why social work research is important

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

BuckeyeLink
Find People
Search Ohio State

So why is research important to social work?

As social workers, we train to be able to see the multitude of invisible lines within the systems that hold our lives together, or divide us. We learn to recognize the disconnects, and to help our clients figure out how to reconnect the dots. We view the world through a lens of person-in-environment, that is to say, we seek to understand the context in which our clients live.

The social sciences have an inherent obligation not only to keep abreast of current relevant research, but also to be competent enough to apply new treatments and insights within their practice. Social workers are truly dedicated professionals who have to complete a minimum number of continuing education credits to continue practicing. We don’t get to pick and choose the individuals we help, which is why we have to constantly develop our cultural competencies to identify the strengths of those we are helping. So, research is important to social work because it helps us be effective!

According to the NASW, research in social work helps us:

Assess the needs and resources of people in their environments
Evaluate the effectiveness of social work services in meeting peoples needs
Demonstrate relative costs and benefits of social work services
Advance professional education in light of changing contexts for practice
Understand the impact of legislation and social policy on the clients and communities we serve (Retrieved from http://www.socialworkpolicy.org/research)

I still do not know what my research question will be for my senior thesis, but I am beginning to pare down some topics that interest me such as:

Effects of childhood trauma
The school-to-prison pipeline
Trauma-informed therapies within prisons
Effectiveness of prison diversion programs

8 thoughts on “ So why is research important to social work? ”

try explaining in detail

article quite informing for an amateur in research

In doing any of interventions;evidence based is needed. Not intuition,you need to do assessment of the problem before intervention.Then again you need to to evaluation on the service you provided if has positive impact to your client.

It is a very informative piece of work

try explaining in detail the points listed as to where the nexus between Research and Social work lie

are there means to conduct dual research projects with your institutions?

Akulu muziika zithu zonse ap tisamachiteso kuvutika iyayi 😏😏

CCleaner (Crap Cleaner) yasir252 is a freeware system optimization, privacy, and cleaning tool. It removes unused files from your system allowing Windows

Focusing on what matters - research and evidence in social work

Published: 15 November 2018

Since I took up the post of the Chief Social Worker for Adults in England, one of my enduring priorities has been to encourage the development and use of research and evidence to inform social work practice and improve life outcomes for the people we serve.

Understanding which approaches and interventions work best and gathering the evidence to support them is essential. Why must we do this? To sustain and improve social work as part of the wider social care and health offer. This is how we will continue to deliver high quality care and support, centred on people's strengths, needs and aspirations.

For social workers and other social care professionals, having access to quality research and evidence is increasingly important. It supports decision making and challenges ingrained thinking and ways of working that are often taken for granted.

I am really pleased that the NIHR is helping raise the profile, and investing in social care and social work research.

The social care sector must be recognised and valued for the difference it makes to people’s lives and be put on an equal footing with health. Only then can we ensure the whole system really does achieve integrated outcomes for people, making the best use of all available approaches and resources.

The sector itself is recognising this imperative. The Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) which underpins all social workers’ professional development has been updated to include greater reference to the importance of research and evidence-informed practice.

However, for people in contact with social care services, decisions made about which areas to research can often seem remote and disconnected from the reality of their lives and the things that matter to them.

That is why I am so pleased to welcome the publication of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) report setting out the priorities for adult social work research.

Developed using their tried and tested methods, this is the first time anywhere in the world that this kind of research prioritisation has happened for adult social work and the first time the JLA approach has been used in a non-health related area.

Their approach is unique in fully involving people who use services, their carers and practitioners in identifying the questions that social work research should answer. Over 1150 people were involved in narrowing the field to a final top 10 , which covers a diverse range of issues and themes for adult social work.

This report is a critical first step in helping us to make sure that future research answers the questions that are important, both to social workers and to those who are - or have been - in contact with them. I would ask all of you to read and share this report and to consider developing the research capability in your organisations and partnerships. More than that, I want you to encourage people and their carers, social workers and academics, to come together to shape and use research to make a real difference to people’s lives.

I look forward to working with you as we start the process of turning these questions into research. This is our opportunity to transform the quality of social work practice and social care support for the many individuals and families we strive to help.

This blog was originally published on Lyn Romeo's blog on gov.uk .
The NIHR is running a campaign to raise awareness of social care and social work research. Find out more on the NIHR website .

Extending the Shared Commitment through digital engagement

How the Vaccine Innovation Pathway is advancing vaccine clinical trials

How Wikipedia can help to disseminate research: an innovative NIHR project

How NIHR funding helps accelerate AI research, boost careers & improve health outcomes

How we can support research careers for health and social care professionals

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

A social worker surveys a community member.

Social workers advocate for the well-being of individuals, families and communities. But how do social workers know what interventions are needed to help an individual? How do they assess whether a treatment plan is working? What do social workers use to write evidence-based policy?

Social work involves research-informed practice and practice-informed research. At every level, social workers need to know objective facts about the populations they serve, the efficacy of their interventions and the likelihood that their policies will improve lives. A variety of social work research methods make that possible.

Data-Driven Work

Data is a collection of facts used for reference and analysis. In a field as broad as social work, data comes in many forms.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

As with any research, social work research involves both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Quantitative Research

Answers to questions like these can help social workers know about the populations they serve — or hope to serve in the future.

How many students currently receive reduced-price school lunches in the local school district?
How many hours per week does a specific individual consume digital media?
How frequently did community members access a specific medical service last year?

Quantitative data — facts that can be measured and expressed numerically — are crucial for social work.

Quantitative research has advantages for social scientists. Such research can be more generalizable to large populations, as it uses specific sampling methods and lends itself to large datasets. It can provide important descriptive statistics about a specific population. Furthermore, by operationalizing variables, it can help social workers easily compare similar datasets with one another.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative data — facts that cannot be measured or expressed in terms of mere numbers or counts — offer rich insights into individuals, groups and societies. It can be collected via interviews and observations.

What attitudes do students have toward the reduced-price school lunch program?
What strategies do individuals use to moderate their weekly digital media consumption?
What factors made community members more or less likely to access a specific medical service last year?

Qualitative research can thereby provide a textured view of social contexts and systems that may not have been possible with quantitative methods. Plus, it may even suggest new lines of inquiry for social work research.

Mixed Methods Research

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study is known as mixed methods research. This form of research has gained popularity in the study of social sciences, according to a 2019 report in the academic journal Theory and Society. Since quantitative and qualitative methods answer different questions, merging them into a single study can balance the limitations of each and potentially produce more in-depth findings.

However, mixed methods research is not without its drawbacks. Combining research methods increases the complexity of a study and generally requires a higher level of expertise to collect, analyze and interpret the data. It also requires a greater level of effort, time and often money.

The Importance of Research Design

Data-driven practice plays an essential role in social work. Unlike philanthropists and altruistic volunteers, social workers are obligated to operate from a scientific knowledge base.

To know whether their programs are effective, social workers must conduct research to determine results, aggregate those results into comprehensible data, analyze and interpret their findings, and use evidence to justify next steps.

Employing the proper design ensures that any evidence obtained during research enables social workers to reliably answer their research questions.

Research Methods in Social Work

The various social work research methods have specific benefits and limitations determined by context. Common research methods include surveys, program evaluations, needs assessments, randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies and single-system designs.

Surveys involve a hypothesis and a series of questions in order to test that hypothesis. Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends.

Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable. However, surveys generally require large participant groups, and self-reports from survey respondents are not always reliable.

Program Evaluations

Social workers ally with all sorts of programs: after-school programs, government initiatives, nonprofit projects and private programs, for example.

Crucially, social workers must evaluate a program’s effectiveness in order to determine whether the program is meeting its goals and what improvements can be made to better serve the program’s target population.

Evidence-based programming helps everyone save money and time, and comparing programs with one another can help social workers make decisions about how to structure new initiatives. Evaluating programs becomes complicated, however, when programs have multiple goal metrics, some of which may be vague or difficult to assess (e.g., “we aim to promote the well-being of our community”).

Needs Assessments

Social workers use needs assessments to identify services and necessities that a population lacks access to.

Common social work populations that researchers may perform needs assessments on include:

People in a specific income group
Everyone in a specific geographic region
A specific ethnic group
People in a specific age group

In the field, a social worker may use a combination of methods (e.g., surveys and descriptive studies) to learn more about a specific population or program. Social workers look for gaps between the actual context and a population’s or individual’s “wants” or desires.

For example, a social worker could conduct a needs assessment with an individual with cancer trying to navigate the complex medical-industrial system. The social worker may ask the client questions about the number of hours they spend scheduling doctor’s appointments, commuting and managing their many medications. After learning more about the specific client needs, the social worker can identify opportunities for improvements in an updated care plan.

In policy and program development, social workers conduct needs assessments to determine where and how to effect change on a much larger scale. Integral to social work at all levels, needs assessments reveal crucial information about a population’s needs to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Needs assessments may fall short, however, in revealing the root causes of those needs (e.g., structural racism).

Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials are studies in which a randomly selected group is subjected to a variable (e.g., a specific stimulus or treatment) and a control group is not. Social workers then measure and compare the results of the randomized group with the control group in order to glean insights about the effectiveness of a particular intervention or treatment.

Randomized controlled trials are easily reproducible and highly measurable. They’re useful when results are easily quantifiable. However, this method is less helpful when results are not easily quantifiable (i.e., when rich data such as narratives and on-the-ground observations are needed).

Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies immerse the researcher in another context or culture to study specific participant practices or ways of living. Descriptive studies, including descriptive ethnographic studies, may overlap with and include other research methods:

Informant interviews
Census data
Observation

By using descriptive studies, researchers may glean a richer, deeper understanding of a nuanced culture or group on-site. The main limitations of this research method are that it tends to be time-consuming and expensive.

Single-System Designs

Unlike most medical studies, which involve testing a drug or treatment on two groups — an experimental group that receives the drug/treatment and a control group that does not — single-system designs allow researchers to study just one group (e.g., an individual or family).

Single-system designs typically entail studying a single group over a long period of time and may involve assessing the group’s response to multiple variables.

For example, consider a study on how media consumption affects a person’s mood. One way to test a hypothesis that consuming media correlates with low mood would be to observe two groups: a control group (no media) and an experimental group (two hours of media per day). When employing a single-system design, however, researchers would observe a single participant as they watch two hours of media per day for one week and then four hours per day of media the next week.

These designs allow researchers to test multiple variables over a longer period of time. However, similar to descriptive studies, single-system designs can be fairly time-consuming and costly.

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social workers have the opportunity to improve the social environment by advocating for the vulnerable — including children, older adults and people with disabilities — and facilitating and developing resources and programs.

Learn more about how you can earn your Master of Social Work online at Virginia Commonwealth University . The highest-ranking school of social work in Virginia, VCU has a wide range of courses online. That means students can earn their degrees with the flexibility of learning at home. Learn more about how you can take your career in social work further with VCU.

From M.S.W. to LCSW: Understanding Your Career Path as a Social Worker

How Palliative Care Social Workers Support Patients With Terminal Illnesses

How to Become a Social Worker in Health Care

Gov.uk, Mixed Methods Study

MVS Open Press, Foundations of Social Work Research

Open Social Work Education, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Open Social Work, Graduate Research Methods in Social Work: A Project-Based Approach

Routledge, Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods

SAGE Publications, Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Theory and Society, Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be

READY TO GET STARTED WITH OUR ONLINE M.S.W. PROGRAM FORMAT?

Bachelor’s degree is required.

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation

Social Work

Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Social Work Research Methods

Introduction.

History of Social Work Research Methods
Feasibility Issues Influencing the Research Process
Measurement Methods
Existing Scales
Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Single-System Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Program Evaluation
Surveys and Sampling
Introductory Statistics Texts
Advanced Aspects of Inferential Statistics
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Data Analysis
Historical Research Methods
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Research Ethics
Culturally Competent Research Methods
Teaching Social Work Research Methods

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Child Welfare Effectiveness
Rare and Orphan Diseases and Social Work Practice
Unaccompanied Immigrant and Refugee Children
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Social Work Research Methods by Allen Rubin LAST REVIEWED: 14 December 2009 LAST MODIFIED: 14 December 2009 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0008

Social work research means conducting an investigation in accordance with the scientific method. The aim of social work research is to build the social work knowledge base in order to solve practical problems in social work practice or social policy. Investigating phenomena in accordance with the scientific method requires maximal adherence to empirical principles, such as basing conclusions on observations that have been gathered in a systematic, comprehensive, and objective fashion. The resources in this entry discuss how to do that as well as how to utilize and teach research methods in social work. Other professions and disciplines commonly produce applied research that can guide social policy or social work practice. Yet no commonly accepted distinction exists at this time between social work research methods and research methods in allied fields relevant to social work. Consequently useful references pertaining to research methods in allied fields that can be applied to social work research are included in this entry.

