Patterns,designs and developments in articles published in Qualitative Social Work : An update

Who was the primary focus of the research reported in the articles?

Shaw et al. (2013) found that 38% of the 237 articles published from 2002 to 2011 focused on ‘Service users and carers’. The next largest group was ‘Professional and policy communities’ with 26% of the articles having this as the focus; 20% of the articles had a focus on more general theorising or methodology; and 15% of the articles focused on ‘Citizen, user and community populations’. Comparing the first five years of the journal with the second five years, Shaw et al. found that the proportion of articles focused on service users grew from 32% to 42%. Over the same period, the proportion of articles that were either methodological or theoretical in orientation decreased from 25% to 15%.

The primary focus in my review of the 295 articles published from 2012 to 2018 kept the same order with the largest proportion of the articles having a primary focus on ‘Service users and carers’ (44%) followed by ‘Professional and policy communities’ (39%). There were 11.5% of the articles with a focus on more general theorising or methodology; and 9% of articles, focused on ‘Citizen, user and community populations’.

Thus, compared with the first 10 years of the journal, my review showed that the trends noted by Shaw et al. had continued. The proportion of articles focused on service users continued to grow (from 38% to 44%) and the proportion of articles that were either methodological or theoretical in orientation continued to decrease (from 20% to 11.5%). Moreover, my review showed that the proportion of articles focused on Professional and policy communities grew (from 26% to 39%) and the proportion of articles focused on Citizen, user and community populations decreased (from 15% to 9%).

What were the research methods employed in the studies?

Of course, as Shaw et al. (2013) make clear, the ways in which research methods can and should be grouped is debatable. However, following their grouping does allow us to see if there are any notable trends in the research methods used in the articles published in QSW in the following seven years. Shaw et al. found that interviews were the main research method employed in the articles in the first decade of the journal (43%). Narrative approaches were employed in 25% of the articles; and observation/ethnography used in 10% of the articles. Documents were employed in 9% of the articles, group interviews in 8% and visual methods in 2% of the articles. The internet was employed as the main method in 1% articles; systematic review (including secondary analysis) in 1% of the articles; and structured methods also in 1% of the articles. Shaw et al. concluded that there were no apparent trends in the main fieldwork method over the 10-year time-frame of their review.

The three main methods used remained the same in my review from 2012 to 2018. Interviews remained the main method employed (29%), then narrative approaches (21%), followed by observation/ethnography (12%). Visual methods were the next highest proportion in my review of the next seven years of the journal making up 6% of the articles, an increase from 2% in Shaw et al.’s analysis. Participatory and action research was the main method used in 6% of the articles; this approach does not feature in the table in Shaw et al.’s analysis. Systematic reviews and secondary analysis were used in 6% of the articles in my review; an increase from 1% in Shaw et al.’s analysis. Case study was the next highest proportion (5.5%) and does not appear in Shaw et al. Documents were the main method used in 5% articles; a decrease from the 9% in Shaw et al. Group interviews were used in 4.5% of the articles; a decrease from the 8% found in Shaw et al. The Internet was used in 3% of the articles; a small increase of the 1% in Shaw et al. Finally, longitudinal approaches were used in 2% of the articles in my review; this does not feature in Shaw et al.’s table.

Thus, compared with the first 10 years of the journal, the three main research methods (interviews, narrative and observation/ethnography) remained the same and dominant, taking up 78% of the articles in the first 10 years of QSW, and 62% of the articles in the next seven years. There have been some shifts in the other methods used such as an increase in visual methods and PAR; and a decrease in group interviews and the use of documents.

Who were the first authors of articles published in the journal?

In their analysis, Shaw et al. identified that 70.5% of the 237 sampled articles had women first-authors and 29.5% had first-authors who were men. The proportion of women authors had increased from 65% in the first five years of the journal (2002–2006) to 75% in the next five years (2007–2011). Although it was beyond the scope of my review, Shaw et al. found there was no difference to these proportions when all authors were included in the analysis.

