1 / 21

Building bridges through research

Building bridges through research. Making connections between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’ JSWEC 9-11 July 2008, Homerton College, Cambridge, UK. Presenter.

kalani
Download Presentation

Building bridges through research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building bridges through research Making connections between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’ JSWEC 9-11 July 2008, Homerton College, Cambridge, UK

  2. Presenter • Heather D’Cruz, BSW, MSW, PhD, Visiting Leverhulme Fellow at Salford University, Institute for Health and Social Care Research (November 2007-July 2008), and Senior Lecturer in Social Work, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia • I acknowledge my collaborators: Philip Gillingham, Sebastian Melendez, and participating practitioners from Glastonbury Child and Family Services, MacKillop Family Services and the Department for Human Services, Geelong, Victoria, Australia who are unable to be here today.

  3. Aims of this presentation (1) • To present unanticipated benefits of a research project beyond those directly associated with the research aims.

  4. Aims of this presentation (2) • To demonstrate the place of research in practice, the generation of knowledge for practice through relationships between researchers and practitioners, and the ways in which new knowledge and perspectives can become new practices.

  5. Aims of this presentation (3) • To discuss how collaborative research processes and emphasis on dialogue facilitated building bridges between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, and ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’.

  6. Background (1) • apparent conceptual and practical boundaries between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. • implicit distinctions that associate ‘theory’ with ‘the academy’, and ‘practice’ with ‘the field’.

  7. Background (2) • ongoing scholarly work to investigate the ways in which these boundaries may be crossed to achieve ‘more effective practice’ and ‘more relevant theory’, and • constructive relationships between social workers in different spaces constituted as ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’ (eg Fook 1996, 1999, 2000; Camilleri 1996, 1999; Gould 2004; Healy, 2005; Wenger 2008).

  8. This presentation … • … discusses a collaborative research project involving ‘practitioners’ in child and family welfare and child protection in Geelong, Victoria, Australia, and ‘academics’ from Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

  9. Research Aims • to explore an alternative child protection practice repertoire by investigating with practitioners, the appropriateness of engaging with concepts from social constructionism within risk assessment frameworks.

  10. Building Bridges: Process (1) • Methodology: theory, ethics and method • Knowledge/power • Interpretive and situated meaning (D’Cruz et al. 2004, 2007, in press) • Collaborative practice (D’Cruz and Gillingham 2005) • Dialogue as method (D’Cruz et al. 2005, in press)

  11. Building Bridges: Process (2) • 5 focus groups in a workshop format – first and fifth half-day, second, third and fourth, full-day. • The second, third and fourth workshops explored the three dimensions of the alternative approach: (1) theories of knowledge and power, (2) professional roles, and (3) practice skills, respectively.

  12. Building Bridges: Process (3) • Materials sent out as reading/preparation: The definitions, semi-structured questions and related readings were mailed to participants before each workshop to allow them time to consider and critically engage with the materials.

  13. Building Bridges: Process (4) • Dialogue during the workshops – use of electronic white board or transparencies which could be written on during discussions and displayed, plus note-taking.

  14. Building Bridges: Outcomes (1) Conference involvement (D’Cruz, Gillingham, Christoe and Cuff 2002) – presentation included video of participants. DVD of entire presentation for all research participants. Reports on research process and outcomes at the completion of each year (D’Cruz and collaborators, 2002, 2003)

  15. Building Bridges: Outcomes (2) • Practice development forum (2004 - 2006 inclusive) Reports on the process and outcomes of the practice development forum at the end of each year (D’Cruz and collaborators (2005, 2006)

  16. Building Bridges: Outcomes (3) Publications and questions of ‘collaboration’ between the ‘academy’ and the ‘field’ Different imperatives (outcomes and processes) Differences in communication: ‘writing’ and ‘talking’ Identity, location and knowledge-work

  17. Reflections • What does ‘collaboration’ mean? • How to maintain relationships between ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’ with little or no resourcing and within different imperatives? • How to maintain relationships, processes and structures when contexts and people change?

