Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Bridge over Troubled Water—Closing the Research–Practice Gap in Social Work
School of Social Work, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Social Work. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. SALVE (Social challenges, Actors, Living conditions, reseach VEnue).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2319-4034
2021 (English)In: British Journal of Social Work, ISSN 0045-3102, E-ISSN 1468-263X, Vol. 51, no 7, p. 2722-2739Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Since starting over a hundred years ago social work has been occupied with the division into academic and practical knowledge. A common theme in scientific journals of social work is how this gap can be understood and resolved. The initial purpose of this article was to carry out a systematic review to find out if and how the gap could be bridged. Because few independent studies could be found, the study instead took the form of a scoping review with more included articles. The results show concrete suggestions as to how to bridge the gap, but also three discourses with dissimilar problem definitions and solutions. The emergence of proposals such as the evidence-based practice and its diverse combinations, the formation of new institutions, and today’s globalisation triggers this fragmentation. The consequences are vast confusions of opinions and explanations which illustrate competing knowledge positions. The authors propose that researchers and practitioners should orient themselves in this landscape when building bridges between academia and practice. Instead of taking the research–practice gap for granted, they suggest that social work should relate more closely to these three discourses.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2021. Vol. 51, no 7, p. 2722-2739
Keywords [en]
discourse, evidence-based practice, practitioner research, research and evaluation, user-led research
National Category
Social Work
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-50362DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa055ISI: 000728415000025Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85121377632Local ID: GOA;;1460436OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-50362DiVA, id: diva2:1460436
Available from: 2020-08-24 Created: 2020-08-24 Last updated: 2022-01-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Skillmark, Mikael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Skillmark, Mikael
By organisation
HHJ, Dep. of Social WorkHHJ. SALVE (Social challenges, Actors, Living conditions, reseach VEnue)
In the same journal
British Journal of Social Work
Social Work

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 551 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf