Pathways for practitioners’ participation in creating the practice-research encounter

Serbati, Sara; Moe, Anne; Halton, Carmel; Harold, Gill

doi:10.1080/13691457.2019.1582008

“…Referring to people who participate in research as "research participants," "research partners," "co-researchers," or simply "people," reminds SWRs to treat them with a caring, attentive, and respectful disposition. When SWRs view people involved in their research as active participants, then they may be involved as people who can act, change, and be changed by the research; further, the participants can take active roles in designing, implementing, and leading the research (Danchev & Ross, 2014;Serbati et al, 2019).…”

Section: Proposed Practice Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Standards for Addressing Social Justice in Social Work Research

Barsky,

Barsky

2024

Int J SW Values and Ethics

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Referring to people who participate in research as "research participants," "research partners," "co-researchers," or simply "people," reminds SWRs to treat them with a caring, attentive, and respectful disposition. When SWRs view people involved in their research as active participants, then they may be involved as people who can act, change, and be changed by the research; further, the participants can take active roles in designing, implementing, and leading the research (Danchev & Ross, 2014;Serbati et al, 2019).…”

Section: Proposed Practice Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2024

Int J SW Values and Ethics

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not unusual to observe that little use is made of research about effective interventions in practice (Serbati et al , 2019), but why does this matter? Firstly, commissioning SARs and using evidence to inform their findings and recommendations is an acknowledgement and expression of accountability.…”

Section: Research Informed and Enriched?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One concerns the relationships between researchers and practitioners. Building bridges between different communities has been promoted through the development of researcher-practitioner partnerships in generating and discussing findings [Mason et al (2017/2018), Serbati et al (2019)]. A second concerns the inaccessibility of research, published behind paywalls.…”

Section: Research Informed and Enriched?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Safeguarding adult reviews: informing and enriching policy and practice on self-neglect

Preston‐Shoot

¹

2020

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis and explore the degree to which SARs draw upon available research and learning from other completed reviews. Design/methodology/approach Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. The four domains and the thematic analysis are rounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent in this sample of reviews. Findings Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. Multiple exclusion homelessness emerges as a subset within this sample, demonstrating that SABs are engaging in reviews of people who die on the streets or in temporary accommodation. Research limitations/implications The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. NHS Digital annual data sets do not enable identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Practical implications Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for safeguarding adult reviews. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the “why” question, drawing attention where appropriate to policies being pursued by the central government that undermine any initiative to end rough sleeping. Originality/value This paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence-base for practice. The evidence-base also supports practice with individuals who experience multiple exclusion homelessness. Policymakers and practitioners have an approach to follow in this complex, challenging and demanding area of practice.

show abstract

Pathways for practitioners’ participation in creating the practice-research encounter

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Practice Standards for Addressing Social Justice in Social Work Research

Practice Standards for Addressing Social Justice in Social Work Research

Untitled

Safeguarding adult reviews: informing and enriching policy and practice on self-neglect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About