Science and Social Work: Are They Compatible?

Abstract

This article was originally presented in 1995 as the keynote address of the National Conference of the Australian Association of Social Workers. The author analyzes some of the sources of resistance to accepting scientific methodology within social work, including political, philosophical, and quasi-religious ones. The strength of scientific methods, as opposed to other ways of knowing, includes their utility in proving that some "findings" are indeed false and their skeptical attitude toward new claims.

A History of Australian Social Work Practice Research

“…At the 1995 national conference of the AASW, participants debated the theme "Science and social work: Are they compatible?" In his keynote speech addressing this issue, Jim Barber (1996) outlined the reasons for resistance to the acceptance of the scientific method in social work and argued that social work practice not grounded in empirical evidence is akin to religious beliefs and consequently potentially damaging to clients. Responses at the time suggest that there continue to be many social workers for whom these ideas are unacceptable (e.g., Todd, 1995).…”

Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research

“…It may simply be that social workers did not have time to attend to researchers’ requests. Second, part of the explanation may lie in the well‐documented phenomenon of the rift, sometimes enmity, between social work practitioners and researchers (Epstein 1987; Barber 1996). Given that social worker veto accounted for a large proportion of the non‐response rate in the studies reported here, and that it has also been a problem in other studies, the reasons for denial of access at this level remain an important research question.…”

BSW students' perceptions of key competencies, values, and practitioner skills Implications for social work education

“…Specifically, it was anticipated that values and ethics, and personal qualitieselements which are acquired early in the professional socialisation of social workers -would be seen as more important than practitioner skills, with scientific skills viewed as least important. The relatively lesser valuation of scientific skills was predicted on the basis of polarised views in this country between the practice of social work as science versus art, and scepticism concerning the value of empirical, quantitative research skills to social work practice (for example, Barber 1996). valuations among practitioner skills, practitioner qualities, ethics and values, and scientific skills, it was expected that students would report differing skill levels with regard to each of these elements, mirroring expected differential valuations. With limited opportunity to incorporate applied theory and practitioner skills within an emerging practice framework, it was expected that self-assessments would be greatest for personal qualities and values As a consequence of differing expected and ethics, less for practitioner skills, and least for scientific skills.…”

“…An understanding of these results can be helped by bearing in mind two things. One is a apparent polarisation of opinion within departments of social work in Australia between perceptions of social work as an art that cannot be effectively researched, and antagonistic perceptions of social work as science (for example, Barber 1996). A further factor in the Australian context is the perceived independence of university-based research and field-based practice.…”

“…Many academics and practitioners have argued that empirical research is the only dependable basis of knowledge and that social work practice should be based on assessments and interventions that have been established to be effective through empirical findings (for example, Barber 1996;Faver, Fox, Hunter and Shannon 1986;Fraser, Taylor, Jackson and O'Jack 1991;Karger 1983;Thyer 1996). On the other hand, there has been a persistent voice among educators and practitioners challenging the appropriateness of this view (for example, Battye and Slee 1985;Epstein 1986).…”