Introduction to the Special Issue

The articles in this special issue were presented on April 5–6, 2013, at the University of Houston’s Symposium titled, Critical Considerations, Successes and Emerging Ideas for Bridging the Research and Practice Gap in Social Work. This symposium addressed a major challenge in social work and allied fields—the translation of research-based practice knowledge into real-world settings. Drawing on a range of perspectives and expertise, this event engaged practitioners, administrators, and researchers in a discussion of potential novel solutions to commonly cited research-to-practice and evaluation barriers. Based upon broad translational efforts in intervention research, implementation science, evidence-based practice (EBP), and real-world program evaluation, this conference sought to cross-pollinate critical thought and identify more integrated and efficient solutions. Particular attention was focused on common concerns, such as the cultural adaptation of empirically supported treatments; complex issues when working with clients with comorbid diagnoses and/or multiple environmental stressors; and ideas for enhancing the fidelity of interventions, programs, and policies provided in real-world settings. This brief introduction provides the rationale and a summary of the presentations and how they intersect to address this special issue’s overarching theme of bridging the research and practice gap in social work and allied fields. Many of the articles are also followed by a written reaction from the discussant for each presentation.

Allen Rubin (2015, in this special issue) provided the keynote address and offered some creative suggestions for reducing the persistent gap between research and social work practice. Among those suggestions are some novel ideas for increasing faculty and doctoral student agency-based research focused on assessing the implementation and pre–post change of already efficacious interventions in real settings. While this kind of research may be less likely to obtain major external funding, he argues that the replication of these more feasible studies can build a database for ferreting out the factors associated with successful adaptations of research-supported interventions in practice settings that—due to resource limitations and differences in practitioners and clientele—are unable to replicate the more desirable service provision conditions that commonly characterize the randomized controlled trials. Because causality has been already established in prior replicated randomized controlled trials, and because those trials are less feasible and slow to come, Rubin argues that descriptive outcome studies on how to improve the agency-based adaptation of interventions that already have strong research support is as important as additional randomized control trials, especially in light of existing findings on the difficulties of implementing those interventions in everyday practice settings.

Implementation science offers guidelines for increasing the adoption, implementation, and fidelity of empirically supported treatments, programs, or policies in real-world settings (Fixsen et al., 2005). Allison Metz (Bartley, Ball, Wilson, Naoom, & Redmond, 2015, in this special issue) and Rosalyn Bertram (Blasé & Fixsen, 2015, in this special issue) have both worked with the National Implementation Research Network, where implementation science originated (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Both of these articles provide an updated overview on the Implementation Science Frameworks and offer practice-relevant examples of the application of these frameworks in areas such as child welfare and wraparound services.

Flavio Marsiglia (& Booth, 2015, in this special issue) offered a fresh perspective on a major challenge for practice research translation—the lack of randomized controlled trials with individuals of diverse cultural and racial backgrounds and whether and to what degree research-supported interventions can be adapted with unrepresented groups. The dearth of literature with diverse populations has led many social work practitioners and allied professionals to make decisions regarding the cultural adaptation of interventions that have been primarily developed with other populations (assuming such thought about adaptation has been considered). When such changes are made to a research-supported intervention, concerns arise about the fidelity and effectiveness of the intervention with that population. Marsiglia addresses this important question, offering guidance for both researchers and practitioners on engaging in culturally grounded practice. McClain Sampson and Luis Torres (2015, in this special issue) served as panel discussants and provide a brief reactionary response.

Latoya Small and colleagues (2015, in this special issue; conference speaker Dr. Mary McKay) offered some creative ideas and considerations for addressing the complexity and comorbidity that are common among social work clients by discussing the development of their intervention model—the 4Rs and 2Ss Family Strengthening Program. This family-based mental health program targets youth behavioral issues, while also addressing the unique needs of impoverished youth and families dealing with multiple stressors, including poverty, chronic and serious health conditions, and parental behavioral health issues and stress. This article describes this intervention—developed and piloted in a real-world setting—and offers useful lessons and ideas for engaging clients dealing with complex and varied stressors. Jennifer Bellamy and Sarah Beldsoe-Mansori served as panel discussants and each provided a written reaction to this presentation (Bellamy, 2015, in this special issue; Bledsoe-Mansori, & Killian-Farrell, 2015, in this special issue).

Bowen McBeath (& Austin, 2015, in this special issue) presented novel ideas to strengthen the capacity of organizations to engage in EBP. Specifically, they suggest identifying, engaging, and supporting research-minded practitioners in organizational settings to participate in the organizational improvement processes. Research-minded practitioners are described as curious individuals who think critically about improving service delivery, identify practice-based needs, and propose resources and methods to accomplish agency-specific knowledge production. McBeath and Austin also outline the organizational supports and contexts believed necessary to support research-minded practitioners and enhance organizational improvement. Joanne Yaffe served as a panel discussant and provided a written response to this article.

Bruce Thyer (2015, in this special issue) presented and then engaged other leading social work educators (Allen Rubin, Eileen Gambrill, Aron Shlonsky, and Patrick Bordnick) in a discussion focused on preparing current and future practitioners to integrate research into real practice settings. Thyer suggested that this effort involves two tasks—increasing both knowledge consumption and the implementation of original research among social work practitioners in real settings. In the context of our professional history and his own experience, he reviewed prior research–practice integration efforts in social work focused on these two tasks. There is an emphasis on professional ethics, increasing university–community research collaborations focused on practice-based research, a tribute to social workers he believes have contributed to bridging the research–practice gap, and an important distinction between similar, yet different terminologies used to describe research–practice integration efforts (EBP process vs. research-supported treatments). Eileen Gambrill (2015, in this special issue) and Patrick Bordnick (2015, in this special issue) provided written reactions to this presentation.