My review found that this trend had continued to increase with 82% of the 295 sampled articles having women first-authors and 18% with first-authors who were men. This is a very striking finding. It is not clear why so many QSW authors are women. An analysis of the first-authors of a sample of 483 articles published from 1971 to 2013 in the British Journal of Social Work by Jobling et al. (2017) found that 53.9% of first-authors were men and 46.1% were women. The data presented in the article show that there have been shifts over the three time periods analysed by Jobling et al. The number of male first-authors has declined (70%, 62.5%, 44%) whereas the number of female first-authors has increased (29.9%, 37.5%, 55.6%). However, this does not account for the marked over-representation of women first authors in QSW. This is something that I will be reflecting on with my co-Editor, Karen Staller.

Which country was the first-author’s affiliation?

In terms of the country of first-author affiliation, Shaw et al. concluded that there were no obvious trends over the 10-year period of the first review. Shaw et al. found that most first authors (41%) were affiliated with institutions based in America. In practice, all of these were from Canada and the USA. My review also showed that most first authors (45%) were affiliated with institutions based in America. Again, all of these were from the USA (36%) and Canada (9%). Shaw et al. found that 38% of first-authors were affiliated with institutions based in Europe. My review showed that this trend had continued with Europe remaining the next highest proportion of first-author affiliation (35%) articles; most based of these affiliated with the UK (18%).

The analysis by Shaw et al. showed that the next highest proportion of first-author affiliation were authors based in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific (12%). This continued in the next seven years of QSW with my review finding this proportion had remained exactly the same. Shaw et al. found that 6% of first-authors were affiliated with institutions based in the ‘Middle East’ (Western Asia and Northern Africa); my review showed this had decreased to 3%. Shaw et al.’s analysis showed that 2% first-authors were affiliated to institutions based in Asia; this has increased slightly to 5% in the seven years of my review. Finally, the rest of Africa remained the lowest proportion of first-author affiliations with 0.4% in the first 10 years and 1.4% of first-author affiliations in the next seven years.

Thus, the dominance of American- and European-affiliated authors has continued, increasing very slightly from 79% to 80%. This makes clear that QSW has yet to become a truly international journal. The requirement to submit articles in the English language is likely to be one of the factors but we at QSW need to reflect on what the other issues might be and how we can address them.

In this issue

We start this issue with two articles on disability research using fascinating ethnographic approaches. In the first, Centering Embodiment in Disability Research through Performance Ethnography, Vandana Chaudhry examines her positionality as a disabled ethnographer doing disability research on the development programmes of the World Bank in rural south India within the framework of performance ethnography. Chaudhry shows how performance ethnography is underpinned by positionality, reflexivity, embodiment and political involvement. It is dialogic, focused on co-performance, and has transformative potential. Chaudhry presents an in-depth account of her work, including her own experiences of being a researcher in this context. This is followed by an article by Susan A. Comerford who uses autoethnography to reflect on the lives and challenges that children with disabilities face. In this evocative piece, An Autoethnography of a Neurotypical Adoptive Mother’s Journey through Adoption into the World(s) of Intellectual Variety in the Early Years of the U.S. Education System, Comerford narrates her experiences of first fostering and then adopting a baby girl with disabilities. As a social worker, Comerford was used to entering other people’s homes. Now a number of professionals were in and out of her home on a weekly basis. Comerford writes moving about the confusion of role blurring between acting as a social worker or as a parent during her journey into neurodiversity.

