance of Chinese social work and scholarship, followed by a critique of the current status of social work research in mainland China. We use these discussion points to reveal critical barriers and opportunities for development related to social work research, education, and practice.

Context of social work development in China

Chinese social context

The importance of national policies

China’s population, ethnic and linguistic diversity, expansive landmass, and economic progress give rise to a variety of complex social challenges including (but not limited to) poverty and inequality, homelessness, insufficient elder care and mental health care, and pollution. The central government of China has recognized the importance of social work as a way to maintain social order and restore social cohesion. In the 1980s, the central government approved four universities to establish baccalaureate social work education programs (Xiong and Wang, 2007). Different from the western countries, where the development of the social work profession was rooted in the practice, social work education emerged from academia, with social work educators (as opposed to practitioners) being the pioneers (Wang, 1995).

Several national policies fueled the rapid growth of Chinese social work education, practice, and research in China (Li et al., 2012). In 2006, the sixth plenary session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC Central Committee) put forth a proposal for building a harmonious society (or he xie she hui), which included developing the social work workforce (Wang and Yuen-Tsang, 2009; Wu et al., 2016). In 2010, a national medium- and long-term talent development plan (2010–2020) was launched specifically to identify licensed or registered social workers, who are regarded as critical professionals necessary to support the country’s social development. The national government set a goal to train 3 million registered social workers by the year 2020 (The State Council, 2010).

These policies promoted significant development of the social work workforce. For example, in 2016, China had approximately 273,000 social workers serving a population of nearly 1.4 billion people – about one social worker per 5,051 people. By 2018, there was one social worker per 3,637 people (Xu et al., 2019). In addition, the number of social work agencies has increased significantly, from 2,000 agencies in 2013 to 9,793 agencies in 2018 (Xu et al., 2019). All these increases provide the necessary infrastructure supports for the development of social work practice in China.

These goals were very ambitious but difficult to achieve. For example, in 2012, there were only 83,100 certified social workers in 2012 (Xu et al., 2019), which was far less than the goals outlined in various policies. Consequently, changes were subsequently made to eliminate the requirement of a social work degree for taking the social work licensure examination (Li et al., 2019). Thus, individuals with only a high school degree or vocational degree could become licensed social workers (Xinhua News, 2016). Although this shift in policy increased the absolute number of social workers in China, ongoing debates remain about the quality of services provided by social workers without formal training.

Deficiencies in research on social work practice

In contrast to the rapid growth of the number of certified social workers and positions in China, research on processes and outcomes of social work services, interventions, and policies is relatively limited in scope and quality. For example, a recent bibliometric review of practice research in Chinese journals identified several inadequacies in literature review and study design and found that the researchers did not involve providers or other stakeholders in the research activities (Sim and Lau, 2017). Other challenges included inadequate support for the development of practice research, lack of adequate research training among Chinese scholars, and lack of practice experience among much social work faculty (Sim et al., 2019). There is a disconnection between social work practitioners and researchers in China. In other words, social work practitioners do not conduct research, whereas social work researchers do not have practice experience (Sim and Lau, 2017; Sim and Ng, 2008). Such disconnection between social work practice and research has become one of the main concerns for social work development in China.

The current social work research infrastructure is in the early stages of development (Sim and Lau, 2017; Wu et al., 2016; Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002), and the country lacks a national plan for coordinating resources and setting a firm educational policy to advance the system. Social work research that informs practice is essential for building a sustainable and effective system of practice (Shi and Wu, 2016; Wen, 2018). However, this research necessarily requires a well-developed research infrastructure that represents the diversity of interests among different stakeholder groups.

International relevance of Chinese social work and scholarship

The capacity for Chinese social work scholars to build empirical knowledge about social problems is essential not only for China but also for the international community. Although experiences and evidence of social work practice from China are based on Chinese social context, these experiences can contribute to international social work development. In this section, we review four reasons for the international relevance of expanding social work research in China, especially practice research.

First, as reviewed by Dominelli (2010), globalization has had profound effects on social work practice by changing service delivery, altering labor processes, and creating new social problems for social workers to address. Some social issues in China have global relevance, including (but not limited to) human trafficking, race and ethnic minority relations, drug trafficking, pollution, immigration, adoption, and social and environmental justice. Therefore, determining the root causes of these issues and how to tackle them effectively in China can have implications for the social work community at large.

Second, well-defined literature on social problems in China, especially from a social work perspective, is essential for the international community of social work scholars who are actively building cross-national exchanges. For example, in 2012, as part of the China Collaborative with the China Association of Social Work, seven schools of social work in the United States established Five-year partnerships with seven institutions in mainland China. The purpose of this collaboration was to build reciprocal relationships through student and faculty exchanges, faculty trainings and workshops, and collaborative scientific research (Council on Social Work Education, 2018). Bi-directional exchange of information is an essential ingredient for any activity that is considered cooperative, especially to promote ongoing and future cross-national exchanges.

