Social Workers' Orientations toward the Evidence-based Practice Process: A Comparison with Psychologists and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists

Social Work ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. E. Parrish ◽  
A. Rubin
2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Ellen Patterson ◽  
Richard B. Miller ◽  
Stefanie Carnes ◽  
Shanna Wilson

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Gambrill

The manifest purpose of professional journals is to share important knowledge. Increasing revelations of flaws in the peer-reviewed literature shows that this purpose is often not honored and that inflated claims of knowledge as well as other concerns such as misrepresentations of disliked or misunderstood views are rife. In this article, avoidable misunderstandings of science and evidence-based practice (EBP) in publications in the British Journal of Social Work 2005–2016 are described as well as strategies used to forward misinformation. Such discourse misinforms rather than informs readers and decreases opportunities to accurately inform social workers about possibilities to help clients and to avoid harming them and to involve clients as informed participants. Those writing about avoidable ignorance highlight how it is used strategically, perhaps to neutralize what is viewed as dangerous knowledge—the process of EBP and science generally, which may threaten the status quo.


Author(s):  
Isabella Pistone ◽  
Allan Lidström ◽  
Ingemar Bohlin ◽  
Thomas Schneider ◽  
Teun Zuiderent-Jerak ◽  
...  

Background: Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.Aims and objectives: Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.Methods: Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.Findings: In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.Discussion and conclusions: Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Examining one case of disability care in Sweden, both social workers’ and clients’ experiences were included in EBP infrastructures.</li><br /><li>In this study, Swedish EBP infrastructures functioned more like fluid support than a straitjacket.</li><br /><li>Organisational structures that combine different knowledge sources at service providers can minimise the risk of epistemic injustice within social care.</li></ul>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document