This section includes basic textbooks that are used in courses on social work research methods. Considerable variation exists between textbooks on the broad topic of social work research methods. Some are comprehensive and delve into topics deeply and at a more advanced level than others. That variation is due in part to the different needs of instructors at the undergraduate and graduate levels of social work education. Most instructors at the undergraduate level prefer shorter and relatively simplified texts; however, some instructors teaching introductory master’s courses on research prefer such texts too. The texts in this section that might best fit their preferences are by Yegidis and Weinbach 2009 and Rubin and Babbie 2007 . The remaining books might fit the needs of instructors at both levels who prefer a more comprehensive and deeper coverage of research methods. Among them Rubin and Babbie 2008 is perhaps the most extensive and is often used at the doctoral level as well as the master’s and undergraduate levels. Also extensive are Drake and Jonson-Reid 2007 , Grinnell and Unrau 2007 , Kreuger and Neuman 2006 , and Thyer 2001 . What distinguishes Drake and Jonson-Reid 2007 is its heavy inclusion of statistical and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) content integrated with each chapter. Grinnell and Unrau 2007 and Thyer 2001 are unique in that they are edited volumes with different authors for each chapter. Kreuger and Neuman 2006 takes Neuman’s social sciences research text and adapts it to social work. The Practitioner’s Guide to Using Research for Evidence-based Practice ( Rubin 2007 ) emphasizes the critical appraisal of research, covering basic research methods content in a relatively simplified format for instructors who want to teach research methods as part of the evidence-based practice process instead of with the aim of teaching students how to produce research.

Drake, Brett, and Melissa Jonson-Reid. 2007. Social work research methods: From conceptualization to dissemination . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

This introductory text is distinguished by its use of many evidence-based practice examples and its heavy coverage of statistical and computer analysis of data.

Grinnell, Richard M., and Yvonne A. Unrau, eds. 2007. Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . 8th ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Contains chapters written by different authors, each focusing on a comprehensive range of social work research topics.

Kreuger, Larry W., and W. Lawrence Neuman. 2006. Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative applications . Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.

An adaptation to social work of Neuman's social sciences research methods text. Its framework emphasizes comparing quantitative and qualitative approaches. Despite its title, quantitative methods receive more attention than qualitative methods, although it does contain considerable qualitative content.

Rubin, Allen. 2007. Practitioner’s guide to using research for evidence-based practice . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

This text focuses on understanding quantitative and qualitative research methods and designs for the purpose of appraising research as part of the evidence-based practice process. It also includes chapters on instruments for assessment and monitoring practice outcomes. It can be used at the graduate or undergraduate level.

Rubin, Allen, and Earl R. Babbie. 2007. Essential research methods for social work . Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks Cole.

This is a shorter and less advanced version of Rubin and Babbie 2008 . It can be used for research methods courses at the undergraduate or master's levels of social work education.

Rubin, Allen, and Earl R. Babbie. Research Methods for Social Work . 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks Cole, 2008.

This comprehensive text focuses on producing quantitative and qualitative research as well as utilizing such research as part of the evidence-based practice process. It is widely used for teaching research methods courses at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels of social work education.

Thyer, Bruce A., ed. 2001 The handbook of social work research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This comprehensive compendium includes twenty-nine chapters written by esteemed leaders in social work research. It covers quantitative and qualitative methods as well as general issues.

Yegidis, Bonnie L., and Robert W. Weinbach. 2009. Research methods for social workers . 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

This introductory paperback text covers a broad range of social work research methods and does so in a briefer fashion than most lengthier, hardcover introductory research methods texts.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Social Work »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Adolescent Depression
Adolescent Pregnancy
Adolescents
Adoption Home Study Assessments
Adult Protective Services in the United States
African Americans
Aging out of foster care
Aging, Physical Health and
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems
Alcohol and Drug Problems, Prevention of Adolescent and Yo...
Alcohol Problems: Practice Interventions
Alcohol Use Disorder
Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias
Anti-Oppressive Practice
Asian Americans
Asian-American Youth
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Baccalaureate Social Workers
Behavioral Health
Behavioral Social Work Practice
Bereavement Practice
Bisexuality
Brief Therapies in Social Work: Task-Centered Model and So...
Bullying and Social Work Intervention
Canadian Social Welfare, History of
Case Management in Mental Health in the United States
Central American Migration to the United States
Child Maltreatment Prevention
Child Neglect and Emotional Maltreatment
Child Poverty
Child Sexual Abuse
Child Welfare
Child Welfare and Child Protection in Europe, History of
Child Welfare and Parents with Intellectual and/or Develop...
Child Welfare, Immigration and
Child Welfare Practice with LGBTQ Youth and Families
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Christianity and Social Work
Chronic Illness
Clinical Social Work Practice with Adult Lesbians
Clinical Social Work Practice with Males
Cognitive Behavior Therapies with Diverse and Stressed Pop...
Cognitive Processing Therapy
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
Community Development
Community Policing
Community-Needs Assessment
Comparative Social Work
Computational Social Welfare: Applying Data Science in Soc...
Conflict Resolution
Council on Social Work Education
Counseling Female Offenders
Criminal Justice
Crisis Interventions
Cultural Competence and Ethnic Sensitive Practice
Culture, Ethnicity, Substance Use, and Substance Use Disor...
Dementia Care
Dementia Care, Ethical Aspects of
Depression and Cancer
Development and Infancy (Birth to Age Three)
Differential Response in Child Welfare
Digital Storytelling for Social Work Interventions
Direct Practice in Social Work
Disabilities
Disability and Disability Culture
Domestic Violence Among Immigrants
Early Pregnancy and Parenthood Among Child Welfare–Involve...
Eating Disorders
Ecological Framework
Elder Mistreatment
End-of-Life Decisions
Epigenetics for Social Workers
Ethical Issues in Social Work and Technology
Ethics and Values in Social Work
European Institutions and Social Work
European Union, Justice and Home Affairs in the
Evidence-based Social Work Practice: Issues, Controversies...
Families with Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Parents
Family Caregiving
Family Group Conferencing
Family Policy
Family Services
Family Therapy
Family Violence
Fathering Among Families Served By Child Welfare
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Field Education
Financial Literacy and Social Work
Financing Health-Care Delivery in the United States
Forensic Social Work
Foster Care
Foster care and siblings
Gender, Violence, and Trauma in Immigration Detention in t...
Generalist Practice and Advanced Generalist Practice
Grounded Theory
Group Work across Populations, Challenges, and Settings
Group Work, Research, Best Practices, and Evidence-based
Harm Reduction
Health Care Reform
Health Disparities
Health Social Work
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1900–1950
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1950-1980
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, pre-1900
History of Social Work from 1980-2014
History of Social Work in China
History of Social Work in Northern Ireland
History of Social Work in the Republic of Ireland
History of Social Work in the United Kingdom
HIV/AIDS and Children
HIV/AIDS Prevention with Adolescents
Homelessness
Homelessness: Ending Homelessness as a Grand Challenge
Homelessness Outside the United States
Human Needs
Human Trafficking, Victims of
Immigrant Integration in the United States
Immigrant Policy in the United States
Immigrants and Refugees
Immigrants and Refugees: Evidence-based Social Work Practi...
Immigration and Health Disparities
Immigration and Intimate Partner Violence
Immigration and Poverty
Immigration and Spirituality
Immigration and Substance Use
Immigration and Trauma
Impaired Professionals
Indigenous Peoples
Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Supported Employmen...
In-home Child Welfare Services
Intergenerational Transmission of Maltreatment
International Human Trafficking
International Social Welfare
International Social Work
International Social Work and Education
International Social Work and Social Welfare in Southern A...
Internet and Video Game Addiction
Interpersonal Psychotherapy
Intervention with Traumatized Populations
Intimate-Partner Violence
Juvenile Justice
Kinship Care
Korean Americans
Latinos and Latinas
Law, Social Work and the
LGBTQ Populations and Social Work
Mainland European Social Work, History of
Major Depressive Disorder
Management and Administration in Social Work
Maternal Mental Health
Medical Illness
Men: Health and Mental Health Care
Mental Health
Mental Health Diagnosis and the Addictive Substance Disord...
Mental Health Needs of Older People, Assessing the
Mental Health Services from 1990 to 2023
Mental Illness: Children
Mental Illness: Elders
Microskills
Middle East and North Africa, International Social Work an...
Military Social Work
Mixed Methods Research
Moral distress and injury in social work
Motivational Interviewing
Multiculturalism
Native Americans
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Neuroscience and Social Work
Nicotine Dependence
Organizational Development and Change
Pain Management
Palliative Care
Palliative Care: Evolution and Scope of Practice
Pandemics and Social Work
Parent Training
Personalization
Person-in-Environment
Philosophy of Science and Social Work
Physical Disabilities
Podcasts and Social Work
Police Social Work
Political Social Work in the United States
Positive Youth Development
Postsecondary Education Experiences and Attainment Among Y...
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Practice Interventions and Aging
Practice Interventions with Adolescents
Practice Research
Primary Prevention in the 21st Century
Productive Engagement of Older Adults
Profession, Social Work
Program Development and Grant Writing
Promoting Smart Decarceration as a Grand Challenge
Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic Theory
Psychoeducation
Psychometrics
Psychopathology and Social Work Practice
Psychopharmacology and Social Work Practice
Psychosocial Framework
Psychosocial Intervention with Women
Psychotherapy and Social Work
Race and Racism
Readmission Policies in Europe
Redefining Police Interactions with People Experiencing Me...
Rehabilitation
Religiously Affiliated Agencies
Reproductive Health
Restorative Justice
Risk Assessment in Child Protection Services
Risk Management in Social Work
Rural Social Work in China
Rural Social Work Practice
School Social Work
School Violence
School-Based Delinquency Prevention
Services and Programs for Pregnant and Parenting Youth
Severe and Persistent Mental Illness: Adults
Sexual and Gender Minority Immigrants, Refugees, and Asylu...
Sexual Assault
Single-System Research Designs
Social and Economic Impact of US Immigration Policies on U...
Social Development
Social Insurance and Social Justice
Social Justice and Social Work
Social Movements
Social Planning
Social Policy
Social Policy in Denmark
Social Security in the United States (OASDHI)
Social Work and Islam
Social Work and Social Welfare in East, West, and Central ...
Social Work and Social Welfare in Europe
Social Work Education and Research
Social Work Leadership
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Contributing to the Cla...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries contributing to the fou...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Who Contributed to Soci...
Social Work Regulation
Social Work Research Methods
Social Work with Interpreters
Solution-Focused Therapy
Strategic Planning
Strengths Perspective
Strengths-Based Models in Social Work
Supplemental Security Income
Survey Research
Sustainability: Creating Social Responses to a Changing En...
Syrian Refugees in Turkey
Task-Centered Practice
Technology Adoption in Social Work Education
Technology, Human Relationships, and Human Interaction
Technology in Social Work
Terminal Illness
The Impact of Systemic Racism on Latinxs’ Experiences with...
Transdisciplinary Science
Translational Science and Social Work
Transnational Perspectives in Social Work
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Trauma-Informed Care
Triangulation
Tribal child welfare practice in the United States
United States, History of Social Welfare in the
Universal Basic Income
Veteran Services
Vicarious Trauma and Resilience in Social Work Practice wi...
Vicarious Trauma Redefining PTSD
Victim Services
Virtual Reality and Social Work
Welfare State Reform in France
Welfare State Theory
Women and Macro Social Work Practice
Women's Health Care
Work and Family in the German Welfare State
Workforce Development of Social Workers Pre- and Post-Empl...
Working with Non-Voluntary and Mandated Clients
Young and Adolescent Lesbians
Youth at Risk
Youth Services
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
185.147.128.134

Reference Works
Children, Youths, & Families
Health & Mental Health
Practice & Policy
NASW Standards
Children & Schools
Health & Social Work
Social Work
Social Work Abstracts

Social Work Research

Calls for Papers
Faculty Center
Librarian Center
Student Center
Booksellers
Advertisers
Copyrights & Permissions
eBook Support
Write for Us
Graduation Sale

NASW members can access articles online at: Social Work Research

Social Work Research publishes exemplary research to advance the development of knowledge and inform social work practice. Widely regarded as the outstanding journal in the field, it includes analytic reviews of research, theoretical articles pertaining to social work research, evaluation studies, and diverse research studies that contribute to knowledge about social work issues and problems.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.2 Conceptualization

Learning objectives.

