Bridging Social Innovation and Social Work

Thank-you to Dr. Flynn for her honest and insightful remarks on science and innovation in social work and the academy. It is my understanding that Dr. Flynn described two forms of social innovation research: social innovation as a concept in and of itself and the practice of studying new social innovations and their outcomes. The former is arguably more theoretical, whereas the latter is arguably more applied; both are important. In this article, my comments will further Dr. Flynn’s discussion of the practice of studying new social innovations and their outcomes by paying particular attention to how the academy can support innovative research, dissemination, and implementation.

In her paper, Dr. Flynn discussed the dichotomy between science and innovation in social work. Science, as Dr. Flynn described, is reflective, deliberate, and repetitive. As such, it is evolutionary, which takes time. She asks if our faith in the gold standard of clinical trials and rigorous scientific research, for example, is slowing the generation of new knowledge. This is a valid point: Quite often, the results from our studies are not consumed by those most able to implement them in practice, instead being read by fellow researchers with access to peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. Additionally, our desire to conduct lengthy clinical trials often requires that we leave individuals untreated, even when much of the available evidence (which admittedly may be subject to issues of endogeneity, such as selection bias) suggests that the treatment really is more effective than the status quo. Is our desire to conduct “good science” coming at a cost to individuals and communities most in need? And is our traditional method of disseminating new knowledge failing to reach those who stand to gain the most from its promise?

As Dr. Flynn described, social innovation initiatives, on the other hand, can be rapid, reactive, and revolutionary—yet they can also oversimplify causation and act without regard to data and knowledge. But there remains an enduring allure to social innovation. Take, for example, two avenues currently being employed to promote it. The weekly Venture Café gathering in St. Louis, which is designed to promote community and collaboration among entrepreneurs, funders, researchers, and anyone else interested in innovation in a social setting, features an open bar with local microbrews and a focus on serendipitous interaction and discussion. For example, forums devoted to social innovation as a path to community betterment are regular features at this event. Social innovation as a theme is also featured in magazines and journals that are more easily accessed by the public, such as the Stanford Social Innovation Review. As an extension of the business literature, these publications utilize plentiful case studies and vignettes of people and organizations that, for the most part, celebrate their successes. They focus more on including simple and easier to digest outcome measures than complex and often difficult to understand methodologies.

It is my hope that we can find a balance between the high expectations we hold for our research methods and data analysis, which takes time, and the rapid pace in the world of social innovation. With so many social problems that demand answers, there are only so many clinical trials we can conduct and only so many journal articles we can publish. The education that many emerging scholars are receiving should help with this. For example, propensity score analysis can predict the outcomes of socially innovative programs and services when randomization is not possible, not preferred, or too slow (Guo & Fraser, 2015; Rubin, 2008). Additionally, pragmatic clinical trials, which focus on outcomes of interventions in the real world instead of under optimal conditions (Patsopoulos, 2011; Roland & Torgerson, 1998), and effectiveness–implementation hybrid designs, which blend components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research (Curran, Bauer, Mittman, Pyne, & Stetler, 2012), may increase researchers’ abilities to study program or intervention effectiveness while increasing generalizability of study findings. In other words, we can still conduct good science while changing our focus, when appropriate, to prefer speed and pragmatism over the best possible research methods.

Perhaps we need to consider an additional arm of success in our profession—one that should be stressed to emerging scholars from the beginning of their doctoral education (a group to which I belong) through the tenure and promotion processes. Although admittedly an oversimplification, what if in addition to the amount of funding received, papers published, and teaching quality, equal weight was given to the quick and easy-to-understand dissemination of our research findings to the public and affected stakeholders, with additional weight to the acquisition and use of these findings in the community and policy? Although this certainly occurs in some schools of social work, its importance should increase in many more. With the goal of increasing the transparency and replicability of our studies—and hopefully increasing the speed of innovation diffusion—schools of social work could also encourage the publication of study protocols by their faculty members. In summary, if a scholar’s work becomes a fundamental force in shaping conversations, policy, and research around important social issues, why shouldn’t that be just as or even more important as being published in a high-impact journal? Because the tenure and promotion processes are major factors in driving scholars’ work priorities, we need to figure out how to properly reward social impact while balancing rigorous scientific endeavors. It takes time to get published in the academic press and it takes time to disseminate knowledge to the public. Perhaps, then, it is time to rethink our priorities.

As Dr. Flynn argued, we must work to balance sound scientific research, social work values, and, I would add, speed to accurately and rapidly identify effective solutions to our most intractable social problems. To me, that is social work science and innovation at their best.