In this issue…A space for creative skepticism

I once led a focus group with older adults to discuss what factors they believed contributed to positive aging. This was a select group; they were service connected and, in general, had reasonable health. The basic thrust of the inquiry centered on understanding what they believe had helped them age well. While the group provided usual responses about self-care, I found some of the unanswerable questions and observations posed by the groups particularly insightful.

Focus groups provide a context for people to explore their views in ways that might prove more difficult in an individual interview. Such an approach works well when the interviewer seeks open-ended exploration on what the participants value and what terms they choose to express themselves (Kitzinger, 1995). However, group norms may silence dissenting voices; therefore, it’s important to attune to individual variations. In the group I was running, for example, it was hard not to be swept away by the joy and camaraderie the group exuded. It is in these moments that an astute facilitator must pause and seek alternative perspectives. At the very least, such pauses give permission for dissent. I was not disappointed by my search for contradiction.

One man quietly concurred with everyone that hanging on to anger and resentments aged a person poorly, but he insisted that unknowns remained. Steadily meeting my gaze, he asked How does one forgive in the face of life’s bitter disappointments? The group grew quiet. I sighed. It’s a hard question; it’s also a good one. I smiled and nodded in support; I heard his question but had no fast answer. I sensed that he was not seeking a solution.

Life experience has taught me to trust the power within the person to seek the best solution to their dilemma. One does not “deal” with sorrows in isolation. Such mourning requires communal support and time. A younger version of myself, my former social worker persona, would have tried to respond with reasonable solutions, blithely unaware that sitting in solidarity with someone was more important than providing answers. Now, at little older and wiser, I appreciate the power (and privilege) of bearing witness to the struggle within.

By allowing the expression of dissent, a space is generated for “creative skepticism”—an inspired process that emerges from a sense of skepticism with the status quo. After this elderly skeptic raised his question, another remarked that perhaps people should be “trained” how to age well…earlier in life. The others nodded in agreement; the tone of the group had shifted. They recognized that their hard-earned perspective and equanimity, honed over decades of living, would have served them earlier in life. There was a palpable sense of regret alongside a desire to contribute to others. One could not help feeling a mixture of sympathy and admiration for these seniors who, having outlived many others, recognized their limitations and still held a steadfast desire for connection.

The exchange underscored the majestic power of community to serve as a safe haven for our fragile human selves. But our need to join and belong to a group ought come with a warning label. Identification with one group usually means the exclusion of another. No judgement here; it is just how it works. Today, my professional sense of belonging is largely constrained—to the classroom, to a number of research teams, and to publication outlets such as QSW—arenas which are dominated by academic communities. To a certain extent, the insular nature of the academy is necessary for the incubation of innovative ideas and the production of knowledge. However, frequently I lament the structural schism that separates those who conduct research from those in a position to translate findings into actionable interventions, policies, and programs. I have found always found the disconnection between these two worlds troublesome, but increasingly, I worry about the silos created in everyday life reinforced by the endless information loops available through social media.

In many ways, our advance communication systems have made us profoundly clannish; we can choose to avoid perspectives that challenge our existing biases. Mired in electronic silos, it is easy to demonize others (Haidt, 2012). Karen Staller’s opening editorial underscores an urgent need to look beyond local particularities and seek boarder patterns. She analyzes the categorization of targeted community violence in the United States as “domestic terrorism,” and criticizes the use of such terminology. By formulating the problem as “domestic,” the occurrence is casted as “isolated,” less endemic, and perhaps, even less serious, than incidents of international terrorism. But, such an approach stifles prevention efforts.

By linking domestic terrorism to violence linked with international extremist, patterns emerge that call for intervention. Her creative skepticism also reminds us that those for whom we cast aspersions—the racist, the sexist, the elitist “other” – are frequently vulnerable humans who have adopted dangerous identities and joined violent groups as a means of belonging and being part of something greater than themselves. Such persons frequently feel alienated in their home, community, and nation. In their estrangement, they are vulnerable to the lures of extremist groups who hold out the promise of redemption. As social workers—practitioners and researchers alike—we are poised to intercede but only if we can extend our compassion to “the lepers” among us. In forging alternatives for those susceptible to extremist groups, we join a long tradition of caring for “neighbors” who hold vastly different cultural beliefs (Addams, 1910).

We need to create a space for creative skepticism—one that permits us to question commonly held (frequently, cherished) beliefs. In many ways, QSW provides such platform. In addition to the opening editorial, this issue contains 10 articles that seek to illuminated perspectives in contexts seldom examined. Some revisit existing frameworks; others present novel methodological adaptations. All present the complexities within the human enterprise.

A number of studies consider the workers’ perspectives as they enact their roles. Ora Nakash and colleagues examine how clinicians navigate time constraints and institutional constraints during intake. These constraints create clinical dilemmas for therapists. Their study underscores the need for strategies to balance the tradeoff between collecting relevant diagnostic information and the therapeutic effects of permitting clients to tell their own stories. Liz Beddoe explores the experience of interprofessional collaboration in school settings when responding to child maltreatment in New Zealand. The results from her study suggest that preparation for work in schools should include the development of essential relationship-building skills that foster cooperation between educators and social workers. Ebenezer Cudjoe and Alhassan Abdullah study the experiences of parents and workers involved with child protection services in Ghana. They found that workers and parents emphasized different things for participation. Whereas workers stressed transparency and diversity to promote participation, parents valued engagement in decision-making. However, parents identified power differences between them and the worker as a key obstacle to greater involvement in the decision-making process.

This issue also features articles that seek to understand complex phenomena in understudied populations. Yong Tang explored the perspectives of family caregivers of terminally ill patients in Southern China. Cultural considerations complicate the care but the authors argue that oncological social workers can help with the distress that comes with uncertainty and the actual death event. Jennifer First and colleagues used photovoice to understand how young people who live with autism perceived the transition into adulthood. This methodology enabled investigators to explore how the participants coped with stressors during this period of their lives. Sujin Son explores international adult adoptees’ sense of self through their relationship with their birth families. Such exploration extends adoption narratives on both the personal and societal levels.

As researchers strive to understand diverse perspectives, new methodologies are required as well as a reflection of existing approaches. This issue contains four methodological inquiries. Eva Burke and colleagues discuss the challenges of working with young peer researchers who live with disabilities. They advocate for the reflection of peer participation throughout the whole research process. Belinda Cash and colleagues use systems theory to understand spousal care in rural Australia. They present a research design that enables spousal care to be examined in relation to the meso and macro contexts in which it occurs. Sanna Aaltonen and Antti Kivijärvi reflect on the relationships between researchers and professionals who work with marginalized youth. Stakeholders frequently underestimate the gatekeeping role of professionals and the processes that underlie the construction of new practices of youth counseling. Such considerations would help illuminate more realistic expectations for practice-relevant research with youth. Keith Miller uses critical discourse analysis to develop an understanding of the practice research enabler, who engages in phronesis (practical wisdom). In this role, the academics and practitioners become full partners in the research process and pursue different aims than academic engaged in episteme (theoretical knowledge).

Finally, this issue contains a call for a special issue Social Work and Anthropology: Traversing, Trading and Translating across Boundaries, which will explore diverse modes of exchange, translation, conflict, and collaboration between anthropology and social work.