Define concept
Identify why defining our concepts is important
Describe how conceptualization works in quantitative and qualitative research
Define dimensions in terms of social scientific measurement
Apply reification to conceptualization

In this section, we’ll take a look at one of the first steps in the measurement process, which is conceptualization. This has to do with defining our terms as clearly as possible and also not taking ourselves too seriously in the process. Our definitions mean only what we say they mean—nothing more and nothing less. Let’s talk first about how to define our terms, and then we’ll examine not taking ourselves (or our terms, rather) too seriously.

Concepts and conceptualization

So far, the word concept has come up quite a bit, and it would behoove us to make sure we have a shared understanding of that term. A concept is the notion or image that we conjure up when we think of some cluster of related observations or ideas. For example, masculinity is a concept. What do you think of when you hear that word? Presumably, you imagine some set of behaviors and perhaps even a particular style of self-presentation. Of course, we can’t necessarily assume that everyone conjures up the same set of ideas or images when they hear the word masculinity . In fact, there are many possible ways to define the term. And while some definitions may be more common or have more support than others, there isn’t one true, always-correct-in-all-settings definition. What counts as masculine may shift over time, from culture to culture, and even from individual to individual (Kimmel, 2008). This is why defining our concepts is so important.

You might be asking yourself why you should bother defining a term for which there is no single, correct definition. Believe it or not, this is true for any concept you might measure in a research study—there is never a single, always-correct definition. When we conduct empirical research, our terms mean only what we say they mean. There’s a New Yorker cartoon that aptly represents this idea. It depicts a young George Washington holding an axe and standing near a freshly chopped cherry tree. Young George is looking up at a frowning adult who is standing over him, arms crossed. The caption depicts George explaining, “It all depends on how you define ‘chop.’” Young George Washington gets the idea—whether he actually chopped down the cherry tree depends on whether we have a shared understanding of the term chop .

Without a shared understanding of this term, our understandings of what George has just done may differ. Likewise, without understanding how a researcher has defined her key concepts, it would be nearly impossible to understand the meaning of that researcher’s findings and conclusions. Thus, any decision we make based on findings from empirical research should be made based on full knowledge not only of how the research was designed, but also of how its concepts were defined and measured.

So, how do we define our concepts? This is part of the process of measurement, and this portion of the process is called conceptualization. The answer depends on how we plan to approach our research. We will begin with quantitative conceptualization and then discuss qualitative conceptualization.

In quantitative research, conceptualization involves writing out clear, concise definitions for our key concepts. Sticking with the previously mentioned example of masculinity, think about what comes to mind when you read that term. How do you know masculinity when you see it? Does it have something to do with men? With social norms? If so, perhaps we could define masculinity as the social norms that men are expected to follow. That seems like a reasonable start, and at this early stage of conceptualization, brainstorming about the images conjured up by concepts and playing around with possible definitions is appropriate. However, this is just the first step.

It would make sense as well to consult other previous research and theory to understand if other scholars have already defined the concepts we’re interested in. This doesn’t necessarily mean we must use their definitions, but understanding how concepts have been defined in the past will give us an idea about how our conceptualizations compare with the predominant ones out there. Understanding prior definitions of our key concepts will also help us decide whether we plan to challenge those conceptualizations or rely on them for our own work. Finally, working on conceptualization is likely to help in the process of refining your research question to one that is specific and clear in what it asks.

If we turn to the literature on masculinity, we will surely come across work by Michael Kimmel, one of the preeminent masculinity scholars in the United States. After consulting Kimmel’s prior work (2000; 2008), we might tweak our initial definition of masculinity just a bit. Rather than defining masculinity as “the social norms that men are expected to follow,” perhaps instead we’ll define it as “the social roles, behaviors, and meanings prescribed for men in any given society at any one time” (Kimmel & Aronson, 2004, p. 503). Our revised definition is both more precise and more complex. Rather than simply addressing one aspect of men’s lives (norms), our new definition addresses three aspects: roles, behaviors, and meanings. It also implies that roles, behaviors, and meanings may vary across societies and over time. To be clear, we’ll also have to specify the particular society and time period we’re investigating as we conceptualize masculinity.

As you can see, conceptualization isn’t quite as simple as merely applying any random definition that we come up with to a term. Sure, it may involve some initial brainstorming, but conceptualization goes beyond that. Once we’ve brainstormed a bit about the images a particular word conjures up for us, we should also consult prior work to understand how others define the term in question. And after we’ve identified a clear definition that we’re happy with, we should make sure that every term used in our definition will make sense to others. Are there terms used within our definition that also need to be defined? If so, our conceptualization is not yet complete. And there is yet another aspect of conceptualization to consider—concept dimensions. We’ll consider that aspect along with an additional word of caution about conceptualization in the next subsection.

Conceptualization in qualitative research

Conceptualization in qualitative research proceeds a bit differently than in quantitative research. Because qualitative researchers are interested in the understandings and experiences of their participants, it is less important for the researcher to find one fixed definition for a concept before starting to interview or interact with participants. The researcher’s job is to accurately and completely represent how their participants understand a concept, not to test their own definition of that concept.

If you were conducting qualitative research on masculinity, you would likely consult previous literature like Kimmel’s work mentioned above. From your literature review, you may come up with a working definition for the terms you plan to use in your study, which can change over the course of the investigation. However, the definition that matters is the definition that your participants share during data collection. A working definition is merely a place to start, and researchers should take care not to think it is the only or best definition out there.

In qualitative inquiry, your participants are the experts (sound familiar, social workers?) on the concepts that arise during the research study. Your job as the researcher is to accurately and reliably collect and interpret their understanding of the concepts they describe while answering your questions. Conceptualization of qualitative concepts is likely to change over the course of qualitative inquiry, as you learn more information from your participants. Indeed, getting participants to comment on, extend, or challenge the definitions and understandings of other participants is a hallmark of qualitative research. This is the opposite of quantitative research, in which definitions must be completely set in stone before the inquiry can begin.

A word of caution about conceptualization

Whether you have chosen qualitative or quantitative methods, you should have a clear definition for the term masculinity and make sure that the terms we use in our definition are equally clear—and then we’re done, right? Not so fast. If you’ve ever met more than one man in your life, you’ve probably noticed that they are not all exactly the same, even if they live in the same society and at the same historical time period. This could mean there are dimensions of masculinity. In terms of social scientific measurement, concepts can be said to have multiple dimensions when there are multiple elements that make up a single concept. With respect to the term masculinity , dimensions could be regional (is masculinity defined differently in different regions of the same country?), age-based (is masculinity defined differently for men of different ages?), or perhaps power-based (does masculinity differ based on membership to privileged groups?). In any of these cases, the concept of masculinity would be considered to have multiple dimensions. While it isn’t necessarily required to spell out every possible dimension of the concepts you wish to measure, it may be important to do so depending on the goals of your research. The point here is to be aware that some concepts have dimensions and to think about whether and when dimensions may be relevant to the concepts you intend to investigate.

Before we move on to the additional steps involved in the measurement process, it would be wise to remind ourselves not to take our definitions too seriously. Conceptualization must be open to revisions, even radical revisions, as scientific knowledge progresses. Although that we should consult prior scholarly definitions of our concepts, it would be wrong to assume that just because prior definitions exist that they are more real than the definitions we create (or, likewise, that our own made-up definitions are any more real than any other definition). It would also be wrong to assume that just because definitions exist for some concept that the concept itself exists beyond some abstract idea in our heads. This idea, assuming that our abstract concepts exist in some concrete, tangible way, is known as reification .

To better understand reification, take a moment to think about the concept of social structure. This concept is central to critical thinking. When social scientists talk about social structure, they are talking about an abstract concept. Social structures shape our ways of being in the world and of interacting with one another, but they do not exist in any concrete or tangible way. A social structure isn’t the same thing as other sorts of structures, such as buildings or bridges. Sure, both types of structures are important to how we live our everyday lives, but one we can touch, and the other is just an idea that shapes our way of living.

Here’s another way of thinking about reification: Think about the term family . If you were interested in studying this concept, we’ve learned that it would be good to consult prior theory and research to understand how the term has been conceptualized by others. But we should also question past conceptualizations. Think, for example, about how different the definition of family was 50 years ago. Because researchers from that time period conceptualized family using now outdated social norms, social scientists from 50 years ago created research projects based on what we consider now to be a very limited and problematic notion of what family means. Their definitions of family were as real to them as our definitions are to us today. If researchers never challenged the definitions of terms like family, our scientific knowledge would be filled with the prejudices and blind spots from years ago. It makes sense to come to some social agreement about what various concepts mean. Without that agreement, it would be difficult to navigate through everyday living. But at the same time, we should not forget that we have assigned those definitions, they are imperfect and subject to change as a result of critical inquiry.

Key Takeaways

Conceptualization is a process that involves coming up with clear, concise definitions.
Conceptualization in quantitative research comes from the researcher’s ideas or the literature.
Qualitative researchers conceptualize by creating working definitions which will be revised based on what participants say.
Some concepts have multiple elements or dimensions.
Researchers should acknowledge the limitations of their definitions for concepts.
Concept- notion or image that we conjure up when we think of some cluster of related observations or ideas
Conceptualization- writing out clear, concise definitions for our key concepts, particularly in quantitative research
Multi-dimensional concepts- concepts that are comprised of multiple elements
Reification- assuming that abstract concepts exist in some concrete, tangible way

Image attributions

thought by TeroVesalainen CC-0

mindmap by TeroVesalainen CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Facts and Figures
Undergraduate Admissions
Graduate Admissions
Non-traditional Admissions
Pay Deposit
Undergraduate Majors
Graduate Programs
Honors College
Study Abroad
Professional & Continuing
Online Programs
Career Planning
Living on Campus
Clubs & Organizations
Spirit & Traditions
About Harrisonburg
Pay Your Deposit
Office of Financial Aid
Freshman Scholarships

James Madison University -->
Social Work
Brave Space
Student Organizations
Program Awards & Honors
Support Our Program
Accreditation & Assessment
Admission to the Major
Why Choose JMU Social Work?
Transfer Student Information
BSW Curriculum Overview
Field Practicum
Educational Competencies
Honors Option
Minor in Family Studies
Minor in Non-Profit Studies
Forms and Documents
Career Resources
Academic & Non-Academic Supports
Student Advisory Committee
Faculty/Staff Directory

High quality research in social work is important for many reasons. Research may be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the practice in which social workers engage and the programs they implement.Development of new knowledge, policies and programs often result from research efforts. It is also essential for faculty to conduct scholarship about teaching and learning in social work education to ensure that our department is providing high-quality education for our students.

Faculty members in the Department of Social Work are actively involved in the creation of new knowledge for social work practice and education. They often work together, with faculty from other departments/universities and/or with students as they engage in research efforts. Building from their areas of interest and practice experience, JMU social work faculty are studying a wide range of topics including groupwork with vulnerable youth, military families, diversity education, service-learning, substance abuse, interprofessional education, child welfare partnerships and field education.

The results of their scholarship efforts are disseminated through books, journal articles and presentations. In the past four years, JMU social work faculty made over 20 presentations at national or international conferences, as well as an additional 13 state and local presentations.

Faculty Scholarship

Hunter, C.A. , Moen, J.K., & Raskin, M. (Eds.). (2015). Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence. Chicago, IL; Lyceum Books, Inc.

Book chapters:

Hunter, C.A. & Poe, N.T. (2015). Developing and maintaining partnerships with practice settings. In Hunter, C.A., Moen, J.K., & Raskin, M. (Eds), Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence. Chicago, IL; Lyceum Books, Inc.

Peer-reviewed articles/monographs:

Myers, K. (2017). Yoga as sanctuary: A valuable mind-body intervention for the lesbian community. International Journal of Yoga Therapy , 27.

Myers, K . (2017). Creating Space for LGBTQ Youths to Guide the Group. Social Work with Groups , 40 (1-2), 55-61.

Trull, L ., & Myers, K. (2016). Learning Strategies and Mutual Aid Groups in BSW Education. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work , 21 (1), 117-126.

Pierce, B. , McGuire, L . & Howes, P. (2015). Ready, set, go … again: Renewing an Academy-Agency Child Welfare Partnership. Journal of Social Work Education, 51 (2), S239-S251.

Yeom, H. S. (2015). Utilization of substance abuse treatment: Gender differences among participants in an aftercare program. Social Work in Public Health, 30 (7), 578-91.

Yeom, H. S. & Ward, T. P. (2015). Integrating North Korean refugee youths into the South Korean educational system: A preliminary needs assessment. International Journal of Diversity in Education, 16 (1), 29-41.

