Annotation of a Qualitative Research Article

Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles,

2008-2010 Christina Gringeri, Amanda Barusch, and Christopher Cambrón

This study explores the epistemological foundations of qualitative social work research. A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Re- viewers examined five things: (1) the purpose or aims of the research, (2) the rationale or justification for the work, (3) the populations studied, (4) the presence of four epistemolog- ical markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) the implications presented. Results underscore the exploratory nature of qualitative social work research; authors were most likely to use the word "explore" and least likely to use the term "understand" to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for the research was a gap in the literature (77%), followed by the severity or extent ofthe problem (50%). Authors emphasized the perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among the epistemological markers exam- ined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm (51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify pracdce implications in their work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%).

KEY WORDS; epistemology; qualitative methods; research methods; social work research; theory

S ocial inquiry is shaped by the epistemologyof the researcher, his or her underlying as-sumptions about the process of knowing (Denzin, 2002). Epistemology may be seen as the- ories of knowledge that justify the knowledge- building process that is acdvely or consciously adopted by the researcher (Carter & Litde, 2007; Pascale, 2010). These assumpdons guide our deci- sions about topics, research quesdons, theories, methods, analyses, and conclusions and help us evaluate the knowledge contribudons of pubhshed work (Carter & Litde, 2007; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Pascale, 2010). Koch and Harrington (1998) recognized that "researchers bring to the research product, data generated, a range of literature, a po- sitioning of this hterature, a positioning of oneself, and moral socio-pohdcal contexts" (p. 882). Ex- amining the ways our social locations shape our process of knowing "can help us understand why certain quesdons get asked and answered, examine how values shape observadon" (Pascale, 2010; Takacs, 2003, p. 37). Anastas (2004) noted that the researcher's epistemology affects the kind of schol- arly work done, how one values scholanhip and

understands its polidcal import, and how one situ- ates oneself in relation to the work.

Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted the impor- tance of "epistemological integrity," in which authors account for the "logical and compelling connecdons between genre, overall strategy, the re- search quesdons, the design, and the methods" (p. 55). Researchers demonstrate their epistemolog- ical engagement with the work through explicit discussion of their research paradigm or inquiry tra- dition, which is fundamental for rigorous qualitative research (Anastas, 2004; Marshall &c Rossman, 2006). Qualitative research "should reveal a consis- tency and integrity of approach that is easuy recog- nized by the reader and the reviewer" (Padgett, 2009, p. 102). Given the importance of epistemol- ogy to the research endeavor, social work research- ers must make explicit the decisions made in the process of inquiry if they are serious about contrib- uting to the knowledge base of the profession. As Padgett pointed out, "the burden of proof is on the researcher" (p. 102) to be accountable to readers re- garding the underlying assumptions and logic of our work.

doi: 10.1093/swr/svsO32 © 20)3 National Association of Social Workers 55

We focus our discussion on epistemology as re- search praxis that contributes to the development of knowledge in our field. Our aim in this section of the article is to discuss the practice of epistemology to support social work researchers using qualitative methods to think and write more explicitly about the epistemological foundations of our work. Prac- tical epistemology encourages us to reflect on the connections between how we do research and the credibility of any research products; underlying this reflection must be an examination of our own knowledge formation processes (Becker, 1996; Takacs, 2003).

Interpretation is at the core of all research, and it is critical that we acknowledge the role of our "values, histories and interests" in the production of knowledge (Koch & Harrington, 1998). Guba and Lincoln (2005) suggested that researchers start by asking, "[H]ow do I know the world?" (p. 183). Do I know through my engagement with the world? How do I account for myself (history, social positions) in the process of social inquiry? What questions, assumptions, and beliefe do I bring to this process? Researchers can also reflect on how the re- search question has been "defined and limited" by what can be learned and how the topic might be examined diJerendy (Dowling, 2006, p. 11). Pascale (2010) suggested researchers reflect on why the phenomenon is important to study and examine the ways the study might proceed. She noted that "it might seem that standards of good research would require scholars to be accountable for the many processes of interpretation involved in knowl- edge production" (p. 72).

