Innovation and the Practice of Social Work Research

Each day he made attempts … but produced nothing but quotations, thinly or well disguised, of his own work. Nothing sprang free of its own idiom, its own authority, to offer the element of surprise that would be the guarantee of originality (McEwan, 1998, p. 61). In the past several years, the sound of the call for ‘innovations’ in social work research has amplified. This call has been accompanied by demands for more rigorous and meaningful social work research. Specifically, it has included pleas for research that produces more faithful representations of the lived experiences of service users (Clough et al., 2007; Dunlop and Fawcett, 2008; Hearn et al., 2004), has genuine relevance to contemporary practice contexts and the work of practitioners (Bellinger, 2010; Fook, 2004; White and Riemann, 2010) and creates forms of knowledge that propel social work practice and education forward in creative and transformative ways (Chambon, 2008; Ferguson, 2010; Phillips and Bellinger, 2010; Shaw and Norton, 2008). Such calls are not necessarily for something previously unknown. For example, there has been a welcome recent recognition in the UK that social work research needs greater skill and expertise in delivering quantitative research in general and outcomes/intervention research in particular. Once achieved, this would resonate with the period in the 1960s and 1970s when social work research was led by experimental and quasi-experimental projects that held the intellectual floor long before the call for evidence-based practice became commonplace (Shaw, 2008). These demands are, of course, not mutually exclusive, but rather demonstrate that research takes place in wider social and political environments. Social work practice is part of a wider set of shifts—geopolitical, cultural, economic and intellectual—and the need for social work research to address the effects of these on service users, social workers and social work students and educators is fundamental. It is no coincidence that the call for innovations has become of interest to social work researchers as they explore how methods and approaches are impacted upon by these shifts and seek to offer a moral response in keeping with core social work values of inclusivity, social justice and the upholding of human rights. Methodological choices, indeed all aspects of research practices, are not innocent and can rupture or contribute to the negative effects of societal changes. In addition to public expectations that innovative solutions should be found for problems of health and welfare, there have been several recent developments in academic literature that we have found stimulating. These include some aspects of performative ethnography in the social sciences located, for example, in the International Review of Qualitative Research; spatial methods in social and medical sciences (e.g. Popay et al., 2003); developments in modelling aspects of intervention research (Fraser et al., 2009); research methods for hidden populations (e.g. Bloor, 2005); humanities applications in medical research (Bingley and Milligan, 2007; Mallinson et al., 2003); and cross-discipline fertilisation, such as mapping methods carried over from social geography to sociology (Gatrell et al., 2004; Marshall and Rush, 2007). On the last, for example, the May 2010 issue of Qualitative Researcher was devoted to articles illustrating applications of ‘mobile methods’ (www.wiserd.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/QR_Issue12_May10.pdf). It included articles on the use of roving focus groups, ‘toy tours’ (reflections on walking while talking with children at home) and children's descriptions of their travel to school. Geographic perspectives have also been applied to develop the fruitful idea of therapeutic landscapes (e.g. Milligan et al., 2004; Williams, 2007), whilst Martin's (2007) delightful paper on ‘Crossing the line’ connects to the ecological research heritage dating from human ecology research in 1920s Chicago. We open this Special Issue by considering ways in which ‘innovation’ is currently framed. We do not presume that innovatory research will ‘naturally’ be progressive, or a change for the better. As Edmund Burke remarked, ‘to innovate is not to reform’! (Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 2000) Certainly, we must not fall into an uncritical romanticisation of any research practice because of its novelty or technological prowess. Indeed, some of the authors in this issue provide critical appraisals of their chosen innovations. We are aware that, when research is assessed by public bodies, ‘excellence in innovation’ is often dominated by formal criteria and metrics, or desire for impact measures (Blyth et al., 2010). It is for this reason that we open our paper by discussing ‘innovation’ in the agenda of funding bodies because they make apparent that intellectual production is culturally constitutive and therefore invites problematisation. Funding bodies and, in turn, academic institutions operate as cultural brokers of social work's identity. Following reflections on research innovation in this wider framework, we offer some thoughts on how we may draw conclusions regarding innovatory research practices in social work, highlighting the ideas of innovation that were chosen for this issue. Our research practices are performative, pedagogical, and political. Through our writing and our talk, we can enact the worlds we study. These performances are messy and pedagogical. They instruct our readers about this world and how we