Chewing on Cardboard and Other Pleasures of Knowledge Utilization

A recent letter to NASW Press stated that reading Social Work is like "chewing on card board." Despite the obvious negative evaluation, I was delighted to receive this letter. As I indicated in my first editorial, I have two goals as editor-in-chief of Social Work: (1) to increase the level of interaction of the readership with the journal, and (2) to enhance the utility of the articles. Clearly, the expanded Letters to the Editor section in this issue along with the cardboard analogy represent an increase in level (and candor!) of communication. In this month's editorial, I seek to make progress on the goals of increasing communication and increasing the utility of articles by asking you, the reader, to define the types of knowledge you find most useful. In the interest of improving the relevance and utility of the journal (and more generally, of serving the profession), I urge you to take a few moments to complete the survey at the end of this editorial and send your responses back to NASW Press. As you complete the survey, it may be helpful to reflect on what we know about knowledge utilization in professions. The knowledge base of a profession--that is, the theories and evidence used in the completion of professional tasks--is fundamental to defining and legitimizing a profession and distinguishing one profession from another (Marsh, 2003). There is, nonetheless, a concern shared by all professions that our rapidly expanding knowledge base is inadequately influencing practice decisions. Researchers complain that practitioners do not use the knowledge they generate, and practitioners complain that the knowledge tastes like cardboard. Clearly, we need to better understand the process of knowledge utilization. What do we know so far about knowledge utilization? Judging by some letters I have received as editor, the usefulness of knowledge for some social workers increases when the author or source of the article is a social worker. This is consistent with research showing that consumers "consider the source" when judging the usefulness of knowledge. Furthermore, we know that relational knowledge--that is, knowledge gained directly from a trusted colleague in a conversation, consultation, or workshop, especially when this colleague is a social worker--is considered more useful than knowledge gained from written sources (Marsh, 2003). In addition to considering the source of knowledge, social workers identify at least three roles relevant to knowledge utilization: (1) the role of consuming the research of others; (2) the role of evaluating their own interventions for purposes of ethical practice and accountability; and (3) the role of the researcher--practitioner who conducts research and reports the results to the broader research and practice community. Barlow, Hayes, and Nelson (1984) identified the research consumer role as the most basic manifestation of empirical clinical practice. Research consumerism consists of several steps, including the search for relevant empirical literature, the critical appraisal of the scientific and practical relevance of the research, and the decision about whether and how to apply the research. The practice evaluation role is specifically prescribed for social workers in the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and in the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council on Social Work Education. …