Innovation in social work research

Although digital narrative methods lend themselves well to participatory, action-oriented inquiry, these relatively new methods also raise questions about potential risks involved in using digital technologies to engage marginalized groups in social work research. This article examines the feasibility, challenges, and opportunities of using digital narrative methods in anti-oppressive social work research (AOSWR) by providing empirical insights from the AltaVoces project—an AOSWR project that used digital narrative methods to engage Latino youth. This case study demonstrates the compatibility and feasibility of digital narrative methods in AOSWR by examining to what extent the AltaVoces project: (1) used methods that center the contexts, voices, and experiences of oppressed peoples, recognizing the social construction of knowledge and the politics inherent in knowledge creation, (2) critically interrogated power arrangements within research relationships and made efforts to form authentic, collaborative relationships and share power with co-researchers, and (3) acknowledged oppressive systems and institutions and reflected a commitment to transforming, dismantling, or abolishing them through the research purpose, process, and products. We found that digital tools offered new possibilities for centering the voices of Latino youth, rebalancing power in research relationships, and connecting knowledge to action through digital products, in alignment with AOSWR, but also introduced new power hierarchies and risks related to producing digital material. The AltaVoces project provides one example of how digital narrative research may be implemented and evaluated using the integrative AOSWR framework, exposing several aspects of digital narrative research that warrant specific attention and presenting practical strategies for doing so.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The AltaVoces project: A digital narrative approach to anti-oppressive social work research with Latino youth

Lilly

2022

“…Technology also affects the way that human services are designed, delivered, and researched, especially the innovative potential, utility, utilization, and limits of social media as a research and intervention tool in countries across the globe (Bredl et al, 2012;Broadhurst, 2016;Chan and Holosko, 2016;Giglietto et al, 2012;Goldkind, 2015;Johnsen et al, 2003;Marziali, 2006;Moylan et al, 2015;Patton et al, 2016;Sunderland et al, 2014). For example, in the field of child welfare and adoption in the United Kingdom, social media has been shown to be helpful to practice, but it also poses some challenges (Greenhow et al, 2017;Simpson, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative inquiry using social media: A field-tested example

Caplan

Purser

2017

Social media is a rapidly expanding set of technology tools that people use to communicate, learn, interact, document, create, and participate in societies worldwide. It is also transforming how social work, among other professions, conducts qualitative research. This study outlines a field-tested method used to analyze data from Reddit, a major social media platform used by 6% of online adults in the United States. It provides a step-by-step account of a Reddit-based qualitative thematic analysis from a social work heuristic lens on the subject of poverty. To our knowledge, no such account of mining social media big data from Reddit for social work practice exists in the literature. Philosophical, ethical, and practical considerations of this method are discussed.

“…Innovation and creativity are subjects close to the heart of this journal. One of our Editors, Karen Broadhurst, recently explored the use of innovation in social work research in her Editorial (Broadhurst, 2015) and my own recent Editorial explored multisensoriality (Morriss, 2017). The books reviewed in this issue are both collections, one edited by three UK-based social work academics, Louise Hardwick, Roger Smith and Aidan Worsley, and the other by Lia Bryant from the University of South Australia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as Karen Broadhurst (2015: 3) makes clear in her Editorial, it is crucial not to fetishise the ‘novel’ at the expense of rendering tried and tested methodologies as dated or even obsolete. Phillips and Shaw (2011: 610) concur that ‘we must not fall into an uncritical romanticisation of any research practice because of its novelty or technological prowess’.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, as Catherine points out in her review, Hardwick, Smith and Worsley define innovation as both moving beyond traditional methods and also looking at traditional methods in new ways . For example, Phillips and Shaw (2011) argue that there is a need for skill and expertise in the use of the quantitative in social work research, and Broadhurst (2015) describes how the impact of technology has been transformative in facilitating innovative research designs, analyses and experimentation. Thus, it is helpful that the book by Hardwick, Smith and Worsley includes a chapter on the use of a randomised control trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Innovation and creativity in social work research

2017

The theme for the book reviews in this issue of Qualitative Social Work is innovation and creativity in social work research. Innovation and creativity are subjects close to the heart of this journal. One of our Editors, Karen Broadhurst, recently explored the use of innovation in social work research in her Editorial (Broadhurst, 2015) and my own recent Editorial explored multisensoriality (Morriss, 2017). The books reviewed in this issue are both collections, one edited by three UK-based social work academics, Louise Hardwick, Roger Smith and Aidan Worsley, and the other by Lia Bryant from the University of South Australia. Interestingly, all of the contributors to the former book are also UK based. In contrast, the second collection includes contributors from Australia, Israel, Spain, Sweden, and the US. I am delighted that both of the reviewers have expertise in using innovative and creative approaches in social work research. Sarah Vicary from the Open University in the UK has just successfully defended her doctoral research which is informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and includes the use of 'rich pictures', a visual approach to data collection (see Matthews, 2014). Sarah reviews the book Critical and Creative Research Methodologies in Social Work (2015) edited by Bryant. Catherine Phillips from Lakehead University, Canada, has used arts-based and visual methods (see Phillips, 2007a, 2007b; Phillips and Bellinger, 2010). Notably, Catherine was the co-Editor-with Ian Shaw-of a special issue of the British Journal of Social Work on 'Innovation and the practice of social work research' (Shaw and Phillips, 2011). Catherine reviews the book Innovation in Social Work Research: Using Methods Creatively edited by Hardwick, Smith and Worsley. This title combines innovation and creativity, tacitly making a link between the two. So, what exactly is innovation in research? In terms of the funding bodies, innovation tends to be linked with impact and the interdisciplinary (ESRC, 2017). However, there may be a tension between innovation and impact: innovative research can be less likely to have impact (Phillips and Shaw, 2011: 612). Here innovation is fundamentally linked with 'metrics' (see Staller, 2017). Phillips and Shaw (2011: 610) argue that in this way 'funding bodies and, in turn, academic institutions operate as cultural brokers of social work's identity'. They stress that some unfunded research, including doctoral work, can be particularly creative and innovative. I would include Sarah's doctoral research under this category. Xenitidou and Gilbert (2009: 6) defined innovative research as practice that has 'not yet filtered through to typical research methods courses or that impact on the research process in ways which are novel (inventions) or different to existing ones'.