20 questions: the research needs of children and family social workers

This is the report of a study commissioned by research in practice from Bournemouth Social Services, one of its member agencies in August 1997. The paper was written by Carol Tozer and Samantha Ray from the Research Department, Bournemouth Social Services.

1. Introduction

This report is based upon the findings of a postal survey of the research needs of children and family services team managers working in 24 social services departments (SSDs) throughout England. Each department is a member of the research in practice initiative at Dartington and, as such, demonstrates tangible commitment to the principle of evidence-based social work. The report is predominantly descriptive and represents the first investigation of the data.

2. Aims, method and response

The research had two aims:

1. to explore the organisation of the research function by research in practice member SSDs
2. to provide an overview of the research needs of children and family services team managers employed by research in practice members.
   

Two short questionnaires were developed, tested and distributed for the purposes of the study. One addressed the size, management and strategic focus of the research function within research in practice social services departments. The other consisted of twenty questions designed to explore and catalogue the research needs of children and family services team managers.

Each SSD member of research in practice has a nominated Link Officer who has major responsibility to co-ordinate their department's participation in research in practice research in practice activities and ensure that it makes full use of the services provided under the research in practice banner. For the purposes of this survey, therefore, link officers were asked to do three things:

• participate as survey respondents and provide an overview of the size, management and substantive focus of their department's research function

• distribute the study questionnaire to every social worker at team manager level across the gamut of children and family services

• ensure the return of completed questionnaires to the researchers.

In order to encourage a favourable response to this request, the researchers undertook to provide link officers with a clean data set containing the responses given by their department's team managers, (although the original questionnaires are retained by the authors for purposes of confidentiality). It was also explained to the link officers that results were to be presented first to the Directors of research in practice SSD members at the Annual Policy Forum held at Dartington in June. In other words, Directors would be given the first opportunity to examine the expressed research needs of their professional staff throughout children and family services. The participation rates achieved were encouraging. The average rate of return for self-completing questionnaires is usually about 30 per cent and rarely higher than 40 per cent (McNeill, 1990). We secured a 96 per cent response rate for link officers and a 42 per cent response rate for team managers. More specifically, of the 25 research in practice members, 24 link officers returned the questionnaire which examined the size, scope and management of the departmental research function. Only 23 link officers, however, were able to distribute questionnaires to team managers 2 and Table 1 provides the response rates achieved in these individual SSDs.

A noticeable feature of Table 1 pertains to departmental size: the new unitary authority of Poole has only eight team managers working across children and family services compared with 60 employed by Kent and 100 in Essex. This large variation has an important bearing upon the analysis and interpretation of the data produced and it is important for the reader to be mindful of an important caveat of this report: the data relate to research in practice members, not SSDs in general. Caveat aside, however, the magnitude of this exercise is such that the results stand up to empirical scrutiny.

The variation in the response rates achieved in each SSD also highlights an important point with regard to the dissemination of the data sets to link officers: for some SSDs, the research represents the expressed research needs of a very large majority of their children and family services team managers.

table 1: team manager response rate

Link Officers were asked to distribute and return completed team manager questionnaires within three weeks. For one link officer, this tight deadline proved impossible.

3. The organisation of research among research in practice members: the Cinderella syndrome?

a. Departmental research programmes

Does your Department have a formal research programme? (i. e., a document approved by management/ committee which describes key research themes and studies undertaken or commissioned by your Department?)

Only five of the 24 link officers replied that their Department has a formalised research programme of this type. Of course, the lack of a formal research programme does not automatically mean that research is managed in an ad hoc way in the other 21 SSDs. Rather, the presence of such a document simply provides evidence that departmental managers and members will have engaged in a systematic discussion about departmental research requirements and subsequently approved departmental priorities. Accordingly, the finding that so few departments formalise their research programme in this way suggests that the strategic management of the research function on the part of research in practice members is most conspicuous by its absence. In other words, research would appear to suffer from the "Cinderella" syndrome within SSDs: taken to the "ball" of policy and practice debate by accident rather than design.

b. Departmental research agendas: involving practitioners

If research is systematically to inform a Department's policies, procedures and practice, practitioners ought to be involved in the research commissioning process as both contractor and customer: contractor because they are invariably well placed to identify what needs to be understood; and customer because research must be managed, presented and disseminated in such a way that social workers are empowered by, rather than alienated from, research findings.

