The Delphi method is a pragmatic research method created in the 1950s by researchers at the RAND Corporation for use in policy making, organizational decision making, and to inform direct practices. While the Delphi method has been regularly utilized in mixed methods studies, far fewer studies have been completed using the Delphi method for qualitative research. Despite the utility of the Delphi method in social science research, little guidance is provided for using the Delphi in the context of theory building, in primarily qualitative studies, and in the context of community-engaged research (CER). This article will emphasize new and modest innovations in the Delphi method for improving the overall rigor of the method in theory building and CER.

Discussion continues within the literature on the precise definition of resilience, particularly as to whether resilience is best understood as a cognitive set or by external protective factors. To advance theory on the psychological dimensions of resilience, this study sought to explore the relationship between the latent variables of perceived control and hope, both thought to be cognitive sets associated with resilience. The study involved a cross sectional sample (N ϭ 125) of survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) receiving services from an emergency IPV shelter. The study used a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) followed by a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) to explore the relationship between locus of control (Levenson, 1973a) to hope (Synder et al., 1991). The PCA recovered 4 unique components, consisting of (a) hope; (b) internal locus of control; (c) powerful others locus of control; and (d) chance locus of control. The subsequent PLS-SEM path analysis using the recovered components indicated internal and powerful others locus of control were both significantly and positively associated with hope. The results suggest the need for future research to explore the relationships between the cognitive sets locus of control and hope, both thought to be important drivers of resilience among IPV survivors.

No abstract

The social work profession has often been portrayed as a progressive, critical and even radical movement for social justice and social change (Wagner, 1990; Reisch, 2013). This article analyses the basis of these claims and critiques the labelling of social work as radical, utilising a philosophy-of-science lens and critical theories and perspectives to interrogate the professionalisation of social work, the current knowledge base and practices, and the history of social work. The final analysis finds that social work is not a radical profession due to the influence of neoliberal values and social forces that promote the status quo. Implications point to a need to move beyond the myth of the radical profession and towards realistic ways that social work could reposition itself as a progressive profession.

Although community organizing has historic and current roots as a mode of practice, characterized by people coming together to collectively address unmet needs and/or challenge inequality, neoliberal trends beginning to form in the 1980s have negatively impacted community organizing. Neoliberal values, which promote individualism, capitalism, the existence of welfare states, and reform from solely within the system are concerning to the future of community practice. This article provides a critique and analysis of the impact of neoliberalism on community organizing in three areas: The influence of evidence-based practice on dictating how community organizers practice, a lack of focus on social movements in community organizing, and the professionalization of community organizing, which marginalizes nonprofessionals engaged in community organizing. This article exposes potential problems arising from within community organizing as a result of neoliberalism. In order to uncover and analyze the major effects of neoliberalism, we propose a theoretical framework that combines critical theory and Foucault’s work on social control. We end the analysis by providing recommendations for practitioners of community organizing as well as for educators teaching about community organizing.