The Hong Kong Statement on Practice Research 2017: Contexts and Challenges of the Far East

Abstract

This statement on social work practice research highlights the contributions of scholars, practitioners, and conference participants in the Fourth International Conference on Practice Research (ICPR) in 2017, hosted by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in May 2017. It focuses on the contexts and challenges of carrying out practice research in the Far East and beyond as well as raises pertinent questions about the development of practice research. It begins with a brief description of the context of social work practice research in the Far East. The second part explores the organizational and community contexts and challenges of practice research with special attention to the perspectives of practitioners. It concludes with reviewing some of the continuing challenges that will guide the program planning for the Fifth ICPR in 2020 in Melbourne, Australia, located at the crossroads between East and West.

Keywords

practice research service users practitioners Far East practice challenges organizational contexts

The Contexts of Practice Research in the Far East

The debate and advocacy for practice research in social work have taken place primarily in the West (Europe and the United States). The Fourth International Conference on Practice Research (ICPR) hosted by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University included over 265 people from 33 countries and provided the first international venue to capture the perspectives of the Far East. The dialogue was greatly enhanced by the largest involvement of the practitioner community in comparison with the previous international conferences. The conference also provided a unique opportunity for practitioners, academics, and practice researchers from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and other Asian countries to exchange with their Western counterparts up close, while charting their own contribution to the ongoing discourse and debate about practice research and its future trajectories in Asia (Sim, 2016).

The Far East shares similar challenges with the West (demonstrating the social impact, value, and accountability of social work practice) and it also reflects the influence of the West (theories, interventions, textbooks, educators, etc.). Clearly, practice research in the Far East is directly influenced by the state of social work practice in rapidly growing and changing economies. The four Far East locales represented in this overview include: China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, which are predominantly made up of Chinese communities. Since this statement reflects a description of the unique features of countries located within the region of the conference for the first time, more information is located in the Appendix.

Exploring the Organizational and Community Contexts and Challenges of Practice Research

Building upon the first international colloquium on practice research in Salisbury (United Kingdom) in 2008 with 25 invited researchers mainly from Europe, United Kingdom, and United States, the past conferences have generated more interest among researchers as well as practitioners over time. The Hong Kong ICPR in 2017 represents considerable growth in attendance (265 people from 33 countries) and an expanding interest in the development of social work practice research internationally. Given the tradition of creating a conference statement (Epstein et al., 2015; Helsinki Forum Group, 2014; Salisbury Forum Group, 2011) that reflects the issues important in the host country and region, the Far East theme of the Hong Kong conference was developed with this tradition in mind (“Recognizing diversity, developing collaborations, and building networks” of social work practitioners, practitioner–researcher, researchers, and service users; Sim, 2016). The Hong Kong conference built upon the theme of the Third International Conference (Building bridges not pipelines: promoting two-way traffic between practice and research) by including: (a) renowned scholars in the field of practice research from different disciplines; (b) international participants to share their knowledge and skills; (c) workshops, plenaries, social impact discussion forums, and poster presentations to enrich the understanding of participants with different examples of practice research. In its attempt to include more practitioners, the Hong Kong conference engaged a number of professional associations in the region (e.g., China Social Work Academy, Hong Kong Association of Schools of Social Work, Macau Social Workers’ Association, Taiwan Association of Social Workers, Hong Kong Council of Social Service, and the National Council of Social Service [NCSS] of Singapore) to co-organize the conference.

Another innovation developed for the Hong Kong Conference was the effort to involve a group of conference participants, mostly practitioners, at the close of the conference in identifying future challenges related to conducting practice research as noted below (Chin et al., 2017):

Featuring the multiple languages of practice: The change to a more accessible practice language has undoubtedly improved the partnership between the researchers and practitioners. The meaning of “practice language” goes beyond the communications between academics and practitioners in English. With a broader international audience being engaged in the conference, culturally and linguistically diverse needs should be addressed because limited proficiency in English can discourage participants from sharing their ideas. In order to enable the participants to use their first language to voice their views and opinions in discussions, simultaneous interpretation and translation services need to be provided.

