Introducing the new editors of Nordic social work research

We would like to thank Bagga Bjerge and Ulrika Järkestig Berggren for their service as Editor and Deputy Editor and are delighted that Janet Carter Anand is continuing as the Editor for Nordic Social Work Research for the next term. Janet is joined by Erika Gubrium, Stian H Thoresen, and Monika Wilinska as Deputy Editors and Anu-Riina Svenlin as Book Editor.

Janet is an international Social Work academic, educator, and practitioner and has worked in Australia, UK, Republic of Ireland, and India. She is currently a Professor in International Social Work, University of Eastern Finland, and her research fields include social gerontology, health social work, global mindedness, and capabilities and quality of life in migration studies. Janet is currently the Principal Investigator on the Finnish government funded projects, Sosytö TerVa and Lampe, which aim to measure effectiveness and expertise in professional practice. Janet recently established the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) Nordic Baltic Regional Resource Centre.

Erika’s work is interdisciplinary across the fields of social work, sociology, social policy, history, and psychology, and employs qualitative methodologies, including in-depth interviews, observation, mobile interviews, and photo-elicitation. Her strategy has been to use narrative and discourse analyses to investigate the mechanisms that connect structural and political contexts and changes to personal experience and impact. Her recent work has focused on the social-psychological impact of anti-poverty welfare measures on welfare system claimants, as well as the socio-historical analysis of social welfare movements. In this work, she has applied an international comparative perspective with a specific focus on how anti-poverty measures, particularly labour activation and immigrant integration measures, personally impact participants within different welfare regimes across global North and South, including in Norway, Russia, China, India and the United States.

Stian is a research academic focusing on social and economic inclusion of vulnerable groups with projects from Australia, Southeast Asia, and Norway. Transitions, child welfare, and disability features prominently. Projects have utilized a range of methodological approaches, including longitudinal, registry or linked data, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Research interests include Individual Supported Living for adults with disabilities, social inclusion, employment and training, and transition to adulthood. He is currently an investigator on both Norwegian Research Council and Australian Research Council projects focusing on transition from out-of-home care.

Monika’s research focuses on the intersectional approaches to processes and practices of inequality (re)production within the context of the welfare state. In particular, she is interested in the agency–structure relationships within diverse contexts as well as the creation and use of various spaces at the individual, groups, organizational, and societal levels. Methodologically, she is trained in discourse and narrative analysis. Her most recent work revolves around the emotional dimension of qualitative research and institutional practices and applies interactional analysis to trace the emergence and construction of emotions within the context of meetings between health and welfare professionals and welfare clients.

Anu-Riina’s field of research is child and family social work and evaluation. Her theoretical interest is to apply critical realism and realist evaluation in social work. Methodologically she has been recently focusing on the children’s research participation and its ethical challenges. Her most recent work considers the use of peer-support and service-user participation in child and family services and support family intervention. In her current post-doctoral project she focuses on theory development of social work and especially CAIMeR-theory, where the meta-theoretical basis is in critical realism, with the ambition of both describing and explaining the nature of social work practice.

Following on from the traditions of the previous editors, we would like to continue the discussion around methodological approaches and practices. The editorial in March 2021 (Anand, Bjerge, and Berggren 2021) emphasized the importance of methodology in article manuscripts and the editorial in July 2021 (Bjerge, Järkestig-Berggren, and Anand 2021) illustrated that articles in Nordic Social Work Research have predominantly been qualitative. As noted, it may be that social work researchers are more often drawn towards qualitative approaches as these provide a good platform for exploring the ‘how’ or ‘why’ aspects of social or welfare phenomena. As with qualitative approaches, there are a range of quantitative approaches with different utilities, strengths, and weaknesses. In this editorial we would like to raise an awareness of the opportunities that lie in population-based registry, data-linkage, or big-data studies.

When referring to disparities, we often draw on official statistics such as census or administrative data, typically collected and published by national buraus of statistics. Registry or data-linkage studies combine the data from multiple sources. The Nordic countries have a well-developed infrastructure for registry studies as we have individual and family identifiers that allow for the identification across multiple datasets and sources. Data-linkage studies, however, do not have the same degree of certainty for identifying the same individual across multiple datasets, but rely on probability matching, using multiple variables to, with a high degree of probability, match individuals across datasets (e.g. date of birth combined with name and/or address). While there are strict privacy and ethical guidelines and legislation governing access to this information, these sorts of studies enable a population-based insight into outcomes and associations.