Third, a thorough understanding of what programs are effective and for whom is essential for establishing culturally relevant services for Chinese nationals living abroad. Many expat communities have dense populations and actively maintain their culture through language, social systems, and celebrations. Social workers need to be aware of these cultural practices and preferences to provide relevant and responsive services.

Finally, a fourth reason for expanding social work research in China has to do with the fact that an increasing number of Chinese students seek master’s-level social work education in western schools of social work. In order to train these students to be competent social workers, should they choose to return to their home country, western educators must be aware of the cultural differences and practices within the emerging system of Chinese social work. For example, the concept of community work in China is emerging as a core dimension of social work practice. However, community work is understood, defined, and practiced very differently in China than it is in the West. Some of the practice models and approaches used in the West are likely to cause serious problems if implemented in a Chinese setting. Western educators need to understand these essential cultural differences to be fully responsive to the populations they are serving, and an expanded body of social work research, especially practice research, would accomplish this.

Current status of social work research in China

An important starting point for contextualizing practice research in China is to recognize the broader scientific enterprise in which it is situated. Given its fast and continuous economic development, China is a leading nation in the sciences and has ranked second in terms of overall scientific output since 2006 (Nature Index, 2018). A bibliometric review of the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) by Zhou et al. (2009) revealed that the number of social science publications addressing topics of mainland China (excluding Hong Kong) increased sharply from 205 articles published in 1999 to 1,507 articles published in 2007 (Zhou et al., 2009). In addition, a more recent bibliometric analysis of 25 years of data from the SSCI shows that the number of publications by Chinese authors appearing in SSCI journals has been rising with respect to absolute numbers, world share, and global ranking (Liu et al., 2015). Yet the authors of this study argue that China is still not a significant player in social sciences, and research outputs are unbalanced at regional and institutional levels (Liu et al., 2015). Recent findings by Ho (2014) also show that China tied for the lowest ranking among 17 countries that have published highly cited social work articles based on SSCI data.

However, there are indications that China’s social work practice research publications may be on an upward trajectory. Sim and Lau (2017) conducted a bibliometric review of Chinese-language journals in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. This review revealed a total of 206 practice research studies. The first practice research study was published in 1999, and the number of research practice studies increased consistently throughout the duration of the study period, which ended in 2014. Approximately 40% of all practice research articles were published in the final year of the review (2014), which may foreshadow the exponential growth of practice-focused research in China.

Another review of the journals in the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) revealed that Chinese social work research topics were closely related to government policy (Wang et al., 2019). For example, a national policy entitled Suggestions on Developing Pilot Youth Social Work (Chinese Communist Youth League, 2007) motivated a ‘one social worker per school’ model in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Shanghai. Following this policy, there was a significant increase in the number of articles on school-based social work. Similarly, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee (2013) emphasized the vital role of social workers in the process of innovating the Chinese social governance system. This session resulted in a significant increase in the number of articles on this topic between 2015 and 2017. Wang et al. (2019) also pointed out that although the number of social work articles in CSSCI journals had increased significantly, from less than 10 articles per year prior to 2001 to more than 80 articles per year after 2016, only a few articles were published in top-ranked journals.

Given that governmental policies are highly dynamic, the infrastructure to support social work research will need to be responsive to new priorities. At the same time, individual researchers need to maintain some stability and consistency in their own programs of research in order to build expertise. Further bibliometric research is needed to monitor the progress of Chinese social work research. For example, a topical analysis of published articles can help identify where the literature is strongest vis-a-vis the social problems that are currently confronting social workers. Separating the amount of empirical versus non-empirical publications can help establish the ratio of scientific activity to commentary within the field and the extent to which it is changing over time.

Moreover, the current status of social work research in China is limited by many factors of the existing social work education system. For example, given social work is an emerging profession, the majority of the social work faculty in China are from other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and other social science–related disciplines, and usually they do not have formal social work training and practical experience (Leung, 2007). This creates challenges in differentiating what social work research is and how this type of research is different from research produced by other disciplines.