These questions lead us to the practice of reflexivity, focusing on the relationship between researchers and their work and with participants, which is central to epistemology. Reflexivity requires researchers to develop an ongoing and critical awareness of the social inputs shaping the production of knowledge in their work (Koch & Harrington, 1998). All research findings are shaped by the histories that both the researcher and the participants bring to the project. Critical awareness helps researchers shine a light on the diversity and complexity of social locations and relationships we bring to knowledge production and the ways in which our own biographies shape the process and outcomes of research and the interactions with par- ticipants. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) suggested a number of thoughtflil questions aimed at helping

researchers niake expUcit the connections between our social locations and our knowledge-buüding activities. It is important that researchen practice reflexivity as an ongoing process of self-observation throughout the research project rather than as a set of answers to cut and paste into reports and articles.

Reflexivity can strengthen the validity or knowledge claims in all research:

Through recognizing and analyzing the cul- tures in which we are positioned, and that therefore cannot help but mold our world- views, we take steps to become more aware and even more objective. We come to know the world more fuUy by knowing how we know the world" (Takacs, 2003, p. 29). This is not a philosophical exercise in epistemology but a practice in which the researcher at- tempts to "identify, acknowledge and do something about the Kmitations of the re- search. Powling, 2006, p. 12)

Watt (2007) described her process of reflexivity by sharing journal reflections from her first experi- ence using qualitative methods in a pilot study carried out for a graduate level research course. She acknowledged that to be accountable to partici- pants and readers about the decisions that comprise the process of knowledge construction audiences should have the opportunity to see how the re- searcher goes about the process of knowledge con- struction during a particular study. By engaging in ongoing dialogue with themselves through journal writing, researchers may be able to better deter- mine what they know and how they think they came to know it. An introspective record of a re- searcher's work potentially helps them to take stock of biases, feelings, and thoughts, so they can understand how these may be influencing the re- search. Making such infomiation avañable to readers provides them with a means to better eval- uate the findings. Proponents of the openness in qualitative inquiry assert a need to publicly disclose research decisions.

Watt (2007) acknowledged her initial uncer- tainty about how reflexivity would strengthen her work and wrote that "I now see that it has helped me to clarify my thinking, values, purposes, and beliefs. I can now be up firont about this so others

56 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER 1 MARCH 2013

know where I'm coming from. I cannot shake off my biases, but I can make them known" (p. 94).

Personal reflexivity becomes a practice in which the researcher "articulates personal and political di- mensions of the research enterprise so both researcher and audience can recognize it" (Anastas, 2004, p. 60). Such transparency enables readers and participants to evaluate the work on its merits-in- context and acknowledges their participation in the construction of knowledge.

The relationship between the researcher and the participants in the project is a central aspect of reflex- ivity, one in which the researcher reflects on her or his persona] history and social locations and the ways these shape interactions with participants and may contribute to power dynamics in the relationship. It is critical for researchers to see the multiple positions they occupy during the process of research, many of which grant power and privilege to the researcher relative to the participants: investigator, expert, decision maker, participant recruiter, and insider/ outsider, among others. In dme, being aware of the ways these roles play out in the process of the work and the ways they shape our interacdons with pardc- ipants and examining the possibiUdes of sharing roles and privilege become a reflexive acdvity for the re- searcher. Through development of our awareness of the dynamic reladonships between researchers and pardcipants, we increase the visibility of "altemate claims to power" and are able to "advocate for the marginalized" by poindng out the "structures that make the dominant posidonaUty [that of the academy or of the research enterpdse] seem inevita- ble" (Takacs, 2003, p. 35). Commenting on this aspect of research, Denzin (2002) noted that "social work research becomes a civic, pardcipatory, coUab- oradve project that joins the researcher with the re- searched in an ongoing moral dialogue" (p. 31-32).

Theory is another aspect of epistemology. As Padgett (2009) stated, "theory matters." Research- ers acknowledge that there is no research without theory, but they frequendy neglect to discuss it (Barusch, Gdngeri, & George, 2011; Gdngeri, Wahab, & Anderson-Nathe, 2010). Theoredcal approaches highlight conceptual maps that guide our views of the literature, our selection of research questions and our omission of alternative questions, our choice of methods, and our analysis and inter- pretation of data (Anastas, 2004, p. 4). Theory helps structure our thinking on a given topic, sup- ports researchers in extending our interpretations

from descdpdon to explanadon, and provides the scaffolding and focus for data analysis. "Concepts and theories are essendal in knowing ... and expla- nation is useful even when one cannot demonstrate causation or prediction" (Anastas, 2004, p. 3). Ex- plicit discussion of the theodes that frame our works shows pardcipants, colleagues, and readers "how we know the world" and allows them to in- teract with us and evaluate our work. "The value of research depends upon the ability of researcher to substandate a number of claims about. . . the va- lidity of their interpretation of the evidence in the light of theory" (Avis, 2005, p. 12).

