Clinical Social Work Journal

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 157–165 | Cite as

From Scientism to Science: How Contemporary Epistemology Can Inform Practice Research

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Fifty years ago, social work understood research as depicted by logical positivism and its successors, and an obsolete scientism still held sway. This paper will briefly trace the history of the epistemological debate that has taken place in social work in the last 30 years, which is directly related to the credibility of agency-based research and of qualitative methods as well as to issues in knowledge development about oppressed groups. Contemporary epistemologies--realism and pragmatism--offer frameworks that are compatible with what is needed for practice-relevant research and knowledge development: firm grounding for methodological pluralism, attention to the social and political nature of science, the embrace of theory, and an end to scientism without resort to relativism. If these changes in epistemological thinking can be fully embraced, the twentyfirst century can be a very productive one for agency-based and practice-relevant social work research.

Keywords

Social work research Epistemology Realism Pragmatism Critical theory Practice research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abrams, L. S., & Moio, J. A. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastas, J. W. (2000). Research design for social work and the human services (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anastas, J. W., & Congress, E. (1999). Philosophical issues in doctoral education: A survey of doctoral program directors. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(1), 143–154.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bergin, M., Wells, J. S. G., & Owen, S. (2008). Critical realism: A philosophical framework for the study of gender and mental health. Nursing Philosophy, 9, 169–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
  8. Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Boland, K., & Atherton, C. (2002). Heuristics versus logical positivism: Solving the wrong problem. Families in Society, 83, 7–13.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, C. (2009). Women’s health theorizing: A call for epistemic action. Critical Public Health, 19(2), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2009). A pragmatist approach to the problem of knowledge in health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(6), 800–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, L. V. (1986). A feminist approach to social work research. Affilia, 1(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckhardt, E., & Anastas, J. W. (2007). Research methods with disabled populations. In F. K. O. Yuen, C. B. Cohen, & K. Tower (Eds.), Disability and social work education: Practice and policy issues. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, I. (2010). Clinical data mining: Integrating practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1988). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, M., Taylor, M. J., Jackson, R., & O’Jack, J. (1991). Social work and science: Many ways of knowing? Social Work Research & Abstracts, 27(4), 5–15.Google Scholar
  20. Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Gilgun, J. F. (1994). Hand into glove: The grounded theory approach and social work practice research. In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 163–174). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gleick, J. (2011). Information: A history, a theory, a flood. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  23. Goldenberg, M. J. (2006). On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 2621–2632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldenberg, M. J. (2009). Iconoclast or creed? Objectivism, pragmatism, and the hierarchy of evidence. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 168–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gorman, J. (1993). Postmodernism and the conduct of inquiry in social work. Affilia, 8(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haack, S., & Lane, R. (Eds.). (2005). Pragmatism, old and new: Selected writings. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  27. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, J. T. (2007). Counseling without truth: Toward a neo-pragmantic foundation for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harding, S. (2006). Social science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(2), 2009–2015.Google Scholar
  32. Harré, R. (1985). Philosophies of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Harré, R. (1986). Varieties of realism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Hart, E., & Bond, M. (1995). Action research for health and social care. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hartman, A. (1990). Many ways of knowing. Social Work, 35(1), 3.Google Scholar
  36. Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal. International Social Work, 44(1), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heineman (Pieper), M. (1981). The obsolete scientific imperative in social work research. Social Service Review, 55, 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heineman-Pieper, J., Tyson, K., & Heineman Pieper, M. (2002). Doing good science without sacrificing good values: Why the heuristic paradigm is the best choice for social work. Families in Society, 83(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  39. Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 845–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Iverson, R. R., Gergen, K. J., & Fairbanks, R. P. (2005). Assessment and social construction: Conflict or co-creation? British Journal of Social Work, 35, 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. James, W. (1948). Pragmatism. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  42. Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kazi, M. A. F. (2000). Contemporary perspectives in the evaluation of practice. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kazi, M. A. F. (2003). Realist evaluation for practice. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 803–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuhn, T. M. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction if scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lushin, V., & Anastas, J. W. (2011). Endpage: Harm Reduction in Substance Abuse treatment: Pragmatism as an epistemology for social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 11, 96–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MacIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Manicas, P. T., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mäntysaari, M. (2005). Realism as a foundation for social work knowledge. Qualitative Social Work, 4, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mizak, C. (Ed.). (2009). New pragmatists. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mohall, G. V., Hazel, K. L., Allen, J., Stacheirot, M., Hensel, C., & Faith, R. (2004). Unheard Alaska: Culturally anchored participatory action research on sobriety with Alaska natives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3/4), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murray, C. J. L., et al. (2006). Eight Americas: Investigating mortality disparities across races, counties, and race-counties in the United States. PLos Medicine, 3(9), e260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oquist, P. (1978). Epistemology of action research. Acta Sociologica, 21(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ortiz, L., & Jani, J. (2010). Critical race theory: A transformational model for teaching diversity. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(2), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Padgett, D. (1998). Does the glove really fit? Social Work, 43, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Peile, C., & McCouat, M. (1997). The rise of relativism: The future of theory and knowledge development in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pieper, M. H. (1989). The heuristic paradigm: A unifying and comprehensive approach to social work research. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60, 8–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Polansky, N. A. (Ed.). (1960). Social work research. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  62. Saulnier, C. F. (1999). Feminist theories and social work: Approaches and applications. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London & New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  65. Swigonski, M. E. (1993). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39(4), 387–393.Google Scholar
  66. Thyer, B. (1993). Social work theory and practice research: The approach of logical positivism. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 4(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  67. Tyson, K. (Ed.). (1995). New foundations for scientific social and behavioral research: The heuristic paradigm. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  68. Videka-Sherman, L., & Reid, W. (1990). Advances in clinical social work research. Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  69. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory action research. Newburk Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Witkin, S. L. (1991). Empirical clinical; practice: A critical analysis. Social Work, 36(2), 158-163.Google Scholar
  71. Zimbalist, S. E. (1977). Historic themes and landmarks in social welfare research. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silver School of Social WorkNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations