BuildingKnowledge toSupportHumanService Organizational ......of community and societal issues (Mosley & Smith, 2018). In furtherance of this goal, organization and management science

Building Knowledge to Support Human ServiceOrganizational and Management Practice: AnAgenda to Address the Research-to-Practice GapBowen McBeath, Jennifer Mosley, Karen Hopkins, Erick Guerrero, Michael Austin, and John Tropman

Leaders of human service organizations (HSOs) face significant pressures from policymakersand funders to justify practices and ensure successful outcomes, an issue that has implicationsfor social work practitioners and evidence-informed management practice. Althoughempirical research has advanced understanding of the factors that improve human serviceeffectiveness and organizational improvement, considerable research-to-practice gaps existand the use and translation of knowledge into regular management practice remain limited.This article concerns how social work research can link human service organizational andmanagement research to practice more robustly. Authors describe challenges that affect theability of managers in HSOs to use research to inform practice. The analysis of these chal-lenges supports a research capacity-building agenda focusing on (a) the identification andapplication of new methods of organization and management science, (b) the fostering ofcloser connections between researchers and practitioners, and (c) the provision of institu-tional and organizational resources for applied human services research. This macro-levelagenda is designed to enhance practice-based research among schools of social work andleading HSOs, and also strengthen researcher–practitioner linkages, with the goal ofpromoting the advancement and utilization of research evidence in HSOs.

KEYWORDS: academic–practitioner relationships; capacity building; human service organiza-tions; management; social work research

Research on human service organizations(HSOs) and managers has two centralpurposes: (1) to describe the contexts

and contributions of HSOs, their managers, andstaff and (2) to enhance management and staff prac-tices, service effectiveness, and service user outcomes(Smith, 2018). This dual purpose emphasizes theimportance of understanding the structures and pro-cesses within HSOs to improve organizational condi-tions and external impacts for stakeholders (Hasenfeld,2010). In this field, empirical studies are intended toaddress the knowledge needs of managers and otherpractitioners, thereby contributing to the resolutionof community and societal issues (Mosley & Smith,2018). In furtherance of this goal, organization andmanagement science has built a substantial researchbase in social work and related professions, includingpublic administration, public policy, public health,and business.

Yet at a societal or macro level, the extent towhich social work research informs practice amongHSOs is far from clear. This article describes how

HSO research can be linked more robustly to man-agement practice to build research capacity and use.Research suggests that HSOs where social workersgenerally practice lack access to or underuse differenttypes of research, including the generic use of evi-dence regarding practice (Dill & Shera, 2015), theuse of agency outcome data for impact evaluationand performance improvement (Kroll, 2015), andthe use of research evidence in managerial deci-sion making (Palinkas, Saldana, Chou, & Cham-berlain, 2017). Other studies have found that fewHSOs in prominent social work fields of practice—such as child welfare, mental health, and sub-stance abuse treatment, including the allied healthprofessions—use evidence-based practices despitegrowing demands to do so (Chuang, Collins-Camargo, & McBeath, 2017; Guerrero, He, Kim,& Aarons, 2014). Similarly, social work scholarshave identified challenges to the development andsupport of research infrastructure pipelines withinschools of social work (Guerrero, Moore & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2018), with HSOs, and with adjacent

doi: 10.1093/swr/svz003 © 2019 National Association of Social Workers 115

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/sw

r/article-abstract/43/2/115/5426469 by University of C

hicago user on 27 May 2019

professions and institutions (for example, medicalschools and hospitals) (Howard & Garland, 2015;McDermott & Bawden, 2017; Orme & Powell,2008).

Research capacity-building initiatives have alsobeen proposed in other sectors. In the health sciences,research infrastructure development challenges havebeen identified in regard to public health, medicine,and nursing (Brownson, Fielding, & Green, 2018;Westwood, Richardson, Latter, Clark, & Fader,2018). Similar efforts have been noted in adjacentprofessions including business, public administration,and public policy (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; George,Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016; Paton,Chia, & Burt, 2014). General emphases of these callshave included the need for financial and institutionalsupports from public and private research fundingagencies; partnerships between educational institu-tions and industry organizations focused on basic andapplied research questions, translational research, andknowledge dissemination; supports for doctoraleducation and research traineeships; and enhancedquantity and quality in peer-reviewed publications,research-to-practice partnerships, and bench-to-bedside innovations.

This research capacity-building topic is significant,considering the current tensions experienced bysocial workers and applied professionals working inHSO settings. These managerial tensions include(a) increased pressures to use research evidence andother information to advocate for service programswhile demonstrating service effectiveness (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014; Meyer, Cohen-Callow,Hopkins, & Victorson, 2017; Mosley & Gibson,2017); (b) challenges to implementing and sustainingevidence-based practices and best or promising prac-tices (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011; Palinkaset al., 2017); (c) little training and resources forevidence-informed management practice (Dill &Shera, 2015; Graff, McBeath, & Austin, 2017); and(d) limited institutional resources for macro-practiceeducation and agency-based research in schools ofsocial work (McBeath, 2016).

Addressing these macro tensions is critical forsocial work researchers to identify grand strategiesin response to the Grand Challenges for SocialWork (Fong, Lubben, & Barth, 2018). In particu-lar, the 12 Grand Challenges for Social Work(n.d.-a) statements emphasize the societal need fornovel strategies and research-to-practice partner-ships that connect academic researchers and agency

leaders to respond to policy and practice issues. Ona broad scale involving schools and departments ofsocial work, HSOs, and federal and state policy in-stitutions, these efforts require research-based ad-vancements in the initiation and sustainment ofinnovative practices, programs, and policies withinand across health and human service systems(Padilla & Fong, 2016). Similar prescriptions havebeen proposed by sister scientific societies in fieldsof public health, engineering, and business (Ahmed& Palermo, 2010; George et al., 2016; Mabry,Olster, Morgan, & Abrams, 2008).

As this article describes how HSO research can belinked more robustly to management practice tobuild research capacity and research utilization, insteadof critiquing the practices of managers, our argumentsare focused principally on how the scholarly efforts ofsocial work researchers can be of greater benefit tomanagement practitioners, while creating new op-portunities and resources for HSO research. We firstidentify challenges to the advancement and utilizationof research on HSOs from the perspective of socialwork managers and other practitioners. Second, wereview general scientific frameworks for bridging theresearch-to-practice gap drawn from social work andrelated disciplines, including models of implementa-tion and dissemination.

