The Idea of Research-Based Social Work as a Basis for Professional Autonomy

Self-Determination as the Hallmark of the Profession

Established professions define themselves, set qualification requirements and quality standards, and monitor adherence to them (Brante, 2011; Evetts, 2013). These conditions are created through scientific research and education, while legislation provides additional societal recognition and status. In social work, professional autonomy refers to the right and capability to engage in self-regulation. Research shows that appropriate organizational conditions, together with adequate education, strengthen practitioners’ capacity for independent professional judgement (Epstein, 1973). More broadly, professions exist to fulfil specific social functions requiring specialized competence, and societies create educational structures to ensure the necessary knowledge and skills.

Brante (2013) distinguishes between classical professions (e.g., medicine, law), semiprofessions (e.g., teaching, nursing, social work), and preprofessions. Central to this typology are autonomy and self-determination, which are less pronounced in semiprofessions. Every profession develops its own distinct knowledge base, ethics, and skill requirements. In social work, self-determination is both an ethical principle—supporting clients’ autonomy (Akbar, 2019; Juhila et al., 2021)—and a professional challenge (Ylvisaker & Rugkåsa, 2022). Strengthening the prerequisites for social work's professional autonomy therefore requires clarifying the necessary knowledge, competencies, and conditions.

Key prerequisites for autonomy include expertise grounded in scientific training, shared theoretical understandings and supportive administrative structures. Research defined and directed by the profession itself is essential, providing the basis for collective self-determination. However, in many countries the scope, quality requirements and educational content of social work remain externally determined through administrative regulation, partly due to an insufficiently articulated research-based self-understanding.

The concept of research-oriented social work thus provides a foundation for strengthening autonomy. Research that supports professional autonomy must be conducted within the discipline. Consequently, the development of social work as an independent, self-defining field is closely tied to its evolution as a research-based academic discipline.

Social Work as a Self-Determining Academic Discipline

Academic disciplines rest on research-based knowledge, and established professions develop their own knowledge bases and debates on the kinds of research required. The idea of “research-based social work” reflects an understanding of the field as “essentially connected to knowledge concerning professional expertise and practice” (Hämäläinen, 2022, p. 42). Developing social work as an academic discipline is therefore a necessary condition for its consolidation as a scientific profession.

Social work is widely defined as both a practice-based profession and an academic discipline promoting social change, development, cohesion, and empowerment (IASSW/IFSW, 2014). It is also a research-based, theoretically informed intellectual activity with a practical mission. Adequate research-based knowledge is essential for theoretical development, which in turn supports the field's emergence as a self-defining discipline. Because self-reflection is regarded as a core professional quality, it should be systematically cultivated in education.

Self-reflection underpins professional self-awareness and the ability to articulate one's identity (Yip, 2006). As a discipline, social work incorporates self-reflexive practices through critical analysis of its nature, theories and methods, thereby fostering a self-reflective system of research, education, and practice. Individually, self-reflection involves independent thinking rather than uncritical adherence to externally imposed standards; collectively, it involves shared interpretations and collaborative problem-solving. Such reflective autonomy characterizes fully developed professions.

Research addressing the developmental needs of social work provides the foundation for theory-building, which supports the development of social work education and informs curriculum planning, including decisions about necessary knowledge and competencies.

Epistemological Conditions for Professional Autonomy

Beyond meeting general scientific quality criteria, research in social work must be relevant to the development of theory, education, and practice. Debating the epistemological foundations of social work research within the profession is itself an expression of autonomy (Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2007). The key issue is not only whether research is scientifically rigorous, but whether it meets the profession's developmental needs.

Social work's knowledge base is inherently interdisciplinary. Theories and concepts from related disciplines underpin education and practice, informing responses to social problems such as poverty, domestic violence, and child abuse. This interdisciplinarity does not imply that social work research lacks distinctiveness.

