Practice research enabler: Enabling research in a social work practice context

Introduction

Emile Durkheim was a curious man, an investigator, a practitioner and a social scientist in the late 19th century. As a student and, later, as a secondary school teacher, Durkheim’s curiosity for society around him initially developed as someone engaged in practice, and then flourished during his later years as an academic (Fournier, 2013). Throughout history, there have been curious people, often themselves practitioners, who have chosen to investigate ideas within their field of expertise. Still today, there continue to be practitioners who are curious, ask questions and then conduct an investigation in an area of knowledge with which they are familiar. Research is not their primary endeavor as that lies in their area of practice. Nevertheless, their discoveries are significant in terms of knowledge production.

Yet practitioners are not always familiar or comfortable with some of the recognized techniques of research. During the later 20th century and into the 21st century, there appears to have developed a greater divide between those involved in formal research and practitioners for whom research has become a secondary aspect of their practice. Indeed, the divide between theory and practice appears to have become more pronounced, between intellectual knowledge, constructed by academics, and practical knowledge, constructed by practitioners. My contention is that this divide is false, yet it continues to be promoted both by a developing managerialism and by an intellectual elite within the academic world. My experience has been that often external academics have been invited into a human service agency to propose an hypothesis and to conduct a piece of research at arms-length from the practitioners within that agency, as though conducting research is an elitist role, which practitioners are unable to comprehend, let alone participate in.

I want to consider an approach, which uses the expertise of an academic, combined with the curiosity of practitioners, to undertake a piece of research within a human service agency. In my experience, the curiosity and enthusiasm of practitioners are not sufficient for practice research to occur. And when academics enter an agency to conduct a piece of research without adequate collaboration with practitioners, the research often does not actually address the questions which practitioners have in mind. Over the past 10 years, I have attempted to find a common ground by understanding the role of such an academic as a practice research enabler.

There is a sense in which all social work research is applied research and engages with practitioners in agencies. But often it is the academic researcher who “parachutes in,” who completes some piece of external evaluation or investigative research, and makes some recommendations for improvement of the service. I want to advocate for what I term practice research enabler, where the academic researcher acts as a facilitator to enable practitioners to become key players in the research process. The practitioners are intimately involved in the research, determine the research question to be answered, and develop the methodology to respond to it. The academic researcher brings expertise to enable this process to occur. My experience is that, increasingly, practitioners are being asked by managers in an agency to work on a project, to improve the effectiveness of a certain program, or to devise improved ways to deliver services. An academic researcher can value-add to this by contributing both theoretical knowledge and sound techniques in research and also give confidence to the practitioners that what they are doing is worth publishing to bring the results to a wider audience so that other practitioners can learn from their experience.

The disparity between practice and research in social work

In the academic world, formal research has increasingly become measured and outputs monitored (Kearns and Gardiner, 2013). Yet, there have always been practitioners who are curious and question areas of practice (Lahkani, 1992; Popham, 1994). Sanders and Wilkins (2010) sought to demystify research for practitioners in the fields of counseling and health and social care. Their thesis was that helping practitioners were natural researchers, able to contribute to the pool of knowledge on which their professions depended. More often than not, however, these helping practitioners were not afforded the time and did not have the expertise to fully satisfy their own curiosity.

Indeed, in social work, external forces, which have included changes in the welfare state throughout Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, have led to a greater accountability in the use of government funds and higher levels of managerialism (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2012). Kinsella and Pitman concur with these pressures on the world of the practitioner. They describe the “structured constraints of practice” and a “time of excessive managerialism and accountability discourses in the professions” (2012: 8). They recognize that “professional practice takes place in a social and political context” and suggest that “discourses of accountability have enveloped professional practice” (2012: 8). This has had a deleterious impact on the capacity of social work practitioners to conduct research when they cannot clearly measure a change in outputs. Nevertheless, these same pressures of greater accountability, increasing public scrutiny, and continually changing client groups have emphasized the need for greater levels of research capacity (Fouche, 2015).

Historically, in social work, much of the early literature and the gathering of evidentiary research were conducted by practitioners (Lawrence, 2016). Only more recently have social work academics taken up the mantle of research. As Marthinsen indicates, “the request for research based knowledge increased as new public management required quality assurance and effective measures” (2012: 19). This has meant that a more consistent theoretical basis has developed in a range of areas to do with the human condition and the implications this has for vulnerable and marginalized populations. But, it has also meant a gradually changed emphasis from practitioner focused to academic focused research. Even so, the nature and emphasis of social work research are that it has always retained an applied focus.

