Considerations in the Development of a Scientific Social Work

A key issue in social work\u27s struggle to develop a legitimate and distinct knowledge base is the development of a scientific model suited to the needs and objectives of the profession. Although various approaches have been proposed, they have tended to dichotomize the issues into one of science versus nonscience. In response to this situation, this paper presents an integrative approach to the development of a scientific social work. In addition, it is argued that values can (and should) be an integral part of a scientific approach and that they are legitimate criteria for the evaluation of social theories

Rationality in Social Work: A Critical Examination

This paper critically examines the definitions and criteria for rationality in social work in light of western philosophic tradition. Rationality in social work is seen as instrumental (means-oriented) and individualistic rather than substantive (ends-oriented) and social. A set of criteria which expand the basis for making rationality claims in social work is suggested. These additional criteria aim to serve the valued social justice ends of social work practice

Letters to the Editor Regarding NASW Press Censorship Issue

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR REGARDING NASW PRESS CENSORSHIP Marcia B. Cohen, Co-editor, Journal of Progressive Human Services Richard Hoefer, Editor, Journal of Policy Practice Tony Tripodi, Former Editor of Social Work Research Former Co-editor of Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation Stanley L. Witkin, Former Editor-in-Chief, Social Work Elizabeth J. Clark, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers (NASW

Vertinimas diskurso perspektyvoje

This paper explores issues and implications of evaluation considered from a discourse perspective. Five topics are discussed: questions, description, authority, criteria, and positioning. In each case, issues are identified that tend to be overlooked, ignored, or not visible from an evaluationas- methods perspective. The paper concludes with an appeal for increased openness and diversity in our understandings and practices of evaluation.Straipsnis analizuoja problemas ir implikacijas, susijusias su vertinimu, į kurį žvelgiama iš diskurso perspektyvos. Straipsnyje paliečiamos penkios temos: klausimai, aprašymas, autoritetas, kriterijai ir pozicionavimas. Kiekvienu atveju autorius identifikuoja temas, kurios dažnai ignoruojamos, praleidžiamos pro akis ir nematomos tiriant vertinimą iš metodologinės perspektyvos. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad būtina taikyti įvairesnes ir atviresnes perspektyvas vertinimo sampratose ir praktikose

Why Do We Think Practice Research is a Good Idea? Comments and Musings Inspired by the Salisbury Statement

In this paper I raise some questions about current understandings of practice research and whether they are worth pursuing. In particular, the notion of a gap between practice and research is examined in terms of how it constricts thinking about this issue. I also attempt to explicate some of the less examined assumptions associated with practice research. Finally, I suggest that we embrace multiplicity, not by trying to accommodate all views under the practice research umbrella, but by accepting that there will be many versions of practice research that will have differential appeal.Dans ce papier, j’interroge les conceptions contemporaines de la recherche appliquée pour voir s’il vaut la peine de poursuivre dans cette direction. Plus spécifiquement, j’analyse l’idée de clivage entre pratique et recherche comme une entrave qui empêche de mener ces questionnements. Je tente aussi de mettre en lumière quelques présuppositions associées à la recherche appliquée et qui ne sont généralement pas questionnées. Finalement, je suggère d`opter pour une approche multiple, sans essayer de rassembler toutes les perspectives sous une conception unique de la recherche appliquée mais en acceptant qu’il existe une multitude d’interprétations de la recherche appliquée, représentant chacune différents intérêts.在本篇论文中，我提出了几个针对当前有关实务研究的理解以及它们是否值得探讨的问题。我特别就实务与研究之间的差距如何限制了实务研究的议题这个方面考察了有关实务与研究之间差距的观念。对于一些与实务研究相关但目前仍缺少验证的假设，我也试图进行了说明。最后，我建议我们能够接纳多样性，这并非试图在实务研究这把保护伞下容纳所有的观点，而是能够接受会有很多不同诉求的实务研究。In diesem Artikel werfe ich einige Fragen zu gegenwärtigen Auffassungen von anwendungsbezogener Forschung auf und prüfe, ob diese es wert sind, ihnen nachzugehen. Besonders die Idee einer Kluft zwischen Praxis und Forschung wird daraufhin untersucht, wie sie das Nachdenken über diese Thematik verengt. Ich versuche ebenfalls einige der weniger untersuchten Annahmen im Zusammenhang mit praxisbezogener Forschung zu erklären. Schließlich schlage ich vor, dass wir uns auf Vielfalt beziehen , nicht indem versucht wird, alle Perspektiven unter dem Begriffsdach der praxisbezogenen Forschung unterzubringen, sondern durch das Akzeptieren, dass es viele Versionen von praxisbezogener Forschung geben wird, die verschiedene Vorzüge haben werden

Evaluation of a new amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in male urine, female endocervical swab, and patient obtained vaginal swab specimens

Aims—To compare the performance of a new generation dual amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with a molecular method for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis, using a range of urogenital samples, and to assess the reliability of testing self collected vaginal specimens compared with clinician collected vaginal specimens. Methods—Two population groups were tested. For the first population group, first void urine samples were collected from 193 male patients with urethritis, and endocervical swabs were collected from 187 high risk commercial sex workers. All urine and endocervical specimens were tested by a conventional assay (IDEIA chlamydia), a new generation amplified immunoassay (IDEIA PCE chlamydia), and the Amplicor polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Discrepant results obtained among the three sample types were confirmed using a nested PCR test with a different plasmid target region. For the second population group, four swab specimens, including one patient obtained vaginal swab, two clinician obtained endocervical swabs, and one clinician obtained vaginal swab, were collected from 91 high risk sex workers. Self collected and clinician collected vaginal swabs were tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia. Clinician obtained endocervical swabs were assayed by IDEIA PCE chlamydia and Amplicor PCR. Results—The performance of the IDEIA PCE chlamydia test was comparable to that of the Amplicor PCR test when male urine and female endocervical swab specimens were analysed. The relative sensitivities of IDEIA, IDEIA PCE, and Amplicor PCR on male first void urine specimens were 79.3%, 91.4%, and 100%, respectively. The relative sensitivities of the three tests on female endocervical specimens were 85.0%, 95.0%, and 100%, respectively. The positivity rates for patient collected vaginal specimens and clinician collected vaginal specimens by IDEIA PCE were 25.2% and 23.1%, respectively, whereas those for clinician collected endocervical swabs by PCR and IDEIA PCE were both 27.5%. Conclusions—IDEIA PCE chlamydia is a lower cost but sensitive alternative test to PCR for testing male urine samples and female endocervical swabs. In addition, self collected or clinician collected vaginal specimens tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia are a reliable alternative to analysing endocervical specimens. Key Words: Chlamydia trachomatis • enzyme immunoassay • clinical specimen