From the Editor—Advancing Research and Scholarship for Social Work Education

In my short time as Editor-in-Chief, I have been thinking through the ways in which our profession can further elevate and build upon the prior successes of the Journal of Social Work Education (JSWE) to “serve as a forum for creative exchange on trends, innovations, and problems relevant to social work education at the undergraduate, master’s and postgraduate levels” (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2015). I have read and re-read prior JSWE manuscripts, spoken with successful social work editors, and considered the current challenges in social work education. I have also taken note of the call of several prior JSWE editors and guest editorials over the last 10 years for an increased commitment to high quality scholarship of teaching and improved research to inform social work education (Gutierrez, 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2013; Pollio, 2015; Robbins et al., 2013, 2016; Yaffe, 2013). I would like to extend this call to advance the research and scholarship of teaching in social work by moving past innovative ideas (which also remain important) to producing and synthesizing higher quality outcome research that assesses their effectiveness.

As I reviewed the literature on the scholarship of teaching, I came across seminal work by Ernest Boyer (1990, 2016) that examined priorities of the professoriate. Thirty years ago, he argued that we should move past the dichotomy of teaching versus research to a broader appreciation of scholarship that includes the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990). He also discussed how the academy has grown to value research that draws funding much more than research that informs teaching (1990). There are likely economic reasons for this; however, I see no reason why the social work academy cannot be committed to both high-quality, fundable research and research on high-quality teaching. Both are very viable and important targets for social work given our focus on applied research and professional education.

I would argue, as others have previously (Grise-Owens et al., 2016; Yaffe, 2013), that social work education is a kind of social work practice and, consequently, social work educators should “base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics” (NASW Code of Ethics, 4.01 Competence), and “promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge” (NASW Code of Ethics, 5.02b Evaluation and Research). Moreover, the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) states that each “program’s faculty models the behavior and values expected of professional social workers” (CSWE, 2015, p. 16). Specifically, Competency 4 requires that we expect students to “engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice” whereby they “understand the processes for translating research findings into effective practice” (p. 8). Given this expectation, how much more should we be engaging in and modeling our own practice-informed research and research-informed practice? The same 2015 EPAS document clearly states, “Social work education is advanced by the scholarship of teaching and learning, and scientific inquiry into its multifaceted dimensions, processes and outcomes” (p. 5). While teaching may have been relegated to a lower rung in the higher education ladder of importance historically, we miss an important opportunity to have the best possible impact on the populations and communities we care about when we fail to understand how to best prepare our students to serve them. Attention to research on social work education might help to further close the extant gap between research and practice.

I invite our readers to consider submitting ideas for increasing high-quality scholarship and empirical research for social work education. When considering ideas and submissions, a classic article from 1979 may be of interest by Sterne et al. (1979) titled, “Assessing Performance Consequences of Changes in Educational Policy: Toward Systematic Experimentation.” Another article of on the scholarship of teaching and learning for social work education by Grise-Owens et al. (2016) may also be of interest. Moreover, it would be useful to have more systematic reviews or systematic mapping of what we know in social work to identify key gaps and knowledge already acquired across key social work competencies (Gough et al., 2003; Yaffe, 2013). JSWE has had a total of five systematic reviews or meta-analyses to date conducted in the areas of teaching about racial and ethnic diversity in social work education (Olcoń et al., 2020; current issue), student experiences of participation in student-led health clinics (Briggs & Fronek, 2020; current issue), critical thinking in social work education (Samson, 2016), self-care practice in social work education (Griffiths et al., 2019), and virtual reality and computer simulation in social work education (Huttar & BrintzenhofeSzoc, 2020). Historically, we have also had useful scoping reviews of teaching social work practice (Sowers-Hoag & Thyer, 1985, for example). Updated scoping reviews, such as this one, would make an important contribution to the research on social work education by identifying important methodological gaps. Finally, qualitative meta-syntheses that synthesize qualitative research across educational efforts would also offer an important contribution. Careful attention to reporting clear, detailed search processes for synthesizing reviews will lend each review to future replication as new evidence emerges.

To produce high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses, we will need more studies that use quasi- or experimental designs, such as the article by Whiteman and Nielson (1986) titled, “An Experiment to Evaluate Drama as a Method for Teaching Social Work Research.” We will also need additional studies that develop and validate meaningful educational outcome measures, and reviews that highlight existing measures within social work education such as the one in this issue (Drechsler, Hessenauer, & Jaber-Wilson). While measuring knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitudes are important outcomes in social work education, the development of measures that help us to more objectively assess the actual acquisition of important skills and competencies would provide additional rich, meaningful information for guiding curricula. For example, the Objective Structured Clinical Exam for Social Work (OSCE) developed by Bogo and colleagues (Bogo et al., 2011, 2014) measures integrated practice skills, knowledge and competency across various practice scenarios and contexts by observing students interacting with a standardized actor/client and using a standardized rating measure completed by two or more trained raters. This kind of measure is able to assess knowledge and skill/competency at the same time and it extends beyond student self-report.