Meyers, G.I., Connors, K., Heselmeyer, R., Krikau, D., Lanier, T.L. Lee, M.R., Orem, C., & Poe, N.T. (2014). Facilitating interactive privilege awareness programs: Employing intentionality from design through implementation. American College Personnel Association Commission for Social Justice Education Monographs on Social Justice Facilitation. Washington D.C.

Yeom, H. S. , Bae, H. O., & McCann, C. (2014). Learning Experiences in an International Email Exchange Project. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 8 (1), Article 6.

National/International Presentations:

Hatcher, J., Bringle, R., Price, M., Richard, D, Green, P., McGuire, L. & Clayton, P. (2017). Conceptualizing and Planning your service-learning/community engagement research study. International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement annual conference. Galway, Ireland.

McGuire, L. , (2014-2017). Qualitative Methods for Service-Learning Research. IUPUI Service-Learning Research Academy, Indianapolis, IN

Dyson, Y., Myers, K. , & Trull, L.H . (2017). 6th Annual Emerging Leaders Forum: Use of Transformational Leadership for Mentoring Relationship. Annual BPD Conference. New Orleans, LA.

Myers, K . & Trull, L . (2017). Cooperative Learning Strategies and Mutual Aid Groups in BSW Education . Annual BPD Conference. New Orleans, LA.

Yeom, H. S. (2017). Impact of Promotores de Salud Program on Promotores’ Employment, Education, and Self-Efficacy . Annual BPD 2017 Conference. New Orleans, LA.

Bradley, J., Hunter, C.A ., Moen, J. (2016). Foundations for field education excellence: training for field directors , Council on Social Work Education, Annual Program Meeting, Field Directors Institute. Atlanta, GA.

Denton, K.N., & Hunter C.A. (2016). Designing learning agreements and evaluation based on the 2015 SWE competencies: grading and program assessment connections . Connect Session at Council on Social Work Education, Annual Program meeting. Atlanta, GA.

McGuire, L . & Bryson, B.J. (2016). Preparing for EPAS 2015: Building leaders for interprofessional collaboration in BSW Programs. Workshop presented at BPD Conference, Dallas, TX

Bean, N., McGuire, L. & Moss, T. (2016). Building an Interprofessional Lens for Social Work Practice in the Classroom and Field , CSWE Connect session. Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Yeom, H. S. (2016). Integrating North Korean Refugee Youths in the South Korean Educational System: Needs Assessments . Joint World Conference on Social Work, Education and Social Development . COEX, Seoul, Korea.

Pierce, B., McGuire, L . & Howes, P. (2015). Ready, Set, Go, Again: Partnerships in Child Welfare. Paper presented at Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Denver, CO.

McGuire, L., Keiser, S. & Ferguson, S. (2015). Keeping It Real: Strengthening the Practice Voice in Social Work Education , CSWE Connect session workshop presented at Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Denver, CO.

Yeom, H. S. (2015). Embracing Diversity in South Korea: Integrating North Korean Refugee Youths in the South Korean Educational System . Fifteenth International Conference on Diversity in Organizations, Communities & Nations at University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Sanford, J., Akerson, E., Stewart, A., McGuire, L. & Stokes, T. (2015). Strategies for Climate Change: Building a Positive and Sustainable Interprofessional Identity . Collaborating Across Borders V, Roanoke, VA

Akerson, E., Stewart, A., McGuire, L. , Lewis, E. Bryson, B . (2015). Practicing Interprofessional Decision-making: A toolkit for Faculty and Trainers . Collaborating Across Borders V, Roanoke, VA.

Yeom, H. S. (2014). Utilization of Substance Abuse Treatment: Gender Differences among Participants in an Aftercare Program . International Center of Mental Health Policy and Economics (ICMPE)’s Second Meeting on Patient Reported Outcomes and Person Centered Care in Mental Health: Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment: Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness. Washington D.C.

McGuire, L ., Bryson, B . & Stewart, A. (2014). Building Competencies for Collaborative Practice , Paper presented at Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Miami, FL.

Bryson, B.J. (2014). Presented at the Baccalaureate Program Director’s Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY.

Bryson, B.J . (2014). Presented at the Baccalaureate Program Director’s Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY.

Hunter, C.A & Moen, J.K. (2014) Many Faces of Field: Essential Literature for Field Directors. Presented at BPD conference , Louisville, KY

Stewart, A., Akerson, E., Gloekner, J., McGuire, L. Lewis & Bryson, B.J. (2014). Interprofessional Ethics: A Toolkit for Faculty. All Together Better Health conference, June 2014, Pittsburg, PA.

Local/JMU Presentations:

Bryson, B.J. (2017). Fostering Academic Justice for African American Women from K-PhD . Social Inclusion and Social Justice Conference, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg PA.

McGuire, L. (2017). Scholarship of Engagement: How JMU Faculty are Turning Work in the Community into Research. Community Engagement sub-committee. JMU CFI May Symposium.

Myers, K. (2017). Out of the Closet But Still in the Dark: Unequal Access for LGBTQ Youth. The Conference on Social Inclusion and Social Justice, Institute for Social Inclusion (INSINC). Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

Myers, K . (2017) Resisting the Void: LGBTQ Children and Youth. Global Well-Being and Social Change Conference. Millersville, Pennsylvania.

Trull, L. H. (2017). Scholarship of Engagement: How JMU Faculty are Turning Work in the Community into Research. Panelist with Community Engagement sub-committee. JMU CFI May Symposium.

DeValpine, M., Trull, L. H . Larking, R. (2017). A Novel Approach to Community Assessment in Rural Virginia. Association for Prevention Teaching & Research. Savannah, GA.

Bryson, B.J. (2016). Working Across and with Difference . Expanding Horizons, Early Impact Conference, Richmond VA.

Hunter, C . (2016) Raw Footage: Reflections on why People Emigrate from one Town in El Salvador . JMU Department of Foreign Languages Annual conference, Migration: a phenomenon of human history from its ancient origins to the present global situation.

Myers, K. (2016). Self-Care Isn’t Selfish, It’s Self-Preserving. Virginia VT/SSW Association Annual Conference.

Myers, K. & Evans, K. (2015). Restorative Justice: A Comprehensive Approach to Promoting Positive Behavior. State Operated Programs of Virginia Conference.

McGuire, L. (2015). Electronic Portfolios. Presented at JMU TLT Conference.

Trull, L . (2014). Exploring Community Engagement in Head Start. Presented to JMU School of Strategic Leadership Studies’ Leadership Forum.

Bryson, BJ. (2014). Presentation for JMU’s Diversity conference was CANCELLED due to weather.

Expenditures
Accessibility
Social Media

Search Menu
Advance articles
Editor's Choice
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About The British Journal of Social Work
About the British Association of Social Workers
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, why the ref matters, the process of assessment, social work and social policy: uoa20 results, the research landscape, research impact, acknowledgements.

< Previous

Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Nicky Stanley, Elaine Sharland, Luke Geoghegan, Ravinder Barn, Alisoun Milne, Judith Phillips, Kirby Swales, Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3546–3565, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad116

Permissions Icon Permissions

The Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986 to measure research quality and to determine the allocation of higher education funding. The renamed Research Excellence Framework (REF) has become an important barometer of research capacity and calibre across academic disciplines in UK universities. Based on the expert insights of REF sub-panel members for Unit of Assessment 20 (UOA20), Social Work and Social Policy, this article contributes to understanding of the current state of UK social work research. It documents the process of research quality assessment and reports on the current social work research landscape, including impact. Given its growing vigour, increased engagement with theory and conceptual frameworks, policy and practice and its methodological diversity, it is evident that social work research has achieved considerable consolidation and growth in its activity and knowledge base. Whilst Russell Group and older universities cluster at the top of the REF rankings, this cannot be taken for granted as some newer institutions performed well in REF2021. The article argues that the discipline’s embeddedness in interdisciplinary research, its quest for social justice and its applied nature align well with the REF framework where interdisciplinarity, equality, diversity and inclusion and impact constitute core principles.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) has significant implications for the quality and vitality of UK research, for academic disciplines, universities, university departments, future research funding and academic careers. The REF usually takes place every six years; the previous exercise was completed in 2014, but REF2021 did not report until June 2022 following delays caused by the pandemic. The assessment process is delivered through panels and sub-panels which take responsibility for Units of Assessment (UOAs). UOA20 covered Social Work and Social Policy and included some, but not all, research in Criminology. Units submitting to the REF were assessed on quality of research outputs, impact (research-generated effects, or benefits beyond academia, demonstrated by case studies) and environment (demonstrated by environment statements and additional data).

Universities and their staff commit significant energy and resources to the REF process and, with the shift to assessing impact introduced for REF2014, social work organisations and policy makers also contribute by providing information and supporting statements to evidence impact. It is therefore essential that all opportunities for learning offered by the REF exercise are captured.

This article has been produced by both academic and impact assessors who served on Sub-panel 20 for REF2021, with the aim of disseminating and reflecting on the picture of social work research and impact provided by REF assessment. We acknowledge that UOA20 does not capture all social work research produced in the UK: numerous research outputs are not submitted for REF assessment and some universities take the strategic decision to return their social work research to another UOA such as Allied Health Professions (UOA3) or Sociology (UOA21). Members of Sub-panel 20 encountered challenges in distinguishing social work from social policy and criminology research: much of the work assessed was interdisciplinary and, for many outputs, disciplinary boundaries appeared porous. Nevertheless, opportunities for painting a picture of social work research across the UK are rare and this account benefits from the fact that some social work assessors contributed to the work of the sub-panel in both 2014 and 2021, enabling us to comment on change and growth.

Research England, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) which provides government funding for research, managed the REF process and acted on behalf of the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. Formal REF outputs include reports to universities and their departments, ratings tables which are broken down by UOA and by institution, and panel reports which include overviews of the work of individual sub-panels [see REF2021 (2022b) for Sub-panel 20’s overview report]. The REF has strong governance processes so, whilst other organisations may use REF data to produce their own material (e.g. university marketing campaigns or university ‘league tables’ published in the national press) these are not endorsed by the REF. This article represents the views of social work assessors who served on Sub-panel 20; our comments should not be attributed to UKRI or the chairs of Sub-panel 20 or Main Panel C. We offer ‘high-level’ conclusions about the assessment process and the broad profile of social work research and impact that the REF provides. We do not comment on specific outputs, researchers or institutions.

We begin by considering the implications of the REF for universities, their staff and for society more broadly. We then move to explaining the REF process, in particular the workings of Sub-panel 20. We provide accounts of social work research and impact as viewed through the lens of the REF before reaching some conclusions. Discussion of research environment, the third element of REF assessment, is woven through. Each academic assessor on Sub-panel 20 reviewed only the outputs allocated to themself; none saw the full array. Whilst we have been able to draw on Sub-panel 20’s published overview report (REF2021, 2022), REF rules required us to destroy all notes and records. Instead, we have engaged in iterative consultation with all seven social work academic assessors on Sub-panel 20, eliciting their responses to a questionnaire and their comments on successive drafts of this article. This dialogical process has enabled us to paint a rich picture of social work research submitted to Sub-panel 20. Since REF impact case studies, and impact scores for each UOA submission, are in the public domain ( REF2021, 2022a ), we have been able to return directly to these to inform this account.

The REF is a long-established feature of university life in the UK. Whilst Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Italy have adopted similar systems for appraising university research, the model is not found in all jurisdictions. Notwithstanding its critics, the REF is widely regarded as a barometer of the health and quality of UK research and a great deal of work goes into preparing submissions. Universities use REF results to market teaching programmes, impress funders, boost staff morale and attract new staff and students. University websites are replete with REF-related quotes on impact, research quality and international and national league tables. The REF results impact on the reputations and status of universities, departments and individual academics.

REF results are used to determine the distribution of the UK Research Councils’ block grants known as quality-related (QR) funds (Research Excellence Grant in Scotland), which provide funding for university research over several years. Once announced, grants can inform universities’ strategic planning, as this funding stream is known and sustained, unlike much other research funding which is allocated through competitive bidding processes. In July 2022, following publication of the REF results, Research England announced that QR funding (in England) would rise from £1.789 billion in 2021–2022 to £1.974 billion in 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, an increase of 10.4 per cent ( University Business, 2022 ). The distribution formula remains unchanged; those who have done proportionally better in REF have received a greater proportion of funding. Where growth has increased, for example in North-East England, universities have benefited ( Coe and Kernohan, 2022 ).