Potential barriers and opportunities

Although the practice and education of social work in China have grown rapidly due to their strong promotion by the central government, several potential barriers have emerged beyond the fast-growing phenomena. In this section, we highlight several potential barriers to the efficient and sustainable development of a practice research infrastructure in China. We have chosen the term potential barrier intentionally for the following reasons. First, the broader field may not agree entirely with our characterization of certain factors as ‘barriers’, particularly in the absence of empirical data. Second, this term reflects the opportunity for using these factors as leverage points for development. More specifically, by explicitly defining the roles these factors play within scientific progress, we have an opportunity to modify the environment around these factors in a way that can promote the growth of practice research. To the extent possible, we offer recommendations from our collective experiences to encourage further discussion of these issues among social work researchers, educators, and practitioners.

Social work research

Research priorities

As previously discussed, Wang et al. (2019) conducted a bibliometric review of social work research. They found that the main topics were driven by government policies, especially the topics of school social work and social governance. While social workers are responsive to national policy and priorities, whether the views of policymakers align with those of social works remains unclear. Moreover, rapid changes in national policy and shifting priority areas can produce barriers for developing an empirical knowledge base to inform education and practice. As empirical knowledge grows incrementally, we need to ensure that sufficient time and resources are devoted to topical areas.

One opportunity for the field of social work in China is to balance the top-down government-driven agenda with a bottom-up approach in which the field organizes around a set of research priorities, developed and organized like the strategies of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW). In 2016, the AASWSW launched the Grand Challenges initiative, which aimed to orient the fields of social work education, research, and practice around 12 specific priority areas to promote significant societal changes over a few decades (Barth et al., 2014; Bent-Goodley, 2016).

While the Grand Challenges of the AASWSW priorities were specific to the American context, replicating this initiative in the Chinese context could facilitate coherence and linkages between social work education, research, and practice. An established set of priority areas can help social work researchers organize resources and activities around specific problems to more efficiently develop an indigenized knowledge base to inform interventions and services. A Grand Challenge initiative can also be used to help communicate what social work research is and how it is unique from the broader social sciences or other helping professions. An initiative of this kind can be especially important for building publication outlets for Chinese social work research, given that many Chinese journal editors and reviewers are not familiar with the characteristics of social work research.

As a starting point, we think the field can benefit from building a Chinese Grand Challenge initiative, with leading members that are representative of various stakeholder groups within the academic and practice communities. There are a few reasons why this stakeholder group should remain independent of government officers. Foremost, the stakeholder group of academics and practitioners are familiar with the context of Chinese social work development. This context is essential to creating a direction that builds on the existing infrastructure, knowledge, and skills of the field.

A second reason is that the social work community can help promote and shape government policy that reflects the values and expertise of the profession. This is important because the social work profession responds to governmental policy without playing an active role in its development, as opposed to responding to policy in absence.

Research-related issues of tenure, promotion, and publishing

The scientific progress of any field cannot be considered separately from the realities of how research faculty’s performance is evaluated. The criteria for evaluation differ across institutions, but we observe some standard criteria that directly affect how research is conducted and therefore deserve further consideration. For example, promotion policies in most Chinese universities only value sole- or first-authored publications. These kinds of institutional promotional policies are primarily influenced and determined by national policies (Zhang, 2013) and ultimately shape how research is conducted. For example, teamwork in social work is often necessary for carrying out certain kinds of research, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), multisite studies, and community-based research collaborations with social services agencies. However, promotion policies that value sole- or first-authored publications disincentivize building research teams among faculty within and across institutions. Moreover, this policy often hampers international collaborations where Chinese scholars desire to be the lead author of a study for promotion reasons but may have a more suitable role as a supporting author given their need to develop both research and language skills. Consequently, Chinese authors need to choose between skill development opportunities involved with the collaboration, which may be an essential step toward acquiring practice-based research skills, versus working within their existing incentive structure to conduct more general social science research as a sole or first author.

Another critical criterion relates to the use of journal lists for determining acceptable publication outlets. Many western institutions allow scholars to publish in a variety of specialty journals within the social sciences and medicine, without requiring them to publish exclusively in social work–specific journals or journals that are indexed on specific lists. Chinese social work scholars, on the other hand, receive credit only when they publish in journals that are on a selected list of particular journal indexes, such as Guide Core Journals China (GCJC), Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the Science Citation Index (SCI).

The CSSCI is a list of Chinese-language journals, which included 553 different journals and 145 various bulletins (i.e. collections of academic papers within a book format, usually one or two issues per year) for the 2017–2018 academic year (Huang, 2018). Except for the following four Chinese social work journals – Journal of Social Work, Social Construction, Social Work and Management, and China Social Work Research – there are no clearly defined disciplinary social work journals that represent the field. Yet only one of the four aforementioned Chinese social work journals, China Social Work Research (with only two issues per year), was indexed as CSSCI, meaning that there is only one Chinese-language social work journal where Chinese social work scholars seeking to advance their academic positions can publish. Otherwise, if they want to publish in their native language, they must look for a journal that specializes in another area of social science or a non-disciplinary or generalist journal.

