Translating Research to Practice

Social work researchers perform systematic, scientific inquiries into problems that plague human beings. Their investigations address issues in practice, policy, or organization. Substantial time, effort, and money are expended to discover or revise facts, theories, and applications to enhance human well-being. Although research is important, it seldom exerts much influence on the daily choices of social work practitioners. When one looks for guidelines as to what is formally deemed essential in social work practice, the NASW Code of Ethics comes to mind. NASW's (2008) Code of Ethics strongly emphasizes the professional behavior and values of social workers--integrity, social .justice, human relationships, worth, and dignity--but is less emphatic about grounding practice in scientifically rigorous theory and methods. Though the utility of all social work hinges on the effectiveness of the methods practitioners bring to bear in the field, practitioners are also more likely to trust "practice wisdom" over evidence-based research when choosing among interventions. Implementing social work practices grounded in research has been the main theme of evidence-based practice (EBP) literature. This literature proposes two ways to overcome the research-practice disjuncture: Either find the best intervention that has a "seal of approval" and is "evidence-based," or use a process to find effective interventions (Rubin & Parrish, 2007). Either way, practitioners still seem very reluctant to implement research-based methods in their work. EBP attempts to better integrate research with social work practice and education. EBP is a process in which practitioners attempt to maximize the likelihood that their clients will receive the most effective interventions possible by engaging in the following five steps: 1) formulating an answerable question regarding practice needs 2) tracking down the best evidence available to answer that question 3) critically appraising the scientific validity and usefulness of the evidence 4) integrating the appraisal with one's clinical expertise and client values and circumstances and then applying it to practice decisions, and 5) evaluating outcome (with the use of single case design if feasible). (Rubin & Parrish, 2007, p. 207) A scale to assess practitioners' familiarity and attitudes of implementing the EBP process has been developed and validated (Rubin & Parrish, 2010). Although EBP is gaining acceptance in social work, the obstacles to EBP are still significant (Proctor & Rosen, 2008). Critics charge that the approach ignores clinical expertise and client values, is inconsistent with client empowerment, is questionable when applied across ethnic groups without having been critically examined, and assumes that practitioners have access to essential databases (Rubin & Parrish, 2007). Additional questions have arisen about cultural competency and the lack of fit of EBP in mental health care in ethnic communities (Aisenberg, 2008). Furthermore, opponents of EBP state that an intervention, no matter how effective, will not benefit a client if the practitioner lacks the necessary social work skills to "join" with the client in building a therapeutic, working relationship, beginning where the client is, adhering to social work values and ethics; and using a set of social work skills that are uniquely tailored to the individual, family, or group being served. In other words, social work is as much an art as a science. Seasoned social work practitioners develop a highly refined set of skills that they can draw on to assist clients, and this skill set is embedded in the client-practitioner relationship. Attempting to apply a "scientific formula" to human relationships and the helping process is equivalent to heresy. Unfortunately, these arguments lack merit. EBP does not negate the importance of practice skills or eliminate the need for establishing a solid working relationship with the client. …