The implications of additional research funding are significant. Research councils and other funders can use REF outcomes as a benchmark of research quality. A key change since REF2014 is that UK access to European Union research funding is restricted following Brexit. Hence, QR funding’s contribution to the total research pot is now greater and may be relied on more heavily. Arguably, the REF process provides accountability for public investment, so that the benefits of university research can be demonstrated to funders and society as a whole. Along with other forms of audit, it creates a performance incentive for universities.

Within universities, REF results are used to inform institutional decisions on resource allocation. Departments that have improved their position in the league tables may expect to be rewarded, whilst departments whose ranking has fallen and who lack other sources of income (particularly teaching income) may be vulnerable to cuts. There are also implications for staff contracts. Following the Stern Review (2016) , in REF2021, all staff with ‘significant responsibility for research’ were entered for REF assessment, a rule change that resulted in 76,132 academics submitting at least one research output, compared with 52,000 in 2014.

Universities developed their own internal systems for assessing the quality of outputs well ahead of the REF submission deadline. In some institutions, staff with ‘significant responsibility’ for research but with outputs either scarce or judged internally to be of low quality may have been ‘invited to consider’ changing to ‘teaching only’ contracts in order to ensure a high-quality submission overall. The REF results do not specify the ratings allocated to individual researchers’ outputs, so offering protection for individual careers. For staff included in the REF, particularly those chosen to submit an impact case study, advantages may include opportunities for promotion or career advancement elsewhere.

The value of the REF is not uncontested. Some critics regard it as emblematic of an expanding audit culture ( Torrance, 2020 ) that ‘constructs an illusion of intellectual excellence and innovation whose true purpose is the neutralization of the university as a centre of independent knowledge creation and learning’ ( O’Regan and Gray, 2018 , p. 533). The University and Colleges Union ( UCU, 2022 ) considered the REF ‘a flawed, bureaucratic nightmare … a drain on the time and resources of university staff, and funding often entrenches structural inequalities’. Others are more qualified in their appraisals. Whilst also criticising the neoliberal underpinnings of the REF, MacDonald (2017) recognises that it can provide institutional space and incentive for impactful research for the public good. Manville et al. (2021) highlight the burden imposed by the REF, but report that over half the academics surveyed claimed it had not significantly influenced their own research. At the other end of the spectrum, Whitfield (2023) expresses confidence in the REF as a mechanism for ensuring accountability for government research funding which has strengthened the quality of UK research.

As suggested by the UCU, QR funding allocations may reinforce some existing inequalities between universities: wealthier institutions tend to perform well and so receive more QR funding. Russell Group (a self-selected group of twenty-four older and better-endowed universities) and older universities cluster at the top of the rankings. But this cannot be taken for granted and in social work and social policy, some newer institutions performed well in 2021.

For the world outside universities, the REF’s emphasis on impact and requirement to produce impact case studies has had the effect of strengthening communication and collaboration between university-based researchers and a wide range of partners from the practice and policy sectors. As an applied discipline, social work research has always maintained close links with research users, but the assessment of impact has sharpened researchers’ interest in how their research is disseminated, taken up and translated into social change. With research translation now a major preoccupation for academia, university research is increasingly likely to be engaging in ongoing dialogue with a variety of stakeholders and contributing to local, regional and national priorities.

UOA20 was one of twelve sub-panels that sat under REF2021’s Main Panel C which covered the social sciences. This structure allowed for planning, calibration and management of the task of assessing very large amounts of material to be carried out across disciplines, with the aim of achieving consistency and adherence to common practices and standards. Chairs were appointed to the REF panels and sub-panels following open advertisement and interviews and sub-panel members were nominated by learned bodies and other associations such as the Association of Professors of Social Work, Joint Social Work Education Council, the British Association of Social Work, the British Society of Gerontology and some of the major charities. Impact assessors and research users were similarly nominated and came from a range of practice, policy, research and knowledge transfer organisations. Sub-panel members were appointed in stages, allowing sub-panels to ensure they included a wide range of expertise and were sufficiently diverse and representative. The REF’s own analysis of appointments to all REF2021 sub-panels found significantly increased representativeness since 2014 ( REF2021/01, 2021 ). Sub-panel 20 included twenty-six academic assessors (eight of whom were predominantly social work academics), three research users, six impact assessors, one panel adviser and one panel secretary. Twenty-four sub-panel members (63 per cent) were women and fourteen (37 per cent) were men. Twenty-one per cent of the sub-panel were from Black and Minoritised ethnic communities. Institutions from each of the UK’s four nations were represented as were Russell Group and post-1992 universities (approximately seventy-eight institutions, mostly former polytechnics granted university status by the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act).

Sub-panel 20 met between November 2019 and March 2022. Restrictions imposed by the pandemic meant that most meetings were held online, but this did not seem to impede communication or decision-making. Planning and preparation started early and sub-panel members were able to contribute to developing guidance for submitting units—this was deliberately broad and inclusive reflecting the disciplines’ porous boundaries—planning workload management and working methods. All sub-panel members undertook unconscious bias training and participated in calibration exercises designed to ensure consistency in grading all components of submissions. In keeping with REF guidance ( REF2021a, 2019 ) regarding the reliability of citation data, especially in applied research fields, Sub-panel 20 made no use of bibliographic metrics to inform the assessment of outputs, relying solely on expert review. A grading process underpinned by assessor commentary was adopted with continuous monitoring of assessors’ rating patterns and particular attention given to borderline grades.

In total, seventy-six universities submitted research to sub-panel 20 – 15 more than in REF2014. Of these, 39.5 per cent were pre-1992 and 60.5 per cent were post-1992 universities. Fourteen institutions submitted to UOA20 for the first time, indicating expansion of research in these fields.

Likewise, the numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff with significant responsibility for research who were returned to UOA20 increased by 61.8 per cent from REF2014. This growth is in part attributable to changes in REF procedures: REF2014 did not require all such staff to be submitted, whereas REF2021 did. However, it also indicates the vigour of the UOA20 disciplines. The sub-panel received a total of 5,158 outputs for review, an increase of 8 per cent from REF2014.

All outputs were reviewed by two assessors. One took responsibility for reviewing all outputs for an institution, so providing a full overview of that university’s unit of submission. The second was allocated on the basis of their expertise. A high number of interdisciplinary outputs was assessed and where expertise was felt to be lacking, in consultation with the sub-panel’s interdisciplinary adviser, outputs were cross-referred to appropriate sub-panels. Where gradings differed substantially, paired assessors discussed them and reached a joint decision. Very occasionally, a third assessor was brought in. The same approach was employed to assess impact case studies which were assessed jointly by an impact assessor and the academic assessor with responsibility for the submitting institution. Environment statements were assessed in larger groups of three including the allocated institutional assessor and two other panel members. The overall quality profile for each unit of submission to the REF2021 was calculated using a formula weighting of 60 per cent for outputs, 25 per cent for impact and 15 per cent for environment.

As noted above, it was not always easy to allocate outputs to one specific discipline. However, if the number of outputs allocated to a second assessor with social work expertise is used as a crude indicator of discipline, Sub-panel 20 assessed approximately 1,400 outputs for social work, 2,220 for social policy and 1,130 for criminology. Social work outputs therefore constituted approximately 30 per cent of the work assessed. In total, 225 impact case studies were assessed across all three disciplines, up from 190 in 2014. About one-third of these were predominantly social work, although this categorisation is very approximate since many were multidisciplinary.

Table 1 shows the final profiles for outputs, impact and environment across the whole UOA. As in REF2014, the UOA as a whole performed particularly well in respect of impact with over three-quarters of case studies rated 3* (internationally excellent) or 4* (world-leading). Similarly, three-quarters of the outputs assessed were rated 3* or 4*. Direct comparison between REF2021 and REF2014 results is difficult, due to changed rules regarding the ratio of outputs to returned FTE staff, and because REF2021 covered seven years (1 January 2014–31 December 2020) whilst REF2014 covered six years (January 2008–December 2013). Nonetheless, these results represent a slight improvement on those of REF2014. Of the 4,844 outputs submitted to the sub-panel, 577 (12 per cent) were attributed to early career researchers, signalling the continued growth and sustainability of the research community. Similarly, the environment statements submitted to Sub-panel 20 reported a 20.9 per cent increase in PhD completions over the REF period, as seen in Table 2 .

Quality profiles (FTE weighted) for UOA20, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 126).

UoA20 all doctoral awards by academic year, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 136).

Other indicators of growth found across the sub-panel included an average increase in universities’ social work and social policy research funding of £4.2 million per annum across the REF period.

Following changes in the REF guidance, the environment statements reported on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues more fully than in REF2014. The stronger statements assessed provided detail on progress made since REF2014 regarding under-representation of staff with protected characteristics (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation as defined by the 2010 Equality Act).

Significant progress towards, or the achievement of, key EDI benchmarks was found in some cases, although this tended to be better evidenced for gender than ethnicity or other protected characteristics. However, there were some examples of positive practice in relation to research students: for instance, one institution had targeted PhD studentships on Black, Asian and Minoritised students.

The final ranking table for UOA20 was not dissimilar to that for REF2014, with the top end dominated by the better-resourced Russell Group and older universities. However, it was notable that more post-1992 institutions featured in the top thirty universities for social work and social policy than in 2014, indicating the increasing strength of some of these departments. As a group, institutions submitting to UOA20 for the first time produced a generally lower profile than the overall sub-panel profile: success in the REF is, to some extent, shaped by experience in and the resource devoted to crafting the submission. However, these new submissions displayed some key strengths and demonstrated expansion of the disciplines.

Turning to UK social work outputs submitted to Sub-panel 20, the overarching impression is that social work has continued to grow in maturity, sophistication and confidence as a research discipline and interdisciplinary field. Increased breadth and diversity were demonstrated in the range of contemporary issues explored and approaches taken. Assessors saw examples of outstanding excellence amongst outputs based on applied and empirical, conceptual and literature-based research. Where substantive themes or methodologies were familiar from REF2014, these were often treated with greater refinement and criticality. There were also strong signs that substantial funder investment can bear fruit in research of world-leading quality. Whilst centres of excellence in particular sub-fields produced some outstanding outputs, excellent research and 4* outputs were identified in all submitting units, including those newly submitting to the REF.

Output quality assessment

The three criteria used for appraising the quality of outputs were ‘originality, significance and rigour’ (see Box 1 ).

The overall quality of each output was judged according to the following starred level ratings:

Four star: quality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Three star: quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence.

Two star: quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

One star: quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Unclassified: outputs that fall below the quality levels described above or do not meet the definition of research used for the REF.

Demonstrating research quality

Whilst claims to originality, significance and rigour were commonly flagged in outputs assessed, their validity needed to be demonstrated and not merely asserted. Originality was strongest where, for example, a new model was introduced for conceptualising or responding to a familiar social work issue or new questions explored in uncharted territory. It was less evident where a tried and tested approach was being replicated or there was significant overlap between outputs within the same submission. Significance could be both under-sold, commonly as an afterthought, or over-sold, say by drawing far-reaching implications from an exploratory study. Conversely, compelling significance could be demonstrated where clear contributions to knowledge, implications for law, policy, practice and/or research were well integrated. We discuss demonstration of rigour in more detail below. However, we saw instances where limited funding or tight deadlines appeared to have led to hurriedly written reports or lack of fit between funder agendas and real-world practicalities (such as challenges with implementing initiatives to be evaluated) compromised the suitability and effectiveness of the research approach taken.

Topics examined

As in REF2014, there was a preponderance of social work research on children and families, particularly child safeguarding, looked after children and young people and care leavers. In contrast, there was less attention to early help and support (services provided for children and families as soon as a problem appears). Some outputs highlighted the socio-economic, political and cultural determinants of challenges these children and families face, others focused on their individual and immediate characteristics and contexts. Many outputs discussed evaluation of new, sometimes innovative, practice or policy initiatives and their impacts; others explored pathways through and outcomes from services-as-usual. A prominent theme was child protection threshold decision-making, with relationship-based and trauma-informed practice, online harms and child trafficking more recently emerging themes.

Amongst outputs addressing social work and social care with adults and older people, established foci on ageing and dementia, mental health, disabilities, care and carers, and palliative or end-of-life care, were complemented by growth in attention to sexuality and LGBTQ+ groups, and gerotechnology. Other themes included isolation and loneliness, work and retirement and cultural and environmental gerontology.

Several research themes cross-cut service user groups. Prominent amongst them was interpersonal violence against children, women and older people. Cross-cutting themes were also commonly interdisciplinary and spoke to ‘big’ contemporary social work and policy challenges: inequalities, poverty and social exclusion, migration and digital transformation. For example, there was clear growth in outputs addressing social work with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants; with Black and Minoritised communities and on digital technologies—their opportunities and risks, impacts on practice and technological value as research tools. Intergenerational and spatial perspectives were also foregrounded.