Increasing the capacities of practitioners to conduct practice research: Given the daily demands of social work practice, less time and energy are available for conducting practice research even if the practitioners are able and willing. More guidance at future conferences is needed for (a) learning about the conduct of empirical practice research; (b) gaining knowledge about access, accuracy, reliability, and funding resources for data collection; and (c) exploring different ways of publishing research results.

Understanding the unique contributions of different research stakeholders: Different stakeholders (service users, policy makers, government, funders, practitioners, and academics) have different purposes in conducting practice research and these differences can make it more difficult for researchers or practitioners to conduct research targeted at specific issues and providing concrete solutions.

Enhancing the coordinating and leadership roles of practitioners: The open dialogue between the academic researchers and practitioners has fostered considerable practice–research collaboration. Practitioners are encouraged to participate in the development of practice-oriented research questions. The increasing involvement of practitioners in assuming leadership roles in promoting practice research in their workplace can be very empowering.

Building on these practitioner observations, the Fifth ICPR (Melbourne, Australia, 2020) has indicated its commitment to addressing these themes and issues. The planning for the next conference includes a focus on supporting practitioners (research question selection, definition, and clarification) in Academic Practitioner Partnerships that promote practice research through the engagement of both practitioners and service users that can enhance the practice research culture in service organizations.

Emerging Questions to Address as We Move On

The process of identifying critical questions about practice research has been a part of the history of our international conferences. Since the First ICPR in 2008 and the creation of the “Salisbury Statement on Practice Research,” the defining and operationalizing of practice research has expanded considerably (Salisbury Forum Group, 2011). The Second ICPR featured the different methodological and theoretical assumptions underpinning practice research and provided opportunities to demonstrate the involvement of service providers and users in the design and implementation of research projects as well as the role of social work research faculty located at local universities (Helsinki Forum Group, 2014). The Third ICPR held in New York City in 2014 reiterated the need for innovative, flexible, and truly collaborative practice research strategies that engage academic researchers and social work practitioners in a productive dialogue. And the focus of the Fourth ICPR in 2017 expanded the focus on practice by engaging a broader international audience of current researchers, practitioners, users, and decision makers in both government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) regarding the role of practice research in building social work knowledge.

Old and new questions emerged within the context of the Fourth ICPR that provided expanded perspectives on practice research, especially the ongoing question: What is practice research? As new conference participants, countries and disciplines engage in developing the concept of practice research, the question will continue to emerge and benefit from ongoing refinement, reflecting the strengths of this form of research as well as the value of ongoing innovations/improvements in various localities. New perspectives and ways of understanding and evaluating social work practice are also required in different contexts. It is exactly this unique strength that practice research is able to bring different stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and different views together. In other words, it is essential for practice research to pay attention to the different ways that practice research has been employed in different contexts and settings. It also focuses attention on the changing dynamics of social work practice. For instance, based on the early stage of professional social work development in Mainland China, it is evident that practice research is a new phenomenon and therefore will reflect an evolving process of practice research that may differ from other parts of the world. One of the goals of practice research (and the periodic conference statements like this one) is to highlight a variety of contexts and challenges facing practice research. Practice research involves negotiating diversity and promoting understanding while also respecting the different contexts and realities for engaging in practice research. The efforts to further refine the definition of practice research should continue at the next international conference in Melbourne, Australia, in 2020. Implicit in this search for a meaningful clarification of practice research is the process of educating students in ways that increase their practice research competence and confidence (both classroom and fieldwork) and thereby contribute to a practice research culture within their future workplaces that includes continuing exploration and rigorous examination of practice research definitions and methodologies.