About phronetic social science and its relation to practitioner research

My thoughts are that two things need to occur: first, research needs to be released from the bounds of academic elitism and given a new focus, what has been termed phronesis or “practice research.” Second, practitioners themselves need to be given the tools to be able to answer the research questions which they see in practice.

In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Runes provides a definition of phronesis as: “practical wisdom, or knowledge of the proper ends of conduct and of the means of attaining them,” and suggests that phronesis was distinguished by Aristotle both from theoretical knowledge or science, episteme, and from technical skill, techne (1942: 235). Whilst the concept of phronesis emanates from Aristotle, it inevitably has been contextualized by thinkers through the ages. Ellett suggests that “phronesis yields a conception with a complex model of judgement, where judgement is at the heart of being a (good) professional” (2012: 24). Kinsella and Pitman suggest that phronesis “involves deliberation that is based on values, concerned with practical judgement and informed by reflection” (2012: 2). They suggest that the professions are plagued with a theory–practice gap. It would appear that in the 20th and 21st century world of intellectualism, a divide has indeed developed between theory and practice, between intellectual/abstract knowledge, constructed by academics, and practical knowledge, constructed by practitioners. It is my contention that this divide results in a two-tiered level of knowledge in which practical knowledge is regarded as inferior. The concept of phronesis counteracts this false divide and gives legitimacy to the knowledge which practitioners develop in their research.

Flyvbjerg suggests that phronetic research is pragmatic, variable, context-dependent and praxis-oriented. Phronesis is “the reflexive analysis and discussion of values and interests” (Flyvbjerg, 2001: 3). Or, as Flyvbjerg et al. wrote in a later publication, phronesis “is knowledge that is sensitive to its application in specific settings” (2012: 1). It provides a practical wisdom or a situated knowledge about how “to understand and act in contextualized settings, based on deliberations about specific sets of values and interests” (2012: 2).

Along with Kinsella and Pitman, Lars Uggerhoj (2012) suggests a link between phronesis, as proposed by Flyvbjerg, and practice research, and gives it a theoretical and methodological approach in social work more specifically. Uggerhoj recognizes the possibility that practice research could transform phronetic social science into everyday practice. “Phronetic social science could very well constitute both a theoretical and a methodological framework for practice research in social work” (Uggerhoj, 2012: 70). Such learning processes, in which managers and social workers become partners in research instead of only consumers, promote more “context-based, dialogue-oriented and partnerships-focused research and knowledge production” (2012: 72). In policy development and the planning process, there is a growing emphasis to move along the spectrum from professionals merely informing or consulting with both researchers and consumers toward involving and collaborating with them (IAP2, 2017). In a similar way, an emphasis has developed in practice research on collaboration between academics and practitioners. A new modality of research comes into play. Knowledge derived from and understood only by practice must be unfolded and discussed by both practitioners and researchers. As is evident in the Salisbury Statement: “(Practice research) is an inclusive approach to professional knowledge that is concerned with understanding the complexity of practice alongside the commitment to empower” (2011: 5). Similarly, Rasmussen differentiates between “scientific” (or epistemic) knowledge and “practice” knowledge as another particular form of knowledge production, which is not inferior but simply different (2012: 43). Practice researchers are closely connected to and under the influence of practice, with the aim of improving such practice.

The second aspect is that practitioners need to be given the tools to answer their own research questions, to be able to engage in phronesis, as defined above. Ostrom (1996) used the concept of “co-production,” by which he meant collaboration between service users and professionals or service providers. In our situation, a similar relationship can be developed between practitioners and academics in the social work field. Heaton et al. (2016) speak of “co-production” and elaborate on Ostrom’s earlier concept to infer that health clinicians can be understood as “clinical academics” as they contribute their own distinctive expertise to the co-production of knowledge in their particular field. Van de Ven and Johnson speak of “engaged scholarship” to describe the “relevance of research for practice” and its contribution to advancing research knowledge” (2006: 819).

