No abstract

In this article I explore the relationship between symbolic interactionist theory and interpretive description methodology. The two are highly compatible, making symbolic interactionism an excellent theoretical framework for interpretive description studies. The pragmatism underlying interpretive description supports locating the methodology within this cross-disciplinary theory to make it more attractive to nonnursing researchers and expand its potential to address practice problems across the applied disciplines. The theory and method are so compatible that symbolic interactionism appears to be part of interpretive description's epistemological foundations. Interpretive description's theoretical roots have, to date, been identified only very generally in interpretivism and the philosophy of nursing. A more detailed examination of its symbolic interactionist heritage furthers the contextualization or forestructuring of the methodology to meet one of its own requirements for credibility.

No abstract

No abstract

The recent application of strengths-based practice in child protection settings has been accompanied by evidence of inconsistent implementation and concerns that the approach is incompatible with statutory work. Few studies have moved beyond asking whether child protection workers are implementing strengths-based practice to explore why the approach is enacted as it is. This article describes a mixed methods study using an online survey and interviews to elicit from 225 statutory child protection workers in a large Canadian agency how they applied strengths-based ideas and why they did what they did. The authors found that although strengths-based practice was popular, 70 percent of participants believed that it was not always applicable to child protection work. Participants described five distinct versions of the approach, only one of which was fully congruent with their mandated role. The study suggests that the common conflation of strengths-based and solution-focused approaches ignores important differences in the conceptualization of practitioner authority and leaves practitioners attempting to implement versions ofstrengths-based practice that do not fit statutory child protection work. Only when practitioners choose solution-focused models that support their use of mandated authority is consistent implementation a reasonable expectation.