It is, perhaps, salient to recall a key conclusion of the Independent Review Group:
'Practitioners need to own research; they must be involved in setting the research agenda, participating in its implementation and co-operating in evaluation and development.' Independent Review Group, 1994, p4.

Unfortunately, it would seem that this particular "message from research" remains unheard at the local level. Interestingly, while all five research programmes noted above were subject to annual review, only two departments routinely ask practitioners to contribute to the formation of the epartmental research agenda that goes to management/ committee for discussion and ratification. Furthermore, of these five SSDs, four carry out their research programmes in-house rather than contracting from academia or independent consultants.

A primary issue for research in practice members, therefore, concerns the development and determination of departmental research priorities and agendas. No one person or management group has the monopoly of research questions and a department's research agenda ought to reflect the fullest possible panoply of strategic and operational research requirements. Research agendas which result from rarefied discussions undertaken between senior management and researchers are not conducive to practitioner ownership of that agenda. If senior managers within SSDs want social workers to refer to, and apply, research findings in their daily practice, they need to develop structures and mechanisms which facilitate the involvement of their front line staff in the development and determination of that research.

c. Research staff

With regard to SSD staff structures and the availability of resources for in-house research staff, it must be acknowledged that research competes with other (often more pressing) strategic and operational staffing priorities. Acknowledgement aside, however, subscription to the goal of evidence-based social work suggests that SSDs need to consider their organisational investment in research. Accordingly, link officers were asked to provide information on any staffing of the research function within their departments.

Fourteen of the 24 SSDs employ staff with a research brief: these 14 departments employ 43 research-related staff 3 . Noticeably, only six departments employ research-related staff who are dedicated to children and family services: it is far more common for SSD researchers to work across the full gamut of adult and children's services. Across the 24 SSDs, there are only 11 research-related staff devoted to children and family services. Seemingly, therefore, that there is some disparity between the rhetoric endorsing the importance of an evidence-based culture with research in practice members and the reality which is characterised by small numbers of research-related staff.

d. Facilitating practitioner access to research: departmental activities

Link Officers were also asked:

How does your department ensure that children and family practitioners gain access to key research findings? (e. g., The "Blue Book").

As revealed in Table 2, departments deploy a number of mechanisms by which they facilitate practitioners' access to research. The importance accorded to the use of the training function suggests that researchers need to exploit departmental training programmes in communicating their findings to practitioners: SSDs have easily identifiable training managers who could act as a useful conduit in ensuring that studies are made available to practitioners. The importance accorded to the training programme also suggests, however, that practitioners' access to research is formalised rather than routine: the effectiveness of the training function in communicating research findings to practitioners, therefore, depends upon their access to that training in the initial instance.

table 2: departmental research dissemination mechanisms (N= 24)

With regard to the dissemination of research findings via routine daily practice, it is interesting to note that only a third of link officers mentioned team management meetings as a vehicle for research dissemination. Collectively, therefore, the results presented in the Table above reveal that Departments have instigated a variety of different dissemination mechanisms in order to ensure that research reaches the practitioner audience. For the main part, however, such mechanisms comprise "dedicated" or "formalised" events such as seminars or training activities: the operational setting remains under-exploited as a dissemination venue.

e. Preliminary conclusions

This section of the report has provided a preliminary overview of the organisation of research among research in practice members. It has revealed that very few Departments develop and promulgate a research programme: a finding which suggests that the majority of research undertaken on behalf of a department is conducted, and managed, in a "stand alone" fashion. Not surprisingly, therefore, the results also confirm that practitioners are not consulted in the development of any internal research agendas. The absence of a co-ordinated approach to the development of internal research agendas suggests that such research as is undertaken within Departments is likely to be reactive to particular scenarios and concerns as they arise.

There are very few research staff working within research in practice departments, the majority of whom work across the panoply of adult and children and family services. It is inconceivable almost, to expect academic children and family social work researchers to be equally well grounded in adult services; for the most part, however, that is precisely what is asked of researchers working within SSDs.

More positively, departments deploy a variety of dissemination strategies in facilitating practitioners' access to research. Concentrated as they are in training and workshop venues, these dissemination strategies are predominantly "stand alone" activities; it would seem that the operational management setting is not yet commonly used as a vehicle for research dissemination.