While a great source of information for identifying social, policy, and welfare trends; inequalities; or associations, there are additional opportunities for social work research related to population-based registry, data-linkage, or big-data studies. As with any data source, qualitative or quantitative, findings are based on the type of research questions or hypothesis guiding the study, as well as the context in which findings are interpreted. The social work researchers who are involved in studies exploring social inequalities contribute towards the epistemological framing of these studies as well as the theoretical frameworks for interpreting results. These interactions facilitate the generation of new knowledge or enhanced understanding. For example, a recently published Norwegian registry study (Paulsen, Thoresen, and Wendelborg 2022) identified poorer outcomes among young persons who had been in state out-of-home care compared to young people without any child welfare services support. One of the perhaps suprising additional findings was that child welfare services support had a positive association for migrants but a negative association for non-migrants (positive impact for migrants), suggesting further qualitative unpacking of this aspect may be warranted. Social work researchers provide a range of relational, contextual, practice, and policy dimensions and should contribute towards and benefit from the full range of research approaches.

As the astute follower of Nordic Social Work Research will have noted, there is a substantial backlog of articles in press waiting for inclusion in an issue. We believe this reflects the attractiveness of the journal as a publication platform for academics, students, and practitioners. Authors do prefer having their work included in an issue, and we are delighted with Taylor & Francis’ decision to assist with reducing this backlog by approximately doubling the number of articles included in each issue for 2022.

In this issue, we have a total of 14 articles in addition to a book review. The articles provide a great testimony to an enormous diversity and variety of methodological approaches used in social work research. This refers both to the types of methods used and research participants involved in the studies. For example, the users’ perspective is reflected in two different articles touching upon the experiences of life under economic hardship. Isola et al. investigate lone mother’s experiences of poverty in Finland through a capability approach demonstrating how raising ‘good citizens’ is a major achievement despite economic hardship, while Liedgren and Kullberg identify three different types of consistent and coherent narratives used by over-indebted persons in Sweden when presenting themselves through personal letters in debt-restructuring applications.

The majority of articles apply the perspectives of welfare professionals, ranging from voices of students, through care staff to social workers. For example, through the voices of nursing, education, and social work students in Sweden, Trygged et al. explore the impact of interprofessional approaches in health and welfare sectors. The restructuring of welfare provision and organization and its impact on the work of welfare professionals is a recurring theme in this issue. Liedgren discusses the concept of ‘research-minded practitioners’. Following scrutinizing the concept closely she proposes two ways to further develop it within the context of social work and enhanced knowledge. Focusing on the example of the Individual Placement and Support approach in the intersection between employment and mental health services in Denmark, Bonfils outlines challenges related to both the implementation and adaptation of such new approaches. In a similar vein, Olsen and Oltedal discuss facilitators and challenges related to the use and impact of a client-feedback system in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. The direct issue of measuring social service outcomes and results is problematized in an explorative study by Eriksson and Janlöv, who study the experiences of professionals in key positions in municipal social service organizations in one Swedish county. The work of budget and debt counsellors, a relatively new group of welfare professionals, is explored by Callegari et al. in Sweden. This qualitative study, using focus group interviews and vignettes, sheds light on the constructions of gendered fiscal identities and perceptions about professional budgeting and debt counsellors.

The voices and perspectives of welfare professionals are also discussed in studies exploring groundwork with particularly challenging social issues and groups of clients. For example, Haugstvedt presents findings from a qualitative study investigating views and experiences among social workers in Norway whose work is focused on prevention of radicalization and violent extremism. Eronen et al. contribute with insights into Finnish social workers’ approaches to prepare care orders, which may form the foundation for removing children from their families into state out-of-home care. Consensus and consensus building contribute towards what is described as a ‘non-adversarial child welfare system’. The various strategies and struggles emerging in work of welfare professionals dealing with difficult issues are also discussed by Harnett and Jönson, who investigate managers’ and staff’s perceptions related to strategies addressing alcohol and illicit substance use in five ‘wet’ eldercare facilities in Sweden and Demark.

The methodological variation stemming from the use of various types of qualitative data and inclusion of diverse groups of research participants is further strengthened by articles that use quantitative, mixed methods and review studies. Sugahara & Nordvik use registry study methods to explore family networks among older persons across three different Norwegian regions. Identification of different kindship support networks in the different regions may have social policy implications for old age care service provision. Bergman et al. investigate personal assistance assessments of parents with functional limitations in Sweden. The study draws on both qualitative and quantitative data and reflects on the perspectives of parents with disabilities and their children. Müller et al. reflects on the process of conducting four empirical studies and describes ethical challenges for social work researchers working with marginalized and vulnerable groups. Spanning a decade, the synthesis of these studies outline different stages and challenges in the research process.

This issue ends with a book review, in which Heino discusses Reforming Child Welfare in the Post-Soviet Space: Institutional Change in Russia by Kulmala, M., Jäppinen, M., Tarasenko, A. and Pivovarova A. (eds.).

The new editorial team is grateful for these engaging contributions and are excited to continue disseminating important research through Nordic Social Work Research.