Difficult dilemmas face social researchers - in the field of social work and social policy, as elsewhere. These can include tensions between the following: doing what a commitment to research requires or serving policymakers; prioritizing basic inquiry or promoting applied research; having a primary concern with producing knowledge versus an immediate and urgent commitment to practical improvement in the world. These dilemmas are probably intrinsic to the position of social research in modern societies, but they are becoming more severe at the present time. It is argued that, in dealing with them, we should be clear about the distinctive character of research, as against other related activities; and must recognize its heterogeneity, identifying the dimensions that differentiate its legitimate forms.
Allen, B. (1993) Truth in Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Bassey, M. (2000) ‘Hay/McBer cost £4 million but lacks Humour’, Research Intelligence73: 29-30.
3.
Bassey, M. and Mortimore, P. (2001) ‘Report of the BERA Methodological Seminar on Hay/McBer enquiry into Teacher Effectiveness’, Research Intelligence76: 5-9.
4.
Beresford, P. and Evans, C. (1999) ‘Research Note: Research and Empowerment’, British Journal of Social Work29(5): 671-677.
5.
Blunkett, D. (2000) ‘Influence or Irrelevance: Can Social Science Improve Government?’, Research Intelligence71: 12-21.
6.
Broad, B. (ed.) (1999) The Politics of Social Work Research and Evaluation. Birmingham: Venture Press.
7.
Carpenter, J. (2000) ‘Multidisciplinarity: Parameters and Boundaries in Social Work Research’, ESRC-funded seminar series on Theorising Social Work Research, Seminar 6, http://www.nisw.org.uk/tswr/carpenter.html (consulted June 2002).
8.
Chambers, J. H. (1992) Empiricist Research on Teaching. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
9.
Dullea, K. and Mullender, A. (1999) ‘Evaluation and Empowerment’, in I. Shaw and J. Lishman (eds) Evaluation and Social Work Practice. London: Sage.
10.
Dunkin, M. J. and Biddle, B. J. (1974) The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11.
Everitt, A. (1998) ‘Research and Development in Social Work’, in R. Adams, L. Dominelli, and M. Payne (eds) Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. London: Macmillan.
12.
Farrow, S. (1999) ‘Insulted by Blunkett’, Guardian (21 July): 18.
13.
Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Fook, J. and Rossiter, A. (eds) (2000) Practice and Research in Social Work: Postmodern Feminist Perspectives. London: Routledge.
14.
Fortune, A. E. and Proctor, E. K. (2001) ‘Research on Social Work Interventions’, Social Work Research25(2): 67-68.
15.
Foster, P., Gomm, R. and Hammersley, M. (1996) Constructing Educational Inequality. London: Falmer Press.
16.
Foster, P., Gomm, R. and Hammersley, M. (2000) ‘Case Studies as Spurious Evaluations: The Example of Research on Educational Inequalities’, British Journal of Educational Studies48(3): 215-230.
17.
Foster, P. and Hammersley, M. (1998) ‘A Review of Reviews: Structure and Function in Reviews of Educational Research’, British Educational Research Journal24(5): 609-628.
18.
Gibbons, M. (2000) ‘Mode 2 Society and the Emergence of Context-Sensitive Science’, Science and Public Policy26(5): 159-163.
19.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
20.
Gillborn, D. (1998) ‘Policy and Research in “Race” and Education in the UK: Symbiosis or Mutual Abuse?’, paper presented to 14th World Congress of Sociology, Montreal, July.
21.
Gillborn, D. and Gipps, C. (1996) Recent Research on the Achievements of Ethnic Minority Pupils. London: Office for Standards in Education and HMSO.
22.
Hammersley. M. (1993) ‘The Teacher as Researcher’, in M. Hammersley (ed.) Educational Research: Current Issues. London: Paul Chapman.
23.
Hammersley, M. (1998) Reading Ethnographic Research. London: Longman.
24.
Hammersley, M. (2000a) ‘Varieties of Social Research: A Typology’, International Journal for Social Research Methodology3(3): 221-229. [Revised version published in Hammersley, 2002]
25.
Hammersley, M. (2000b) Taking Sides in Research: Essays on Partisanship and Bias. London: Routledge.
26.
Hammersley, M. (2002) Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice. London: Paul Chapman.
27.
Hammersley, M. (2003, in press) ‘Media Representation of Social and Educational Research: The Case of a Review of Ethnic Minority Education’, British Educational Research Journal.
28.
Harding, S. (1992) ‘After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics and “Strong Objectivity” ’, Social Research59(3): 568-587.
29.
Hay/McBer (2000) Research into Teacher Effectiveness Phase II Report: A Model of Teacher Effectiveness. London: Hay/McBer.
30.
Humphries, B. and Truman, C. (eds) (1994) Re-Thinking Social Research: Anti-discriminatory Approaches in Research Methodology. Aldershot: Avebury.
31.
Lather, P. (1986) ‘Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research’, Interchange17(4): 63-84.
32.
Martin, L. (1986) ‘ “ Eskimo Words for Snow”: A Case Study in the Genesis and Decay of an Anthropological Example’, American Anthropologist88(2): 418-423.
33.
Merton, R. K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Mies, M. (1983) ‘Towards a Methodology for Feminist Research’, in G. Bowles and R. Duelli Klein (eds) Theories of Women’s Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
35.
Oliver, M. (1992) ‘Changing the Social Relations of Research Production’, Disability, Handicap and Society7(2): 101-114.
36.
Powell, J. (2002) ‘The Changing Conditions of Social Work Research’, British Journal of Social Work32(17): 17-33.
37.
Proctor, E. K. (2001) ‘Building and Consolidating Knowledge for Practice’, Social Work Research25(4): 195-196.
38.
Pullum, G. K. (1991) The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Rescher, N. (1997) Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
40.
Rothman, J. and Thomas, E. J. (eds) (1994) Intervention Research: Design and Development for Human Service. Binghampton, NY: Prentice-Hall.
41.
Shaw, I. (1996) Evaluating in Practice. Aldershot: Arena.
42.
Shaw, I. (1999) Qualitative Evaluation. London: Sage.
43.
Sheldon, B. (2001) ‘The Validity of Evidence-based Practice in Social Work: A Reply to Stephen Webb’, British Journal of Social Work31: 801-809.
44.
Smith, D. (2000) ‘The Limits of Positivism Revisited’, ESRC-funded seminar series on Theorising Social Work Research, Seminar 4, http://www.nisw.org.uk/tswr/smith.html (consulted June 2002).
45.
Smith, G. (2000) ‘Research and Inspection: HMI and OFSTED, 1981-1996 - A Commentary’, Oxford Review of Education26(3-4): 333-352.
46.
Stehr, N. (1994) Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.
47.
Stein, M., Johnstone, D., Crawshaw, M. and Miller, L. B. (1999) ‘Making Research Count (York) - A Strategic Model for Improving Research-informed Practice’, ESRC-funded seminar series on Theorising Social Work Research, Seminar 2, http://www.nisw.org.uk/tswr/stein.html (consulted June 2002).
48.
Trinder, L. (2000) ‘Evidence-based Practice in Social Work and Probation’, in L. Trinder (ed.) with S. Reynolds, Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
49.
Truman, C., Mertens, D. M. and Humphries, B. (eds) (1999) Research and Inequality. London: Routledge.
50.
Webb, S. A. (2001) ‘Some Considerations on the Validity of Evidence-based Practice in Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work31: 57-79.