In her article, Critical Oral History: Reflections on method and medium, Charmaine C Williams reflects on the use of critical oral history method in a community-based participatory project exploring LGBT human rights issues in the Caribbean. The project aimed to make visible experiences of living with LGBT criminalization and social exclusion in Belize, Guyana, Jamaica and St. Lucia, and to document histories of LGBT activism in regions where that work was marginalized and undermined. Williams reflects on her positioning as a Black, cisgender, middle-class, heterosexual woman based in an academic institution in the Global North researching LGBT lives in the Global South. She describes dilemmas around naming the work, where a co-investigator questioned her involvement asking, ‘Isn’t this supposed to be a project by queer people, for queer people?’ Williams also reflects on the ethical issues through the researchers assuming that the very real risks to the participants are necessary and worthwhile. In addition, Williams shows how the processes surrounding recruitment and data collection demonstrate how the critical oral history method could reinforce the dominance of the perspectives of NGO members over the participants. This honest reflection on using the critical oral history method will be of great interest to social work researchers. The third article also examines homophobia. Christine Cocker and colleagues examined the experiences of lesbian and gay parents in relation to homophobia in primary and secondary schools in England. This descriptive and exploratory study was part of a wider EU project investigating the impact of family and school alliances against homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools. Using a discourse analytical approach, three broad discursive themes were identified: problems experienced in school and the strategies devised to overcome them; the different alliances developed to position themselves and others in relation to LGBT issues in schools; and the insider/outsider narratives used to position themselves in relation to normative conditions within the school community. Cocker et al. conclude that social workers have a powerful role in supporting with LGBT families through recognising the strengths of LGBT families in their assessments.

Asia Sarti, Christine Dedding and Joske FG Bunders present the findings from their PAR study with 29 children living in impoverished areas of the Netherlands. They used Photovoice, focus groups, interviews and participant observation to learn about the children’s lives from their own perspectives. In their article, Beyond a deficiencies approach: towards a more integral representation of the everyday life of children growing up in contexts of poverty, Sarti et al. argue that research on child poverty typically takes a deficiencies approach, focusing on material deficiencies. In contrast, the PAR study is based on a lifeworld orientation in which positive and negative aspects were very much intertwined. The main difficulties the children described included: inadequate housing, parental unemployment, low-paid jobs and financial problems. In terms of aspects that enhance the quality of their lives and well-being, the children discuss three elements: making use of public spaces, a free and busy life and generating social support. The authors argue that moving beyond the deficiencies approach allows us to gain a more complex and multi-layered understanding of the lives of children living in poverty. The next article, ‘It was sort of like a globe of abuse’. A psychosocial exploration of child protection social work with emotional abuse, also focuses on the lives of children. Gemma North discusses her doctoral research on child protection social work in England where there is emotional abuse. The focus of the article is the methodological framework she used in her work: a critical realist view of social work practice, with a psychosocial research approach. Individual interviews with 8 social workers were undertaken twice, with the second interview allowing an opportunity for reflection. Following this, excerpts from the individual interviews were interpreted by panels consisting of social work students and practitioners. In the article, North provides a detailed analysis of one social worker’s interview, reflecting throughout on her own identity as a child protection social worker. She concludes by suggesting that emotional responses to child protection social work should be reflected upon and critically considered in safe spaces to enable this work to be carried out more effectively.

The penultimate article in this issue by John B Forkuor and colleagues examines the strategies that social workers have used in implementing culturally sensitive social work approaches in Ghana. The article discusses the ways in which social work educators consider Ghanaian culture and context in their lectures; how practitioners use aspects of traditional culture in their work; and the ways in which practitioners resolve the challenges that arise between the demands of culture, social work ethics and constitutional law. Finally, Gary U Behrman and colleagues in the USA focus on the opportunities for social workers to partner with medical educators in their communities to train primary care physicians (PCP) in the early detection of depression, anxiety and substance misuse to lower adolescent suicide risks. Focus groups were undertaken with paediatric residents, adolescents, parents of adolescents who died by suicide, parents with adolescents in the mental health system, and community mental health professionals. Behrman et al. identified themes that illustrate what is needed in paediatric training to lower the risks for adolescent suicide: inadequacy of the mental health care system; problems with communication; the importance of early detection in suicide prevention; and the barriers to care due to lack of access, insurance coverage and parity. Finally, the authors created and delivered four one-hour modules at Saint Louis University as part of their paediatric resident training in suicide prevention.