The SSCI and SCI provide a much broader list of publication targets, but these are English-language journals. Publishing in these journals is highly desirable, yet extremely difficult given the demands of publishing in a second language. Moreover, the SSCI omits several journals that are important to social work, for example, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, The Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, Social Work and Social Sciences Review, and China Journal of Social Work, the only English-language journal that focuses specifically on Chinese social work issues.

Ultimately, few Chinese journals focus specifically on social work topics (Wang et al., 2019), and even fewer are eligible for tenure-boosting credit. The absence of specialized social work journals makes publishing social work research papers more difficult, especially if journal editors and reviewers conduct reviews in ways that reflect their disciplinary standards, which may not be relevant for a fair and consistent appraisal of social work research. The result is (1) the acceptance and publication of a limited quantity of social work research in Chinese-language journals, and (2) a literature base that is disconnected and scattered across different disciplinary journals.

As western scholars invite Chinese scholars to submit to English-language journals, we think editors and reviewers should consider the complexities and difficulties Chinese scholars have encountered in their research initiatives. Such consideration is essential given that all research, but especially practice research, occurs along a continuum of development. Practice research in China is at an early stage of development, and scholars and practitioners often have considerably fewer financial and intellectual resources compared with their western counterparts. Thus, we think editors and reviewers of English-language journals should consider these differences when reviewing research from countries that are at a much different stage of social and economic development.

Our recommendation for reviewing practice research from the Chinese context is not to suggest that editors and reviewers allow for less rigorous research to be reviewed favorably. Instead, we want to emphasize that certain types of studies are recognized as essential contributions to the development of empirical knowledge. Many journals that publish practice research favor intervention and outcome studies with robust methodological design (e.g. RCTs) over descriptive studies. While descriptive studies may not meaningfully advance the practice knowledge in the western context, they are essential for promoting knowledge building in developing countries. More specifically, before we can test the effectiveness or efficacy of interventions, we have to first establish knowledge of the existing service system and context. For example, to know which interventions to test, we need a systematic and careful understanding of client needs, preferences, and values, which are essential components of the widely agreed-upon definition of evidence-based practice (Howard et al., 2003). We also need to know what factors within a service setting might facilitate or hinder the adoption of interventions. These are the building blocks upon which practice research can be built. Thus, although descriptive analysis may not be regarded as a rigorous research design according to certain research hierarchies (Edmond et al., 2006; Petrisor and Bhandari, 2007), this research is essential for building toward experimental research.

Social work education

As mentioned before, the ambitious national policies to promote social work development in China have triggered a big bang of social work education development. Over the past decade, the number of social work education programs available in China has grown considerably. The social work education system in China included bachelor-level, master-level, and doctoral-level programs. The total number of bachelor-level social work programs has increased from 36 in 2001 to 348 in 2018, and the number of Master of Social Work (MSW) programs has grown from 33 in 2009 to 150 in 2018 (China-US Social Work Association, 2018; Wu et al., 2016). The number of doctoral programs were relatively limited in quantity, but in an upward development period, with a total of 21 social work PhD or social work–related PhD programs by 2020 (China-US Social Work Association, 2020). Since the aims of the bachelor programs are not considered contributors to the development of social work research, our ensuing discussion focuses primarily on master’s- and doctoral-level education.

Doctoral education

We consider doctoral education as a critical leverage point for promoting practice research. Yet in China, several shortcomings of doctoral programs limit scholars’ ability to conduct sound practice research; the main challenges being rooted in the lack of methodological training specific to social work research. One such weakness stems from the fact that many research faculties in China receive training from departments that have a strong sociological background. Moreover, most of the social work programs are included within departments of sociology and considered a sub-discipline of the field, which further reinforces the sociological approach to research (Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002). Because of this heavy sociology influence, students are often not taught how to formulate studies specific to social work practice, especially how to measure and analyze service processes and outcomes.

In the past decade, we have anecdotal evidence showing the emergence of new scholars who are seeking to make social work research distinct from the parent field of sociology. In addition, the methodological training for social work doctoral students is shifting from a sociological-based strategy to an approach that resembles doctoral education in western countries to a social work–based approach, which will build up the research infrastructure and bring opportunities to the development of social work practice research in the long run.

In addition, Chinese scholars frequently do not receive advanced methodological training that allows them to study social work processes and outcomes within the current social work delivery system. In this section, we consider three features of the Chinese context that are directly relevant to shaping methodological training: population size, geography, and social relationships.