Questions to Guide the Planning of Future Conferences

Practice Research Methodologies

What are the different epistemologies and methods relevant to practice research in different parts of the world, given unique contexts and the development of social work practice? What role does continuing education play in the development of practice research capacities in different social work communities? To what extent is practice carried out by students in their field practice a type of practice research (vis-à-vis a piece of educational output)? Is participatory action research a part of practice research or the other way around? In the Helsinki Statement, it was concluded that:

The theoretical and methodological framework for practice research calls for flexible and collaborative structures and organizations. Therefore practice research cannot be captured by a single philosophy or methodology, but will rather connect itself towards philosophies and methodologies defining practice-based knowledge and supporting flexible organizations and understandings. (Helsinki Forum Group, 2014, p. 8).

Practice Research Contexts

It has become increasingly clear, especially at the Hong Kong conference that more attention needs to be given to the context of practice research around the world given both the diverse political and cultural contexts and the different stages of social work development as a profession. Each locale will probably develop a slightly different mix of the ingredients of practice and research. The changing demands on practice research enterprise also need future consideration. For example, how does practice research account for the shift in funder interests from output to outcome research, especially using the new language of social impact designed to address both policy and community? What attention is being paid to the dissemination and utilization/implementation of practice research beyond the traditional use of agency reports and peer-review journal articles? While social impact assessment is the process of analyzing and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, and projects), social change processes call upon those engaged in practice research to be equally skilled at articulating the underlying “theory of change” guiding the provision of services. Future directions in the development of practice research call for increased attention to articulating “theory-informed practice” in addition to the building of theoretical frameworks for measurement in the collaborations between practitioners, researchers, and service users.

Role of Practitioners in Practice Research

The third question that emerged in this process is: What is the role of practitioners in developing practice research? Based on the experience of the Hong Kong conference, it is clear that practitioners need to be more actively engaged in the development of practice research (Chin et al., 2017). Particular attention needs to be given to the language used to describe practice research in a way that reflects the interests of practitioners. As a result, it is recommended that more practitioners should be actively involved in the planning and implementation of the Melbourne conference in 2020 based on the local history of long-standing partnerships between university researchers and “practitioners as partners.”

Role of Service Users in Practice Research

Another question is gaining increasing interest, namely, what is the role of service users in shaping practice research given unique political and social processes? Some of the questions emerging in the Hong Kong conference included: (a) How and when do we talk about service user involvement in practice research? (b) Are we involving service users as research informants or as active research team members (influencing the design, the research question etcetera)? (c) Is practice research about giving service users a voice through research and are there parallels to involvement and democratic processes? These questions could also guide future conference planning.

Conclusions

This statement has been jointly compiled by the Conference Organizing Committee as well as the presenters and participants attending the Fourth ICPR in Hong Kong. One of the unique contributions of the Hong Kong conference is the call to highlight the “state of social work practice” in relationship to the “state of social work practice research” since they are linked in more complex ways than had been considered in past conferences. It is apparent that practice research is lodged in a context which includes the developmental stages of social work practice as well as the cultural, sociopolitical and economic forces at play. Another contribution of the Hong Kong conference is the growing recognition of the need for more involvement by both practitioners and service users in our continuing efforts to define practice research and contribute to the knowledge development of social work practice.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Martin Webber

References

Chan

T. M. S.

Sim

. (under review). East meets West: Practice research in the city of Hong Kong for six decades. Research on Social Work Practice.

Cheng

Y. S

. (2007). Historical analysis of social work development in Taiwan between 1949-1963: A dual vision of “social work in social welfare department” and “American style social work profession” [in Chinese]. Social Policy & Social Work, 11, 153–197.

Chin

C. S.

Ciro

Fisher

Begum

Rahim

Lien

F. K. Y.

(2017). ICPR 2017—The Fourth International Conference on Practice Research: Overview. Social Dialogue, 5, 47–49.

Chui

Tsang

Mok

(2010) After the handover in 1997: Development and challenges for social welfare and social work in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 20, 52–64.

Drisko

(2014). Split or synthesis: The odd relationship between clinical practice and research in social work and in social work education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42, 182–192.