Joanne Yaffe (2019), in her final editorial, suggested that one way forward to connect our research and teaching is by thinking about how the Grand Challenges for Social Work (GCSW) translate into our teaching priorities and the ways in which we can effectively teach this content. As we “work together to tackle our nation’s toughest social problems” (American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare, 2020), if we are to be successful, part of this must focus on how we translate these solutions into real-world settings by training future social work professionals. One example of such an effort is the development of the CSWE 2015 Curricular Guide for Addressing Homelessness, which maps competencies related to the grand challenge of ending homelessness (https://cswe.org/Education-Resources/2015-Curricular-Guides/6623_cswe_2015EPAS_Homelessness_WEB144_rev1.aspx).

Another way we can improve the research and scholarship of social work education is through the consistent use of the Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) from the 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020). The JARS provide detailed lists of information that should be included for a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies that can increase the quality of published research by increasing the clarity, thoroughness, transparency, integrity, and replicability of research studies. The JARS also provide guidelines for the writing of abstracts for empirical articles, meta-analyses, literature reviews, and theoretical/conceptual articles. I also hope that our JSWE reviewers will also take advantage of the JARS guidelines for reviewers, also provided in the APA 7th edition. Additional useful guidelines for reporting can be found on the EQUATOR wehsite for a veriety of studies: equator-network.org. It should be noted that all submissions to JSWE should conform to APA 7th edition from this point forward.

I would like to close by expressing how grateful I am to our committed JSWE reviewers and Editorial Advisory Board members. Thank you for your service and valuable contributions to JSWE. If you would like to join our team, please look for our call in April for committed and experienced scholars to serve as both JSWE reviewers and Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) members. Additional details regarding both openings will be provided in our call. We invite you to join us in supporting the dissemination of high quality research and scholarship for social work education!

In this issue

This issue of JSWE leads with two systematic reviews, one that synthesizes the research focused on teaching about racial and ethnic diversity in social work education by Olcoń and colleagues (“Teaching About Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Social Work Education: A Systematic Review”) and the other on student experiences and perceptions related to participating in a student-led health clinic by Briggs and Fronek (“Student Experiences and Perceptions of Participation in Student-Led Health Clinics: A Systematic Review”). The next two articles report on the development and testing of two new measures for social work education. Gallagher and colleagues report on the validation of the Geriatric Social Work Competency Scale II (“Geriatric Social Work Competency Scale II: Testing the Hypothesized Factor Structure”). Coohey and Landsman report on the validation of The Field Instructor Supervision Scale, which can be used to measure field instruction supervision behaviors (“The Field Instructor Supervision Scale”).

The next three articles focus on issues in social work education. Bryan and colleagues report on efforts by the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD) to address leadership needs and the future of undergraduate social work education (“BPD Emerging Leaders 2010–2016: Identifying and Responding to the Need for New Academic Leadership”). Zodikoff and Pardasani then provide a review of the literature on the role of an associate dean in higher education and factors related to the transition from faculty to academic leadership (“On Navigating a Leadership Pathway From Faculty Member to Associate Dean in Social Work Education”). The final article by Wladkowski and Mirick reports on a qualitative study of female doctoral students regarding their experiences with institutional and programmatic supports during their pregnancy and transition to parenthood (“Supports and Recommendations for Pregnant and Newly Parenting Doctoral Students in Health Professions”).

The next two studies focus on training students on diversity and difference. Einbinder reports on a qualitative study of the use of critical race theory (CRT) with graduate students to see how it impacted students’ social work practice (“Reflections on Importing Critical Race Theory Into Social Work: The State of Social Work Literature and Students’ Voices”). Drechsler and colleagues examined the self-study reports of 67 CSWE accredited graduate schools with regard to the competency and skills related to engaging in diversity and difference in practice and reported on teaching and they take a careful inventory of outcome measures (“Engage in Diversity and Difference in Practice Competency: Exploring the Explicit Curriculum and Outcome Measures of Graduate Social Work Programs”).

Luquet and McAllister highlight the contribution of Women Religious to the development of social work (“Widening the Historic Circle: The Contribution of Women Religious to the Development of Social Work), while Lorente-Molina and Gijón-Sánchez report on a qualitative study conducted at a Spanish university on resistance and attraction to research (“Resistance and Attraction to Research Education With a Gender Perspective in Undergraduate Social Work Students”). Musil and Jaklová Střihavková provide a reflection on the definition of social work (“Reflecting on a Common Core and the Variability of Social Work Definitions: ‘Theme and Its Intepretations’ by Foucault”).

This issue wraps up with two teaching notes, the first by Mirick on students’ experiences with online peer review (“Online Peer Review: Students’ Experiences in a Writing–Intensive BSW Course”). The second teaching note by Doering-White and colleagues describes a workshop for monolingual and multilingual social workers to prepare for language interpretation across social work practice (“Critical Issues for Language Interpretation in Social Work Practice”).