Shaw and Lunt define practitioner research as, “a group of practitioners carrying out enquiry in order to better understand their own practice and/or to improve service effectiveness” (2011: 1548). As I read their work, it appears to me that this involves practitioners engaging in practice research, by “setting research aims” themselves “for practical or immediate benefits” (2011: 1549). This is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. They also indicate that “the nature of practitioner research is something that emerges from the action” (2011: 1549). They do indicate that, “We are concerned to elucidate the meaning of practitioner research as it is undertaken by social work professionals” (2011: 1550). Shaw and Lunt go on to describe an interactive process whereby a sponsoring agency, partnered by a university school of social work, supports small-scale research projects which practitioners conduct and which Shaw and Lunt, as academics, evaluate “from a distance” (2011). The conclusion they draw is that “support and facilitation for practitioner research are not simply about providing information on methods and techniques… (but are) a form of learning that cannot nor ought to be reducible to individual skill learning” (2011: 1563). While this is true, their emphasis is more on the practitioner as researcher and they do not appear to highlight the role of the academic who enables this research to take place, simply that the intention is not for practitioners to “go it alone.” They also emphasize that the development of practitioner research is often seen as a “deficit” approach, whereas although they lack skills, time, and support, their real value is “to create, assess, store and diffuse knowledge in the profession” (2011: 1563). The emphasis I want to bring in the current paper is that the role of an academic as a practice research enabler can help overcome the supposed deficits of the practitioner and enable this more positive role to be enacted.

Using a phronetic approach, practice research engages the practitioners as practitioner–researchers and as equivalent members of the research team. It is thus impossible to understand practice knowledge from a neutral and distant position (Uggerhoj, 2012: 74), such as might be undertaken by an external academic researcher with no practice context. As Flyvbjerg comments, this means “dialoguing with a polyphony of voices, with no one voice, including that of the researcher, claiming final authority” (2001: 139). Indeed, I would suggest that it is the voice of the practitioner which should have the final word. Research becomes a true engagement with equal partners. The collaborative learning process involves not only discussing the research findings but also respecting all partners throughout the research process (Uggerhoj, 2012: 73).

One perspective on practice research

My observation is that practice research derives from situations that practitioners have observed in practice. They surmise that something could be done more effectively due to observed inadequacies or inefficiencies, and wish to develop alternatives or improvements. They may wish to document the historical development of a program and then apply it to a new situation. Or they observe practitioners currently working at capacity, but recognize inefficiencies in the overall system within an organization and ponder how changes might be made. Alternatively, a whole new program might be introduced and the practitioners/managers are keen to determine its effectiveness. In all of these scenarios, practice research could be an effective way to determine ways of implementing change.

Practice research, then, can become a genuine collaboration between an academic researcher and practitioners. Along with Uggerhoj (2012), my sense is that the differences between practice research and academic research are in the collaborative relationship between practitioner and researcher, the emphasis being on the conduct of the research process in a practice setting and the outcomes and emphasis of the research. The role of the academic is to approach an issue from a different perspective or frame of reference, as an “outsider,” and sometimes see the broader context into which a practice situation fits. The practitioner approaches the issue as an “insider” can identify the detail and nuances, and this can often significantly affect the outcome and interpretation. It is important that both bring their particular expertise to the research situation. In this way, practice research can “challenge and intervene in dynamic, complex and ever-changing practice, knowledge and context” (Uggerhoj, 2012: 89), so that it simultaneously influences and is influenced by practice. In this scenario, the academic acts in the role of enabler to ensure that the practice research occurs successfully.

A proposed definition of a practice research enabler

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines enabler as, “someone that makes it possible for a particular thing or event to happen or be done” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2017). In a practice research context, the enabler is the academic researcher. The enabler enables the practice research to be undertaken. This may involve the enabler initiating contact with the agency or practitioners, giving them the opportunity to identify an issue to investigate and the enabler bringing research skills to enable this investigation to occur. It will involve meeting regularly (perhaps monthly or bi-monthly, depending on the agency and the issue to be addressed) at the practice site. The enabler and practitioners will discuss this issue together and, with prompting from the enabler, clarify a specific research question to answer. The research question must satisfy the practice situation within the agency rather than meet the academic requirements of the researcher. The enabler will propose a methodological approach to investigate the research question. Clarification around methods of investigation and data collection will take place. This will all be done in collaboration with the practitioners initiating ideas and the enabler confirming the correct procedures to follow. The practitioners will take the lead in data collection with support from the enabler. Probably the enabler will take the lead in data analysis but with direction from the practitioners to ensure that correct information is gleaned from the data and truly responds to the research question. The practitioners will lead in writing the Discussion and Conclusion to ensure that the focus continues to be on practice outcomes. The result should be some change to practice in the agency. The first goal may be to write a report to agency management, or equivalent, for the implementation of recommendations. Usually, this will also mean writing an executive summary for the report. Secondary to this is publication in a peer-reviewed journal for broader dissemination of results. In this form of practice research, practitioners are the ones who direct the research and lead the inquiry under the guidance of the academic who is the enabler. The role of the enabler is that of facilitator who both recognizes and refines the knowledge which practitioners have developed and which is localized to their own agency. The academic as enabler provides a broader theoretical perspective to the joint discussion which situates this practitioner knowledge in its broader context.

