Who Knows?

An aspect of proposing a definition of a science of social work is defining the domains that it should or could address. Critical realism calls for examining and critiquing the social arrangements that frame our science and our knowledge. Like social work itself, it aspires to be an emancipatory project. The concept of embodiment from philosophy of mind is introduced; it suggests that a mind, whether the same or different from a brain, is embedded in the organism, the social world, the cultural world that includes the historical, and the ecological world. This framework has implications for understanding how we know and what we need to know. Embodiment is a concept that can be used in defining the scope and concerns of social work science.

Science and Identity in Social Work

This chapter offers a definition of science that encompasses the interacting elements of theory, prediction, observation, and testing. The chapter also discusses disciplines and professions and their boundaries, capitalizing on the work of Abbott and Jacobs on interdisciplinarity. Disciplines are essential for science and learning, and interdisciplinarity is sometimes crucial to solving vexing problems in science—but “inter-” or “trans-” disciplinary work is only viable in the context of disciplines and disciplinary identity. A crucial linking construct in social work science is technology, which is the application of scientific knowledge to human life. In terms of identity, social work science has a dual focus on scientific understanding as well as on using and developing methods (technologies) for human behavior change on multiple levels. In many areas of society, the existence of scientific disciplines that merge with professions forms the nexus of understanding and technology for solving “problems in living.”

The Science of Social Work Roundtables

This chapter has three aims. The first is to familiarize readers with the general tenor, proceedings, and discussions at the five “Science in Social Work” roundtables that took place between 2012 and 2016. A key role of these roundtables was to engage in further dialogue that was, in part, sparked by John Brekke’s provocative Aaron Rosen lecture and initial responses to his lecture that were formally presented at the International Invitational Conference on Social Work Education. This summary draws on both published manuscripts and unpublished presentations associated with roundtable activities. It also provides a synthesis of key convergence points that emerged from these discussions. Finally, it situates the roundtable discussions within long-standing debates that have evolved over time concerning the role and status of social work research and knowledge development. This summary and synthesis provides a general frame to structure the chapters included in this volume.

Rigor and Relevance in Social Work Science

Rigor and relevance are essential features of social work science. However, they are often misperceived as being in opposition to one another. Conducting social work research that is both rigorous and relevant requires changes in traditional perspectives, priorities, and practices. The chapter begins with a discussion of the definition and standards of rigor as practiced by scientists and of relevance as practiced by practitioners and policymakers. It then illustrates differences in priorities assigned to rigor and relevance when deciding the extent to which evidence-based practices should be implemented with fidelity or adapted to meet the needs of specific populations, agencies, and contexts, and suggests solutions for accommodating both priorities. The chapter then examines the challenges that must be addressed in bringing rigor and relevance together and how these challenges can be addressed through accommodation and negotiation.

Theory in Social Work Science

This chapter argues that it is time to (re)invest in the theoretical as well as methodological and analytic foundations of social work science and in the theoretical preparedness of social work scientists. Such (re)investment should, however, be based in clearly articulated understandings as to what constitutes a robust theoretical foundation for 21st-century social work science. Also needed is careful analysis and reflection regarding what theories the field typically relies on, the form these take, and where and how they are deployed. To this end, this chapter has three primary components. First, it makes an argument for the necessity of theory in social work science as an essential ingredient in transformative science. Second, it provides an overview of the various forms theory takes in the scientific enterprise. Third, it offers some perspectives on opportunities for a more robust approach to the theoretical preparation of social work scientists.

The Realist Frame

Any definition of social work science must make its philosophy of science manifest. While not the only ones in social work to espouse realism, especially critical realism, the IslandWood Group used key ideas from this school of thought to guide many discussions. The main tenets of scientific realism are described followed by a description of some key features of critical realism. Basic tenets of the realisms include the existence of a mind-independent reality, the existence of the unseen, upward and downward causation, stratified reality, emergence, the embrace of multiple methodologies, and the importance of theory in science. This epistemological and ontological stance differs from positivist and behaviorist approaches. The chapter concludes with a summary of other frameworks—pragmatism, constructionism, and critical theories—that are also relevant to a science of social work.

Conclusions and Commencements

As Brekke (2012) has noted from the beginning, the nature, aims and domains of social work science need more explicit description in order to stake out intellectual, institutional, and identity spaces for social work’s scientific activities and the support of them. This final chapter summarizes some key points about a science of social work made in the preceeding chapters. The topics include epistemology, ontology, values, theory, doctoral education in social work, and possibilities for social work practice research. There is further discussion of the implications of this work for social work education and social work practice. It ends with a plea for crafting additional opportunities to think and talk in a sustained way about issues that are key to the profession and its future like the ones the IslandWood group has enjoyed for the purpose of framing a science of social work.

Tools and Training to Support Social Work as an Integrative Science

This chapter aims to strengthen social work research training responsive to contemporary forms and expectations of science—in short, to prepare social work researchers for effectiveness “at the tables” of this work. It first describes national trends that increasingly expect science to be cross-disciplinary, multilevel, translational, and community engaged. Following this is explication of T-shaped training approaches that include a solid core of social work expertise, priorities, and identity. This is integrated with boundary-spanning skills and meta-competencies germane to advancing social work collaborative and communication roles. Recommendations are provided for doctoral-level research training, including specification of key meta-competencies. These aims are not solely a doctoral training issue but rather require efforts across school, university, and disciplinary levels to market and sustain social work as a robust collaborative, integrative science.

Science and Social Work Practice

Two major developments in the field of social work underscore the role of practice as an important bridge between scholarship and service delivery and as an active strategy for learning, improving outcomes, and advancing the discipline/profession. These include the recalibration of the practitioner–client relationship and the implementation of evidence-based practices. Both of these developments elevate interest in practice strategies, such as relational approaches to care and shared decision-making, that prioritize and privilege client characteristics, needs, values, and preferences along with practitioner expertise. This chapter examines these phenomena including the concept of the client–provider relationship as a central construct in social work practice. It discusses examples of research in these two areas and advocates for a scientific practice where client needs and preferences are a central concern and where the practitioner–client relationship becomes an essential focus of study.

Values-Informed Research and Research-Informed Values

While social work must be evaluative in relation to its diverse areas of practice and research (i.e., values-informed research), the purpose of this chapter is to propose that values are within the scope of research and therefore research on practice should make values a legitimate object of investigation (i.e., research-informed values). In this chapter the fact/value debate in social work research is considered by offering reflection on the history and philosophy of this debate and by offering summary thoughts on how social work must engage with normativity (i.e., the ought, what matters most to people, and how the world and people matter) so the debate moves beyond mere questions about the relevance of values to the questions asked, the methodologies used, the theories promoted, the interventions supported, engagements with many and diverse publics, and the investigation of values as causes.