Risks and wrongs in social science research. An evaluator's guide to the IRB

Having an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and monitor the use of human subjects is now fundamental to ethical research. Yet social scientists appear increasingly frustrated with the process. This article aims to assist evaluators struggling to understand and work with IRBs. The author theorizes why IRBs frustrate and insists there is only one remedy: We must accept the legitimacy of IRB review and (a) learn more about IRB regulations, imperatives, and the new pressures on them; and (b) educate IRBs about social scientific methodologies and empirically demonstrable risks. A research agenda and tips are offered.     

A Case for Limiting the Reach of Institutional Review Boards

Institutional review boards (IRBs) governing social and behavioral research seem to systematically exceed the guidelines established by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. We examine a clandestine study of prostitution and another of employment discrimination and conclude that IRBs, more concerned about being sued than they are about protecting research subjects, get in the way of science and cause ethical problems as a consequence. We discuss the ethical principles involved and call for a suspension of all IRB review in the social and behavioral sciences.     

Standard Bearers: Qualitative Sociologists’ Experiences with IRB Regulation

In response to the system for regulating research with human subjects, researchers have raised two apparently contradictory concerns: that IRBs are excessively inconsistent (often raised by biomedical researchers), and that they are excessively standardizing (often raised by qualitative interview researchers). Why does standardization appear as the dominant theme in qualitative researchers’ experiences with their IRBs? And how do qualitative researchers experience standardization in their IRB encounters? We focus on IRBs role as regulatory bureaucracies, which typically rely heavily on standardized communication and decisions to process information and make large numbers of decisions in a timely manner. We explore the role of standardization in IRB regulation of qualitative research in an analysis of semi-structured interviews with 26 qualitative sociologists from six research universities and three liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern United States. In a regulatory regime oriented toward the norms of experimental research, these frictions resulted partly from a lack of appropriate standardized language and decision-templates, but also from the inherent difficulties of applying standardized decisions to work that is unpredictable, unique, and difficult to routinize.     

Complicity with conservatism: the de‐politicizing of multicultural and intercultural education

Although multicultural education, a field dedicated to promoting equity and justice in education, continues to be the target of conservative critics, its contemporary crisis brews from within. The greatest danger to the movement toward equity and social justice that underlies multicultural education in the US comes from educators who ostensibly support its goals, but whose work—cultural plunges, food fairs, human relations activities—reflect more of a compassionate conservative consciousness than an allegiance to equity. By reviewing conceptions of multicultural education from the field’s leading US scholars and uncovering inconsistencies between these conceptions and the work people do under the guise of multicultural education, the author works toward a re‐establishment of an authentically progressive notion of the field.     

This is Common Factors

Common factors are conditions and processes present in, among, and surrounding participants in clinical work. In the past 20 years, increasing attention and research on common factors has generated a great deal of discussion in clinical psychology, psychiatry, marriage and family therapy, and to a lesser extent, social work. While there is no single definition of common factors, they are generally discussed as the non-technical aspects of therapeutic work—such as the relationship between the practitioner and client and the expectancy of the client—that have been shown to be associated with successful outcomes. Common factors also include attributes of the practitioner and client, the support system of the client, the institutional and organizational conditions in which the practitioner practices, and also the strategic actions employed by the practitioner, client, and all those involved in the work that promote change. This paper will discuss key concepts in a common factors practice perspective and how evidence is used by common factors practitioners, highlight features of common factors practice, and suggest implications for developing a common factors practice approach.     

‘States of change’? One hundred years of the JUC

ABSTRACT

The Joint University Council for Social Studies (JUCSS) was formed 100 years ago at the end of the First World War in 1918. Its expressed aim was to coordinate and develop the work of social study departments across the UK, as part of the larger project of post-war reconstruction. In October 2018, an event entitled ‘States of Change?’ was held in London to celebrate this history and to explore what, if any, kind of future the JUC (as currently constituted) should have. At the event, I gave a short historical presentation that examined social work education’s history in the context of the JUCSS’s origins and development. This paper picks up some of the key ideas from this presentation in more detail. It will be argued that tensions which existed in the formation of the JUCSS in 1918 still exist today, not least because they are emblematic of the ambivalences and complexities that are at the heart of social work and social work education, then and now. Furthermore, it will be suggested that social work as an academic discipline must pay heed to these tensions if it is to survive—and thrive—in the academy today. (192)     

It's not who you know,it's how you know them: Who exchanges what with whom?