As in REF2014, an array of outputs considered the social work profession: its governance and regulation; professional identity, ethics and values; organisational cultures; supervision and support; social workers’ well-being and professional education.

Use of theory and conceptual frameworks

There was wide variation in the extent to which outputs engaged with theory or concepts. A minority were written expressly to use a particular theoretical or conceptual lens to scrutinise social work issues. Elsewhere, variable recourse to theory could reflect significant differences in funding level and requirements. Outputs from government- or agency-commissioned research were more often targeted towards practice or policy application than theorisation. In contrast, larger-scale research council or charity funding could provide the platform for outputs whose sophisticated application of theory significantly enhanced their contributions to knowledge as well as practice and policy.

Relatively, few social work outputs introduced entirely original theories or concepts, but a considerable number drew on theory from diverse disciplines. Some familiar theories—such as attachment or ecological theories, the social model of disability or specific practice theories—were applied with increased criticality and nuance. Others were more newly applied to social work issues, including theories of social justice and rights applied to safeguarding; post-colonial theory and concepts of social exclusion, cultural competence or empowerment applied to work with minority communities and migrants; organisational learning and systems theories applied to innovation and development and psychosocial and communication theories applied to relationship-based practice.

Scale and ambition

Many social work outputs were based on small scale, local and qualitative research, as is typical within the discipline. These bear witness both to high levels of local stakeholder partnership that underpin their funding, focus and design, and to alignment with person-centred social work values and engagement with lived experience. However, their preponderance may also reflect low funding, traditional lack of UK social work research capacity or appetite for quantitative research, and paucity of robust, suitable large-scale datasets.

Nonetheless, there was encouraging evidence that the scope and scale of the UK social work research landscape is shifting. Some excellent collaborative international and comparative research addressed social work concerns globally (including in the Global South). There were also some outstanding outputs from large, well-funded, multi-method and/or longitudinal projects. Where there was substantial external funding from major national research funders, there was scope and scale for ground-breaking research and world-leading outputs. Such projects could also offer capacity development, with early career researchers on occasion leading authorship of excellent publications.

Methodologies and methods

We noted the increasing range, diversity and sophistication of methodologies and methods used. Empirical research outputs ranged from: small scale, qualitative studies to longitudinal analyses of large datasets and multi-method evaluations to in-depth ethnographies and cross-country comparisons to local action research projects. Naturally, methodological quality varied: some methods were applied inappropriately; others were poorly applied or were too thinly explained. Assessors saw plentiful use of tried and tested methods such as interviews and focus groups, with relatively fewer novel methods developed and well demonstrated. Despite this, the growth in qualitative and quantitative methodological range, competence and confidence was impressive.

First, it was clear that qualitative research strengths already demonstrated in REF2014 had developed further, including increased use of innovative and creative—such as visual, digital and arts-based—methods. There was also some excellent ethnographic research, at times making sophisticated use of multiple methods to explore lived experience and practice in diverse settings. UK social work research has long prioritised user voice and co-production—arguably as a path-leader in social and health sciences. Assessors observed participatory research continuing to flourish, through co-produced work with people with dementia, mental health needs and physical impairments, with LGBTQ+ and excluded communities and with vulnerable children and young people. The highest quality studies reflected critically upon the complexity of service users’ engagement with services and research, deploying methods to enable meaningful participation across all research stages.

Second, enhanced methodological range and sophistication were demonstrated in areas considered weaker in social work research submitted to REF2014. These included: sound use of economic analysis to evaluate cost-effectiveness/benefits of initiatives; rigorous randomised-controlled trials or quasi-experiments examining the effectiveness of interventions and digital technology used for large-scale surveys. The growth and improved rigour of quantitative and longitudinal research was especially striking, featuring amongst others robust multivariate analysis of large administrative or cohort/panel datasets that could afford, at scale, cross-sectional evidence of patterns of needs and services, or longitudinal evidence of outcomes over time. Large-scale and experimental quantitative methods could also be deployed to excellent effect within mixed-method designs. For example, mixed methods randomised-controlled trials could shed light on the contexts and mechanisms of change that contributed to outcomes; qualitative interviews with service users or providers could make sense of patterns of need, service use or outcomes identified through large data analysis.

What is impact?

Research impact has become an increasingly important element in REF assessment: its contribution to the overall rating of submissions increased from 20 per cent in REF2014 to 25 per cent in REF2021. Impact was reported mainly in the format of impact case studies which were expected to provide a clear, coherent narrative that included an account of which audiences, constituencies, groups, organisations, places, services or sectors had benefited, been influenced or been acted upon as a consequence of research.

REF2021 defined impact as an ‘effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia’ ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 68). So any positive impact beyond an institution’s own teaching and advancement of academic knowledge was within scope of this broad definition.

Impact was understood to include, but was not limited to, an effect on, change or benefit to:

the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding;

of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals;

in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 90).

The guidance also acknowledged additional impacts arising from research, such as holding public or private bodies to account, which may have resulted in a proposed change not taking place, or made a contribution to critical public debate.

Assessors considered whether the claims made for impact were supported by evidence and indicators. They also examined the coherence and clarity of narratives describing the sequence of activities and events leading to underpinning research being acted upon. This ‘pathway to impact’ proved to be a key element in the assessment. REF documentation acknowledged ‘there are multiple and diverse pathways through which research achieves impact’; moreover, the relationship between research and impact can be ‘indirect or non-linear’ and can be ‘foreseen or unforeseen’. Impact may also be achieved by ‘individuals alone, through inter-institutional groups, to groups including both academic and non-academic participants’ ( REF2021, 2019b , p. 63).

The two key components of impact were articulated in REF guidance as

‘Reach’ is understood as the extent and/or diversity of the beneficiaries of the impact. Reach is defined and assessed in terms of the extent to which the potential constituencies, number or groups of beneficiaries have been reached ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). So, this is designed to distinguish between, for example, a study that had an impact on a small number of people in one geographical area, with another that could have affected policy impacting on a whole country. Having said that, it is not designed to be assessed in purely geographic terms, nor in terms of absolute numbers of beneficiaries.

‘Significance’ is understood as the degree to which the impact has enabled, enriched, influenced, informed or changed the performance, policies, practices, products, services, understanding, awareness or well-being of the beneficiaries ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). Therefore, this is designed to capture something about the scale and importance of the claimed impact.

Assessors produced an overall judgement about reach and significance of impacts, rather than assessing each criterion separately, and neither was privileged over the other.

Quality and range of impacts

Over three-quarters of the impact case studies considered as predominantly social work were judged to have achieved impact of outstanding or very considerable reach and significance. Many were interdisciplinary and high levels of impact were achieved at local, regional, national and international levels.

Amongst the wide variety of social work case studies, some were based on the work of one or two researchers whilst others were collaborative. Some were founded on one-off studies, others on a long-term commitment to one research area, such as adoption practice. They demonstrated a wide range of practice and policy outcomes, with impact reaching practitioners, policy makers, local authorities, membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, service users, excluded groups and communities.

The following comprise the main types of impact demonstrated:

Government policy including legislation, statutory guidance—such as changing formal legislation about rules on contact.

Regulation—such as the inclusion of new criteria into the inspection frameworks used by Ofsted.

Practices and the way in people approach their work—such as developing new ‘models’ of social work practice by delivering training programmes across a number of local authorities or professional groups.

Products, resources and technologies—such as new toolkits for social workers or managers of residential homes, and physical objects for interacting with children.

Increased understanding, including public or professional awareness—such as identifying positive benefits of aspects of the care system traditionally seen as problematic.

Increased well-being, engagement, safety or health of service users—such as helping people who have experienced abuse overcome feelings of stigma and disempowerment through a process of ethical engagement in the research and policy-making process.

Excellence was found across the different impact types and beneficiaries, including examples of challenging the status quo and influencing the terms of debate. However, some case studies seemed to confuse dissemination with impact by, for example, simply citing numbers of downloads or participants attending training sessions, rather than specifying what had actually changed. Impact could also be over-claimed, such as where contributions affected teaching within but not beyond the submitting institution, or changed practice appeared attributable to the roll-out of an intervention, rather than to the research evaluating it.

Impact was frequently assisted by researchers engaging with key stakeholders and planning for impact from the outset. Research council and universities’ own Impact Acceleration funding had supported ongoing relationships with key stakeholders in a number of cases, and including stakeholder representatives in research teams was also effective. Participation in formal governance processes, such as responses to consultations and attendance at select committees were important ways to influence policy makers, and using a range of digital technologies, including communication campaigns, could amplify impact wider. The strongest case studies were able to show how research findings had been taken on by users in ways that shifted practices and/or policy agendas beyond original expectations. However, sub-panel members also noted some challenges in providing evidence. The links between the research and the impact claimed were not always clear, nor the beneficiaries always easily identifiable.

Notwithstanding some shortcomings, there were notable improvements overall in the presentation of case studies, indicating that planning and support to achieve external impact is becoming more established. There had clearly been a continuing commitment of resources and investment to enable staff to develop and engage in impact activities, reflecting a growing maturity of impact strategies in institutions ( McKenna, 2021 ).

The enhanced contribution of impact to the assessment process in REF2021 played to social work’s strengths. As an applied discipline promoting social change and development ( International Federation of Social Workers, 2014 ), social work research is committed to achieving impact. Increasingly, universities are devoting energy and resources to building collaborations with research users and those who use services; these help to ensure research findings are used to refine policy, improve services, practices and their outcomes and widen public understanding. This approach needs to be adopted consistently across institutions: the relationships that support impact creation require nurturing over time.

There were indications that UK social work research is becoming less parochial and that increased success in capturing funding has produced some rigorous, large-scale studies that address complex, sometimes global, challenges. Social work research appears more confident in wielding a range of methodologies to good effect, whilst maintaining attention to inequalities and power disparities. Funders need to take on board the message that high-quality social work research is delivered when sufficient time and resources are invested.

As university research centres and institutes build their size and expertise, an inevitable tendency towards specialisation may increase the divide between research on children and on adults. However, some research fields, such as mental health, interpersonal violence, inequalities or poverty, may succeed in bridging this space. The REF’s emphasis on interdisciplinarity may also be valuable here.

In terms of social work’s interdisciplinary partnerships, new research partners in fields such as geography, art and design and informatics are being added to the list of traditional research partners. Social work has always been a porous discipline and this has enabled it to forge new partnerships and embrace new thinking and fields of study.

For those assessing social work research, its open boundaries pose challenges in defining and reporting on what is contained within its territory. For REF purposes, social work’s inclusion in a sub-panel shared with social policy and criminology seems appropriate and allowed for interdisciplinary assessment of outputs and impact that were themselves frequently interdisciplinary. However, for a complete picture of UK social work research to emerge from the REF, all social work units would need to submit to UOA20; we would encourage those who returned their research to other UOAs to consider doing so in the next REF.

All outputs and impact case studies submitted to REF2021 are now available on its website ( https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/outputs# and https://results2021.ref.ac.uk ). This offers the fullest record available at present of social work research in the UK. This material could usefully be categorised and reviewed in a more systematic manner than has been possible here to identify current themes, trends and gaps in social work research. Knowledge of which questions or issues are under-researched, for instance, would be helpful.

The REF process is founded on the principle of peer review and this method of assessment is familiar and acceptable to most academics. In REF2021, in line with the recommendations of the Stern Review (2016) , outputs were treated as the product of the submitting unit rather than of individual researchers. This is consistent with the collaborative and team-based approaches common in social work research, and contrasts with a focus on individual researchers that characterises other approaches to identifying excellence in social work research (see e.g. Hodge and Turner, 2023 ). Whilst the cost, burgeoning scale and influence of the REF may attract critics, its increased attention to impact has shifted university strategies in ways that have benefited social work research. Moreover, the REF’s focus on EDI issues has potential to effect change in higher education, and this drive aligns closely with social work research agendas and values.

During the global pandemic, there was considerable media coverage and public interest concerning the experience of marginalised groups, as well as other issues that have traditionally been the focus of social work research but have attracted limited attention from other constituencies. This shift in public discourse offers an opportunity for social work research to reach new and wider audiences and to accelerate the pace of social change. We have described impact as an attainable goal for social work research, whilst noting the importance of support and infrastructure to achieve it. This infrastructure does not need to be confined to universities driven by the competitive ethos of the REF and its rewards. There are strong arguments for establishing wider cross-cutting mechanisms that can bring together researchers, practitioners and policy makers regionally or nationally, to identify how available research can be harnessed to tackle urgent social problems and where new or more knowledge is required to inform the development of solutions. The picture of social work research and impact offered by the REF could provide the basis for the work of such forums.