Third, we propose a research infrastructure devel-opment agenda for reducing the HSO research-to-practice gap that promotes the advancement andutilization of research evidence. This agenda focuseson (a) the identification and application of newmethods of organization and management science;(b) the fostering of closer collaborations betweenresearchers and practitioners; and (c) the provision ofinstitutional and organizational supports for humanservice research (for example, funding, time, mentor-ship and training), particularly among schools ofsocial work and leading research funding agencies.The elements of our agenda are designed to comple-ment but not overlap with existing models ofresearch dissemination and utilization.

Underlying our aims is the understanding thatresearch–practice partnerships are fostered whenacademics and practitioners locate mutually benefi-cial and common goals; address ongoing challengesrelated to practices, programs, and policies; andcombine their diverse and complementary skill sets(Amabile et al., 2001; McBeath & Austin, 2015).The overall objective of this article is to inform abroadscale framework for social work researchers

116 Social Work Research Volume 43, Number 2 June 2019

Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



to reduce the research-to-practice gap concerningorganizational functioning and management effec-tiveness. We believe that a needed first step for ad-dressing these challenges is to call attention to theexistence of the research-to-practice gap, and thento suggest promising ideas for moving forwardwith strategic visioning and planning.

UNDERSTANDING THE RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE GAP IN HSOSKey factors driving the research-to-practice gap inthe health and human services are the very differentcontexts and incentives faced by academics and practi-tioners. This has given rise to the “two worlds” thesis,in which researchers and practitioners are understoodas inhabiting largely separate spheres (Brownson et al.,2018; Cohen, 2007).

The knowledge needs of HSO practitioners can beorganized around the following three dimensions re-flecting the search for practical solutions, short timehorizons, and context: (1) needs for topical andactionable information on how to resolve organiza-tional dilemmas and do more, or differently, with less;(2) needs for just-in-time information in response tocurrent practice dilemmas; and (3) needs for agency-specific and usable information as opposed to moregeneralized knowledge (Dill & Shera, 2015; Shaw &Lunt, 2011). HSO researchers may be challenged inpursuing research that is responsive to the needs ofpractitioners. Researchers may not be able to findready solutions to many organizational dilemmas,which many see as more structural than amenable tomanagerial intervention (Mosley & Smith, 2018).They may not be able to carry out just-in-timeresearch studies due to institutional review board time-lines and funding limitations. And as a result of theirtraining, socialization, and incentive structures (forexample, tenure and promotion considerations), re-searchers may be pushed away from pursuing agency-based research that is too specific or practitioner drivenand may not translate to broader interests that couldbenefit the field (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2009;Shaw& Faulkner, 2006).

However, under certain conditions cross-professionalcollaboration involving researchers and practitioners canbe encouraged, particularly if they are able to acknowl-edge and respond effectively to different organizationalexpectations and norms (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014;Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009). In particular,from a social work practice perspective, research isneeded to help HSOs determine how to respond

to funding constraints and cutbacks, without re-sorting to tactics that undermine social work valuesand ethics (for example, rationing the delivery ofessential services, underpaying workers, or failingto invest in needed technology). Such research isfocused not only on description of the needs ofmanagers, but also on identification of promising,sensible, and ethical strategies to address theseneeds specifically and effectively (Guerrero, Hanh,Kachikian, Chuang, & Brown, 2017; McBeath &Austin, 2015).

Such research can include

• studies that find new revenue sources that couldfeasibly be accessed by human service managersand available paths to access such funding;

• research that tests promising methods of increas-ing efficiencies of scale without sacrificing ser-vice user well-being;

• studies that examine how managers can part-ner with funders, policymakers, and otherstakeholders to fund needed programs with-out reducing other priority areas;

• development of performance measurementsystems that are meaningful to practitionersand that can be implemented reliably withminimal cost or training.

Currently, scholarly research tends to focus moreon describing the needs and challenges of HSOs andmanagement practitioners than the testing of promis-ing strategies to address them (Dill & Shera, 2015;Shaw & Faulkner, 2006). For research to be useful, itshould not only (a) address important practice dilem-mas, but also (b) put forth potential solutions toproblems and (c) include sensible results-orientedmethods for implementing those solutions. In con-trast, research that is often viewed by managementpractitioners as less than useful includes articleswhose contribution is to highlight obvious organiza-tional dilemmas and studies that propose solutions thatare unrealistic or difficult to scale (Friedman, 2015;Patton, 2012). Academic research is also well knownfor being filled with jargon, unhelpful literature re-views, and impenetrable methods and results sections—all features that are designed to communicate morewith researchers than with research users (Shaw &Lunt, 2011; Shera & Dill, 2012).

Second, time is an important dimension of theneeds of management practitioners, with prioritygiven to research that can be provided quickly in

117McBeath et al. / Building Knowledge to Support Human Service Organizational and Management Practice

Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



response to current practice dilemmas (for example,integration of health information systems or funder-required performance measurement) (Austin, DalSanto, & Lee, 2012). Historical analyses of organiza-tional data (for example, after-action reviews) andretrospective surveys without clear implications forcurrent practices may be of less use to practitionerswho are focused on what actions should be takennow. Because requests for assistance from practi-tioners often reflect current or forecasted challenges,researchers may be challenged to provide the just-in-time information being requested, particularly giventhat it may take time to secure research funding andinstitutional review board approval, engage in pilotstudy development prior to data collection, andcomplete data analysis and reporting. This raises theissue of contributing to regular agency dialogues andintegrating research practices at HSOs on an ongoingbasis (Austin, 2018; Graff et al., 2017).

Third, the needs of management practitioners arecontext-specific as opposed to general in orientation.Because the research needs of practitioners are rootedin current organizational dilemmas and reflect agencypriorities, practitioners are generally less interested inthe results of large-scale studies of organizational po-pulations than in research centered on agencies verysimilar to their own. This is the case for implementa-tion research that requires understanding of the spe-cific organizational context, and that searches forcommon elements that may be important to manyorganizations (for example, supportive cultures, re-sources, leadership, and performance managementand measurement) (Aarons et al., 2011; Tabak,Khoong, Chambers, & Brownson, 2012). The specificcontext may reflect that small organizations, rural or-ganizations, and organizations that rely heavily onvolunteers face different challenges than the large,urban multiservice organizations that are often re-garded as typical in the empirical literature. Likewise,managers in different fields of practice (for example,child welfare, mental health, or substance abuse treat-ment) face unique but also overlapping challenges.

