One of the core aims of NSWR is to show the diversity and the breath of Nordic social work research. This issue is no exception in the sense that it presents a broad variety of topics from labour market and descendants of immigrants, home care dementia, user organizations and substance use treatment, poor people’s mobility, cultural discourses in social work, performance measurements in social work and child protection services. It is often such topics that draw our attention to the articles in the first place, when we flip through a journal or scroll down an issue of a journal at the computer. Does the topic mirror our current research or our personal interests? Do we already know the authors or the research group they are part of? When this initial screening has been made, we might, secondly and thirdly, take a look at theoretical framings or the methodology. However, an important part of driving the field of Nordic social work forward includes showing the diversity and the breath of methods and theoretical frameworks employed in the field, which can continue to enable us to reflect upon, discuss and alter the ways we analyse and think of social work and equally important how we conduct it in practice. This is, however, rarely mentioned or reflected upon to the same extend as the specific topics of the articles in the editorials of NSWR, in the editorial board meetings, within the editor and guest editor teams or perhaps amongst the readers of the journal?
Going through the past years of issues of NSWR, it becomes evident that it is predominantly qualitative methods being employed in the articles ranging from document analysis to ethnographic fieldwork, but mainly semi-structured interviews, and a few quantitative analysis of register data and surveys. This makes one ponder if the essence of social work is often believed to best be captured by a qualitative approach or perhaps that many researchers within social work tends to have preference for a bit ‘softer’ and interpretive approach? And why is it that qualitative research within social work perhaps seem to prefer other types of journals?
Also, when looking at the theoretical and analytical approaches, they too tend to follow this line of research. The articles tend to employ interpretive and constructivist perspectives drawing broadly on theoretical perspectives on discourses, emotions, moral, organizational and institutional logics, as well as decision-making processes and categorizations. Looking at the social work discipline itself and its core focus, as it has been formulated by, e.g. the international federation of social workers (www.ifsw.org) or the ideas of FORSA (Foreningen for forskning i socialt arbejder: forsa.dk), it is hardly surprising that such theoretical perspectives are included in the research and these are brilliant perspectives to apply and drive interesting discussion. However, it also makes one wonder if there are more approaches and methods that could stimulate or even provoke the conversation within social work research? What would, for instance, an approach like ‘economic man’ or perhaps cost-efficiency analysis of a given intervention add to the discussions within the journal and amongst its readers?
One thing that is for sure is that it is always interesting is to see how different researchers address and unfold their topic of interest, and the articles of this issue in no exception in this way either! On the one hand, the articles of this issue are exemplary of the methodological and theoretical approaches mentioned: The article by Alslan, Sjöberg, Wikström & Ahmadi analysis builds on qualitative analysis with decendents of immigrans applying the theoretical framework of social capital; the article by Haugen, Ytrehus & Slettebø builds on qualitative interviews with professional care givers in home care drawing on approaches focusing on decision-making and logics of care; the article by Dahlstedt, Härnbro & Vesterberg draws on policy analysis on mobility of poor people as a problem through the a foucaudian, genealogical approach; Rugkåsa & Ylvisaker’s article applies an critical culture competence discourses in the analysis of social work research and policy documents: the article by Denvall, Agevall Gross, Kjellgren & Skillmark deploys interviews and programme theory; Gotvassli & Moe’s article applies qualitative interview and theory of leadership; and in contrast to the rest of the articles of this issue, Billsten & Benderix’s article draws on questionnaires to regional user organizations employing an analytical approach investigating user influence. Taken together, they display and mirror the breath of Nordic social work research approaches, there is an overweight of qualitative methods employed and they all display a critical, humanistic and interpretive approach to the material.
On the other hand, the articles are unique and important individual contributions to the field of Nordic social work research as they, in each their own way, demonstrate the usefulness of applying the chosen methodological and theoretical approaches. Understanding the depth of an issue often does require detailed scruitinizing of long and explorative interviews or policy documents, yet it is also important to include quantitative methods and perspectives, which enable us to say something more general of the phenomena we are interested in. In each their own way, the articles also support what lies in the very nature of social work research, namely, to be critical or at least reflective of the categories, tools, programmes and intentions, that are employed on an everyday basis in practice, and how we, as researchers, try to understand these both empirically and analytically.
In the spirit of such explorative approaches and critical reflections, we are always looking forward to receiving articles froma broad variety of Nordic social work researchers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).