see it (Denzin, 2006, p. 422). Denzin (2003, 2010) argues in this paper and others that research practices are an exercise of all academic disciplines in which empirical work is a central activity. They texture and colour the work, developments and contributions of any discipline to society, whilst also constituting the very ‘nature’ of the discipline. The call for innovations has been a public call by academics, service users, agencies and most definitively by funding bodies requiring articulated information about innovatory contributions. It is not a new preoccupation. The term can mean ‘to make changes in something established’, to alter and renew, and has even been used in the context of revolution (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Anticipating aspects of this second sense, Francis Bacon (writing On Innovation) observed ‘He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils’, although he acknowledged that ‘as the births of living creatures at first are ill-shapen, so are all innovations, which are the births of time’. Indeed, the shifts mentioned earlier and the international transfer and application of social work research and practice modalities have contributed to innovations in research practices. Research endeavours have been seen not just as an activity aimed at finding out facts about services and service users, but as a method of producing and developing the potential for social work practice in a variable and changing global context (Chambon, 2007; Bellinger, 2010; McDonald, 2006; Witkin and Harrison, 2001; Shaw et al., 2010). The major funder of academic social science research in the UK, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), aspires to support research that is innovative and interdisciplinary and will have impact—three ‘Is’. On what is meant by innovative research, the ESRC addresses the question in the following way, and with a prefacing statement that links innovation and research impact: The Council is keen to support research which is ambitious (but clearly specified) and has the potential for high scientific impact and/or high user impact. It also recognizes that such research may carry a higher than normal risk of failing to deliver the full range of expected research. Such research is likely to include one or more of the following characteristics: Research which is using innovative or even untested methods within the context of the particular project. Research which is attempting to develop or to test and apply new theory. Researchers without a proven track record in the area of the proposed research although they may have a strong track record in other areas. Research which is complex in terms of its management and delivery because of its size or the dispersal of the research team/fieldwork. Research which is investigating a potentially controversial or sensitive topic. Research which involves multiple or unusual disciplinary combinations both within and beyond the social sciences. Research where accessing or creating data or accessing research participants or other related research material could be highly problematic. Research which challenges existing paradigms in respect of research ethics (ESRC, 2010). The statement is interesting on several counts. Unsurprisingly, it includes innovations in methods and theory, and suggests the significance of unusual disciplinary combinations. Perhaps more surprisingly, it includes problematic research access, controversial or sensitive research topics, and challenges to existing positions on research ethics. An implicit acknowledgement by the ESRC is that innovative research has a higher-than-normal risk of adverse challenges, including being unable to deliver the full range of expected research outputs. In this sense, there is a tension between innovation and impact. Research may be innovative yet thereby less likely to have impact. The ESRC statement also includes reference to ‘research which is complex in terms of its management and delivery because of its size or the dispersal of the research team/fieldwork’. Xenitidou and Gilbert (2009) sought to identify methodological innovations outside the UK. They acknowledge that defining ‘innovation’ within social science research methods is not obvious. Nonetheless, they identified innovative research practice as: … those that have not yet filtered through to typical research methods courses or that impact on the research process in ways which are novel (inventions) or different to existing ones (Xenitidou and Gilbert, 2009, p. 6). Through the work of their project, Xenitidou and Gilbert develop a more nuanced definition of innovation that locates methodological developments and innovations in three areas that are informed by: Xenitidou and Gilbert brought their own considered definition of research innovation to their review. Taking a different approach, Wiles, Pain and Crow (2009) conducted a narrative review of qualitative research published between 2000 and 2009 in which authors made claims to methodological innovation. Their study found little evidence of paradigmatic developments within qualitative research methods, and conclude that the majority of the innovations involved the altering of existing methodological traditions. ‘More significant innovation’ involved ‘transferring and adapting methods from other disciplines’ (Wiles et al., 2009, p. 22). Indeed, both projects identify cross-disciplinarity as a feature of innovation; however, what is intriguing is that their studies appear to be ‘fishing in different pools’. There is almost no duplication between the studies judged to