Research-based social work should not be equated with evidence-based practice. Evidence-based approaches generate validated knowledge for interventions, whereas research-based social work encompasses broader forms of inquiry needed for the development of the field as a discipline and profession (Shaw & Gould, 2001). Historically, the evidence-based movement reflects medical-scientific traditions, while research-based approaches draw more from social-scientific and humanistic perspectives. Early pioneers such as Jane Addams embodied this broader ethical and analytical orientation (Bryderup, 2008; Okpych & Yu, 2014).

Despite progress, the research base of social work practice remains limited. Practitioners continue to struggle to apply research consistently, although they increasingly value research literacy and critical thinking (Liedgren, 2022; Orme & Shemmings, 2010; Teater, 2017). Social work still lacks a clear definition of research, and research often has limited influence on practice. Closing the research–practice gap requires clearer definitions of social work research and better preparation of academics to support research use in practice.

The concept of research-based social work refers to the field, not only to demonstrating the validity of specific interventions. It conceptualizes social work as a research-informed enterprise whose development depends on research, which in turn underpins the advancement of education and professional practice.

Social work research generates new knowledge and perspectives on individuals in social situations (Healy, 2012). Scholars argue that developing social work as a scientific discipline is essential for the profession's emergence as a modern field with self-defined methods (Brekke & Anastas, 2019). Research examines complex interactions between individuals and societal structures, making theory-building central to strengthening autonomy.

There are divergent views on evidence-based social work. Critics prefer broader, knowledge-based reasoning (Bryderup, 2008). Ultimately, field-specific theory-building is central to developing social work as a discipline and reinforcing its professional autonomy.

Research-Based Theory-Building

Every independent profession possesses its own self-defined scientific foundation (Brante, 2013). An unclear or internally inconsistent theoretical basis hinders the development of social work as a profession. Scholars have argued that the challenge of theoretical atomism and conceptual incoherence should be addressed by strengthening the scientific core of social work rather than by merely combining multiple theories (Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2007). Insufficient appreciation of the role of theory in practice often leads to superficial or inappropriate uses of theory and contributes to an unclear professional identity.

The theoretical foundation of social work remains fragmented, drawing heavily on theories developed in related disciplines. Perceptions of the tasks of social work, as well as views on the kinds of education and research needed, also vary considerably. The idea of research-based practice provides an overarching concept within which a coherent framework for social work can be developed, enabling the field to define itself as an independent profession and self-determining academic discipline despite the diversity of perspectives.

In social work, it is useful to distinguish between theory of social work and theory in social work. The former seeks to answer the question of what social work is: it describes the nature, origins, and history of the profession and defines its value base and social function. In contrast, theory in social work refers to the theories applied in practice. These are typically theories developed in other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, political science, cultural studies, law, and education.

A theory that explains the nature of the social work profession provides a comprehensive account of the field. It identifies common denominators among the fragmented and diverse interpretations of social work. The international social work community has established global standards for social work education, which strengthen shared understandings of the field's nature and the expertise it requires (IASSW/IFSW, 2020). These standards help construct a coherent identity for the profession and for individual social workers across differing conceptual frameworks.

Social work is characterized by considerable “diversity” (Charlton-LaNey, 2008). Theory provides structure within this diversity. The development of a profession's scientific foundation enables structured ways of thinking and acting. Historically, social work has emerged to fulfil an ethical duty, and this remains central to the profession (Strom-Gottfried, 2008). The existence of an international document on ethical principles demonstrates the effort to establish a unified ethical basis for the social work profession globally (IASSW/IFSW, 2018).

Shared professional ethical principles enhance the coherence of the profession, despite substantial diversity in country-specific traditions concerning theoretical foundations, educational requirements, interpretations of professional expertise, and modes of practice (Palattiyil et al., 2015). The ethical dimension is therefore an inseparable component of the scientific basis of the social work profession.

Overall, theory plays a fundamental role in social work despite the “ambivalent and troubled relationship between theory and practice” that has contributed to a persistent nonacademic orientation among practitioners (Trevithick, 2006, p. 58). The proliferation of theories and the lack of clarity in the cognitive process of translating theory into practice hinder social work's development as an intellectual field. It is important that students learn to view social work as a knowledge-informed profession. The use of theories should not be arbitrary or impulsive. A central task of supervision is to support students in developing a deliberate and reflective approach to the use of theories and methods in professional practice.

