Since starting over a hundred years ago social work has been occupied with the division into academic and practical knowledge. A common theme in scientific journals of social work is how this gap can be understood and resolved. The initial purpose of this article was to carry out a systematic review to find out if and how the gap could be bridged. Because few independent studies could be found, the study instead took the form of a scoping review with more included articles. The results show concrete suggestions as to how to bridge the gap, but also three discourses with dissimilar problem definitions and solutions. The emergence of proposals such as the evidence-based practice and its diverse combinations, the formation of new institutions, and today’s globalisation triggers this fragmentation. The consequences are vast confusions of opinions and explanations which illustrate competing knowledge positions. The authors propose that researchers and practitioners should orient themselves in this landscape when building bridges between academia and practice. Instead of taking the research–practice gap for granted, they suggest that social work should relate more closely to these three discourses.

This article reports findings from a case study of the practical application of a standardisation tool in everyday social work practice. The example tool used herein is the Swedish version of the UK-based Integrated Children's System, which in Sweden is known as Children's Needs in Focus (Barns Behov i Centrum; BBIC). The study analyses group and individual interviews with social workers, managers and politicians using concepts from implementation research and the micro-sociological concept of accounts. The findings demonstrate how participants describe and explain their deviations from the BBIC manual and from the more informal intentions of the tool. Such deviations are conditioned by the fact that professionals often employ their own discretion in their work, which is necessarily inherent in human service occupations such as social work. Although the BBIC was initially well received, the professionals describe how that reception eventually turned to scepticism and a more critical stance toward the manual. This can be attributed to both absence of significant necessary implementation conditions and key organisational factors as well as a lack of compatibility between the tool's construction and users' needs and expectations. This article also discusses the general sociotechnical and organisational implications of these findings.

This multiple case study examines how the idea of using risk assessment tools is manifested and processed in Swedish social services. Based on the analysis of interviews with different stakeholders and of organizational documents in two social service organizations, we investigate the actors who control local risk assessment practices. The findings illustrate that a relatively small group of social workers in the organizations have been able to forward their claims and decide how risk assessment work should be carried out without much intrusion from local managers or politicians. The findings also validate other studies that found that increased standardization can strengthen social workers’ ability to perform their professional task rather than lead to de-professionalization. This article ends with a discussion of what risk assessment practices might mean for domestic violence victims.

No abstract

No abstract