Journal of Gerontological Social Work – standards for reporting research

Earlier this year, two work groups from the American Psychological Association Publications and Communications Board – the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research and the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research – each produced a set of detailed guidelines. These guidelines provide new standards for reporting research with the aim of increasing transparency, replicability, and translation of research. These guidelines are meant for authors, reviewers, and journal editorial staff. I encourage Journal of Gerontological Social Work (JGSW) authors and reviewers to read both of the papers produced by these groups – citations and links are found at the end of this editorial. The JGSW will provide these guidelines to our reviewers as aids in assessing the reporting of research beginning next month.

The qualitative standards, authored by Levitt et al. (2018), are notable in that they recommend that authors carefully lay out not only their approach to the research and methodological design, but also include discussion of how authors situate themselves within their qualitative work – how they are different than sample members, study participants, and what this might mean for the study. In addition, they make the request for authors to discuss rigor in application and use of the qualitative approach they employ. There are many other important recommendations offered by the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research. I highlight these for JGSW authors as transparency and rigor are areas I feel we should pay careful attention to. It is quite common that JGSW authors engage in research that includes marginalized, socially and economically excluded segments of the older population. Our authors also often explore issues that are thorny, highly complex, not easily solvable, and that push our understanding of traditional thought and knowledge. This is not surprising given that this is a social work journal. That said, making sure that our work is transparent and of the highest standards is critical not only for its relevance to the scholarly community but for its integrity within the communities that let us in, participate in our studies, and trust us with their valuable information, stories, data, and knowledge.

The quantitative standards, authored by Appelbaum et al. (2018), are notable in that they extend existing guidelines to cover a broader range of data and statistical analyses (e.g. longitudinal data and secondary data analysis) in regard to how they are reported. Much like the qualitative guidelines, the quantitative guidelines also provide increased attention to the reporting of sample selection, recruitment, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. They also provide a clear flow of table presentation, information to include in each table, and how to display that data. The aim again is to increase transparency and also increase translation of research into practice. These are stumbling points for both quantitative and qualitative studies, but there is perhaps a particularly larger stone to move aside the path for quantitative research in social work as there is often less fluency in quantitative analysis than qualitative analysis among social work practitioners, educators, and often researchers. This is not to say there is a lack of capacity, but more to emphasize that the technical jargon of quantitative research and the extensive use of it can cause an eye-glazing-over effect for anyone who is trying to quickly read a research paper and uptake information as they multitask through their day. Qualitative quotes can be more eye-catching than a numbers-packed table – for better or worse. Our efforts to make research clean, neat, easy to understand, and easy to interpret will go a long way to facilitating use of the evidence base that supports social work practice.

Although there is a much longer discussion needed within gerontological social work about how to make sure our scholarly work is usable, relevant, and valued, I will conclude here. Use of the new APA guidelines by authors and reviewers will help the JGSW to increase the transparency, accountability and credibility of our research at a time when the importance of, and need for, scientific research are publicly questioned. If you have thoughts about the use of these new guidelines or any of the issues noted here, please feel free to write us. The JGSW is willing to help foster this discussion.

First in this issue of the Journal of Gerontological Social Work is an article by Meredith Stensland and Sara Sanders that explores the role of chronic back pain among older adults and the directions for social work interventions. Next is an experimental study examining practitioner preferences in care coordination in England led by Rowan Jasper and a team of researchers. Following that is a look at life review writing for older adults as a psychosocial approach to helping decrease risk for isolation and depression. Then an assessment of driver readiness for mobility transition is presented in a brief report by Deepika Kandasamy and colleagues. The work of Marie Brault and associates comes after, offering a strong and creative analysis of the links between the social environment and health-care utilization and costs. Finally, Dwight Norwood and Brenda Kurz present in innovative social responsibility scale they developed as a way of beginning to understand the intention to refer older adults to needed services.

As always, we welcome your feedback and appreciate your readership.