Social work research in the UK is growing in strength and influence. It is beginning to attract substantial investment from new funders, notably some that previously have focused solely on health research. The REF provides valuable evidence that social work research can achieve the highest levels of excellence and real change when it is adequately resourced. Opening up sources of health funding to social work researchers has the potential to power large and impactful research studies; this may further diversify the nature of social work research itself. Social work research also has the capacity to offer ideas and methods that are attractive to researchers in other disciplines. REF2021 represents an important staging post in the cycle of social work research’s development. The resources and energy invested in the REF exercise should be utilised to explore future directions and themes for the discipline.

Box 1. Research quality criteria

1. Originality: … the extent to which the output makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field. Research outputs that demonstrate originality may do one or more of the following: produce and interpret new empirical finding or new material; engage with new and/or complex problems; develop innovative research methods, methodologies and analytical techniques; show imaginative and creative scope; provide new arguments and/or new forms of expression, formal innovations, interpretations and/or insights; collect and engage with novel types of data and/or advance theory or the analysis of doctrine, policy or practice, and new forms of expression.

2. Significance: … the extent to which the work has influenced, or has the capacity to influence, knowledge and scholarly thought, or the development and understanding of policy and/or practice.

3. Rigour: … the extent to which the work demonstrates intellectual coherence and integrity, and adopts robust and appropriate concepts, analyses, sources, theories and/or methodologies.

REF2021 (2019a , pp. 34–35).

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of all members of Sub-panel 20 which has informed this article. We are particularly grateful to colleagues including Nick Ellison (Chair of Sub-Panel 20), Victoria Boelman, Mweyna Chimba, Brid Featherstone, Dez Holmes, Geraldine Macdonald and Sue White whose assessments and reflections on social work research have contributed to this article.

Conflict of interest statement: The paper states clearly that all authors were members of REF sub-panel 20. This makes conflicts of interest explicit for the reader. If a separate conflict of interest statement is required, please use the following: All authors of this paper were members of Sub-Panel 20, Social Work and Social Policy, for REF2021.

Coe J. , Kernohan D. ( 2022 ) ‘Who’s getting more QR funding in England next year?,’ WONKHE, available online at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/whos-getting-more-qr-funding-in-england-next-year/ (accessed December 6, 2022).

Hodge D. R. , Turner P. R. ( 2023 ) ‘ Who are the top100 contributors to social work journal scholarship? A global study on career impact in the profession? ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 33 ( 3 ), pp. 338 – 49 . Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221136623 (accessed December 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

International Federation of Social Workers . ( 2014 ) ‘Global definition of social work’, available online at: https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/ (accessed December, 6 2022).

MacDonald R. ( 2017 ) ‘ Impact, research and slaying Zombies: the pressures and possibilities of the REF ’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 37 ( 11–12 ), pp. 696 – 710 .

Manville C. , d’Angelo C. , Culora A. , Ryen E. , Cagla Stevenson G. , Weinstein N. , Wilsdon J. , Haddock G. , Guthrie S. ( 2021 ) Understanding Perceptions of the Research Excellence Framework among UK Researchers: The Real-Time REF Review , Santa Monica, CA , RAND Corporation . Available online at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html; https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html (accessed February 22, 2023).

Google Preview

McKenna H. P. ( 2021 ) Research Impact [Google Scholar], Cham, Switzerland , Springer .

O’Regan J. P. , Gray J. ( 2018 ) ‘ The bureaucratic distortion of academic work: a transdisciplinary analysis of the UK Research Excellence Framework in the age of neoliberalism ’, Language and Intercultural Communication , 18 ( 5 ), pp. 533 – 48 .

REF2021 . ( 2019a ) Panel Criteria and Working Methods for Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021 . ( 2019b ) Guidance on Submissions , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021/01 . ( 2021 ) ‘Analysis of full REF2021 panel membership’, available online at: ref2021_01_analysis-of-full-ref-2021-panel-membership.pdf (accessed September 11, 2022).

REF2021 . ( 2022a ) ‘REF2021 results and submissions’, available online at: https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact (accessed September 11, 2022)

REF2021 . ( 2022b ) ‘ Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 13 to 24 ’, available online at: mp-c-overview-report-final.pdf (ref.ac.uk) (accessed December 6, 2022).

The Stern Report . ( 2016 ) Building on Success and Learning from Experience, an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework , London , Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy . Available online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf (accessed December 12, 2022).

Torrance H. ( 2020 ) ‘ The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: processes, consequences, and incentives to engage ’, Qualitative Inquiry , 26 ( 7 ), pp. 771 – 9 .

Universities and Colleges Union (UCU ). ( 2022 ) ‘“Utterly hypocritical” for vice-chancellors to celebrate REF results whilst researchers leave the sector’, available online at: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12274/Utterly-hypocritical-for-vice-chancellors-to-celebrate-REF-results-whilst-researchers-leave-the-sector (accessed August 29, 2022).

University Business . ( 2022 ) Research England confirms 10% QR funding increase, University Business (accessed September 28, 2022).

Whitfield J. ( 2023 ) ‘A Bit of Everything’, in London Review of Books (45, 2, 19 January), available online at: John Whitfield · A Bit of Everything: REF-Worthy · LRB 19 January 2023 (accessed 22 February 2023).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-263X
Print ISSN 0045-3102
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

How to become a research social worker

How to become a research sw
What is a research social worker
What do research social worker do
Salary and outlook

When people think about social work, research social work is probably not one of the first fields that comes to mind. Nevertheless, research social work actually plays an important role as its findings can dictate not only governmental policy, but also political reform as well as the allocation of funding.

Research social workers need to be methodical, objective, and thorough in their research. As with any other field of research, the goal is not to confirm what you hope to be true, but rather figure out what is true.

For example, suppose that a city program offers a $1 million grant to a local community led organization. Before that money can be spent, the grant stipulates that a study must be completed to find out what groups in the community need the most support.

In this case, although the research social worker might have pre-existing ideas about how the money should be spent, it is their job to put their personal beliefs aside and complete an objective study of the community to determine where resources are lacking.

The preceding example illustrates a case where a research social worker may be polling hundreds of thousands or people, looking at economic and housing data, and otherwise compiling a macro-view of the community. Research social work can also exist at the micro-level.

Individual research

Participatory research refers to research whereby a social worker integrates themselves with a person or family in order to understand the problems they face and, more broadly, what community resources are missing or inadequate. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this “micro-view” participatory research.

Advantages

It’s possible to gain a very detailed view of a single person’s life and how they interact with the community. Much can be learned that would not otherwise reveal itself through a high level poll or questionnaire.
Due to the trust that can form between a community member and a research social worker, the “subject” may reveal more than they would with a questionnaire.

Disadvantages

Participatory research is time consuming and resource heavy. For example, if a research social worker spends two days with a family, that’s time that they could have otherwise spent gathering data from hundreds or thousands of community members via more efficient means.
It can become very difficult to remain objective as participatory research can lead the researcher to believe that one family’s problems are the most pressing, even if data strongly indicates that other groups are in greater need.
Relationships can form between the social worker and the subject. While these are not necessarily negative, they may lead to biases in data collection which wouldn’t otherwise be prevalent with more impersonal research methods.

Ultimately both macro and micro (participatory) research have a role to play in data gathering. Throughout their careers a research social worker will most likely conduct both kinds of research, and everything in between.

How research social workers need to conduct themselves

In terms of participatory research it is important for a research social worker to take into account multiple voices from the community. So even if a research social believes they know which groups are most at risk they still need to conduct wide ranging interviews and remain objectively open to the answers that they receive. This really touches upon a key facet of research social work: objectivity. Being open to what the data is saying regardless of whether it confirms or denies existing views held by the research social worker.

Also, it’s important to realize that research social workers may not be able to divulge the purpose of their research as they’re carrying it out. If participants knew the reason that the social worker was conducting a study they may be biased in how they present themselves or answer the social worker’s inquiries. This can actually prove frustrating for research social workers as they may not be able to answer even the most basic questions about what they’re doing.

Why social work research is important

We’ve covered why social research is important in regard to determining needs within a community and how that research can help to allocate funding to the proper areas. But research social work is also important in determining the efficacy of programs that have been implemented in the community. For example, research social workers can,

Administer before and after surveys to determine how the implementation of a new program has benefitted (or not benefitted) the community.
They may also conduct individual interviews with community members to find out how they feel about new programs. More specifically, these interviews may also be a chance to learn exactly how community members are benefitting from a program and also their thoughts on how it can be improved.

Research social work is very important in that it helps to determine what programs are needed in a community and after the programs are created it is research social workers who measure their efficacy.

While a “regular” social worker may spend their life seeing the trees (dealing with individual cases) it is the research social worker’s goal to see the forest. That is, understand the broader macro environment and the role that community programs play in it.

Educational requirements to become a research social worker

Most candidates should only consider taking a degree from a CSWE ( Council on Social Work Education ) accredited institution. Educational institutions without this accreditation may lack a rigorous teaching approach and degree holders from non-CSWE universities may find it more difficult to locate a good job.

Research social work typically requires a candidate to have a Ph.D. as they will be expected to have a comprehensive understanding of statistics and how to compile the data that they collect. Thus research social work typically requires a large commitment in terms of schooling.

In some cases, however, a social worker with a masters degree may be able to find work in the research field. Typically this person will handle assignments like distributing questionnaires and doing other data collection tasks in the neighborhood. A Ph.D. social worker will then compile that data and present the findings to local and federal government officials, among others.

Why research social work can be difficult

One of the primary difficulties associated with social work research is that the social research worker’s role isn’t actually to help, but rather to study and gather data. This is not to suggest that the social worker must be robotic and ignore all problems, however, their role isn’t to solve but to observe. A research social worker may suggest that a “regular” social worker get involved but that’s typically the extent of what they can do.

It can also be difficult doing participatory research, getting to know a subject or a family over the course of a day or two and then having to leave that family and move on. A normal social worker may stay with a family for months or even years, and enjoy a greater reward as that family’s situation improves.

Thus social work research is suggested for those who understand their limited intervention role and are truly interested in data and devising the most effective ways to measure the efficacy of programs within the neighborhood. Research social workers can get their satisfaction from seeing community programs succeed, rather than working with individual subjects.

Research social work career outlook

It can be difficult to determine the career outlook specifically in regard to the research social worker. This is a very niche area of social work, all the more so since it typically requires a Ph.D. That being said, we can still gain valuable information by looking at overall trends for the social work field.

The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) estimates that from 2021 to 2031 there will be a 9 percent growth rate in the field of social work. In terms of actual numbers, 64,000 new social work jobs will be created by 2031.

Research social worker salary

Again, when it comes to determining the salary for a research social worker it’s difficult as there is little data available. That being the case we can still make a fairly good estimation of how much research social workers earn.

According to HumanServicesEdu.org , “NASW found that a DSW or PhD can boost your earnings by around $17,000 over the baseline numbers you could expect with a bachelor’s.”

Overall we can see that research social workers tend to earn more than other social workers and their job prospects are very good.

Frequently asked questions

A research social worker conducts research studies and evaluations to gather data and evidence related to social work practice and policies.

They use a range of research methods, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, or experimental designs, to answer research questions and test hypotheses.

A Bachelor’s degree in social work is the minimum requirement for most entry-level social work positions. However, many research social work positions require a Master’s degree in social work. Gain relevant work experience and develop research skills. You can also pursue a DSW or PhD to further your knowledge and expertise.

Research social workers need to be knowledgeable about different research methods, social policies, be able to analyze and interpret complex data.

Research in social work practice: benefits of and obstacles to implementation in the Department of Veterans Affairs

Affiliation.

1 George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130.
PMID: 1526601
DOI: 10.1093/hsw/17.3.214

Although research is an important part of social work practice in health care, there is little systematic information that sheds light on research productivity, the benefits of conducting research, or the obstacles that must be overcome. This article represents the viewpoints of nearly all the directors of social services departments in the largest multihospital system in the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs. The organizational characteristics of hospitals and the attitudes of the directors about research were important correlates of research productivity. Although lack of time, resources, and interest were cited as common obstacles, more than one-third of the departments were conducting or involved in at least one study. Information about the research efforts of other social services departments was considered an important resource, particularly for departments with no ongoing studies. The implications of these findings for social work research in health care are discussed.