Irwin Epstein (2015, in this special issue) also engaged fellow scholars (Allen Rubin, Bruce Thyer, Eileen Gambrill, and Aron Shlonsky) who have made important scholarly contributions on bridging the research–practice gap in discourse that questioned the two-way traffic of the research–practice bridge metaphor. He suggested strategies for ensuring bidirectional bridge building that comes from both researchers and practitioners. The primary strategy discussed is the application of Clinical Data Mining to encourage practitioners to participate in more agency-relevant research that benefits practice and the field. Allen Rubin (2015) and Eileen Gambrill (2015) provided written responses to this presentation.

Cathy Crouch (& Parrish; 2015, in this special issue) provided an overview and lessons learned regarding the use of research and evaluation in Crouch’s agency where she is an administrator at SEARCH Homeless Services in Houston, Texas. Crouch and Parrish described the benefits of an agency–university research partnership that helped her agency better understand the needs of the clients they serve and improve service delivery. Collaborating with experts in substance abuse research and the transtheoretical model of behavior change (Carlo DiClemente and Mary Velasquez), Crouch learned that most of their homeless clients who also abused substances were in the precontemplation or contemplation stage of change and that the 12-step program or demands that agency clients attend treatment were not useful for these clients. The agency adopted Motivational Interviewing (MI), which was designed to enhance readiness for change. Crouch, a champion of research–practice integration, has devoted a great deal of effort to ensure fidelity of MI and evaluation of this program, which has provided this agency with valuable data, service funding, and an excellent reputation within the Houston service delivery system.

Shannon Johnson and colleagues (conference speaker: Mary Velasquez; 2015, in this special issue) discussed the development and dissemination of the CHOICES intervention, a brief prevention intervention to reduce the risk of alcohol-exposed pregnancy among women of childbearing age. Project CHOICES, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was conducted in three phases: identifying opportunistic settings that serve high-risk populations (Project CHOICES Research Group, 2002), testing the feasibility and impact of the intervention (Project CHOICES Intervention Research Group, 2003), and testing the efficacy of the intervention in a randomized trial in six different opportunistic settings (Floyd et al., 2007; Velasquez et al., 2010). What is particularly notable about this line of research is a commitment to developing an intervention that is feasible and flexible in real settings and that provides practitioners with the tools to maintain treatment fidelity. Mary Velasquez and her team at the Health Behavior Research and Training Institute at the University of Texas at Austin have been dedicated to the successful dissemination and implementation of this intervention, as well as testing adaptations to the model that are briefer and address the reduction of additional health risk behaviors during the preconception period. These detailed efforts are described in more detail in the article, and they illustrate the process of intervention development and translation into real-world settings.

The conference ended with breakout sessions of attendees (practitioners, administrators, and researchers) discussing the presentations and their ideas and priorities for bridging the research–practice gap. The breakout sessions focused on several presenter topics, including (1) training and fidelity of empirically supported interventions in real settings, (2) cultural/developmental adaptation of interventions in real practice settings, (3) using research to inform practice with comorbid or complex client presentations, (4) organizational and administrative issues, and (5) preparing current and future practitioners to integrate research in real practice settings. I would like to thank Monit Cheung and colleagues (2015, in this special issue) for integrating and summarizing the responses from these sessions, and highlighting the implications of these recommendations for the social work profession.

I would also like to thank Eileen Gambrill (2015, in this special issue) for writing a thoughtful, integrated response to these conference proceedings. This article rounds out the special issue with a discussion of her points of agreement, as well as avoidable distractions, controversies, and avoidable gaps in implementation, and future directions. Gambrill reminds us that there are many remaining questions to explore to facilitate a bridging of the gap between practice research and the improvement of client outcomes in the real world. Specifically, she argues that these questions must extend beyond effectiveness questions and help us gain clarity on what the gaps are. Gambrill—like Bruce Thyer (2015, in this special issue)—calls attention to our ethical obligations as social work practitioners and educators to attend to these important questions to ensure that clients are helped and not harmed. Finally, she provides 13 future directions to consider moving forward.

In addition to the articles in the special issue, videos from the conference are available online for viewing or use in the classroom: https://www.youtube.com/user/UHGCSW/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=5.

I would like to close this introduction by recognizing the many individuals and institutions that supported the success of this event. First, I’d like to thank Dean Ira Colby at the University of Houston for his support in pursuing this idea and for the countless resources he devoted to making it happen. I’d also like to extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the national symposium committee, who provided essential feedback, guidance, and recommendations regarding the content, speakers, and conference format: Jennifer Bellamy (University of Chicago), Edward Mullen (Columbia University), Allen Rubin (University of Houston), Bruce Thyer (Florida State University), Mary Velasquez (University of Texas at Austin), and Joanne Yaffe (University of Utah). I would also like to thank the Schools of Social Work that supported this effort, including Boston University, University of Albany, Rutgers School of Social Work, University of Alabama, University of Michigan, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee Knoxville, and the University of Texas at Austin. Finally, I’d like to express appreciation to the Fernando J. Zuniga y Rivero Foundation for their generous donation, and the many social workers and helping professionals that took their valuable time to attend. I am hopeful that these resources and our efforts have resulted in important discourse, novel ideas, and the bricks necessary to build a more durable and complete research–practice bridge.