Reciprocity – doing for others if they have done for you – is a key way people mobilize resources to deal with daily life and seize opportunities. In principle, reciprocity (the Golden Rule) is a universal norm. In practice, it is variable. Personal networks rarely operate as solidarities and as such, people cannot count on all the members of their networks to provide help all the time. Rather, social support comes uncertainly from a variety of ties in networks. This paper uses survey research to understand the variable and contingent nature of reciprocity and inquires about the kinds of resources exchanged between people. We investigate the extent to which interpersonal ties, network characteristics, and people's personal characteristics (e.g., gender) affect the nature of reciprocal relationships. The evidence is extraordinarily clear on one subject – giving support is strongly associated with getting it. Analyses show that getting support from network members is the key to East Yorkers reciprocating – usually in kind but sometimes with other forms of support.     

Who benefits from network analysis: ethics of social network research

The success of social network research (SNR) has led to expectations that in addition to academic research, SNR can introduce people to one another, solve organizational problems, map the epidemiology of AIDS, and catch criminals and terrorists. Since SNR requires that names of both respondents and their contacts be collected and used in most analyses, Institutional Review Boards become very concerned. Experiences of the author, participants in the 2003 Sun Belt Conference and the Social Network List Serve illustrate ethical issues. Proper handling of the data and the analysis, including complete control by the investigator can virtually eliminate harm to respondents and those they nominate, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of IRBs. On the benefit side, academic researchers always benefit, organizations, society and science may benefit, but individual respondents rarely do.     

Talk,Research Technology,and the Achievement of Human Subject “Status Passage”

This article draws on field notes and interviews collected during an ethnographic study of the informed‐consent process in HIV/AIDS clinical trials to examine the movement of individuals from the status designation of patient to that of human subject of research. Its theoretical starting points are Glaser and Strauss's (1971) observation of the centrality of interaction to status passage and their conceptualization of status passage as social accomplishment. Insights from conversation and technology studies are applied to show that human subject status passage is facilitated through (1) the enlistment efforts of research professionals and patients, (2) the talk of participants on informed consent and protocol‐related matters, and (3) the placement of signatures on informed‐consent documents. The analysis reveals that human subject status passage is indeterminate, negotiated, and unmarked by ceremony and cultural symbols. The implications of these findings for future studies on status passage and informed consent in human research are considered.     

Having It All? Women in High Commitment Careers and Work–Life Balance in Norway

The question if, or how, women can 'have it all' — high commitment career, partner and children — is regularly debated in popular media internationally. Drawing on qualitative research, this article examines work–life balance (WLB) for women in high commitment careers as politicians and non‐executive directors on corporate boards in Norway. Norway is lauded as one of the most gender equal countries in the world and in theory at least it is therefore a highly enabling environment for women to combine career and family. The article considers the WLB challenges women politicians and directors encounter and what types of WLB support — national, workplace and household level — are important for them in order to mitigate the potential strain caused by work–family conflict. This article's contribution is in highlighting the competing and sometimes contradictory policies, practices and discourses at multiple levels that surround WLB and the gendered social expectations of women in Norway who apparently 'have it all'.     

Assent-maximizing social choice

We take a decision theoretic approach to the classic social choice problem, using data on the frequency of choice problems to compute social choice functions. We define a family of social choice rules that depend on the population’s preferences and on the probability distribution over the sets of feasible alternatives that the society will face. Our methods generalize the well-known Kemeny Rule. In the Kemeny Rule, it is known a priori that the subset of feasible alternatives will be a pair. We define a distinct social choice function for each distribution over the feasible subsets. Our rules can be interpreted as distance minimization—selecting the order closest to the population’s preferences, using a metric on the orders that reflects the distribution over the possible feasible sets. The distance is the probability that two orders will disagree about the optimal choice from a randomly selected available set. We provide an algorithmic method to compute these metrics in the case where the probability of a given feasible set is a function only of its cardinality.     

Ideology and Education for Social Work Practice

Three approaches to social work practice (Personal Deficiency, Ecological, and Political Economy) which emerge from different ideological positions (conservative, liberal and socialistlfeminist, respectively) are summarized. Utilizing a case example demonstrates how the assumptions inherent in each approach result in different problem detinitions and practice interventions. Only one of these approaches (Political Economy) supports methods of intervention which foster social transformation. Guidelines and implications for social work practice and social work education adhering to a political economy approach are discussed. Substantively different practice methods and educational models are required if sociar transformation is to be supported.     

Networking practitioner research: synthesising the state of the ‘art’

The aim of this paper is to examine what we know about the experience and outcomes of networked initiatives aimed at facilitating practitioner research. We outline the roles and significance of practitioner research within social work; review emerging understanding of practitioner research network initiatives; and draw conclusions from a comparative analysis of three such initiatives in Auckland, New Zealand, Arhus County, Denmark, and across Scotland. We consider the nature and challenges of practitioner research and a number of responses to how such work should be formulated and conducted. Central to our argument is an empirically informed consideration—from our separate and shared experiences—of how well networks enhance the process and consequences, and art and craft, of such research projects.     

