Abstract
The articles in this special issue were presented on June 9–11, 2014, at the third International Conference on Practice Research held at the Silberman School of Social Work in New York City. Cosponsored by the School of Social Work and the Doris Siegel Memorial Fund, Division of Social Work and Behavioral Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, the conference was dedicated to the memory of international practice–research pioneer, innovator, collaborator, and mentor Dr. Helen Rehr (Epstein, 2013). The New York conference theme was “Building Bridges Not Pipelines: Promoting Two-Way Traffic between Practice and Research.” This theme had its personal and geographical antecedents at the University of Houston’s 2013 Symposium entitled “Critical Considerations, Successes, and Emerging Ideas for Bridging the Research and Practice Gap in Social Work” (Parrish, 2015) to which I nominated myself as a guest speaker.
In a graciously Southern response to my New York effrontery (known more locally as “chutzpah”), Danielle Parrish, the Houston Conference convener, welcomed my presentation of an admittedly provocative paper challenging the conference’s central theme, under the condition that there be a panel of respondents present who might rebut my thesis. I confess, I wasn’t expecting such a high-powered Welcome Wagon. Taking turns at the wheel, it was driven by a renowned panel of researchers (and old friends) including Eileen Gambrill, Allen Rubin, Aron Schlonsky, and Bruce Thyer—a prodigious set of internationally renowned research academics. In diplomatic circles, what followed would be termed a “frank exchange of ideas.” Using a less elegant wrestling and perhaps more apposite metaphor, I described it as a “geriatric smackdown.”
In Houston, my presentation was critical of the quotidian use of the “bridge metaphor” as a vehicle for explaining research-to-practice “gaps” in social work. This unidirectional usage is hardly unique to social work research conferences and publications however. In various professions, from medicine to dentistry to psychology, practitioners are routinely faulted for the research-to-practice breakdowns that occur on the road to practice (Epstein, 2015). Earlier and elsewhere, I criticized fellow social work research academics—and particularly those identified with the evidence-based practice movement—for disparaging the lack of “research mindedness” of social work practitioners and for not honoring practitioners’ past and potential contributions to research and knowledge production. Here, Helen Rehr was a true exemplar of practice-to-research leadership.
In a published commentary in the practice journal Social Work, I argued that by routinely disparaging practitioners, many research academics were themselves erecting the very barriers between practice and research they claimed to deplore (Epstein, 2011). Finding fault with the hit-and-run victim comes to mind. Helen liked it but I took plenty of hits from my academic research buddies for that article. Still, nowhere did I ever have a conference day like my day in Houston. The official language spoken in Houston was R2P, but I came speaking P2R. I left feeling like roadkill.
And yet when tempers cooled, some very positive consequences resulted from all the heat, light, and occasional flashes of humor generated in our collision. A much less rhetorical version of my conference paper was eventually published in the special issue of Research on Social Work Practice (RSWP) devoted to the Houston conference, substituting a “bridge versus pipeline” heuristic. In the published version, I proposed that clinical data mining (CDM), that is, training practitioners and students to conduct research on their own practice with routinely available practice data, was a remarkably effective strategy for engaging practitioners in research on their own practice and in generating practice evidence-informed knowledge for social work (Epstein, 2010, 2015).
At the conference, Allen Rubin got a chance to polish his “noo yawk,” Christopher Walken impersonation of me and my “tawk” in his oral rebuttal (surely a first at a social work research conference). In turn, Bruce Thyer projected a charmingly perverse PowerPoint presentation using slides from Alfred Hitchcock’s classic film “Psycho.” Predictably, Eileen Gambrill and Aaron Schlonsky were much more restrained in their responses, but their criticisms were no less compelling. Ultimately, however, Allen’s and Eileen’s thoughtful and serious conference papers were published in the Houston special issue as well (Gambrill, 2015; Rubin, 2015). Things were moving forward. You’ll have to go to Netflix or YouTube for Allen’s and Bruce’s presentations.
A wholly unanticipated Houston conference consequence however was Bruce Thyer’s postpresentation query to me and serious, self-reflection about whether much of his most practice-relevant research to date might be properly described as CDM studies? Certainly, I’d have no problem with that.
Beyond Houston, the new bridge versus pipeline model had sufficient road readiness and international appeal to be adopted as the conference theme for the 3rd International Conference on Practice Research that I convened the following year in New York City. Happily, I report that Danielle Parrish and Allen Rubin crossed that conceptual and geographical bridge and presented at the New York conference. And, in a plenary address entitled, Practice Research Using Clinical Data-Mining Methods: Building Social Work Knowledge, Bruce Thyer publicly “came out” of his CDM closet. Good for you Bruce. We’re all here for you.
In addition to my Houston compatriots and colleagues, over 250 variously self-defined “practitioner researchers” from 19 countries attended the New York conference. Along with Bruce’s opening presentation was paired Jan Fook’s presentation on Developing Critical Reflection as a Method of Practice Research. Other plenary speakers offered various practice–research translations and applications in China, the Nordic countries, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Preconference workshops emphasized a variety of useful practice–research methodologies and research dissemination strategies. Twenty-eight “newly emerging practice–research scholars” from 11 countries were recognized and received financial support, so they could attend and present their research. Several were current doctoral students. Some were practitioner researchers whose organizational bases were in practice settings. Others were academics who conducted research in practice settings in collaboration with practitioners. Opening an entirely new route, a few even conducted practice research in collaboration with service users. Opportunities to network informally and formally (for emerging scholars) were provided and enthusiastically exploited. Oral presentations, papers, and posters involved practice–research applications in fields of practice including child welfare, domestic violence, health, mental health, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues, housing, school-based services, as well as cultural variations in social work such as Buddhist social work. Considerable attention was given in presentations to practice–research collaborations and the productive resolution of stakeholder differences. It was both heady and fun.
The articles published in this special section of RSWP reflect the remarkable variety, quality, methodological range, topical diversity, and international origins of their authors. I will not attempt to summarize and/or integrate them. I couldn’t and any attempt would be contrived. But they can speak for themselves in whatever research vernaculars, methods, levels of abstraction, metaphors, and collegial configurations they find most congenial. Some contributing authors are established international scholars. Others are just beginning their practice–research careers. Others are mixed old and new. Most importantly, all are committed to finding new ways to make practice and research more of a “two-way” street between practitioners and researchers.
Where this road leads remains an open question. The final “New York Statement” of the conference, coauthored by myself and other members of the New York Conference Planning Committee (Epstein et al., 2014), attempts to describe the complex, dynamic, and evolving meanings of practice research both historically and internationally. It is truly meant as a working document rather than a road map and we welcome your continuing responses and participation at future conferences. I do know that the fourth International Conference on Practice Research will be held in Hong Kong in 2017 and gratefully acknowledge Bruce Thyer and the editors of this journal for opening a new route to getting there. Reader, enjoy the ride.