EXISTING FRAMEWORKS FOR BRIDGING THERESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE GAPDifferent conceptual frameworks have been proposedin public health (for example, knowledge exchangemodel; Tabak et al., 2012), education (knowledge pro-duction and use; Confrey, 1987), nursing (Baumbuschet al., 2008; Hutchinson & Johnston, 2004), and social

work (knowledge diffusion; Herie & Martin, 2002) toaddress the research-to-practice gap. These include

• dissemination and implementation models un-derpinned by diffusion theories and social net-work perspectives (Aarons et al., 2011; Brownet al., 2017) or that emphasize the empiricalvalidation of factors associated with implemen-tation (for example, consolidated frameworkfor implementation research; Kirk et al., 2016);

• models that instruct researchers in the develop-ment of utilization-focused evaluation studiesand a results-based accountability framework(Friedman, 2015; McNiff, 2013; Patton, 2012;Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009);

• the practice research framework, in whichparticipatory and anti-oppressive research isused to document, understand, and improveservice quality, equity, and service user out-comes ( Julkunen & Uggerhoj, 2016; Shaw &Lunt, 2011);

• models emphasizing the organizational strate-gies for building and sustaining external (forexample, agency–university) and internal (forexample, the development of agency-basedlearning communities) knowledge sharing systems(Austin, 2018; Guerrero et al., 2017)

Considered together, these frameworks gener-ally propose knowledge sharing strategies reflectinglinkages involving external researchers, HSOs, policy-makers, and knowledge brokers. In addition, practi-tioner leadership is viewed as essential for informingthe development and utilization of research studies.From an HSO perspective, each model implies thatresearch evidence promotes service program improve-ment, organizational learning, and innovation.

However, three barriers to carrying out practical,relevant HSO research remain: relevance and rigor,research translation, and resources. First, few of thesemodels address the requirement that research shouldbe both relevant and rigorous (Austin et al., 2012;Cohen, 2007). Without each, neither practitionersnor researchers are well served. Second, there are dif-ferent perspectives, logics, and venues involved incommunicating with scholars and researchers versuspractitioners (Amabile et al., 2001; Bartunek &Rynes,2014; Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009). These chal-lenges to knowledge dissemination and translationincrease the cultural distance between the worlds ofHSO research and practice. Finally, researchers and


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



practitioners face real struggles in locating needed re-sources to collaborate, including time, funding, andcultural brokers (Dill & Shera, 2015; McBeath &Austin, 2015).

ANAGENDA FORMOVING FORWARDToward this end, we highlight three promisingavenues for enhancing the quality and relevance ofHSO research at a societal level: (1) advancing sci-entific methodologies focused on organizationaland managerial research questions (to address con-cerns with relevance and rigor), (2) fostering strongerconnections between researchers and practitioners(to address concerns with knowledge sharing), and(3) providing institutional and organizational sup-ports for practice-focused HSO researchers (toaddress concerns with resources). These promisingapproaches are described here and are summarizedin the appendix.

Our macro-level research capacity-building agendafor addressing the HSO research-to-practice gap takesthe form of a strategic vision statement. This visionstatement is intended to lead to collaborative strategicplanning by schools of social work, social workresearch and practice associations, and major fundingbodies. Our effort reflects and supports vision state-ments of the Grand Challenges for Social Work pro-mulgated by the American Academy of Social Workand Social Welfare (Fong et al., 2018; Padilla & Fong,2016) and visioning exercises conducted by sister sci-entific societies (Ahmed & Palermo, 2010; Georgeet al., 2016; Mabry et al., 2008).

Advancing Human Service OrganizationalandManagement ScienceWe first call for the development of research meth-ods to answer practice-based research questionsand increase the impact of research. These include(a) “big data” methods for curating and analyzingthe quantitative and qualitative information avail-able in large human service databases; (b) multi-level statistical models to address embedded (forexample, community–agency, interorganizational,and intraorganizational) practice questions; (c) lon-gitudinal statistical approaches to examine ques-tions concerning sustainability and change overtime; and (d) rigorous mixed-methods research de-signs. These methodologies can inform practice-based research linking organizational structures andprocesses to manager and service user outcomes.We also review developments in quantitative and

qualitative methods that can improve the quality andrelevance of research on HSOs. In doing so, wereflect on the tensions involved in producing theo-retically driven research that is valued by social andbehavioral scientists, but also practice research that isincreasingly in demand by HSOs.

First, the phenomenon of “big data” in HSOshas potential for informing management practice,policy development, and implementation (Fallon,Fillipelli, Black, Trocme, & Esposito, 2017). HSOsare frequently required by policymakers and fundersto gather information from service users, frontlineworkers, and managers. These data are often ware-housed with little consideration for their value inanswering practice-based research questions. How-ever, such data often may be useful for understandingmanagerial and service program efforts at differentpoints in time and across organizations, and can alsobe used to advance research on the correlates andconsequences of new innovations. For example, case-worker records may be used in investigations of ser-vice utilization patterns over time and across agencies;tracking of service user outputs and outcomes by pro-gram or department may allow for evaluations ofnew managerial strategies across contexts. Data sci-ence methods appropriate for the analysis of large-Nsamples may be used for quantitative analysis, whereasqualitative methods may be used to analyze textual re-cords (for example, case records) (Henry, Carnochan,& Austin, 2017).

Second, person-in-environment ecological mod-els are at the core of social work scholarship and arerelevant to studies of how service users and frontlinepractitioners are affected by their organizational set-tings, the efforts of managers to address differentinternal and external challenges, and HSO adapta-tion to fiscal-policy challenges and other institu-tional factors (Mosley, 2017). These are topics forwhich data should be gathered across linked levelsof analysis (that is, micro and macro) given the inter-dependent nature of the underlying processes beingexplored. An example of this concerns the questionof how extra-organizational dynamics (for example,funding) and within-agency factors (for example,administrative leadership) inform the frontline imple-mentation and sustainment of EBPs (for example,program design) that connect to individual outcomes(Aarons et al., 2011; Guerrero et al., 2017). Yet fewstudies gather data at multiple levels, and fewer spec-ify multilevel statistical models that have simulta-neous and recursive interactions across levels (for


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



example, organizational context, frontline practices,and service user outcomes). The dearth of informa-tion on these cross-level influences limits our under-standing of how context informs managerial andpractitioner behavior and vice versa.

Third, longitudinal research can improve under-standing of the drivers of innovation and perfor-mance and assess change over time (Pettigrew,1990). For example, prospective comparative casestudies assessing the performance of matched pairsof organizations could help us understand muchmore about how to intervene with organizationsand managers. Particularly when combined withmultilevel analytical frameworks, longitudinal mod-els are also appropriate for examining the antece-dents of organizational change (Raudenbush &Bryk, 2002). Determining when, where, how, andwhy learning leads to improvements in organiza-tional performance and service user outcomes is oneof the great research challenges of our generation.

Finally, mixed-methods approaches are helpfulfor examining the dynamic relationship betweenorganizational context, service delivery and programinnovations, and service user outcomes. Organiza-tions are complex systems whose processes cannotbe captured solely with quantitative data. Combin-ing quantitative data collection with rigorous quali-tative work that helps explain the underlying driversof critical outcomes is important if we are to fullyunderstand how to intervene in organizations inmeaningful ways (Chuang et al., 2017). Approachesthat blend quantitative and qualitative data collec-tion—which can be done through surveys, focusgroups, guided interviews, participant observation,document analysis, organizational capacity assessmenttools, protocol analysis, repertory grids, Booleancomparative charts, among other methodologies—are time-intensive but can yield significantly moreuseful knowledge to both researchers and organiza-tions than mono-method studies.

At the same time, important tensions exist regard-ing these methodological choices. For example, mul-tilevel and data science models push the field in aheavily quantitative direction, which may conflictwith more interpretivist work. In addition, research-ers may avoid proposing mixed-methods researchstudies in an effort to reduce time and resource de-mands. Quantitative research studies may be ill suitedto respond to practice-based questions focused on theperspectives of service users, an increasingly exploitedworkforce, and community members. New frontiers

in research methodology should be explored in a waythat reaffirms a commitment to methodological plural-ism linked to a continued emphasis on relevance andsocial justice (Creswell &Creswell, 2017).

Fostering Stronger Connections betweenResearchers and PractitionersHerein, we identify several strategies that researcherscan use to bridge the worlds of research and practice,in ways that are in alignment with also helping tomeet the Grand Challenges for Social Work. Theseinclude (a) the development of practice-based researchpartnerships and (b) the use of new research-to-practice scholarly platforms that make research moreaccessible for practitioners (Wandersman et al., 2008).

First, collaborations between HSOs and universityresearch centers have become essential for improvingthe evidentiary basis and impacts of program innova-tions and organizational reforms (Austin, 2018).Seeking out practice-based research partnerships mayoffer immediate benefits to HSOs and allow re-searchers to gather data on topics of strong interest toscholars. Topics of high relevance to practice includemethods for service quality enhancement and pro-gram improvement; fostering performance measure-ment and evaluation to inform organizational learning;evaluation of the consequences of funding streams andsocial innovations; the development of valid, reliable,and short measures of HSO functioning; and the test-ing, implementation, and scaling out of evidence-informed practices at the frontline, mid-management,and executive levels.

Practice-based research partnerships can providetraction for the Grand Challenges for Social Work.For example, the grand challenge titled “HarnessingTechnology for Social Good” directly concerns thequestion of how managers and leaders can expanddata capacity and use diverse technologies (forexample, information and communication tech-nology, human service technology) to spur inno-vation and growth among practitioners, HSOs,and communities (Grand Challenges for SocialWork, n.d.-b). Social work researchers are criticallinchpins for informing cost-effective, user-centered,and technology-based program and policy develop-ments, thereby supporting the capacity of evidence-informed practitioners and fostering interorganizationaland cross-jurisdictional knowledge sharing. Othergrand challenge initiatives—including “Creating SocialResponses to a Changing Environment,” “EndingHomelessness,” “Reducing Extreme Economic


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



Inequality,” “Building Financial Capability for All,”and “Achieving Equal Opportunity and Justice”—are similarly designed to connect social work re-searchers with policymakers and HSO leaders, byincreasing the utilization of research knowledgethrough evidence-based management in HSOs andevidence-based policymaking (Brownson et al., 2018).

Several barriers to these partnerships can beanticipated. As noted earlier, managers may viewresearch projects as nonessential and overly expen-sive in regard to time demands. Particularly whenthey are on the tenure track, university researchersmay be reluctant to engage in research partnershipsunless they can be easily packaged into papers forsubmission to peer-reviewed research journals. Toproduce work that builds knowledge and is rele-vant to practice, both parties will need to make sig-nificant investments of time to build trust with oneanother (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; Hodgkinson &Rousseau, 2009). Such ongoing partnerships couldenable HSO and management researchers to testnew ideas, gain a deeper understanding of internalorganizational functioning (which is almost impos-sible for outsiders to glean), and build on thestrengths of practitioners (and vice versa).

Specifically, researchers may help HSOs andfunders think critically and strategically about theimpact of ongoing and new practice initiatives,develop clear policy expectations and program re-porting mechanisms, and use internal evidence toassess their own capacity. Developing and sharingcommon indicators of organizational effectivenessmay also help researchers and HSOs collaboratearound performance measurement to track theimpact of common or related programmatic activi-ties (Hopkins, Meyer, Cohen-Callow, Mattocks,& Afkinich, in press). These and other neededresearch-to-practice topics could provide incen-tives for researchers to develop empirical studies incollaboration with agency leaders (McDermott &Bawden, 2017).

Initially, research collaboration can begin withthe sharing of ideas or a proposal with leaders indifferent HSO roles or levels of the organization.For example, researchers might invite a group of orga-nizations to a special workshop or training for sharedlearning, or invite agencies to partner with graduate-level research projects, thereby creating opportunitiesfor agencies to engage with researchers around specific,small-scale practice needs (Graff et al., 2017). Produc-tive early experiences can lead organizations to invest

in longer-term research relationships, particularly ifHSOs and researchers can value the tangible benefitsof partnering. Ultimately, a collaborative approachthat involves codesigning research projects with keystaff, stakeholders, and even funders contributes tobuy-in and active participation in a manner that trans-cends the involvement of the researcher.