The relationship between theory and practice is analogous to the relationship between thinking and doing. Accordingly, the theory–practice relationship concerns how one's professional actions are connected to the quality of one's thinking. This makes practice studies an intellectual process that strengthens students’ capacity to develop a reflective working style aligned with the idea of social work as a professional mission. It also deepens self-understanding, supports the development of constructive self-criticism, and fosters a critical stance toward professional policies and practices.

Research-Based Practice

A substantial body of literature demonstrates the importance of theory for the quality of social work practice. The connection between theory and professionalism is repeatedly emphasized in textbooks on methods and skills. Karen Healy, for example, aims “to provide a comprehensive introduction to social work methods and skills,” while seeking “to demonstrate the importance of grounding our use of these methods in a theoretically and practically informed sense of purpose” (Healy, 2012, p. 3). It would be both impractical and illogical to introduce students to methods and techniques without also familiarizing them with the theoretical foundations on which these methods rest.

Every scientific theory represents a substantial intellectual achievement and a significant amount of scholarly work. As conceptual systems, theories illuminate the aspects of practice that require attention and guide practitioners in formulating meaningful questions and seeking well-founded answers. The practical relevance of theory should be introduced in the classroom before students begin their field placements, while its significance must continue to be emphasized and explored during internship practice.

An understanding of the nature of the social work mission is fundamental when selecting methodological orientations and preferences. Field placements offer an important opportunity to reflect on the relationship between theory and practice, including how one conceptualizes social work and the methodological approaches applied in everyday work. Such reflection strengthens students’ capacity for purposeful and reflective professional action in their use of methods and techniques.

As in several other professions, social work is not only a knowledge-informed activity but also embodies specific professional values. The conceptual basis of professional expertise consists of research-based knowledge and professional ethics. Together, these two elements constitute the foundation of professional competence. Professional skills therefore involve both knowledge and a value base, as well as the ability to engage with clients through effective communication.

Professional ethics is a central component of field education in social work and provides important criteria for assessing the quality of practice. Ethical reflection forms an essential part of examining the theory–practice relationship. As Sarah Banks notes, “there is a general agreement among social work practitioners and academics that questions of ethics, morals and values are an inevitable part of social work” (Banks, 2012, p. 12), while at the same time, “there are no easy answers to the ethical problems and dilemmas in social work practice” (Banks, 2012, p. 17). A key task of supervision is therefore to support students in developing the capacity for ethical self-evaluation and in monitoring their own professional growth.

The goal of research-based social work is to improve the quality and effectiveness of social work interventions, enhance outcomes for clients and contribute to the development of the social work profession (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). By integrating research evidence into practice, social workers can make informed decisions and provide services that are both evidence-informed and tailored to the specific needs of individuals, families, and communities. Research-based social work thus refers to the application of scientific research methods and evidence-informed approaches within the field (Soydan & Palinkas, 2014).

A central function of supervision in field education is to support students in integrating the theories and academic skills acquired in the classroom and through literature with the attitudes and practical skills required in professional practice. This integration is closely connected to the development of students’ capacity for professional self-reflection. It involves reflection on one's own professional actions as well as on the policies and practices encountered in the placement setting. Theory provides the framework and criteria for such evaluative professional judgement. Moreover, reflection on the theory–practice relationship may also extend to critical analysis of social work as a professional system and may motivate students to pursue improvements in practice and policy.

Consequently, reflection on the theory–practice relationship is a key component in the development of students’ professional identity. Given the diverse ways in which theory is discussed within social work, it is important that students learn to recognize these different uses of the term. This is equally relevant for practice supervisors, who play a critical role in supporting students’ ability to navigate and apply theoretical perspectives.