4. The Research Needs of Children and Family Services Team Managers

a. Team Manager type

As noted above, 291 children and family services team managers from 23 SSDs participated in the survey. We were interested to establish the types of teams managed by the respondents and whether or not they had routine contact with service users. Table 3 below reveals that respondents had managerial responsibility for the whole range of children and family services with the exception of a hospital-based social work. More specifically, almost half the respondents manage 'assessment and placement' or 'family support' teams. By way of contrast, very few respondents (n= 3) are post care team managers.

table 3: name of team (N= 291)

Finally by way of background, 98 per cent of the team managers continue to have day-to-day contact with children and their families.

research in practice

Team managers were first asked to evaluate the importance of a knowledge of key research findings to their daily practice: the overwhelming majority (96%) of team managers regard key research findings as either 'essential' or 'important'.

Any development strategy for the pursuit of evidence based social work can thereby avoid the "hard sell" marketing approach: social workers readily acknowledge that research is important to their practice. Rather, the development strategy for evidence-based practice should concentrate upon identifying mechanisms by which social workers' access to, and use of, research can be improved and routinised.

Respondents were asked how they found about key pieces of research. Table 4 provides a précis of their responses and reveals that there are a number of communication routes marked on practitioners' research maps. Most common is the professional literature route: 89 per cent of team managers find out about research from publications such as Community Care and The Psychologist. Next, respondents pointed towards certain departmental activities which facilitate access to research: seminars, the distribution of research reports and meetings were some of the more commonly mentioned activities here. A majority of team managers (63%) also mentioned "personal study" as an access route; a result which confirms the importance team managers accord to research.

table 4: research access routes (N= 291)

Responses to the next question about the frequency with which team managers refer to research for help in their day-to-day practice highlight a key obstacle to the attainment of evidence-based practice: 39 per cent of team managers admitted that they accessed research "not very often" or "hardly ever" (although only one team manager was brave, or foolish, enough to admitting that s/ he "never" used research in their day-to-day practice). Only 13 per cent state that they access research "a lot" in their day to day practice.

Despite their overwhelming endorsement of the principle of research informed practice, therefore, the reality is that a sizeable minority of team managers fail to apply research findings regularly in their practice. Of course, this result is hardly headline news within the social work press and there has been a growing professional awareness of the need for improved research training in social work qualifying and post qualifying education (e. g., Marsh and Triseliotis, 1996) as well as calls for improved research dissemination (e. g., Independent review Group, 1994). Nevertheless, the discrepancy between practitioners' rhetoric endorsing the importance of developing a research literacy and the reality whereby they fail either to acquire or maintain that literacy, form the foundations upon which reviews of research dissemination strategies throughout the social work profession are based.

What is, perhaps, more newsworthy is that social workers reveal a desire to increase their use of research: 94 per cent of team managers stated that they should increase their use of research in their own practice; and 95 per cent stated that their teams should increase their use of research in practice. By way of contradiction, however, despite team managers' desire to bring research to the operational arena, only 35 per cent replied that research findings were discussed with any regularity in their team meetings. Finally here, less than half the team managers (43%) replied that their own line managers encouraged them to refer to or use research in supervision sessions.

The gap between research and practice having been clearly identified, team managers were asked to explain this gap:

Generally, it is recognised that there is a gap between research and practice. Why do you think that is?

The aggregated responses are listed in Table 5 below and fall into three broad categories. First, and most particularly, team managers stressed the practical difficulties they face in making use of research. The lack of time was a very common inhibitor:

Managers tend to access/ look for concise précis of current research that relates directly to the practice of teams and management groups -that is sometimes difficult to find. Time is a major factor in deciding just how much research material can be read. Hence the link with practice in supervision does not take place as often as might be useful. Setting time aside to digest research would be the answer but this is very seldom seen as a priority amongst the many competing priorities of team managers.
Respondent 54

(There is) no time for thinking, planning, reading and preparation time. (Social) work is reactive rather than proactive. Resources are poor and decisions made on the hoof.
Respondent 63

A further practical difficulty involves the length of time it takes to complete the research process. Respondents described an asymmetry between practice developments (which are subject to constant change) and the availability of research reports whose conclusions are regarded as redundant by the time they become available:

Research tends to reflect what is already happening in practice. Practice changes quickly whilst research has a longer gestation period.
Respondent 23

There is a time lag between research and publication of results -research reflects what practice was at the time, meanwhile political and social changes affect current practice.
Respondent 192

Next, responses were organised around an observation that the research community itself effectively excludes practitioners from engaging in, and being empowered by, the research process. First, over a third of respondents (35%) noted that research dissemination strategies are simply not targeted upon practitioners:

Partly structural, partly cultural: although I believe the former affects the latter. Basically, there is no automatic input of research into day-to-day work as links between research centres and the Departments occur at the top and not the "coal face".
Respondent 168

Because research findings need to be more accessible in terms of 1) key points 2) language 3) we are all busy people!! Having time is precious.
Respondent 267

Respondents (21%) also replied that research is not developed in a "practice friendly" manner. Research is theoretically and methodologically driven and this either compromises its practice applications or at least render those applications difficult for practitioners to discern:

Personally, I am research minded (BSc/ MA studies) but agree with the above statement. Most see research as academic and unrealistic, focusing on areas of little interest. The way research is presented/ written up does little to dispel this negativity.
Respondent 247

Finally, respondents described a cultural antipathy to research: there is a lack of professional commitment to research (7%) and little organisational importance is accorded to research (5%):

The Department pays lip-service to the importance of bringing research findings into policy and practice. It is left too much to individual initiative in an extremely busy working environment.
Respondent 230

table 5: reasons why there is a gap between research and practice (N= 291)

There are important messages here for social work Directors and academic researchers alike. If SSDs are to move towards evidence-based practice, departmental management must provide clear messages that research literacy is inherent to good professional practice. Simple rhetoric is not enough, however, and thus departments also need to back these messages up with resources, facilities and training which ensure that practitioners receive the support they require in acquiring and maintaining that research literacy:

(The) scarcity of resources, i. e., to build in time for research, would mean covering front line staff with alternative resources, i. e., workers!
Respondent 290

Practitioners express difficulties in accessing comprehensible research: they often find research confusing and contradictory. Moreover, they question the relevance of research findings to practice simply because those findings are so often, it is asserted, out of date. For the research community, therefore, the main message is that fundamental change is required in what are, effectively, the material relations of research production. Cosmetic changes, such as those achieved by improved presentation and simpler explanations of methodology are important first steps in improving the accessibility of research to practitioners. But these, alone, will not effect the type of change envisaged by the "evidence-based practice" culture and ideal. If researchers have as their primary aim a desire to impact upon practice, they need to negotiate their roles and responsibilities and focus upon facilitating (rather than formulating) research agendas, design and dissemination. They need to communicate better their interests and hypotheses as well as clearly stating the influences upon their choice of methodology. Put simply, researchers need to build in measures of partnership with practitioners based upon collaboration and accountability.

c. Participation in research

In order to build the necessary bridges between research and practice, it is important first to test any pre-exiting foundations. Accordingly, team managers were also asked:

In your current professional role, have you ever participated in a research study?

table 6: team managers' participation in research (N= 147)

In order to help explain the motivation behind team managers' participation in research, respondents were asked whether it was connected to any professional/ postgraduate training or whether it was work related: 88 per cent of the relevant 147 team managers replied that their participation had been work-related.

These are notable results. They suggest high levels of practical collaboration between researchers and practitioners within SSDs and render team managers' admissions that research findings are not systematically applied to their day-to-day practice all the more perturbing.

d. Practitioners' research needs

The final sections of questions focused on team managers' research needs as defined by their ideas on how the relationship between research and practice could be improved and their identification of research priorities. With regard to the relationship between research and practice, respondents were asked three questions:

What types of events or processes would help you and your team to improve your knowledge about research findings?

What types of events or processes would help you and your team to improve your use of research in day-to-day practice? and

What types of events or processes would help practitioners to have a greater influence upon your department's research agenda?

Responses to the knowledge and application questions echo what is now an established theme in this report: movement toward practice-based evidence depends as much upon researchers changing their "practice" as it does upon the social work profession being more sensitive to research. Table 7 reveals that team managers thought that practitioners' research literacy would best be served via clearer research reports that explained, simply and swiftly,primary findings and their practice implications as well as departmental practices and procedures which provided practitioners with regular access to a research venue:

When research is presented... there should be an explanation of what was measured, the limitations of the study and what validity any inferences from the results have. Conflicting results from other studies should be pointed out.
Respondent 49

I need to be able to show the relevance of research findings to practice. This has to compete against all other demands on the time of managers and teams.
Respondent 77

Departmental seminars. These need to take place quarterly. List of key research from Senior Managers to feedback to team managers.
Respondent 65

From the departmental perspective, respondents did not talk so much about finding the time to read research as having the opportunity to hear and talk about research (although, of course, seminar attendance is not without its time implications). They wanted their research literacy skills and those of their team members to be promoted in public, visible ways by their Departments: in other words, research required a higher "public" profile within their organisations.