Each researcher has a paradigm that guides the work, a view of the process of knowledge pro- duction composed of the basic elements of ontol- ogy (nature of existence), epistemology (nature of knowing), methodology (best ways to buud knowledge), and axiology (the role of values in knowledge development) (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Specific paradigms used in social science research include post-posidvism, constructivism, cdtical theory, and pardcipatory acdon frameworks; each paradigm responds differendy to the quesdons raised by the basic elements. Clear discussion of the research paradigm informing the work helps readers undentand the philosophical foundadons and assumptions that frame the research. Hesse- Biber and Leavy (2011) noted that

paradigms or worldviews are neither dght nor wrong; one way of seeing is another way of not seeing. However, paradigms are powerful ways of looking at that reality, and they are windows giving us infomiadon about the social world and often frame the particular questions we seek to answer, (p. 38)

Thus, we see the following aspects as cdtical to the epistemological underpinnings of research: re- flexivity, articulation of the relationship between researchers and participants, explicit framing of the work in theory, and a conscious and integrated use of a tradidon of inquiry or research paradigm.

We conducted this research to infomi the con- versation about authors' epistemological engage- ment in social work qualitative research. We aimed to develop in this work a portrait of the epistemo- logical approaches used in development of the knowledge base for social work. To address this

GRINGERI ET AL. t Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 57

purpose we used an embedded mixed-methods design that began with qualitative data, which were merged into categories and then subjected to quan- titative analysis (Creswell & Clark, 2011). We would thus locate this work within the pragmatic paradigm that characterizes most mixed-methods research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

METHOD The study used a retrospective descriptive approach based on review of a random sample of 100 articles published between 2008 and 2010 in social work joumals that are listed in tht Joumal Gitation Reports: 2005 Social Sciences Edition. Data were recorded on a standardized template and analyzed using descriptive and bivariate procedures available in SPSS. In this section we discuss the researchen, the data collection template and review process, issues concerning reli- ability, the sample, and the data analysis procedures.

Researchers Three researchers participated in this study. Two are senior faculty members in colleges of social work. Both were trained in the United States, and both have taught qualitative methods at the doc- toral level; one continues to do so. Of these two, one was trained in quantitative methods, coming to qualitative work mid-career, whereas the other was trained in and conducted her work exclusively using qualitative methods. Both senior authors were appointed to faculty positions over 20 years earlier, when qualitative methods were given short shrift in doctoral curriculum; both participated in develop- ing a curriculum on qualitative methods and facili- tated, in time, the development of a full semester required course on qualitative methods in the doc- toral currictilum. This and previous work on rigor in qualitative research have greatly sharpened their awareness of their own research processes and have deepened their attention to the content and process of their teaching in this area. The third researcher is currently pursuing a master of public policy and has an MSW degree from a U.S. university. He has had a basic introduction to research design and special- ized training in statistics.

Template On the basis of our review of literature and our per- sonal experience, we drafted a template for the review of each article. We then used this draft to

review a pilot sample of five manuscripts, and the template was revised on the basis of the results. In addition to descriptive information about each article (title, joumal, year published, aims, and sample size), the template had space to note the pres- ence or absence of the following: purposes or aims of the work, its rationale or justification, the sample studied, the presence of four key epistemological markers, and the implications identified. Space was also provided for reviewen to enter specific text from the article that demonstrated the presence of each item under consideration.