First, given the vast population of China, social work scholars will need technical skills for managing and analyzing large, complex data systems. Thus, part of the technical training of social work students could be informed by data science, which integrates substantive knowledge and traditional research methods with computer science (Perron et al., 2017). Data science training is not standard in either western or Chinese social work programs but has the potential for providing essential skills for addressing various technological and data-related problems that are highly relevant to practice research. Moreover, data science is especially suitable for providing a framework and technical expertise for helping communicate results to non-technical audiences through various types of data products, such as interactive data visualizations.

Second, the vast landmass of China is another important consideration when it comes to methodological training. Thus, we think that social work scholars can benefit from training in spatial and geographical analyses. This area of specialization can be used for monitoring social problems, examining issues of migration, and analyzing the location of services. Moreover, spatial analysis, can enhance research on ethnic minorities, which tend to be concentrated in some areas of China.

Third, we suggest training social work PhD students in conducting social network analyses, given the cultural significance of relationships in China. Chinese students in doctoral programs at western schools or schools influenced by western thought may not receive the type of theoretical and methodological training that supports social network analysis. Building research capacity in social network analysis can be an asset to the development of practice research in China. Network analysis is not a well-developed area of western social work, which suggests the need for Chinese social work to build cross-disciplinary training opportunities that more closely align with local knowledge needs.

Master’s education

Practicing MSWs are among those best positioned to help support and promote practice research in China. Yet, as highlighted by Sim and Lau (2017), very little collaboration currently exists between social work researchers and practitioners in China. The absence of collaboration can be explained by several factors, including the lack of specific and relevant skills among MSWs and the value placed on sole authorship publications. Strengthening MSW education in the area of practice research, as opposed to general social science research, could better position practicing MSWs to participate meaningfully in practice-based research activities.

Building the infrastructure needed to expand MSW education presents a unique challenge in China, given the country’s large geographic area and the relative recency of social work as a profession. Online programs, including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), offer one potential solution. MOOCs are becoming increasingly popular in many areas of higher education and are being developed by leading institutions worldwide, including those in China (e.g. Tsinghua University, Peking University), Europe (e.g. University of Oxford, University of Cambridge), and in the United States (e.g. Stanford University, University of Michigan). The research on MOOCs in general (e.g. Gamage et al., 2016; Israel, 2015) suggests this is a feasible approach for the delivery of information. However, MOOCs are only recently emerging in the field of social work. In 2016, the University of Michigan School of Social Work was among the first schools of social work to offer a MOOC about social work. At the time of writing, we are aware of only a handful of efforts made to develop MOOCs within social work education. Although MOOCs are currently not represented in Chinese social work programs, they exist in other disciplines in Chinese universities (Shen et al., 2016). A recent book by Zheng, Chen and Burgos, The Development of MOOCs in China, provides theoretical, empirical, and practical guidance for developing MOOCs, which can be an opportunity for innovation in Chinese MSW education (Zheng et al., 2018).

Unlike MOOCs, practice-based field placements are a signature pedagogy for social work education programs worldwide and are becoming increasingly common in Chinese social work programs. However, developing and managing field placements have been challenging due to a lack of faculty supervisors, inadequate field agencies for placement, and few qualified social workers at field agencies (Liu et al., 2013). Field placements are essential for helping students integrate theoretical principles with practice implications and to practice social work skills within a controlled, highly supervised environment. Field placements can also provide unique opportunities for developing practice research, which makes the issue of field placements in China deserving of further attention. More specifically, MSW programs could utilize field placement sites to collect service-related data not only to inform practice but also to integrate data into research activities that evaluate service processes and outcomes. Accomplishing this task, however, necessarily requires an increased stock of research faculty with skills in practice research and qualified social workers in field agencies. This suggests the need for developing systematic plans for faculty development that are also supportive of the development of field placements.

Finally, requesting students to write a thesis is part of almost every MSW program in China. These dissertations have traditionally been written in a way that reflects sociological or anthropological training. The reliance on traditional writing strategies is likely due to the absence of field placements and other supervised practice opportunities. MSW educators could promote the capacity of the field by guiding students to focus on practice-based topics, even if they are not fully immersed in field placements like western programs. For example, students can be trained in conducting a community-needs assessment and make significant contributions by using these skills as the basis for a thesis rather than following the traditions of other social science disciplines.

Social work practice

Over the last decade, the Chinese government has significantly increased the budgets to create a range of social work positions at central, provincial, and local levels. In addition, the number of non-governmental social work agencies has been largely expanded, which also provides many opportunities for the development of social work practice, such as having more practice fields to provide all kinds of services. However, such development depends on the governmental supports, which could be a double-edged sword for Chinese social work development, particularly as it relates to geographic inequalities and the absence of supervision and independent evaluations.