Publication types

Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Health Care Rationing
Social Work Department, Hospital / organization & administration
Social Work Department, Hospital / statistics & numerical data
Social Work*
United States
United States Department of Veterans Affairs / statistics & numerical data

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Black workers’ views and experiences in the U.S. labor force stand out in key ways

A U.S. Postal Service employee scans a package. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

There are more than 21 million Black Americans in the U.S. labor force today. Their workforce experiences are varied but stand out from people of other races and ethnicities on several important measures: They are more likely to be employed in certain postal work, transit, health care and security fields; report experiencing more racial discrimination on the job; and place a higher value on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the workplace.

For Labor Day, here are facts about Black workers’ labor force experiences and attitudes, drawn from federal data sources and recent Pew Research Center surveys.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the views and experiences of Black workers in the United States and how they differ from those of people from other racial or ethnic backgrounds. Findings are based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and Center surveys. Additional information about each survey and its methodology can be found in the links in the text of this post.

In the Center surveys, references to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time; are not self-employed; have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job; and whose company or organization has 10 or more people.

References to White, Black and Asian adults include those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race. Asian American respondents include only English speakers.

Black Americans make up large shares of workers in certain transit, health and security occupations, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data from 2022, the most recent year available. Black workers account for about 13% of all U.S. workers, including those who work full time, part time and are self-employed. They make up especially large shares of employees in certain occupations, including postal service clerks (40.4%), transit and intercity bus drivers (36.6%), nursing assistants (36.0%), security guards and gambling surveillance officers (34.5%), and home health aides (32.5%).

A bar chart showing occupations where Black workers make up 25% or more of the workforce.

Black workers make up much smaller shares of farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers (1.5%). They also tend to be underrepresented in some science, engineering and technology occupations such as veterinarians (2.2%), mechanical engineers (3.6%) and electrical and electronics engineers (6.0%).

A 2021 Center survey found that Black adults see barriers for Black workers in STEM fields, including an unwelcoming professional environment and the need for more mentorship and representation for young people in science, technology, engineering and math.

Black workers generally earn less than U.S. workers overall, according to BLS data from 2022. Among full-time wage and salary workers, the median weekly earnings for Black workers ages 16 and older are $878, compared with $1,059 for all U.S. workers in the same age group. Among workers of other races and ethnicities in the same age group, the median weekly earnings are $823 for Hispanic workers, $1,085 for White workers and $1,401 for Asian workers. And the differences hold when accounting for education level – Black workers earn less than those in other groups even among workers with bachelor’s or advanced degrees.

Household income for Black Americans has lagged behind that for Americans of other races for several decades, according to U.S. Census Bureau data .

The unemployment rate for Black Americans is the highest of any racial or ethnic group and roughly double the rate for the U.S. overall, BLS data shows. In 2022, the unemployment rate for Americans ages 16 and older was 3.7% for men and 3.6% for women, according to BLS annual averages . Among Black Americans, the unemployment rate was 6.3% for men and 6.0% for women. This compared with around 3% each for White and Asian men and women and about 4% each for Hispanic men and women.

Monthly unemployment figures showed a record-low unemployment rate for Black Americans in April of this year, but it has begun to tick back up .

As with gaps in household income, Black Americans have experienced higher unemployment rates than their White counterparts for decades. Researchers have identified a variety of factors causing this trend , including racial discrimination and gaps in education, skills and work experience.

Black workers are the most likely to say they’ve experienced discrimination at work because of their race or ethnicity, according to a February 2023 Center survey of U.S. workers . About four-in-ten Black workers (41%) say they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity. Much smaller shares of Asian (25%), Hispanic (20%) and White (8%) workers say the same.

Among Black workers, 48% of men and 36% of women say they’ve experienced discrimination or unfair treatment by an employer due to their race. There are no gender differences among White and Hispanic workers, and the sample size for Asian workers is too small to analyze men and women separately.

A bar chart that shows Black workers are most likely to say they've faced workplace discrimination due to race or ethnicity.

A quarter of U.S. workers say being Black makes it harder to succeed where they work, the February survey shows. Just 8% of U.S. workers say being Black makes it a little or a lot easier to be successful where they work, 50% say it makes it neither easier nor harder, and 17% aren’t sure.

Among Black workers, 51% say that being Black makes it harder to succeed where they work. By comparison, 41% of Asian, 23% of Hispanic and 18% of White workers view being Black as a disadvantage in their workplace. And about four-in-ten or fewer among Asian (39%), Hispanic (29%) and White (7%) workers say that being their own race or ethnicity makes it harder to be successful where they work.

A bar chart showing that about half of Black workers say that being Black makes it harder to succeed where they work.

Majorities of Black Americans see racial and ethnic bias as a major problem in hiring and performance evaluations generally, according to a separate Center survey of all U.S. adults conducted in December 2022 . Some 64% of Black adults say that, in hiring generally, bias and unfair treatment based on job applicants’ race or ethnicity is a major problem. This compares with 49% of Asian, 41% of Hispanic and 30% of White adults who view racial and ethnic bias in hiring as a major problem.

When it comes to performance evaluations, 56% of Black adults say that, in general, racial and ethnic bias is a major problem. About four-in-ten Asian or Hispanic adults and 23% of White adults say the same.

A bar chart that shows Black Americans more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to describe racial bias in hiring and performance evaluations as a major problem.

Black workers especially value diversity in their workplace, the February survey of workers found. Regardless of how diverse their workplace is, 53% of Black workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities. That percentage is larger than the shares of Hispanic, White and Asian workers who say this. And 42% of Black workers say they highly value a workplace with employees of different ages, compared with smaller shares of workers who are Hispanic (33%), Asian (30%) or White (24%).

There is a similar trend in views of workplace accessibility: 62% of Black workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities, compared with 51% of Hispanic, 48% of White and 43% of Asian workers.

The vast majority of Black workers say that increasing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) at work is a good thing, but a sizable share give their employer low marks in this area, according to the February workers survey .

A bar chart that shows about three-in-ten Black workers say their employer pays too little attention to DEI.

Around eight-in-ten Black workers (78%) say that focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing. Just 1% of Black workers say this is a bad thing, and 20% view it as neither good nor bad. While majorities of Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers also say that focusing on increasing DEI is a good thing, roughly half (47%) of White workers hold this view. In fact, 21% of White workers say it’s a bad thing.

But when it comes to their own employer’s DEI efforts, 28% of Black workers say their company or organization pays too little attention to increasing DEI – the largest share of any racial or ethnic group. Black workers are also the least likely to say that their company or organization pays too much attention to DEI. Just 3% hold this view, compared with one-in-ten or more among Hispanic (11%), White (16%) and Asian (18%) workers.

Black Americans
Business & Workplace
Discrimination & Prejudice
Economy & Work
Racial Bias & Discrimination

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

IMAGES

Social Work Research Methods
Week 1 What is social work research?
Social Research
The Basics of Social Work Research
Foundations of Social Work Research
Social Work Research Archives

VIDEO

Week 1 What is social work research?
Research in social work
Demystifying Social Work Research
Why is Social Work important?
The Nature of Social Research
Week 1 What is social work research?

COMMENTS

So why is research important to social work?
So, research is important to social work because it helps us be effective! According to the NASW, research in social work helps us: Assess the needs and resources of people in their environments. Evaluate the effectiveness of social work services in meeting peoples needs. Demonstrate relative costs and benefits of social work services.
PDF 1 Why Research for Social Work?
Introduction. This book seeks to identify research as an underused but essential tool for the busy social worker in undertaking their difficult, demanding and often contra-dictory tasks within society. For too long research has been ignored by social workers or at best been relegated to an add-on or luxury. There are many reasons why this has ...
How to Bring Research Into Social Work Practice
5.01 (d): Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics…. 5.02 (a) Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions. 5.02 (b) Social workers should promote and facilitate ...
Back to the Future: Using Social Work Research to Improve Social Work
Abstract This article traces themes over time for conducting social work research to improve social work practice. The discussion considers 3 core themes: (a) the scientific practitioner, including different models for applying this perspective to research and practice; (b) intervention research; and (c) implementation science. While not intended to be a comprehensive review of these themes ...
Focusing on what matters
To sustain and improve social work as part of the wider social care and health offer. This is how we will continue to deliver high quality care and support, centred on people's strengths, needs and aspirations. For social workers and other social care professionals, having access to quality research and evidence is increasingly important.
(PDF) Social Work Research and Its Relevance to Practice: "The Gap
The history of social work education may have also contributed to making it difficult for those teaching on university social work courses to engage routinely in research (Orme and Powell, 2007).
Social Work Research and Its Relevance to Practice: "The Gap Between
The findings revealed that social work continues to lack a clear definition of research and produces research that only minimally influences practice, often due to the pressure for social work academics to research and publish in support of their career trajectory within academia versus writing for practitioners.
Social Work Research Methods
Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends. Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable.
PDF Purposes of Social Work Research
both research and social work itself. The central argument of the chapter is that debates about the nature and purposes of social work research cannot be separated from debates about the nature and purposes of social work, and that these are very much tied up with epistemological and value issues, themes which we underline in the conclusion.
Social Work Research Methods
Introduction. Social work research means conducting an investigation in accordance with the scientific method. The aim of social work research is to build the social work knowledge base in order to solve practical problems in social work practice or social policy. Investigating phenomena in accordance with the scientific method requires maximal ...
Social Work Research
Explore a collection of highly cited articles from the NASW journals published in 2020 and 2021. Read now. An official journal of the National Association of Social Workers. Publishes exemplary research to advance the development of knowledge and inform social.
Evidence-Based Practice
Since the identification of evidence-based practices involves assessing the available body of practice-relevant research, having a robust social work research base is important. NIHM 2007 Symposium ... Consumers and professionals are important stakeholders in developing research agendas so research moves from effectiveness and efficacy to ...
Social Work Research
Social Work Research publishes exemplary research to advance the development of knowledge and inform social work practice. Widely regarded as the outstanding journal in the field, it includes analytic reviews of research, theoretical articles pertaining to social work research, evaluation studies, and diverse research studies that contribute to knowledge about social work issues and problems.
5.2 Conceptualization
Conceptualization is a process that involves coming up with clear, concise definitions. Conceptualization in quantitative research comes from the researcher's ideas or the literature. Qualitative researchers conceptualize by creating working definitions which will be revised based on what participants say.
1.3 Why should we care?
At this point, you may be wondering about the relevance of research methods to your life. Whether or not you choose to become a social worker, you should care about research methods for two basic reasons: (1) research methods are regularly applied to solve social problems and issues that shape how our society is organized, thus you have to live ...
Research
Research. High quality research in social work is important for many reasons. Research may be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the practice in which social workers engage and the programs they implement.Development of new knowledge, policies and programs often result from research efforts. It is also essential for faculty to conduct ...
Social Work Research and Mixed Methods: Stronger With a Quality
Abstract. Mixed methods are a useful approach chosen by many social work researchers. This article showcases a quality framework using social work examples as practical guidance for social work researchers. Combining methodological literature with practical social work examples, elements of a high-quality approach to mixed methods are showcased ...
Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021
Social work research appears more confident in wielding a range of methodologies to good effect, whilst maintaining attention to inequalities and power disparities. Funders need to take on board the message that high-quality social work research is delivered when sufficient time and resources are invested.
How to Become a Research Social Worker in 2023
Why social work research is important . We've covered why social research is important in regard to determining needs within a community and how that research can help to allocate funding to the proper areas. But research social work is also important in determining the efficacy of programs that have been implemented in the community.
Importance of Research in Social Work Practice: A Pilot Study From
It is highly important that social work practice be guided by scientific research and the resultant practices introduced to the literature. Social work research in Turkey is carried out by social work academics and practitioners. This dual position they occupy has not been thoroughly investigated in recent years; therefore, the aim of this ...
LibGuides: Social Work Research: Peer Review & Evaluation
Peer Review is a critical part of evaluating information. It is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available, and articles from peer reviewed journal are often grounded in empirical research. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to ...
Why Clinical Research is Important in Social Work
Social work practice helps to create the evidence and studies that clinical research will examine and study, looking at the minutiae to see how and why certain people are the way they are. The practice of research in social work should be used as a guidebook for clinical social work practice, while also helping to push the boundaries of how ...
Research in social work practice: benefits of and obstacles to ...
Although research is an important part of social work practice in health care, there is little systematic information that sheds light on research productivity, the benefits of conducting research, or the obstacles that must be overcome. This article represents the viewpoints of nearly all the directors of social services departments in the ...
For Labor Day, Black workers' views and experiences of work
A U.S. Postal Service employee scans a package. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images) There are more than 21 million Black Americans in the U.S. labor force today. Their workforce experiences are varied but stand out from people of other races and ethnicities on several important measures: They are more likely to be employed in certain postal work, transit, health care and security fields; report ...