Our operational definition of reflexivity included any explicit discussion of the author's connections to the research topic, such as personal or professional experiences that led the author to be interested in the subject. We examined each article for theoretical or conceptual frameworks that were used in the litera- ture review, the methodology, or the analysis and discussion. We acknowledged the presence of theory even when a set of interrelated constructs not speci- fied as theory infomied the work. We also acknowl- edged any discussion of the relationship between the researcher and the participants, even if rather brief; specifically, we looked for the author's recognition of the potential power and privilege inherent in the researcher-participant relationship. We reviewed each work for the presence of a specified research paradigm or tradition of inquiry, such as phenome- nology, constructivism, grounded theory, or critical theory, keeping in mind Marshall and Rossman's (2006) sugestión that authors of qualitative research articulate the "logical and compelling connections" in their work, starting with the paradigm. We used these categories to review published social work liter- ature from 2008 to 2010, to explore qualitative social work researchers' engagement with and accountabil- ity to these epistemological issues in their work.

Reliability The initial review of puot articles was followed by another review of five different articles, which gave us the opportunity to clarify the meaning of key terms. "Theory" was clarified to include the mention of theory, whether or not it was used ex- tensively throughout the article. Likewise "para- digm" was operationalized to include the mention of a methodological approach such as grounded theory or social constructivism. "Reflexivity" was defined to include any mention of researcher

58 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 2013

characteristics that would assist the reviewer in deter- mining the likelihood of bias. Finally, any mention of the power dynamics inherent in the relationship between researcher and subject was seen as address- ing the "power" marker. These definitions en- hanced the reliability of our re^/iews because it freed us from judgment calls about whether the use of these constructs was adequate. Consequendy, in our third and final puot review of five additional articles, inter-rater agreement ranged from 86% to 88%. All 15 pilot reviews are included in the sample of 100 articles reviewed.

To check for consistent reviewer differences, we also computed a chi-square statistic for a cross- tab of each of the markers by reviewer. No signif- icant reviewer effects were observed for the four epistemology markers under consideration.

Sample A random sample of 100 articles was drawn from 27 journals listed under social work in the Journal Gitation Reports: 2005 Social Science Edition (JGR).

To be eligible for inclusion in the study, an article must have reported on the collection and analysis of exclusively qualitative data. Selection of the initial pool of articles included those published between 2008 and 2010 that had the word "qualitative" in either the abstract or the key words. This yielded a total of 146 articles. This pool of articles was then numbered, and a random number generator was used to select 100. A complete list of the articles reviewed is available from the corresponding author on request.

As it tumed out, 3% of the initial sample could not be used, either because che research did not involve the collection and analysis of data or because the authors used mixed methods. These were re- placed using another random sampling of the re- maining pool with articles that met both sampling ctiteda. The resulting sample was distributed across all three years, with a concentration in 2009. The sample drew from all but three of the 27 joumals listed in the JGR. The percentage from each joumal is summarized in Table 1.

Analysis We collected textual data on each article to supplement the desctiptive statistics regarding the epistemological aspects of each work. We recorded wtitten statements of the aims or purposes of the re- search, the rationale for the work, articulation of

Table 1: Percentage of Sampled Articles, by Year and Journal (A/= 100)

2008

2009 2010 Joumal Administration in Social Work

Affilia American Journal of Community Psychology

British Joumal of Social Work

Child & Family Social Work

Child Abtue & Neglect

Child Welfare

Children & Youth Services Review

Clinical Social Work Joumal

Family Relations

Health & Social Care in the Community

Health asocial Work

Intemational Joumal of Social Work

Intemational Social Work

loumal of Social Policy

Joumal of Social Service Research

Joumal of Social Work Education

Research on Social Work Practice

Social Service Review

Social Work in Health Care

Total

5 70

25 Frequency

4 6 4 22 6 3 3 5 1

5 18

5 4 1 4 1 1 1 1

5 100

theory or conceptual frameworks, and the verbs authors used to describe their aims. We also gathered excerpts of statements of implications for research, practice, policy, and theory. On the basis of thematic analysis of these excerpts, response categoties were generated for use in subsequent statistical analyses.

Initially we set out to describe the epistemologi- cal foundations of qualitative social work research. For this purpose, simple descriptive measures were computed to determine the percentage of articles that included the characteristics under consider- ation. During the course of data collection and analysis, several questions arose that required the use of bivariate statistics. We wondered, for instance, whether specific research aims were associated with the application of epistemological markers. Chi- square statistics were computed to address these bivariate questions.