Geographic social work developmental inequality

The geographic inequality in social work development exists between rural and urban areas, and among western, central, and eastern cities in China. Such inequality stems from unequal government financial investment or expenditures in that usually the urban and eastern cities receive many more resources than rural and western areas. Differential treatment by the central government challenges the entire Chinese social work development and creates gaps between different geographic areas. Areas with more resources often have more social work agencies and build up more sophisticated social work practice, education, and research infrastructures. Many underdeveloped regions, including rural areas and western provinces, have limited social work education opportunities or a service system to provide job opportunities for social work graduates.

Insufficient professional supervision and third-party evaluation

Currently, Chinese social work practice is facing a lack of professional supervision and a third-party evaluation dilemma. Because the government supports many of the social work practices, agencies need to adjust their service priorities to favor the government. For example, in order to receive government funding, a child social work agency may provide services for elders or adult drug users. In addition, many frontline social workers are not supervised by licensed professional supervisors. Furthermore, because the government provides the funding, the services and agencies are often evaluated by the government rather than by independent evaluators. The absence of supervision and independent evaluation is a key factor that needs to be considered in development.

Conclusions and next steps

This article considers the current state of social work research, and especially practice research, in China, including barriers and opportunities for development. Some of the most significant obstacles to developing this area of research – those that directly affect what and how research is conducted – are rooted in institutional and national policy, which limits the range of potential solutions. The field is also limited by various tenure and promotion policies, an absence of disciplinary social work journals, and unbalanced access to information and research from the broader international community of social workers. Although some of the barriers that we highlight in this study have been partially discussed, the major contribution of this study is to link these specific barriers with a research framework in the Chinese context and provide directions and suggestions to practical steps for development.

Despite these barriers, we recognize considerable opportunities for Chinese social work scholars in developing practice research, by both overcoming the aforementioned potential barriers in the Chinese context itself, and being supported by collaborative mentoring networks and exchanges between Chinese and western scholars. Our suggestions for advancing practice research focus primarily on building international collaborations. Many relationships already exist through Chinese governmental programs that provide financial support for both western and Chinese scholars. Support for western scholars typically involves teaching short-term bachelor’s- or master’s-level courses. Chinese social work programs may consider ways of leveraging these resources to select western scholars who are actively engaged in practice research and can help contribute to the research infrastructure of the institutions where they are teaching. Social work programs that support Chinese faculty as visiting scholars in western countries may consider prioritizing skill development in practice research as selection criteria and outcome for the exchanges.

The strengthening of exchanges is also necessary to help support the flow of information and the dissemination of research. This is important given that the Chinese government maintains certain restrictions over media, including the Internet and instant messaging services. Given that the existing practice research in Chinese literature is rare (Sim and Lau, 2017), increasing access to western literature is essential for supporting the literature base in China. In addition, our suggestions for promoting the development of practice research in China include creating a strategic plan for the development of practice research at national and local levels, organising Chinese practice research special sessions/issues in Chinese/English social work journals, and building cross-sector collaborations to bridge sectors, fields, and disciplines.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Shiyou Wu

Miao Wang

Juliann Li

Yuhong Zhu

Author biographies

Shiyou Wu is an assistant professor at the School of Social Work, Arizona State University, and the president of the Asian and Pacific Islander Social Work Educators Association. His research interests include social determinants of health among children and youth, poverty and inequality, and global development.

Miao Wang is an associate professor at the Department of Social Work, Tianjin University of Technology. Her research interests include social work services for children and adolescents, especially for children with special needs.

Brian E Perronis a professor at the School of Social Work, University of Michigan. He is a co-director of the Child & Adolescent Data Lab where he applies data science methods to help improve public systems of care, with an emphasis on families involved in the child welfare system.

Jin Huangis a professor at the School of Social Work, Saint Louis University, and a research associate professor at the Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis. His research areas include financial social work, financial capability and asset building, and social welfare policies.

Juliann Liis a post-MSW research fellow at the University of Michigan School of Social Work. She is the project coordinator for an NIH-funded study on suicide prevention among adults with psychosis. She is also currently practicing as a clinical social worker.

Xiaochun Zhouis an associate professor at the Department of Social Work, China Youth University of Political Studies. His research interests include financial social work, financial capability and assets building ,and youth social work.

Yuhong Zhuis an associate professor and associate head of the Department of Social Work & Social Policy at the School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China. Her Research interests include child protection and child welfare.

Xuesong He is a professor and dean of the School of Social and Public Administration, East China University of Science and Technology. He is also the Deputy Secretary-General of the China Association for Social Work Education.