Methodological approach

In this final section, I want to use a critical discourse analysis to provide a reflexive critique of some of my own attempts at becoming such a practice research enabler. The three projects listed below were “successful” in that they achieved the research outcomes for which they were developed. But I want to look more critically at the intention behind the approach taken to determine how effective I was as an enabler amongst the practitioners with whom I engaged. According to Matthews and Ross, one aspect of discourse analysis is to look at “what sorts of ideas underlie the text” (2010: 391), and to find the “patterns of meaning” which they contain (Braun and Clarke, 2013: 330). My intention is to analyze the underlying meaning within the “texts,” which in this case is my conduct in engaging (or not) with practitioners in the research process and then the written reports which resulted from this research. In the first attempt below, I had only just begun my academic career so, although my intention to be an enabler was legitimate, my appreciation of how to do it was very limited. Gradually, this developed with time but still continues to be a learning process.

To undertake this critical discourse analysis, I want to frame it within an interpretive phenomenological approach. To have a phenomenological approach to ideas is to see an object or event from the perspective of another (Crotty, 2009: 80). As an enabler, I needed to see the research from the perspective of the practitioner. Interpretive phenomenology is grounded in the theoretical perspectives of hermeneutics and phenomenology (Loehr, 2016: 44). Denzin and Lincoln have defined hermeneutics as, “An approach to the analysis of texts that stresses how prior understandings and prejudices shape the interpretive process” (2005: 27). How could I peel away my prejudice as an academic researcher and appreciate this research from the perspective of a practitioner? Added to this, Cohen et al. could say that interpretive phenomenology asks how people make sense of their experiences (2000: 5). I want to try and make sense of the research experience from the perspective of my role as a practice research enabler.

An unsuccessful attempt as a practice research enabler

In 2007, I commenced a project on suicide postvention with a large non-government organization in Adelaide, South Australia. The project involved providing a three-month support service to survivors, that is, immediate family members or close friends of the person who suicided, in both metropolitan Adelaide and country South Australia. Volunteers were trained to meet regularly with a survivor to provide emotional support and to direct the survivor to all the required services related to the deceased’s estate.

The project was concluded successfully and a report was presented. It was in the early stages of my academic career. I began tentatively to delve into the area of “practice research” and as an “enabler,” but without actually understanding either of these two concepts. I simply knew that I wanted to engage with practitioners, I wanted to use their expertise in conducting the research, but I did not have the confidence or the understanding to allow them to satisfactorily participate nor to truly collaborate. So, this project was a muddled attempt at “practice research” which simply became an external researcher coming into an agency, fulfilling the requirements of a research project and exiting the agency. I certainly engaged with the practitioners but it was more in the form of interviews than collaboration, gaining information from them rather than enabling them to use the information to draw their own conclusions. In this case, I did not successfully peel away my prejudice as an academic researcher and appreciate this research from the perspective of a practitioner (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Nor did I satisfactorily make sense of this experience in the role of a practice research enabler (Cohen et al., 2000).

Although successful as a research project, it was an unsuccessful early attempt to engage in practice research. There was little collaboration. Although the broad area was given to me by the manager at the agency, I determined the more specific research question and the parameters of the project. There was no consultation with practitioners as to the methodological approach to be used. I conducted interviews, collected, and analyzed data and then wrote a report. The practitioners had little input and there was no new approach to practice uncovered. Following the interviews and completion of the project, I felt a real unease as my intentions were sound but I lacked the confidence and awareness as to how to engage with some willing practitioners. In retrospect, it was an unsuccessful attempt as a practice research enabler.

An almost successful attempt as a practice research enabler

Between 2007 and 2011, I was involved in a project entitled: “Improving responses to women who have contacted services in times of emotional distress in the context of the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder/complex trauma.” Eight people collaborated on the project, including two consumer advocates and six practitioners, mostly social workers, from a range of services in southern Adelaide. The issue to be addressed was that women experiencing severe emotional distress as adults due to childhood trauma often presented at the Emergency Department of the local hospital. The intention of the project was to find a more appropriate and effective response for such women and to reduce stress for social workers when managing their care. The group met approximately once every two months at a community mental health service in southern Adelaide. It took two years to develop an appropriate methodology to undertake the study and to gain ethics approval from a number of services. The decision was made to train three women with lived experience to conduct the one-on-one interviews with women who experienced complex trauma. The interviews were conducted and data were collected and then analyzed. Most of a report was brought together but ultimately remained incomplete.