Toward Research-Minded Working Culture

McBeath and Austin (2015) introduced the concept of the research-minded practitioner to describe social workers who demonstrate a particular interest in improving and developing social work practice (see also Liedgren, 2022). Research-minded social workers are described as being motivated by knowledge and research as drivers of development and as displaying curiosity, critical reflection, and strong critical-thinking skills (Liedgren, 2022; McBeath & Austin, 2015). It has further been suggested that directing resources to research-minded practitioners is an effective strategy for advancing social work toward a more research-based orientation.

A central idea in research-minded social work is that nonresearch-based practice is inappropriate: all interventions should be grounded in knowledge and informed by an explicit understanding of how the intervention works and what effects it is expected to produce (Liedgren, 2022). To ensure and enhance professional autonomy, it is crucial that social work practice be guided by scientific social research.

The underlying claim that social work should be research- or scientifically based is certainly not new (Gredig et al., 2021; Shaw, 2007). From the outset, as Ian Shaw et al. (2010, p. 7) note, social work research has deliberately positioned itself “uncomfortably between the social sciences and the world of practice and policy.” The debate concerning adequate conceptualizations of the relationship between research-based knowledge and professional action, particularly the question of how research findings “translate into day-to-day practice” (Uggerhøj, 2011)—is, however, still ongoing.

Examining the foundations of the concept of research-based social work entails exploring how research can inform and improve social work practices, as well as identifying the obstacles and opportunities for developing and strengthening a research-minded profession. Research-mindedness applies to all aspects of the field: direct client work, administrative tasks, management, and professional policymaking (Hämäläinen, 2022). As a working culture, research-mindedness refers to the attitude and fundamental way of operating adopted by those in the profession.

Research that deepens self-understanding within social work, by clarifying its historical development and structuring its theoretical foundations, also falls within the scope of research-based practice, even if it is not defined as evidence-based practice. Likewise, social work requires broad knowledge of society and its mechanisms, the nature of social problems, legislation, politics, administrative practices, and other structural factors that shape the social environment.

Research-Mindedness in Terms of Knowledge, Values, and Professional Skills

McBeath and Austin (2015) describe the core attributes of research-minded practitioners as including curiosity, critical thinking, and critical reflexivity. They further elaborate these attributes by suggesting that research-minded practitioners are those who are dissatisfied with status quo explanations, capable of drawing on knowledge from multiple sources, interested in improving service delivery, willing to question and experiment, and able to make use of both practice-informed research and research-informed practice.

A research-minded social worker integrates theory and practice and upholds the core values of the profession, including partnership, empowerment, client-centeredness in the face of oppression, social justice, and human rights. Research-minded practice also highlights the importance of collaboration between practitioners and researchers in the coproduction of new knowledge, particularly regarding macrolevel or structural social work (McBeath, 2016). A cooperative and inclusive approach to the coproduction of professional knowledge represents an emerging paradigm that challenges the traditional separation between research and practice, treating them instead as interconnected and mutually constitutive (Gredig et al., 2021; Muurinen & Kääriäinen, 2022).

Social workers encounter a wide range of complex phenomena and social problems. To address these adequately, it is necessary to study their characteristics. It is important that practitioners have the capacity and resources to acquire multifaceted knowledge about the mechanisms of social problems and the interventions used in practice (Trevithick, 2006). A research-oriented way of working involves not only drawing on existing knowledge but also generating new, practice-relevant knowledge when needed. Furthermore, knowledge of the broader social order, including social policy systems and legislation, plays an essential role.

There are strong reasons not only to draw on knowledge from other disciplines that helps illuminate the phenomena frequently encountered in social work practice, but also to examine these phenomena in close connection with social work itself (Hämäläinen, 2022). Such examination enables practitioners to analyze the mechanisms underlying these phenomena and the potential interventions available, while also developing practice-relevant tools and procedures. In doing so, the knowledge produced becomes more specific to social work and more applicable in practice.

From the perspective of research-based social work, the professional expertise required in practice comprises an integrated combination of knowledge, values, and communication skills. Within this combination, research-based knowledge does not refer to superficial information about social phenomena, but to a deeper understanding of their origins, manifestations, and consequences, as well as the skills needed to influence, manage, and address them.