Is Social Work Research Distinctive?

What makes social work research distinctive? And how is our answer linked to how we do social work research? Drawing on UK research council statements about social work research as a starting point, I argue that it makes some degree of sense to ask what is distinctive about social work research. But the more significant question is what might make social work research distinctively good? I suggest six benchmarks. These address the case for methodological excellence; inquiry marked by rigour, range, variety, depth and progression; active conversation with the social science community; consistency with broader social work purposes; attention to aspects of the research enterprise that are close to social work; and taking seriously aspects of the research mission that seem on the face of it far from social work. However, social work and social work research will be the poorer if we over‐emphasize the distinctives at the expense of commonalities in fostering and assessing best practice and best purpose.     

Critical issues on informed consent in Africa

Biomedical research has made tremendous advances during the last decade in improving human health and well being. In spite of these advances, research has encountered serious emerging challenges as it moves across boarders and confronts different societies with different cultural practices, beliefs, moral thoughts and different values. A pervasive and perplexing issue affecting the current advances in research is the perception that research might end up exploiting populations unless it is conducted in the context of a strong ethical framework. Furthermore, informed consent has increasingly become a thorny area for researchers when considering what should be done when introducing the process into a community, especially if the process might destroy the traditional value system and customs of the community. In this paper, I argue that community consent is an unethical process which should be subverted for community dialogue and community education in research in Africa.     

Nothing to give at all

Abstract

Adlerian psychology has been publicly neglected for many years but has been used covertly in many modern psychologies. Social work theory owes much to Adler's philosophy and many social workers probably unknowingly use it — in whatever guise — as their starting-point. But if Individual Psychology is their spring-board, the casework relationship may be their life-raft — to the detriment of creative and therapeutic work with people. Adler's ideas and social work theory are of value only in so far as they are expressed in the relationship of the worker with the client. For the most part, certainly in statutory agencies, other demands make it difficult for workers to operate from anything other than a defensive position. Therapeutic community practice, in contrast, reflects both Adlerian psychology and the best of social work theory: an egalitarian approach springing from a commitment to self-determination for both clients and workers.     

Policy-Practice in Social Work: Models and Issues

Abstract

The emergence of policy—practice is a recent development in social work. In this article, policy—practice is defined as a direct social work practice mode with the potential to strengthen the social work profession's abilities to meet its century-long commitments of providing policy-informed services to those in need of them. At the same time, policy—practice advocates for and participates in policy implementation and change. This article examines policy—practice and places it within the context of the profession's historic cause—function debate and identifies several barriers that have complicated development. Most important, the article reviews five policy-practice models found in the literature: (1) social worker as policy expert, (2) social worker as change agent in external work environments, (3) social worker as change agent in internal work environments, (4) social worker as policy conduit, and (5) social worker as policy itself.     

Time and Television News Work*

Combining theoretical and ethnographic material, this paper outlines why time is an important vehicle for analyzing the social organization of television news work and the social construction of television news. The paper investigates major events with problematic features—unscheduled “hard news”—as a means of understanding basic beliefs and organizational practices of news assemblers in a local television news station. Based on participant observation and interviews with photographers and reporters, the evidence shows that time is a key independent variable in the selection and assembly of hard news. Time is often more than a variable, it is a constituent feature of television news work—a contingency which must be attended to if the work is to produce what news workers consider to be “good television news.” The problematic elements of news work are magnified under the pressures of perishable hard news stories where adjustments to unfolding work demands cannot be predetermined or programmed. Some implications of the analysis are discussed in terms of the content of local news, the biases of news coverage, and the importance of considering time as a dynamic process in the study of work.     

Social Work Training or Social Work Education? An Approach to Curriculum Design

Population ageing, economic circumstances and human behaviour are placing social welfare systems under great strain. In England, extensive reform of the social work profession is taking place. Training curricula are being redesigned in the context of new standards of competence for social workers—the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF). Students must be equipped on qualifying to address an extensive range of human problems, presenting major challenges to educators. Critical theory suggests an approach to tackle one such challenge—selecting the essential content required for areas of particular practice. Teaching on social work with older people is used to illustrate this. Habermas' theory of cognitive interests highlights the different professional roles served by the social work knowledge base—instrumental, interpretive and emancipatory. Howe's application of sociological theory distinguished four social work roles corresponding to these. It is suggested that curriculum design decisions must enable practitioners to operate in each. When preparing students to work with older people, educators therefore need to include interpretive and emancipatory perspectives, and not construct social work purely as an instrumental response to problems older people present. This approach provides one useful rationale for curriculum design decisions, which is applicable to other areas of practice, and to contexts outside England.