As the formal researcher, I supported the practitioners to understand the issue to be investigated and to develop a specific research question. Each of the practitioners was keen to be involved. A number of the practitioners attended most but not all of the meetings. Some of the barriers:

Time: some of the services did not allow practitioners to undertake this project in work time, even though the outcome would be beneficial to those services, so these practitioners often chose to continue with the project in their own time;

Interestingly, at the beginning, my involvement began as a practitioner and as one of the initiators of the project from one of the agencies and then morphed into that of an academic soon after upon my commencement at a local University. So, my role became that of an enabler in what was a practitioner initiated research project. Throughout the project, I would consider my role as a member of a team but in a more directive role than some other members. I attempted to resist the desire to take over the project and tried to retain the focus as practitioner-oriented. I was heavily involved in the literature review, but also provided guidance to assist others with their components. The voices of the practitioners were allowed to emerge in the planning of the project, in the interpretation of data and formulation of results. It was primarily left to three of us from the initial team to draw the conclusions, and these did come from a practitioner perspective. Unfortunately, the project and final report remained in its penultimate stage and was never completed. This project became a frustratingly, almost successful attempt at practice research and for me as a practice research enabler.

It was perhaps because I commenced the project as a practitioner that I was able more effectively to maintain the perspective of a practitioner throughout the project. So I was better able to make sense of this experience as a practice research enabler (Cohen et al., 2000). This meant that a more truly phronetic approach was taken in which practice wisdom and practical judgment were effectively constructed from the perspective of practitioners (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Kinsella and Pitman, 2012).

A successful attempt as a practice research enabler

Conclusion

Practitioners are curious people and their discoveries are significant in terms of knowledge production. However, they are not always familiar or comfortable with some of the recognized techniques of research, while their primary endeavor remains their practice area of expertise. More recently, a false divide has developed between intellectual knowledge, as constructed by academics, and practice knowledge, as constructed by practitioners. Even though social work practitioners are keen to embark on research projects in order to improve their own practice or improve the systems of practice under which their agencies operate, they have become increasingly isolated from participation in research. Over the past 10 years, I have attempted to combine the expertise of an academic with the curiosity of practitioners to undertake pieces of research within agencies using the concept of practice research and with the academic taking on the role of practice research enabler.

A number of authors suggest a link between phronesis and practice research. Uggerhoj suggests that phronetic social science provides “both a theoretical and methodological framework for practice research in social work” (2012: 70). This means that practitioners become partners and fully engaged as collaborators in the research process, rather than remaining as interested bystanders, interviewees, or consumers of research. But practice research does more than merely change the nature of participation in the research process. The nature and outcomes of research are also altered. There is an inclusive approach to the development of practice knowledge which engages with the complexity and nuance of practice. The implication of this different intellectual foundation means that research by practitioners has a different focus to research by academics. A practitioner sees research as a means to achieve organizational change within the agency, whereas an academic understands research as an end in itself (Uggerhoj, 2012). This means that the role of the academic in phronesis, or practice research, needs to be different to the role of an academic in episteme research. The role I have developed here is that of practice research enabler.

Using an interpretive phenomenological analysis, I have undertaken a critical discourse analysis on three attempts to engage with human service organizations and critiqued each attempt. One attempt was unsuccessful, one was almost successful, and one was what I would consider a successful attempt at practice research with my role as a practice research enabler. In this final attempt, as the academic, I acted as a facilitator to recognize and refine the practice knowledge which the practitioners had developed, and then provided a broader theoretical perspective in which to situate this knowledge.

The key difference for me in terms of success was in the way practitioners took responsibility for what became their own piece of research. There were significant obstacles to overcome in terms of time permitted by the agency for them to participate in what management might have considered superfluous to their primary responsibilities. This had consequences in terms of regular attendance at meetings and, more importantly, their capacity to engage in all aspects of the research process. Nevertheless, practitioners embraced the research opportunity; they believed they were contributing to the greater knowledge base and that they were improving their own practice. I was able to bring research skills as a practice research enabler to enable this research to occur in a social work practice context.