Social work encompasses a wide and multifaceted range of activities that span numerous subareas. Consequently, there is a clear need for professional specialization in relation to different client groups and problem domains. The concept of research-based social work presupposes such differentiation and specialization. In some cases, the necessary knowledge concerns highly specific areas such as illicit drug use, human trafficking, child sexual abuse, and other forms of criminality. The breadth and complexity of the issues and circumstances encountered in social work are both extensive and diverse.

Research-mindedness is a key professional quality in social work (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2005). The capacity to assess and apply research to inform practice helps ensure that clients receive the highest possible quality of service. For social work students and practitioners alike, research-mindedness is integral to demonstrating how social work knowledge and practice are integrated and embedded in professional capability (Liedgren, 2022). As people's life situations and social needs become increasingly complex, the importance of research-based knowledge is further emphasized, both in social policy planning and in direct work with clients.

Shaw (2007) has shown that many of the criteria typically used to define social work research—such as ethical awareness, reflexive consideration of the researcher's position, and sensitivity to political and social context—are shared with other forms of social research. What distinguishes social work research, however, is its orientation toward emancipatory practice. This involves a willingness to challenge inequality and oppression throughout the research process, and an understanding that the voices of service users and participants in all domains must be appropriately included. Writing within the context of disability research, Barnes (2003, p. 6) defines social work research as being “about the empowerment of disabled people through the transformation of the material and social relations of research production.”

A definition of research-minded social work encompasses several elements: critical reflection informed by knowledge and research; the ability to use research to guide practice in ways that counter unfair discrimination, racism, poverty, disadvantage, and injustice, consistent with core social work values, and an informed understanding of the research process; as well as the capacity to use research to theorize from practice. In fact, research-mindedness goes beyond critical, practice-led reflection, and awareness of existing research. It involves the ability to apply research skills within practice, to become “reflective practitioner researchers” (Orme & Shemmings, 2010, p. 174). This can be understood in two complementary ways: first, by evaluating social work practice through small-scale workplace research projects; and second, by linking research skills with practice skills, whereby the gathering of evidence and the conduct of assessments, interviews, and observations must be systematic, sensitive, and rigorous (Liedgren, 2022).

Essential dimensions of research-minded social work include the integration of theory and practice, the application of theories and methods to analyze and develop practices, and adherence to core social work values such as partnership, empowerment, antioppressive client-centredness, social justice, and human rights (Strömpl et al., 2017, p. 3). As a distinct field of research, social work brings together values and knowledge to support professional action (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2005; Shaw, 2007).

Social workers require multifaceted theoretical knowledge in order to identify the most appropriate solutions in their work. A crucial component of research-minded social work is the emphasis on research literacy among practitioners. However, research is not always at the forefront as the primary producer of knowledge, nor should it be assumed that research must always lead practice. As Strömpl et al. (2017, p. 5) note, in a rapidly changing world new and troubling practice situations continually emerge, generating a need to examine practice and develop new ideas in the light of lived experience. Just as practitioners should learn from researchers, researchers should also learn from practitioners, engaging in the coproduction of new knowledge.

Social workers should therefore be prepared to identify researchable problems that arise from troubling experiences in practice, to formulate research questions and to initiate research—preferably in collaboration with researchers and other relevant stakeholders (such as local government agencies, policymakers, and service users). Consequently, research-minded knowledge production places strong emphasis on macrolevel or structural social work (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2005).

Moreover, social workers should listen to clients with sensitivity, which may include involving them in the acquisition and use of research-based information. A collaborative and inclusive approach to professional knowledge production in social work represents the emergence of a new paradigm—one that challenges traditional distinctions between teaching and learning and views them as mutually constitutive. In this paradigm, researchers, practitioners, and clients engage together in a joint learning process, studying social realities and developing new skills for inclusive collaboration (Strömpl et al., 2017; Yliruka et al., 2016). Thus, research-minded social work can be understood not merely as an individual professional capacity but as a collaborative and inclusive mode of knowledge production.