Once statistical analysis of the data was complete, we undertook a process of peer review. Seven col- leagues agreed to participate in the review of our preliminary findings and met with us one aftemoon to discuss and interpret the studies. On the basis of

GRINGERI ET AL. lEpistemobgy in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 59

Verb Used to Describe Purpose ExploR

Examine

Report

Describe

Understand

49 28 19 14 14

their feedback, we undertook addidonal analysis and modified our interpretation ofthe findings.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the verbs authors used to describe their aims. The terms "explore," "report," and "describe" tended to denote more descriptive work leading to general implicadons rather than development of the analysis with links to theoreti- cal explanadons. "Examine" and "understand" suggested work that moved fixjm descripdon toward a more developed analysis.

In descriptions of the purposes of research, authon most often used "experience" or "percep- don"; 70% of the árdeles used one of these temis to lay out the aim of their work. Typically, the authors' main goal was to focus on pardcipants' experiences or percepdons in order to understand pardcular social phenomena.

Most authors jusdfied their research based on a gap in the literature. Findings on justification are summarized in Table 3.

About half (49%) ofthe árdeles mendoned using a research paradigm; 20 authors used grounded theory to some extent, eight used Pardcipatory Acdon Re- search, and six specified phenomenology. Most authors who mendoned grounded theory used it as a data analysis strategy rather than as a comprehensive paradigm designed to generate experienee-based models or theory. Fifty-one pereent did not specify a research paradigm.

Details ofthe populations that were studied are presented in Table 4. One-third of the articles used a variety of categories of participants.

The implications identified by the authors for their work are presented in Table 5. A summary index was computed to gauge the number of areas in which authon listed imphcations. Results indi- cated that 21% identified one ofthe four types of imphcadons, 44% identified two, 28% idendfied three, and only 7% indendfied all four. Authors most commonly mendoned pracdce and research implications together.

Tablë>3TiRational[oïvJustif ¡cation for the;

|Rationale o/o|

Gap in literature

The problem (nature, severity, extent)

Practice or practical implications

Neglected voices

Other rationale:

Importance

New approach

Interest

Theory

Curricular deficiency

77 501

Notes: A/=100. However, authors of articles could use more than one verb to describe the purpose or articulate more than one rationale, and thus totals may be greater than 100.

Practitioners

Clients

Parents and families

Survivors and victims

Students

Caregivers

Marginalized groups (not othenvise included: immigrants. aged, street youths)

Elites (advocates, policymakers, stakeholders.

researchers)

Other

39 28

8'

6_ 5' i'

5

5 8

We constructed an index of epistemological markers evident in each article based on whether authors apphed theory, mentioned a research para- digm, engaged in reflexivity, or discussed power in the research relationship. The percentage of arti- cles having one, two, three, or all four of the marken are presented in Table 6: 61% contained one or two markers, whereas 12% contained three or all four epistemologieal markers, and 27% eon- tained none ofthe marken.

We also estimated ehi squares to describe the re- lationships among the epistemological indicators. We found that authon who described the theoret- ical foundations of their work were more likely than those who did not to use reflexivity. Among those who described their theoredcal framework, 24% addressed reflexivity. Among those who did not, only 7% mentioned reflexivity {p < .03).

The appHcadon of theory was also associated with the use of "examine" as a verb to describe the aims ofthe research. Among authon who identified a theoredcal framework, 36% had set out to

Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 201360

Table S: Implications Identified [type of Implication Practice

Research

Theory

Policy

90 60 38

29 Notes: N= 100. However, studies may have participants from more than one group and articulate one or more types of implications, and thus totals may be greater than 100.

Table 6: Epistemological Markers

Theory

Paradigm

Reflexivity

Power

Number of Markers

r

32

29

Notes: N= too. However, authors of articles coutd employ more than one f and thus totals may be greater than 100.

"examine" a social issue or problem. Of those who did not describe their theoretical framework, only 18% used the temi "examine" to describe their ainTs {p< .05).

It is not surprising that the theoretical framework and theoretical implications were positively associat- ed: 52% of articles that articulated a theoretical framework identified theoretical implications, whereas 20% of those that did not describe the the- oretical basis of their work identified theoretical im- plications (p< .01).