table 7: ways to improve knowledge about research (N= 291)

Respondents provided fewer answers to the question about how they might improve their use of research in their day-to-day practice although the themes of user-friendly research products and the establishment of research seminars again featured in the responses given. Relatively few respondents identified their team management meetings as an opportunity for the consideration of research findings as they apply to practice decisions: a finding which might reflect their previously expressed dissatisfaction with their research knowledge base and possible lack of confidence to introduce research findings to their discussions with their colleagues.

table 8: ways to improve use of research (N= 291)

In response to the question about increasing practitioners' influence upon departmental research agendas, a certain cynicism characterised some of the
responses given:

This is difficult. Practitioners do not have the confidence that grass roots opinion gets acted upon. In theory, the practitioner's voice gets heard by passing requests up the management chain. Practitioners would need feedback that their views were being considered before seriously spending time and energy identifying a research agenda.
Respondent 9

table 9: greater influence on research agenda (N= 291)

Very simply, therefore, as well as departments providing the venues and time for practitioners to consider their research needs, respondents pointed towards the importance of systematic departmental consultation procedures and processes:

A designated officer within service with specific responsibility for inviting and co-ordinating and feeding up the line issues which practitioners feel the need for better information about.
Respondent 17

First, practitioners need to know about the Department's agenda for research and they need to know what's in it for them. Departmental negative contextual framework does not augur well for staff's participation in departmental activities. Staff's enthusiasm/ motivation will be stimulated with a more positive response from Senior Management in terms of making them feel valued. Staff need to be approached in a positive way from Senior Management about the Department's research agenda.
Respondent 65

Being consulted and heard/ listened to. Knowing that the department has an overview of all the outcomes of research and its impact on the practitioner when it is translated into proceedings and practice at ground level -we have been inundated/ overwhelmed by the expectations of numerous departments working in isolation -as a result of research.
Respondent 89

Finally here, respondents were asked two questions about their ideas for specific pieces and programmes of research. One question asked:

If you could commission a single piece of research to help you and your team in your day-to-day practice, what would it be?

Some 48 different research topics were described in response to this question: a finding which, if nothing else, demonstrates that practitioners provide a fruitful source of research suggestions for the development of any departmental research agenda. Only the more common research topics are highlighted in table 10 below which highlights the priority practitioners accord to the evaluation of efforts to "refocus" children's services.

It would involve looking at the preventative work undertaken by our family centre and the effectiveness of the work. Was the work preventative/ family support/ looking at family patterns/ cycles etc.
Respondent 254

When assessing initial child care enquiries/ concerns, the decision as to whether the care is regarded as child protection or child in need would be extremely useful to be researched. e. g., What is the effects (sic) of social worker's initial contact, team manager's decision not to regard it as a section
47 enquiry etc.
Respondent 286

table 10: research studies needed to help in day-to-day practice (N= 291)

It must be admitted that while some research topics suggested by respondents are reported upon at length and in depth in the existing social work and social policy literatures, there was much originality in their ideas:

Something around the effect on service users of involving several workers in intervention both consecutively (need to change workers) or concurrently -different
workers undertaking different tasks within the casework. I feel that some families must be confused by the number of workers they are obliged to tell.
Respondent 9

Evaluation of the ways in which our services are designed when the assessment/ care management "fits" within other child care perspectives and especially the adult community care perspective.
Respondent 274

How is joint locality planning affecting service delivery to children in need?
Respondent 291

Finally, respondents were asked to evaluate (on a five point scale) the importance for day-to-day practice of five research themes commonly found in the academic and professional social work literatures. Their replies as noted in Table 11 reveal the broad support they accord to the range of research themes and the particular importance of the "what works" research programme.

table 11: research programme needs (N= 291)

5. Practitioners' research needs and their implications for evidence-based social services

The results presented in this report suggest that a four point agenda contains the discussion about the research needs of children and family services practitioners and front line managers. Resolution of these needs, however, depends upon a shift in the balance of relations between the research community and the social work profession as set out in the "middle bar" of figure 3 which describes the barriers and gateways to evidence-based practice.