Schools and departments of social work hold crit-ical roles for expanding opportunities for practice-based research focused on HSO and managementissues. Many schools and departments are able tobuild on their existing relationships with HSOs (forexample, connecting students with agency-basedpracticum placements or partnering to evaluate pro-grams or initiatives). Ironically, academic researchersstudying clinical practice often have stronger relation-ships with specific agencies and managers than doorganizational and management scholars. To this end,it is important for federal, state, local, and universityincentives (notably funding) to sponsor effective, sus-tainable HSO researcher–practitioner partnerships. Inthe next section, we describe methods to addressneeded institutional and organizational supports.

Schools and departments of social work mayalso stimulate practice-based research collabora-tions with other professional schools and social sci-ence departments and offer advanced training oninterdisciplinary approaches to doctoral education(Guerrero et al., 2018). Although the footprint fororganizational and management research is small inschools of social work, it is comparatively larger inschools of business, public policy and public affairs,public health, sociology, political science, and psy-chology. These other schools and departments mayhave connections to HSOs that can benefit socialwork researchers. It may also be possible for socialwork faculty with organizational andmanagement in-terests to join others across campus with shared inter-ests to develop practice-based research networks. Forexample, the University of Michigan InterdisciplinaryCommittee on Organizational Studies (https://www.icos.umich.edu/) offers a well-attended lecture series,keeps an updated list of organizational and managerialcourses across various schools and departments, andprovides small competitive research awards for facultyand graduate students.

The second strategy to strengthen research–practicecollaborations involves research dissemination to pro-mote usability. Making research more accessible forpractitioners is clearly a central task if it is to be used(Wandersman et al., 2008). Researchers should use


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



https://www.icos.umich.edu/

https://www.icos.umich.edu/

open-access publishing opportunities whenever avail-able. Open-access archives—notably, SocArXiv formost social sciences (https://socopen.org/) and arXivfor science, math, computer science, engineering, andeconomics (https://arxiv.org/)—are increasingly usedin other disciplines. These serve as low-cost reposito-ries for scholars to upload preprints of their acceptedmanuscripts so as to share knowledge with orga-nizations and practitioners without access to peer-reviewed journals. Specific research-to-practicerepositories, perhaps sponsored by an organizationlike the Society for Social Work and Research(SSWR), could archive reports written for fundersor community partners that are often helpful topractitioners but difficult to locate.

Research-to-practice action memos, which dis-till key themes and practice implications from thescholarly literature, should be a more regular partof knowledge dissemination and translation. Suchmemos should include development of short arti-cle summaries (for example, similar to that used bythe Harvard Business Review) shared on practitionerListservs. The journal Human Service Organizations:Management, Leadership & Governance is spearheadingsome of these efforts. The use of social media by re-searchers, journalists, and science writers should alsobe encouraged. Finally, researchers should give backmore to organizations than just final dissemination re-ports. Actionable performance strategies and tailoredpresentations for specific groups, programs, and learn-ing networks are some of the deliverables that couldbe negotiated so that HSOs opening up their pro-cesses for study can benefit from the research.

Strengthening Institutional andOrganizational Supports to Address theResearch-to-Practice GapThese efforts to enhance human service organiza-tional and management science, practice-basedresearch partnerships, and knowledge dissemina-tion and use require time, funding, training, andmentorship. As noted by Ioannidis and Khoury(2014), “Production of scientific work is regulatedby reward systems” (p. 483). McRoy, Flanzer, andZlotnick (2012) suggested that social work researchdepends on strong administrative infrastructure forgrant development and project implementation,research centers that serve as hubs for knowledgecreation and sharing, senior scholars and research-ers who supply mentorship, and established train-ing programs for early career investigators and

graduate students. These internal and external supportsfacilitate the creation and sustainment of research devel-opment pipelines throughwhich researchers gain accessto advanced knowledge, develop expertise throughapplied research studies, are connected with mentorsand specialized knowledge networks, and are affordedprofessional opportunities at critical developmentalstages (for example, the transition to doctoral candidateor assistant professor).

From this perspective, the dearth of HSO andmanagement researchers can be traced to the lack offormal incentives and resources within schools ofsocial work and externally in regard to the few funders,policymakers, and other bodies (for example, founda-tions) specifically dedicated to organizational and man-agement research (Mosley, 2017). These needs includespecialized training in HSOs and management, avail-ability of senior researchers to mentor emerging scho-lars, and perhaps most important, predoctoral andpostdoctoral traineeships in research centers focused onorganizational and management topics. Our experi-ence suggests that each of these resources is in shortsupply in schools of social work.

As a result, students, early career investigators, andmore senior researchers may struggle to receive thetraining and resources needed for original inquiry.Moreover, the developmental consequences of lack-ing access to needed research supports may be rein-forced over time. For example, doctoral studentswithout access to specialized traineeships may strug-gle to develop HSO and management dissertationstudies, thereby reducing opportunities for researchcollaboration and publication prospects as tenure-track professors. These effects may extend intergener-ationally, as early career investigators who struggle tolocate mentorship from senior scholars and research-ers may not have sufficient opportunities to practicebeing an effective mentor. The dearth of these re-sources and opportunities weakens the professionaltrajectories of HSO and management researchersand, overall, reduces the legitimacy of research onHSOs and management in schools of social work.

Strategies for action should include engagingnational funders to develop an institutional awardspipeline for HSO and management research pro-jects, investigators, and traineeships. For example,the effort to expand the involvement of socialwork in mental health research was led in the1990s by key administrators at the National Insti-tute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Office ofBehavioral and Social Sciences Research (Zlotnick,


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



https://socopen.org/

http://(https://arxiv.org/

Biegel, & Solt, 2002). These efforts were facilitatedby leading social work researchers with substantialNIMH reputations.

A parallel effort is required to expand researchfunding for HSO and management researchers.These funding opportunities should not be focusedsolely on downstream outcomes for service usersbut should also advance research on innovationsin organizational and management practice. Forexample, the Harvard University Kennedy Schoolof Government Awards in American Governancepromote policy and practice excellence in publicsector organizations; we envision a similar awarddedicated to research on HSOs and management.With the exception of the National Science Foun-dation Program on the Science of Organizations,few federal funding institutes sponsor HSO andmanagement research directly.