DISCUSSION

This study examined the presence of epistemologi- cal indicators in qualitative social work articles pub- lished from 2008 to 2010. We argue that the development and discussion of epistemological dimensions strengthen the potential knowledge contributions of qualitative research. In particular, one may think of theory and reflexivity as twin pulan of rigorous qualitative research; certainly both are strongly encouraged by qualitative research texts (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Olesen, 2005; Pascale, 2010). The impor- tance granted to these indicators is justified because theoretical frameworks support researchers in moving their work toward the explanatory or analytic level, and reflexivity helps researchen develop

critical awareness of their relationship to their work. Thus, theory and reflexivity are important aspects of epistemology that support the process of knowledge building.

Given the importance of these strategies, it was affimiing to find positive associations between theory and reflexivity. Those who incorporated theory in their work were more likely to locate themselves in their research. However, the low rate of reflexivity in social work articles requires our at- tention. It is somewhat puzzling that social workers would be reluctant to situate themselves in their re- search. As Kanuha (2000) noted with regard to low rates of reflexivity overall, "[SJocial science and cer- tainly social work literature are not proliferated by first person accounts ftom either nonnative or native researchers about the experience of conduct- ing research" (p. 441). It is not clear whether social work researchen' lack of reflexivity in published ar- ticles is due to discomfort with disclosure or with a desire to maintain the post-positivist penpective that our positionality does not, or should not, matter (Kanuha, 2000). The low rate of reflexivity in published articles may obscure its presence in the process of research that is not reported in publica- tions; this, together with lack of expectation on the part of peer reviewers and joumal editors, may con- tribute to its relative absence in published articles. We encourage graduate-level training in qualitative research and joumal editors and reviewen' giving substantial emphasis to theory and reflexivity so that in greater numbers of social work publications researchers will "incorporate a reflexive account into their research product by signposting to readers 'what is going on' while researching" (Koch & Harrington, 1998, p. 887).

Discussion of power dynamics in the researcher- participant relationship received short shrift; it was addressed in only 7% of the articles. This finding is not puzzling, given that only 16% of the sample shared reflexive accounts. As researchers become more accustomed to disclosing reflexive accounts and editors and reviewers more often require it, we believe more publications wül include reflections on the power dynamics in the process of the re- search project.

Research paradigms are equally important. Al- though researchers using qualitative methods tend to be eclectic in combining paradigms or parts of various paradigms, we need to be accountable to participants and readers regarding our approach to

GRINGERI ET AL. t Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 61

knowledge building. We are encouraged that about half (49%) of the sample did specify a paradigm, and we strongly encourage aU researchers and editors to consider this a requirement of dgorous quaütadve re- search. Journal editors, in pardcular, should consider sending manuscdpts using qualitadve methods to re- viewers who are weU acquainted with dimensions of dgor and epistemology in qualitadve research.

The verbs used by authors most often to articu- late the purposes of the research were "expedence" or "percepdon," suggesting that ways of knowing in social work qualitadve research are expedendaUy based and grounded in the social world of pardci- pants. This also suggests that social work researchers place a high value on stardng with individual expedence and the ways in which people make meaning from those experiences, both of which are consonant with professional values.

AuthoR most frequently developed imphcadons for social work pracdce and least frequently devel- oped implications for pohcy change. We suggest that authors' implications point to where we as social workers tend to place our hope for change; from these results, most social work researchers are aiming to affect practice, whereas less than one- third are aiming for macro-level change. It may be that researchers less fi-equendy think of qualitative research methods as consonant with policy research or that researchers focused on individual-level expe- dences are not drawing out the macro-level impUca- dons fix)m those expedences.

It seems that, as researchers, we have started to acknowledge the importance of epistemology in our work; that three-fifths of the articles we re- viewed had one or two markers indicates a begin- ning recognition that it is important. That more than one-quarter of the sample articles contained no epistemological markers is, however, a strong in- dicator of the improvement needed in qualitative social work research. These findings suggest that we are not paying as much attendon to underlying issues of epistemology as we could, and thus, when we use qualitative methods, we are not positioning our work to make a stronger contribudon to the knowledge base in social work.

Social work educadon plays an important role in training future researchers to deliberately incorporate epistemological consideradons throughout the re- search process. Research courses in social work should direcdy address the epistemological founda- dons of research. For example, research instructors

can provide opportunides for students to discuss the epistemological underpinnings of published árdeles. Faculty who mentor graduate students in the early developmental phases of independent research can challenge them to make their epistemological foun- dadons explicit. Mentors can also encourage doc- toral students to discuss epistemological foundadons of their research in manuscdpts submitted to journals.