be innovative by Xenitidou and Gilbert and those claimed to be innovative by the authors in Wiles et al.'s study. While this can be explained in part by the fact that the population of journal articles varied between the two studies, the stark difference in the identified studies does suggest the ambiguity and, we suspect, rhetorical nature of innovation claims in social research. technological innovations that include visual, digital or online approaches; inter-disciplinarity that is composed of ‘crossing disciplinary boundaries’; intra-disciplinary or intra-methodological extensions, in the application and mixing of theoretical approaches and methods. It may be helpful to consider parallels between research innovation and policy innovation. For example, a comparison of two large-scale national evaluations in UK children's services (Shaw et al., 2009) suggests that the management requirements of introducing substantial policy innovations probably shed light on research practice innovations in larger research projects. They include clarity in explaining the rationale, good IT, training and support for researchers, and a businesslike but responsive research management. There is perhaps a tendency for established research teams and units to acquire an unduly routinised set of practices and preferences that militate against innovation for the better. Second, innovations in either research or policy may come to be seen as either a new for work or as a of new knowledge and innovations that where knowledge workers are the of service delivery are likely to substantial and challenges to the social of the and their for et al., p. this is so for policy it may also be for and developing research method innovation. and following the it is to be to for in This to different ways of research and aspects of to for the and we the to on the as an to a research and to therefore the nature of that This the of of research innovations, and also the potential of considering what has been about Taking this It is within that … the of and become an part of the the information is than that in the and than that in a to with and a likely to and innovation p. idea about to innovation in research practices may be unduly the idea of a wider for research practices has not been on funding bodies in to impact. For example, whilst on technological the for research funding of the innovation within a that is a process that with the of knowledge in research and through its to for 2009, p. is interesting about this definition is the between innovation and the of and for ‘innovation’ within social is what has Social forward as critical of innovation’ et al., 2009, p. and one that are in While there is no on a definition of there is that it is no within the of the or The Social and Research Council major funder of social work research in social innovation as one of the measures of knowledge out at the of the Research found that there is a of of social innovation. In the … a of for and with and for into different and of and other The of in involved in social innovation for new and knowledge transfer et al., 2009, p. The for Social at clearly innovation as a process and a et al., with ideas of novelty and to social … a novel to a social that is more … and for which the to as a rather than social innovation can be a production or … but it can also be a an a of a social an or some of et al., p. In the this Special there has been an range of disciplinary practices being into social work research. Researchers have the use and an of methodological approaches in the of social work practice and and the that we in the this has included approaches (e.g. 2010; and (e.g. 2007; et al., 2006; 2007), and methods (e.g. et al., 2006; 2007; and approaches (e.g. 2007; and 2007; et al., application of quantitative (e.g. 2004; and approaches (e.g. and and evidence-based methods by health research (e.g. 2006; is innovative about of these methodological applications is not the method but the not potential for social work in to In a recent aimed to the of social work research, and clearly research and the potential for social work knowledge within a context of innovation. They for a and intra-disciplinary … research … have to be and draw on different includes that can be not from the of studies by different disciplines and with different but also from methodological approaches by these disciplines and with other disciplines and challenges but also for methodological innovation and et al., and also innovation and on a global that there is for social work in the of and research that use and perspectives to new knowledge and innovative on national and p. 6). argues that of this when are in that and argues that these from such research approaches as they rupture previously seen as creating for social work. Indeed, these of as social practice innovation and p. The of or research teams or more research are in social work. We have found no of the nature of social work research to in the areas of research and research and 2010; 2010; et al., in 2010). In some of research or of (e.g. are also often to be of innovation In social work research, have often been about in terms of practice such as or rather than research. we that research innovation may be more likely to when there is a and of a a of and creative researchers, and a of intellectual and experimental There are, of course, social and political for research innovation. On a very of the authors in this issue to the in and innovative In a sense, the in which research are and produced can that innovation whilst research practices. the of the and social work