Jun Wen is a professor and dean of the School of Social Development, East China Normal University. He is also the Standing Council member of the China Social Work Academy and the Vice President of the Shanghai Association of Social Workers.

Fengzhi Ma is a professor at the Department of Sociology, and the director of the PKU-HK PolyU China Social Work Research Centre, Peking University. She is also the vice president of the China Association for Social Work Education.

References

Addams

(1911) Twenty Years at Hull House, with Autobiographical Notes. New York: MacMillan.

Barth

R.P.

Gilmore

G.C.

Flynn

M.S.

Fraser

M.W.

Brekke

J.S.

(2014) ‘The American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare: History and Grand Challenges’, Research on Social Work Practice 24(4): 495–500.

Bent-Goodley

T.B.

(2016) ‘Social Work’s Grand Challenges: Mobilizing the Profession’, Social Work 61(3): 197–8.

China-US Social Work Association (2018) ‘An Overview of Chinese Social Work BSW, MSW and Ph.D. (Social Work Related) Programs’. Available online at: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8_Thlp_0yua_8pJGRwV5dw (accessed 6 June 2019).

China-US Social Work Association (2020) ‘China Has 21 Social Work Related Ph.D. Programs’. Available online at: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/W5g47mnUq76sb-NbSjEBWw (accessed 9 July 2020).

Chinese Communist Youth League (2007) ‘Suggestions on Developing Pilot Youth Social Work’, Construction 6: 3–5. Available online at: http://www.ccyl.org.cn/documents/zqlf/200711/t20071122_52073.htm (accessed 6 June 2019).

Council on Social Work Education (2018) ‘Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) – China Collaborative Report Now Available’. Available online at: https://www.cswe.org/Centers-Initiatives/Centers/International-KAKI/News/China-Collaborative-Report-Now-Available (accessed 11 June 2019).

Dominelli

(2010) ‘Globalization, Contemporary Challenges and Social Work Practice’, International Social Work 53(5): 599–612.

Edmond

Megivern

Williams

Rochman Howard

E.M.

(2006) ‘Integrating Evidence-Based Practice and Social Work Field Education’, Journal of Social Work Education 42(2): 377–96.

10.

Epstein

Fisher

Julkunen

Uggerhoj

Austin

M.J.

Sim

(2015) ‘The New York Statement on the Evolving Definition of Practice Research Designed for Continuing Dialogue: A Bulletin from the 3rd International Conference on Practice Research (2014)’, Research on Social Work Practice 25(6): 711–4.

11.

Franklin

C.G.

(1999) ‘Research on Practice: Better Than You Think?’, Social Work Education 21: 3–9.

12.

Gamage

Perera

Fernando

(2016) ‘Evaluating Effectiveness of MOOCs Using Empirical Tools: Learners Perspective’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 7–9 March.

13.

Y.-.S.

(2014) ‘Classic Articles on Social Work Field in Social Science Citation Index: A Bibliometric Analysis’, Scientometrics 98(1): 137–55.

14.

Howard

M.O.

McMillen

C.J.

Pollio

D.E.

(2003) ‘Teaching Evidence-Based Practice: Toward a New Paradigm for Social Work Education’, Research on Social Work Practice 13(2): 234–59.

15.

Huang

P.C.C.

(2018) ‘Citation Indexes: Uses and Misuses’, Modern China 44(6): 559–90.

16.

Israel

M.J.

(2015) ‘Effectiveness of Integrating MOOCs in Traditional Classrooms for Undergraduate Students’, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16(5): 102–18.

17.

Leung

J.C.

(2007) ‘An International Definition of Social Work for China’, International Journal of Social Welfare 16(4): 391–7.

18.

Zeng

(2019) ‘Degree or Examination: What Is the Foundation of the Social Work Workforce in China?’, International Social Work 62(1): 447–60.

19.

Han

W.J.

Huang

C.C.

(2012) ‘Development of Social Work Education in China: Background, Current Status, and Prospects’, Journal of Social Work Education 48(4): 635–53.

20.

Liu

Sun

Anderson

S.G.

(2013) ‘Challenges in Social Work Field Education in China: Lessons from the Western Experience’, Social Work Education 32(2): 179–96.

21.

Liu

Tang

Wang

S.G.

(2015) ‘China’s Global Growth in Social Science Research: Uncovering Evidence from Bibliometric Analyses of SSCI Publications (1978–2013)’, Journal of Informetrics 9(3): 555–69.

22.

H.H.

Epstein

Chan

W.C.

Wang

S.S.

(2018). ‘Dialogues and debates in practice research’. China Journal of Social Work 11(2): 113–5.

23.