The first item on the agenda concerns the need for positive encouragement of a research culture within the social work profession and social services departments. Practitioners' research literacy should begin during training but recent evidence from the Department of Health points towards an ongoing scenario in which social work students are "badly prepared with a poor use of theory and applied research" (Marsh and Triseliotis, 1996). Within the social work profession, therefore, there is a need to increase the importance accorded to research literacy during professional training and ongoing professional development. and social services departments keen to move towards the ideal of "evidence-based" services might benefit from looking first at the curriculum of research training provided to students they sponsor through the Diploma in Social Work and vocational courses. From a departmental perspective, it means making explicit the research literacy skills and standards required of children and family services social workers and ensuring that they receive the necessary support and space in order to acquire and maintain that literacy.

Of course, it is not only ignorance that prevents the translation and application of research into policy and practice: the "politics" of research can impede its implementation. Social research commissioned on behalf of social services departments takes place within a highly charged political atmosphere in which rational models of policy planning and implementation are often unrealistic. Indeed, the very call for social research may result from a number of reasons: it may represent a sincere desire for policy/ practice decisions to be improved via the contribution of reliable and valid data; it may serve a tactical goal such as postponing a decision or deflecting a criticism; or it may be used for partisan purposes and become incorporated into the bargaining processes between the different interest groups involved. Item two on the "evidence-based practice" agenda, therefore, concerns the development of effective and appropriate research agendas: agendas which are framed by, and engage the support of, practitioners because they seek to inform practice dilemmas or difficulties. But because practitioners represent one member of the research-commissioning community, the role for the researcher becomes that of facilitator: he or she must ensure that the views of practitioners at least inform decisions about research priorities.

A rationale for practitioner-informed research agendas finds resonance in the critique of feminist research which emanates from the independent living movement (e. g., Morris, 1992) where a lack of partnership between researchers and disabled people has resulted in allegations about the effective silencing of service users and distortion of their experiences. After all, no single person or group within social work holds the monopoly of research questions and practitioners are, invariably, well placed to help frame agendas because they know what needs to be understood because of their direct experience of service provision.

Next, practitioners experience difficulties in understanding and interpreting research. They find different pieces of research confusing and occasionally contradictory and it is particularly hard for them to discern which findings are most "reliable" and relevant for their own practice. Rather than being empowered by research, practitioners are often alienated by the language and method of research. The next item on the 'evidence-based practice' agenda, therefore, concerns improved research accessibility.

'Good' social research relies upon a firm grasp of epistemological principles, substantive policy knowledge and methodological expertise. A necessary precondition for 'good'research, therefore, is that the information generated is produced in accordance with social scientific methods under the influence of social science theory. This means that methodology matters and researchers need to make clear to their audience that their choice of methodology is connected to their view of social work and the research issues at hand.

Questions of epistemology lie outside the remit of this report, but it is important to acknowledge the difficulties that researchers experience in attempting to marry the competing demands of the "new public policy" (and its concerns with performance management and accountability - concerns which encourage research founded upon the principles of control, measurement and certainty) with the preconditions necessary for the attainment of "evidence-based" practice (which depend upon partnership with practitioners in setting agendas, managing research and disseminating findings).

Finally, attainment of 'evidence-based practice' depends upon the improved dissemination of findings. Securing a practitioner-friendly focus of research is important; helping practitioners to make use of that research is essential. Much has already been written about the need for improved dissemination under the research in practice banner which is based upon a recognition that dissemination is as much about strategy as it is about route: what is intended for Directors of social work will not do for practitioners and different dissemination methods serve different purposes. What is very clear, however, is that researchers and those commissioning research within social services departments and elsewhere need to devote as much attention to the dissemination of their results as they do to its design and implementation. Dissemination is not an optional add-on to the research product, it should be an integral feature of its design and management.

By way of conclusion, therefore, evidence-based practice throughout the members of research in practice remains elusive: its attainment is dependent upon changes in the material relations of research production and cultural shifts in the identity of the social work profession. A very tall order - but then social work is used to being asked to do the impossible.

Bibliography

Independent Review Group (1994) A Wider Strategy for Research and Development Relating to Personal Social Services , London, Department of Health.

Marsh, P. and Triseliotis, J (1996) Ready to practice: social workers and probation officers; their training and first year in work Aldershot, Avebury

McNeill , P (1990) Research Methods 2nd edition, London, Routeledge

Morris, J. (1992) "Us and Them" Feminist research, community care and disability in Critical Social Policy, 33, pp22-39

Sinclair, R and Jacobs, C. (1994) Research in Personal Social Services: The experiences of three local authorities . A Report to the Department of Health.

Smith, J (1995) Social workers as users and beneficiaries of research: a report of a project funded by the ESRC Social Work Research Centre , University of Stirling