Social Work as a Decision-Making Profession

Social work is a multifaceted profession that engages with diverse client groups across a wide range of organizational contexts. Its functions and methods may vary considerably from one setting to another. Nevertheless, in all contexts social work practice is characterized by a knowledge-informed approach. Competence in knowledge-informed planning, judgement, and decision-making is essential—from client-specific casework to organizational development, community work, program planning, strategic work, and policymaking.

Social work is not a profession that exercises public authority in all contexts. However, administrative decision-making always requires the ability to justify decisions. Such decision-making presupposes formal professional status and substantive expertise acquired through education. The capacity to make appropriate decisions is a core professional skill in social work. In client-specific casework in particular, social workers are expected to make or prepare administrative decisions. A central task is to produce relevant information for decision-making and to monitor the case—not only for one's own purposes but also for the needs of the wider work community. Professional autonomy is a necessary condition for independent administrative decision-making.

The link between professional decision-making skills and quality is evident, yet defining the criteria for appropriate judgement and decision-making is challenging. Decisions in practice are often not justified solely through evidence but are informed by a range of other considerations. In social work, it is frequently difficult to identify sufficiently relevant information to support evidence-based decision-making, which has led to criticism of the evidence-based approach (Bryderup, 2008; Gray et al., 2009). Clients’ life situations are often both highly unique and deeply complex, making it difficult—if not impossible—to apply evidence-based recommendations directly to practice.

Decision-making is a fundamental human activity, and several universal models of decision-making have been developed from different theoretical perspectives. General descriptions of the decision-making process are closely connected to understandings of scientific problem-solving and argumentation, from formulating a research question to arriving at valid knowledge (Saaty, 2008). Judgement, argumentation, and decision-making can therefore be understood as interrelated dimensions of the same knowledge-informed intellectual process aimed at reaching a well-founded conclusion.

Social work engages with complex social realities that significantly complicate professional decision-making. For example, social workers are required to formulate client-specific action plans, usually in interaction with clients and often in cooperation with other professionals. This is seldom a straightforward task, given the complexity of clients’ life situations. In such contexts, there is rarely a single correct way to justify or decide; rather, multiple reasonable options may exist alongside lines of reasoning that are inappropriate or unsubstantiated.

Attempts have been made to clarify the nature of social-work-specific professional judgement and decision-making by identifying different decision-making models (Taylor, 2012) and examining environment-specific factors that shape decision-making processes (Taylor & Whittaker, 2018). Similarly, analyses focusing on subfields of social work, such as child protection (Falconer & Shardlow, 2018; Nyathi, 2018), offer useful research-based insights. Such studies may support educational efforts aimed at strengthening students’ capacity for sound professional decision-making.

Although clients’ life situations are often extremely complex, marked by numerous interrelated causal processes that may make it difficult, even impossible, to identify essential elements with certainty, the skill of knowledge-informed decision-making remains a core dimension of social workers’ professional expertise and autonomy. The systematic approach provides an appropriate framework for such holistic, knowledge-informed practice. Introduced into social work in the 1970s (Pincus & Minahan, 1973), this approach has since been further developed by numerous scholars from diverse perspectives, including context-specific applications.

In general, evaluation, engagement/intervention, and assessment have been identified as the three core phases of a systematic work procedure within social work's problem-solving process (Compton et al., 2005). However, various forms of systematization of the social work process have been proposed. Systemic approaches have been developed within different subfields of social work for field-specific purposes, reflecting the need for a holistic perspective on clients’ life situations, risks and needs. Consequently, there is considerable variation in how the work process is conceptualized and described. Nonetheless, knowledge-informed reasoning and decision-making constitute essential components of the systematic approach, regardless of the domain of practice.

Limitations

A primary limitation of this article is the absence of empirical examples illustrating how professional autonomy manifests in practice. This omission reflects the article's purpose: to demonstrate the logical necessity of a research-based foundation for establishing and sustaining professional autonomy in social work.