Epstein

(1995). Promoting reflective social work practice: Research strategies and consulting principles. In Hess

Mullens

(Eds.), Practitioner researcher partnerships: Building knowledge from, in, and for practice (pp. 83–102). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Press.

Epstein

(2010). Clinical data-mining: Integrating practice and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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, 711–714.

Helsinki Forum Group. (2014). Helsinki statement on social work practice research. Nordic Social Work Research, 4, 7–13. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2014.981426

10.

Joubert

Hocking

(2015). Academic practitioner partnerships: A model for collaborative practice research in social work. Australian Social Work, 68, 352–363.

11.

Lam

C. W.

Blyth

(2014). Re-engagement and negotiation in a changing political and economic context: Social work in Hong Kong. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 44–62.

12.

Leung

J. C. B.

(2002). The advent of managerialism in social welfare: The case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 36, 61–81.

13.

Leung

J. C. B.

(2007). Debate: An international definition of social work for China. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 391–397.

14.

Lim

X. H.

(2007). Security with self-reliance: The argument for the Singapore model. Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, 3, 35–39.

15.

National University of Singapore. (2017). NUS establishes Mrs Lee Choon Guan Endowed Research Fund to expand social service research. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://giving.nus.edu.sg/nus-establishes-mrs-lee-choon-guan-endowed-research-fund-to-expand-social-service-research/

16.

Peng

H. M

. (2017). Social work discipline in China: Centennial growth and autonomy in research [in Chinese]. Social Sciences, 7, 66–73.

17.

Salisbury Forum Group. (2011). Salisbury statement on social work practice research. Social Work and Society, 9, 4–9.

18.

Shi

B. N

. (2012). How to fill in the weaknesses of social work education? [in Chinese] China Social Work, 30, 18–19.

19.

Sim

(2011a). Collaborating or colluding: A practice research project with ex-offenders and their family in Singapore. Social Work and Society, 9, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.socwork.net/2011/1/sim

20.

Sim

(2011b). Working with ex-offenders’ family in an Asian context—Part I: The impossible task of engaging the family. Journal of Community Corrections, 20, 7–10, 18–19.

21.

Sim

(2011c). Working with ex-offenders’ family in an Asian context—Part II: The tools and traps of assessment and intervention. Journal of Community Corrections, 20, 7–8, 13–15, 20–21.

22.

Sim

(2016). International Practice Research Conference (ICPR) moving East. Research on Social Work Practice, 26, 730–732.

23.

Sim

Lau

(2017). The emergence of social work practice research in the peoples’ Republic of China: A literature review. Research on Social Work Practice, 27, 8–18.

24.

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.

25.

Tan

C. C.

(2017, 4 10). Opening address at official launch of Mrs Lee Choon Guan Endowed Research Fund. Speech delivered at the Shaw Foundation Alumni House Auditorium, Singapore, Singapore.

26.

Wang

C. S.

(2004). A comparative analysis of the professional development of social work in Taiwan and Hong Kong [in Chinese]. National University of Taiwan Social Work Review, 9, 137–182.

27.

Yan

M. C.

Cheung

J. C. S.

Tsui

M. S.

Chu

C. K.

(2017). Examining the neoliberal discourse of accountability: The case of Hong Kong’s social service sector. International Social Work, 60, 976–989.

28.

Yuen-Tsang

A. W. K.

Wang

S. B.

(2008). Revitalization of social work in China: The significance of human agency in institutional transformation and structural change. China Journal of Social Work, 1, 5–22.

29.

Zhang

Y. C.

(2006). Mind the gap: The integration of research and practice [in Chinese]. Social Policy & Social Work, 10, 87–116.

30.

Zhang

Y. Z.

Hsu

Y. H.

(2004). Evaluation of outreach service for children and adolescence in risky single family [in Chinese]. Taiwan, Taipei: Annual Report of Ministry of Interior, Taiwan.

31.

Zhao

S. R.

(1992). The utilization of researches for social work practitioners [in Chinese] (Master’s thesis). Institute of Social Work, Tunghai University, Taiwan, Taipei.