Editors and peer reviewers in social work jour- nals play a cddcal role in improvement of the cladty and ardculation of the epistemological foundations of social work research. At present, we are aware of few review forms used in joumals that direct re- viewers' attendon to theory and even fewer that go beyond this to incorporate other epistemological concems. Consequendy, this foundational aspect of the research process may faU by the wayside in the review of manuscdpts. We suggest that editors con- sider adding epistemological markers to review forms and that reviewers call on authors to incorpo- rate epistemological foundadons—at a minimum, theory, power, reflexivity, and paradigm—in man- uscdpts submitted for pubUcation.

Epistemological integdty means that researchers hold themselves to high standards of accountability in their published work with regard to open and clear discussion of their research paradigm, appUca- don of theory, reflexivity, and undentanding of power in their reladonship with pardcipants. Build- ing our work on a solid epistemological foundadon requires anchodng the work in theory, consciously interweaving reflexive accounts throughout the process, and deliberately linking each aspect of the work within the paradigm. This is indeed a high standard, and although very few authors of the sample árdeles included discussion of aU four episte- mological aspects, we encourage editors and review- en to evaluate manuscdpts along these dimensions of research. As Anastas (2004) noted, "[TJhere is no dght and wrong in epistemology, only in not being willing to know about knowing" (p. 9).

REFERENCES Anastas, J. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues

and possible answers. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 57-65.

Avis, M. (2005). Is there an epistemology for qualitative research? In I. HoUoway (Ed.), Qualitative research in healthcare (pp. 1-15). Berkshire, England: McGtaw Hill, Open University Press.

Barusch, A., Gringeri, C , & George, M. (2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies

62 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 2013

used in pubhshed articles. Social Work Research 35 11-19

Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of quahtative re- search. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder, Eth- nography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 53-71). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 1316-1328.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. (2002). Social work in the seventh moment. Qualitative Social Work, 1, 25-38.

Dowhng, M. (2006). Approaches to reflexivity in qualita- tive research. Nurse Researcher, 13Ç>), 7-21.

Cringed, C , Wahab, S., & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2010). What makes it feminist? Mapping the landscape of feminist social work research. Affilia, 25, 390-405.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controver- sies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Tlie Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 183-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). Vie practice of quali- tative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research patadigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Kanuha, V. K. (2000). "Being" native versus "going native": Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45, 439-447.

Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Jowmai of Advanced Nursing, 28, 882-890.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Olesen, V. (2005). Early millennial feminist qualitative re- search: Challenges and contours. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 235-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Padgett, D. K. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods in social work knowledge development. Social Work, 54, 101-105.

Pascale, C.-M. (2010). Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Takacs, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your epistemology? NEA Higher Education humal, 19, 27-38.

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of refiexivity. Qualitative Report, 12, 82-101.

Christina Gringeri, PhD, is associate professor. College of Social Work, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Amanda Barusch, PhD, is professor. College of Social Work, Univer- sity of Utah, Salt Lake City, and associate dean for research. University of Otago. Christopher Cambrón, MSW, MPP, is research assistant. College of Social Work, Universi- ty of Utah, Salt Lake City. An earlier draft of this article was presented at a Qualitative Inquiry meeting. May 21, 2011, Champaign, IL. Several colleagues participated in a peer review of an earlier draft of this article, and contributed helpful

insights. The authors are grateful for their collaboration, which improved their work.- Address correspondence to Christina Gringeri, College of Social Work, University of Utah, 395 South 1500 East, Salt Uke City, UT 84112; e-mail: [email protected].

Original manuscript received March 11, 2011 Finai revision received June 7, 2011 Accepted June 24, 2011 Advance Access Publication February 7, 2013

RESEARCH NOTES

The Research Notes column presentsconcise reports on the results of a study, discussions of methodological issues, solu- tions to problems, and development of ideas or insights. Send your manuscript as a Word document through the online portal at http:// swr.msubmit.net (initial,one-time registration is required).

GRINGERI ET AL. lEpistemobgy in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published ArticUs, 2008-2010 63

Copyright of Social Work Research is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.