Nature Index (2018) ‘Nature Index 2018 Reviews China’s Scientific Performance Over the Past Five Years| Group| Springer Nature’. Available online at: https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/nature-index-2018-reviews-china-s-scientific-performance/16338530 (accessed 11 June 2019).

24.

Pain

(2011) ‘Practice Research: What It Is and Its Place in the Social Work Profession’, European Journal of Social Work 14: 545–62.

25.

Perron

B.E.

Victor

B.G.

Hodge

D.R.

Salas-Wright

C.P.

Vaughn

M.G.

Taylor

R.J.

(2017) ‘Laying the Foundations for Scientometric Research: A Data Science Approach’, Research on Social Work Practice 27(7): 802–12.

26.

Petrisor

Bhandari

(2007) ‘The Hierarchy of Evidence: Levels and Grades of Recommendation’, Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 41(1): 11–15.

27.

Rubin

(1985) ‘Practice Effectiveness: More Grounds for Optimism’, Social Work 30: 469–76.

28.

Shen

Wang

Zhao

(2016) ‘Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in China: Status Quo, Opportunities, and Challenges’, in 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi, 10–13 April, pp. 1106–1108. New York: IEEE.

29.

Shi

B.N.

S.Y.

(2016) ‘China’s Social Work Needs More Intervention Research’, (in Chinese), Social Construction 6: 3–5.

30.

Sim

G.T.

(2008) ‘Black Cat, White Cat: A Pragmatic and Collaborative Approach to Evidence-Based Social Work in China’, China Journal of Social Work 1: 50–62.

31.

Sim

Lau

V.C.Y.

(2017) ‘The Emergence of Social Work Practice Research in the Peoples’ Republic of China: A Literature Review’, Research on Social Work Practice 27(1): 8–18.

32.

Sim

Austin

Abdullah

Chan

T.M.S.

Chok

Epstein

Fisher

Joubert

Julkunen

Uggerhøj

Wang

Webber

Wong

Yliruka

(2019) ‘The Hong Kong Statement on Practice Research 2017: Contexts and Challenges of the Far East’, Research on Social Work Practice 29(1): 3–9.

33.

The State Council (2010) ‘Outline of the National Program for and Long-Term Talent Development (2010-2020)’, 6 June. Available online at: http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-06/06/content_1621777.htm (accessed 6 June 2019).

34.

Uggerhøj

(2011) ‘What Is Practice Research in Social Work-Definitions, Barriers and Possibilities’, Social Work & Society 9(1): 45–59.

35.

Wang

(1995) ‘Experiences and Development of Social Work in China’ (in Chinese), Social Sciences in China 2: 97–106.

36.

Wang

S.B.

Yuen-Tsang

(2009) ‘The Development of Social Work in China in the Context of Building a Harmonious Society’ (in Chinese), China Social Sciences 2009: 128–40.

37.

Wang

Y.A.

Yan

F.Y.

Zhang

Cheng

J.Q.

(2019) ‘Research Status, Hotspots and Trends of Social Work in China Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping Analysis Based on CSSCI Databases from 1998 to 2017’, China Social Work Research 2: 196–214.

38.

Wen

(2018) ‘Social Work Intervention Research’ (in Chinese), Social Work and Management 5: 1–14.

39.

Huang

Sun

(2016) ‘Is Social Work Really Being Recognized? Problems with Social Work Employment Opportunities in Mainland China’, Social Work Education 35(2): 186–203.

40.

Xinhua News (2016) ‘Ministry of Civil Affairs: Train Nearly One Million Professional Social Workers in Five Years’. Available online at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-03/14/c_128798986.htm

41.

Xiong

D.Y.

Wang

(2007) ‘Development of Social Work Education in China in the Context of New Policy Initiatives: Issues and Challenges’, Social Work Education 26(6): 560–72.

42.

Jiang

Zhang

Wang

Zhao

Wang

, et al (2019) ‘The 2018 Annual Report on Social Work Development in China’ (in Chinese), China Philanthropy Times. Available online at: http://www.gongyishibao.com/html/yaowen/16252.html (accessed 6 June 2019).

43.

Yuen-Tsang

A.W.K.

Wang

(2002) ‘Tensions Confronting the Development of Social Work Education in China: Challenges and Opportunities’, International Social Work 45(3): 375–88.

44.

Zhang

(2013) ‘Promotion Criteria, Faculty Experiences and Perceptions: A Qualitative Study at a Key University in China’, International Journal of Educational Development 33(2): 185–95.

45.

Zheng

Chen

Burgos

(2018) The Development of MOOCs in China. Singapore: Springer.

46.

Zhou

Thijs

Glänzel

(2009) ‘Is China Also Becoming a Giant in Social Sciences?’, Scientometrics 79(3): 593–621.