These actions among national professional orga-nizations and funders should be centered on thevision of a braided stream of different competitivefunding opportunities. We think of these as fallingalong two dimensions: (1) size and scope and(2) degree to which the research is centered onHSOs and managers. Research opportunities re-flecting the first dimension range from large, inter-institutional projects to smaller, investigator-focusedawards. Examples of large projects include thedevelopment of cross-institutional training pro-grams anchored by leading research centers thatprovide opportunities for applied research, training,and mentorship, as can be seen in the mid-1990sdevelopment of research and training centers by theNational Institute on Drug Abuse in prevention sci-ence and NIMH in mental health research. Smallerawards, in contrast, may sponsor investigator-initiated research blending attention to science andpractice.

An initial step in developing this field is to callattention to the problem among leading organizationsrepresenting social work academics and practitioners.The former include SSWR, the Council on SocialWork Education, and the Group for the Advance-ment of Doctoral Education in Social Work. Calls foraction among leaders of some of these organizationshave taken place, particularly involving the SpecialCommission to Advance Macro Practice. However,these efforts have generally concerned curricularimprovement and student enrollment expansionefforts more than research infrastructural needs. Anational agenda sponsoring discussion and strategic

planning concerning the connections between HSOand management research and practice is thereforeoverdue.

Professional associations focused on HSO andmanagement research, including the SSWR Orga-nizations and Management Special Interest Group,the Association for Community Organization andSocial Action, and the Association for Research onNonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), canprovide needed bridges for academics and practi-tioners. These groups are focused on the develop-ment of research pipelines through which researchersare connected with mentors and specialized knowl-edge networks, and gain access to professional oppor-tunities at critical developmental stages. Several havedeveloped inexpensive methods to expand profes-sional development opportunities.

For example, ARNOVA provides fellowships todoctoral students and emerging scholars to defray thecosts of conference travel and registration. The confer-ence program is organized to appeal to junior scholarsand includes roundtables organized by topic, allowingdoctoral students to receive feedback from seniorscholars (who serve in a discussant role); panels areoften focused on career development (for example,tips for preparing research papers and submitting forpeer review); a competitive preconference workshopprovides a forum for doctoral candidates to work withsenior researchers on their dissertation projects. Simi-larly, the Network for Social Work Managementsponsors a preconference Doctoral Scholars Institutefor social work management faculty and doctoral stu-dents to network, discuss dissertation research andscholarly publication opportunities, advance collabo-rative research-to-practice projects, and identify macropractice research infrastructure opportunities.

CONCLUSIONIn sum, our research capacity-building arguments areorganized around a broad strategic vision to addressthe HSO research-to-practice gap, expand access forsocial work managers and other practitioners toneeded research, and promote new opportunities forHSO research and scholarship. To address the majorchallenge of delivering effective health and humanservices with limited resources, management practi-tioners require evidence-informed recommendationsthat are relevant, timely, scalable, and reliable. Theseexpectations require researchers to be well versed inpractice-based research partnerships. We also encour-age the use of research methods exploring available


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



agency data, evaluating organizationally rooted pro-cesses over levels of practice and time, and analyzinginterrelationships involving individual behavior andorganizational context. Our topics are important forsocial work researchers interested in the effectivedelivery of health and human services, where there isa need to understand the micro, meso, and macro lev-els of social work practice (including policy and com-munity practice). Our arguments also reference theresearch capacity-building goals of sister professions(notably the health sciences, management sciences,and public administration and policy sciences).

For practitioners to pay attention to our work, weneed to focus on topics that HSOs andmanagers cur-rently struggle to address. These include improvingfrontline service delivery efficiency, effectiveness,and equity, and enhancing organizational perfor-mance; developing participatory organizational cul-tures and knowledge sharing systems; and usingagency data for organizational learning and improve-ment in ways that are cost-effective and meaningfulfor managerial and frontline practitioners. We see theimportance of researchers linking organizational pro-cesses to service user outcomes and developing andtesting evidence-informed methods for developinginnovative, equity-focused programs, agencies, andsystems. Providing organizational and managerialsupports for practice-focused research, and havingstronger relationships with practitioners, can help inachieving these goals.

From an institutional and organizational perspec-tive focused on research infrastructure development,the education and training of doctoral students andearly career investigators in HSO and managementpractice is critical for closing the research-to-practicegap. There are emerging models of multidisciplinaryand team science approaches that involve research-to-practice training for early career investigators(Guerrero et al., 2018). As the profession of socialwork seeks to tackle some of the most intractableproblems, it is critical to prepare future researchers incollaborative university–HSO models that advanceknowledge translation.

This logic parallels the efforts of the Grand Chal-lenges for Social Work (Fong et al., 2018; Padilla &Fong, 2016). Our research capacity-building agendafor addressing the HSO research-to-practice gap envi-sions a macro-level approach for identifying grandstrategies to address the Grand Challenges for SocialWork. In particular, our three-part agenda is designedto help schools and departments of social work

strengthen connections between (a) the social prob-lem focus of the Grand Challenges for Social Workand (b) the institutional and organizational capacity-building focus of social work researchers and HSOleaders.

Connected to these challenges is the enduringquestion of the relevance of social work research forHSO and management practice, particularly con-cerning the topics that researchers study, the concep-tual and methodological tools we use, and how weframe our work. If we wonder whether HSO leadersand managers are paying sufficient attention to socialwork research, then perhaps it is because we are notcommunicating and collaborating with them in amanner that is meaningful to them. Academic–practitioner collaborations and environmental scanningare needed to address essential field-level challengesand the search for innovations to major agency-based challenges.

Of course, this does not imply that HSO research-ers should only produce research reflecting currentpractitioner demands. Focusing on research–practicepartnerships may lead to work that is problem-oriented to the point of being disconnected fromlarger bodies of scholarly literature and theory devel-opment. Investments in small-scale, time-limited, andspecific solutions to HSO and management practicedilemmas should not diminish the usefulness of ourresearch or our ability to build knowledge. However,given the limited emphasis to date on practice researchand knowledge translation, we would argue for amore balanced approach. In sum, demonstrating evi-dence of what works and sharing what can be donedifferently or better for HSOs, managers, and serviceusers is, indeed, building knowledge, albeit more con-crete and less abstract. SWR

REFERENCESAarons, G., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. (2011). Advancing

a conceptual model of evidence-based practice imple-mentation in public service sectors. Administration andPolicy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research,38, 4–23.

Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A. S. (2010). Communityengagement in research: Frameworks for educationand peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100,1380–1387.

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activitiesof nonprofit human service organizations: A criticalreview.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43,11–35.

Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T.,Odomirok, P., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001).Academic-practitioner collaboration in managementresearch: A case of cross-professional collaboration.Academy of Management Journal, 44, 418–431.


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



Austin, M. J. (2018). Mack Center on nonprofit and publicsector management in human service organizations.Research on Social Work Practice, 28, 386–391.

Austin, M. J., Dal Santo, T. S., & Lee, C. (2012). Buildingorganizational supports for research-minded practi-tioners. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 9,174–211.

Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics andpractitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes ofacademic–practitioner relationships. Journal of Manage-ment, 40, 1181–1201.

Baumbusch, J. L., Kirkham, S. R., Khan, K. B., McDonald,H., Semeniuk, P., Tan, E., & Anderson, J. M. (2008).Pursuing common agendas: A collaborative model forknowledge translation between research and practicein clinical settings. Research in Nursing and Health, 31,130–140.

Brown, C. H., Curran, G., Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A.,Wells, K. B., Jones, L., et al. (2017). An overview ofresearch and evaluation designs for dissemination andimplementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 38,1–22.

Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Green, L. W. (2018).Building capacity for evidence-based public health:Reconciling the pulls of practice and the push ofresearch. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 27–53.

Chuang, E., Collins-Camargo, C., & McBeath, B. (2017).Organizational supports used by private child and fam-ily serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: A mixedmethods study protocol. Implementation Science, 12,Article 49.

Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academicand practitioner publications in human resource man-agement: Reasons for the divide and concrete solu-tions for bridging the gap. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1013–1019.

Confrey, J. (1987). Bridging research and practice. Educa-tional Theory, 37, 383–394.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design:Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dill, K. A., & Shera, W. (2015). Empowering human ser-vice organizations to embrace evidence-informedpractice: International best practices. Human ServiceOrganizations: Management, Leadership & Governance,39, 323–338.

Fallon, B., Fillipelli, J., Black, T., Trocme, N., & Esposito,T. (2017). How can big data drive policy and practicein child welfare? Making the link in Canada. Interna-tional Journal on Environmental Research in Public Health,14, Article 1223.

Fong, R., Lubben, J., & Barth, R. (2018).Grand challengesfor social work and society. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Friedman, M. (2015). Trying hard is not good enough. Middle-town, DE: FPSI Publishing.

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L.(2016). Understanding and tackling societal grandchallenges through management research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 59, 1880–1895.

Graff, G., McBeath, B., & Austin, M. J. (2017). Supportingevidence-informed practice in human service organi-zations: An exploratory study of link officers.HumanService Organizations: Management, Leadership & Gover-nance, 41, 58–75.

Grand Challenges for Social Work. (n.d.-a). 12 challenges.Retrieved from http://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/grand-challenges-initiative/12-challenges/

Grand Challenges for Social Work. (n.d.-b).Harness technol-ogy for social good. http://grandchallengesforsocialwork

.org/grand-challenges-initiative/12-challenges/harness-technology-for-social-good/

Guerrero, E. G., Hanh, E. E., Kachikian, T., Chuang, E., &Brown, A. F. (2017). Interdisciplinary disseminationand implementation research to advance translationalscience: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Clini-cal and Translational Science, 1, 67–72.

Guerrero, E. G., He, A., Kim, A., & Aarons, G. (2014).Organizational implementation of EB substance abusetreatment in racial and ethnic minority communities.Administration and Policy in Mental Health and MentalHealth Services Research, 41, 737–749.

Guerrero, E. G., Moore, H., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2018).A scientific framework for social work doctoral educa-tion in the 21st century. Research on Social Work Prac-tice, 28, 243–253.

Hasenfeld, Y. (2010). The attributes of human service orga-nizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.),Human services as com-plex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 9–32). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Henry, C., Carnochan, S., & Austin, M. J. (2017). Usingqualitative data-mining for practice research in childwelfare. Child Welfare, 93, 7–26.

Herie, M., &Martin, G. W. (2002). Knowledge diffusionin social work: A new approach to bridging the gap.Social Work, 47, 85–95.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridgingthe rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’salready happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46,534–546.

Hopkins, K., Meyer, M., Cohen-Callow, A., Mattocks, N.,& Afkinich, J. (in press). Implementation and impactof results-based accountability learning: Successes andchallenges with human service professionals of color inurban agencies. Race and Justice, 9, 80–94.

Howard, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social workresearch: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work andResearch, 6, 173–200.

Hutchinson, A. M., & Johnston, L. (2004). Bridging thedivide: A survey of nurses’ opinions regarding barriersto, and facilitators of, research utilization in the prac-tice setting. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13, 304–315.

Ioannidis, J.P.A., & Khoury, M. J. (2014). Assessing value inbiomedical research: The PQRST of appraisal andreward. JAMA, 312, 483–484.

Julkunen, I., & Uggerhoj, L. (2016). Negotiating practiceresearch. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36, 6–10.

Kirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie,B., & Damschroder, L. (2016). A systematic review ofthe use of the Consolidated Framework for Imple-mentation Research. Implementation Science, 11, Article72.

Kroll, A. (2015). Drivers of performance information use:Systematic literature review and directions for futureresearch. Public Performance & Management Review, 38,459–486.

Mabry, P. L., Olster, D. H., Morgan, G. D., & Abrams,D. B. (2008). Interdisciplinarity and systems science toimprove population health: A view from the NIHOffice of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S211–S224.

McBeath, B. (2016). Re-envisioning macro social workpractice. Families in Society, 97, 5–14.

McBeath, B., & Austin, M. J. (2015). The organizationalcontext of research-minded practitioners: Challengesand opportunities. Research on Social Work Practice, 25,446–459.