  18. Conclusions • This presentation has critically engaged with unanticipated outcomes of research beyond the expected aims including ‘collaborative’ processes and relationships between ‘the academy’ and ‘the field’ in a small Australian regional town. • Any questions?

  19. References (1) • Camilleri, P. (1996) (Re)constructing Social Work : Exploring Social Work Through Text and Talk, Avebury, Aldershot • Camilleri, P. (1999) ‘Social work and its search for meaning: Theories, narratives and practices’, in Pease, B. and Fook, J. (eds), Transforming Social Work Practice: Post-modern Critical Perspectives, St Leonards, Australia, Allen and Unwin, pp. 25–39 • D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P. and Melendez, S. (in press) ‘Exploring the possibilities of an expanded practice repertoire in child protection: an alternative conceptual approach’, Journal of Social Work (accepted 12 December 2007) • D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P. and Melendez, S. (2007) ‘Reflexivity: A concept and its meanings for practitioners working with children and families, Critical Social Work, vol. 8, no. 1, http://www.uwindsor.ca/units/socialwork/critical.nsf/main/457F1A98E8E26324852573720061C3DB?OpenDocument • D’Cruz, H. (2006) in collaboration with representatives from the Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region, Glastonbury Child and Family Services, and Mackillop Family Services and Bethany Community Support, Practice Development Forum end-of-project report 2005, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

  20. References (2) • D’Cruz, H. (2005) in collaboration with representatives from the Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region, Glastonbury Child and Family Services, and Mackillop Family Services and Bethany Community Support, Practice Development Forum end-of-project report, 2004, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia • D’Cruz, H. and Gillingham, P. (2005) ‘“Building Bridges”: A Case Study of a Collaborative Research Process’, Journal of Progressive Human Services, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 51-80 • D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P. and Melendez, S. (2004)‘Exploring the Possibilities of an Expanded Practice Repertoire in Child Protection: An Overview of Outcomes of a Collaborative Study’, Global Social Work: Reclaiming Civil Society, Joint Conference of the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, Adelaide, South Australia, 2-5 October, 2004 • D’Cruz, H. (2003) in collaboration with representatives from the Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region, Glastonbury Child and Family Services, and Mackillop Family Services, Research on Developing a Practice-Generated Approach to Policy Implementation: End of Project Report, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia • D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., Christoe, D., and Cuff, C. (2002)‘Building Bridges: a case study of collaborative research between “the academy” and “industry”, “government” and “non government”, “theory” and “practice” and other yet unknown possibilities’, Working Across Borders, Joint AASWWE/AASW (WA) Conference, 29 September - 2 October 2002, Perth, Western Australia

  21. References (3) • D’Cruz, H. (2002) in collaboration with representatives from the Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region, Glastonbury Child and Family Services, and Mackillop Family Services, Research on Developing a Practice-Generated Approach to Policy Implementation: End of Project Report, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia • Fook, J. (ed.) (1996) The Reflective Researcher, St Leonards, Australia, Allen and Unwin • Fook, J. (1999) ‘Critical reflectivity in education and practice’, in Pease, B. and Fook, J. (eds), Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives, St Leonards, Australia, Allen and Unwin, pp. 195–208 • Fook, J. (2000) ‘Deconstructing and constructing professional expertise’, in Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Fook, J. and Rossiter, A. (eds), Practice and Research in Social Work, London, Routledge • Gould, N. (2004) ‘Qualitative research and social work: The methodological repertoire in a practice-oriented discipline’, in Lovelock, R., Lyons, K. and Powell, J. (eds) Reflecting on Social Work – Discipline and Profession, Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, pp. 130-144 • Healy, K. (2005) Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Frameworks for Practice, Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke • Wenger, E. (2008) ‘Communities of practice: a social discipline of learning’, Keynote Speech 1 to the 8th International PEPE Conference, Practical Learning: achieving excellence in the human services, Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Edinburgh, Scotland, 23 – 25 January 2008

More Related