research is not to The of the world may well see such as and other such as as economic that become significant in how the out in social work research. Indeed, at the of there is in the UK that the for will to a from and funding to larger on research have been that this would make research innovation less likely 2010). Our is that there is a tendency to the significance of some research, conducted as which within the normal of academic work. It is not to the of innovative work in research of this although some of the very work would fall in this on Social as an is a of innovation and one that used a that, at the at was found in social work research research the global of social and and may challenges to our research practices, and national and international as to what call for research innovation. In the terms of reference for this issue of the of Social we set out terms of reference that carried implicit about innovation. were for articles within the following We on a of to As as we could the three general for claims to innovation. with we should perhaps have more on the because they are not to but rather to that or are likely to make innovation more or less criteria are in the ESRC in the to problematic research access, controversial or sensitive research topics, and challenges to existing positions on research ethics. and paper in this issue this in to their research They conclude that the and used to innovative research methods innovative approaches and approaches methods the social or ways of methods in social work research, with an on the practice of social work innovations in social work research and how they make a difference for social work practice and service the application of research methods and approaches by those from other disciplines and those using other disciplinary practices both within and beyond the social which have relevance to the practice of social work research. The claims to methodological innovation in this issue technological methods, as well as a use of methods to social work. of the articles evidence more than one of these innovations. to all is a of the contemporary nature of social work practice of need for social work to address of human and in social work practice environments. As Denzin has finding the methodological to address social justice must be a of innovations and an of the to variable the need for As would have the in this issue can be within the following and and practices. The and to and these more suggest that innovations in social work research will be and for some There has been recent interest in methods in social work research, but this the that research will be the greater the of different methods There are a of articles in this issue that will of this and clearly the of as rather than on a that more will research. and in their material of social The practice of the work with a of material and to the and in a and in theoretical choices, they the complex that evidence social work as a cultural and political activity. Their paper the of innovative methods in the that in In the change in health practices through critical an of critical and critical research to the potential for social work research to social justice in social work the significance of research practices in which social service users and service become As part of his research with to a that to changes. and in their for ways to the challenges of and draw on conclusions from a of research on and practice As they they set out theoretical on which they a that a quantitative method with qualitative methods and within the of theory. Their are set Their and are also They work to social and social work practice theory, and to a range of research methods that they will the worlds of and ideas in and in their and approaches to social work to projects in the and They a of research that for a more nuanced of and the of in these Their is an of how innovative methods have potential in to social work We at the of this how from social geography are and appear to transfer to social work research and In an innovative social and in their are The potential of as a research for social demonstrate the for change and, in turn, social work education and within the of social work practice in the and and meaningful practices that can support education and and in their to change in children's social also seek to and do so by an innovative method that data about a complex social particular of their is the in which they in greater on what has been a of between methods and knowledge As a they the for on work in the for practice and the and of social Through new and previously they a that a into Their were in a process of knowledge and also an innovation that from in their innovative research using for and They a and that is highly and through digital to research in Such an to the of a of how intervention knowledge is and the relevance of qualitative methods for and research that claims to being the in some of the world that qualitative the in this Special Issue are a of how research practices can that we do not of a that we need in the of the core social work values of inclusivity, social justice and human rights. We that the chosen for this issue will practice and research ideas and an for and work. We have in a in our own work to new this be through methods and qualitative methods for social work practice (Shaw, or ideas about the between the different of social work research (Shaw and in We that research innovation will be more as it knowledge and is through both and the of existing and new social work by and an with the social science and for and