McDermott, F., & Bawden, G. (2017). New ways of seeing:Health social work leadership and research capacitybuilding. Social Work in Health Care, 56, 897–913.


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



http://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/grand-challenges-initiative/12-challenges/

http://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/grand-challenges-initiative/12-challenges/

http://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/grand-challenges-initiative/12-challenges/harness-technology-for-social-good/



McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. NewYork: Routledge.

McRoy, R., Flanzer, J., & Zlotnick, J. (2012). Buildingresearch culture and infrastructure. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Meyer, M., Cohen-Callow, A., Hopkins, K., & Victorson,L. (2017). Perceptions of impact from the Funds’ investments[Report]. Baltimore: University of Maryland Schoolof Social Work, Joseph and Harvey Meyerhoff FamilyCharitable Funds.

Mosley, J. E. (2017). Yes, macro practice matters: Embrac-ing the complexity of real-world social work.HumanService Organizations: Management, Leadership & Gover-nance, 41, 10–12.

Mosley, J. E., & Gibson, K. (2017). Strategic use of evidencein state-level policymaking: Matching evidence typeto legislative stage. Policy Sciences, 50, 697–719.

Mosley, J. E., & Smith, S. R. (2018). Human service agen-cies and the question of impact: Lessons for theory,policy, and practice.Human Service Organizations: Man-agement, Leadership & Governance, 42, 113–122.

Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H.T.O. (2009). Providingevidence-based practice: Models and mechanismsfrom cross-sector review. Research on Social Work Prac-tice, 19, 552–559.

Orme, J., & Powell, J. (2008). Building research capacity insocial work: Process and issues. British Journal of SocialWork, 38, 988–1008.

Padilla, Y. C., & Fong, R. (2016). Identifying grand chal-lenges facing social work in the next decade: Maximiz-ing social policy engagement. Journal of Policy Practice,15, 133–144.

Palinkas, L. A., Saldana, L., Chou, C.-P., & Chamberlain,P. (2017). Use of research evidence and implementa-tion of evidence-based practices in youth-serving sys-tems. Children and Youth Services Review, 83, 242–247.

Paton, S., Chia, R., & Burt, G. (2014). Relevance or “rele-vate”: How university business schools can add valuethrough reflexively learning from strategic partnershipswith business.Management Learning, 45, 267–288.

Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evalua-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change:Theory and practice.Organization Science, 1, 267–292.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linearmodels: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organiza-tions: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, perfor-mance, and change. Philadelphia: Basic Books.

Shaw, I., & Faulkner, A. (2006). Practitioner evaluation atwork. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 44–63.

Shaw, I., & Lunt, N. (2011). Navigating practitionerresearch. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1548–1565.

Shera, W., & Dill, K. (2012). Promoting evidence-informed practice in child welfare in Ontario: Prog-ress, challenges, and future directions. Research on SocialWork Practice, 22, 204–213.

Smith, S. R. (2018). The future of nonprofit human ser-vices.Nonprofit Policy Forum, 8, 369–389.

Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brown-son, R. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: Mod-els for dissemination and implementation research.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, 337–350.

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell,K., Stillman, L., & Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gapbetween prevention research and practice: The interactivesystems framework for dissemination and implementation.American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.

Westwood, G., Richardson, A., Latter, S., Clark, J. M., &Fader, M. (2018). Building clinical academic

leadership capacity: Sustainability through partnership.Journal of Research on Nursing, 23, 346–357.

Zlotnick, J. L., Biegel, D. E., & Solt, B. E. (2002). The Insti-tute for the Advancement of Social Work Research:Strengthening social work research in practice andpolicy. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 318–337.

Bowen McBeath, PhD, is professor, School of Social Workand Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University,PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97201; e-mail: [email protected]. Jennifer Mosley, PhD, is associate professor, Schoolof Social Service Administration, University of Chicago.Karen Hopkins, PhD, is associate professor, School of SocialWork, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Erick Guerrero,PhD, is associate professor, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School ofSocial Work and Marshall School of Business, University of South-ern California, Los Angeles.Michael Austin, PhD, is professorof the graduate school, School of Social Welfare, University ofCalifornia–Berkeley. John Tropman, PhD, is Henry J. Meyercollegiate professor emeritus, School of Social Work and RossSchool of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Original manuscript received January 5, 2018Final revision receivedMay 11, 2018Editorial decision May 16, 2018Accepted May 25, 2018Advance Access Publication April 3, 2019

APPENDIX: STRATEGIC VISION TO REDUCE THERESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE GAP AND BUILDRESEARCH CAPACITY IN HUMAN SERVICEORGANIZATIONSDomain 1: Advancing Science on HumanService Organizations and Management

• Developing research methods to answer practice-based research questions and increase the impactof research:• “Big data” methods for curating and ana-

lyzing quantitative and qualitative infor-mation in large administrative databases

• Multilevel statistical models to address ques-tions connecting macro to micro

• Longitudinal approaches to examine sus-tainability and change over time

• Rigorous mixed-methods research designsto understand how to improve organizations

• Exploring new frontiers in research method-ology in a way that reaffirms a commitmentto methodological pluralism linked to a con-tinued emphasis on relevance and socialjustice

Domain 2: Strengthening Connectionsbetween Researchers and Practitioners

• Promoting practice-based research partner-ships to increase knowledge use:


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



• At the researcher level, identifying oppor-tunities for research–practice collaborationbeginning with specific, small-scale prac-tice projects

• At the organizational level, building onthe existing relationships of schools ofsocial work, research institutes, and leadinghuman service organizations (HSOs)

• At the institutional level, promoting interpro-fessional and interdisciplinary research and edu-cation focused onHSOs andmanagement

• Using low-cost dissemination strategies toincrease knowledge sharing:• Open-access publishing and social media

(for example, blogs) to promote researchaccess and use

• Research-to-practice action memos and tai-lored presentations for groups, programs, andlearning networks focused on HSOs

Domain 3: Providing Institutional andOrganizational Supports for Macro PracticeResearch

• Among schools and departments of socialwork, provision of specialized research train-ing, mentorship of early career researchers,and predoctoral and postdoctoral traineeshipsin research centers focused on organizationaland management topics

• At the inter-institutional level, initiating a callfor human service organizational and man-agement research and practice among leadingsocial work research societies and professionalassociations

• Engaging national-level funders to develop aninstitutional awards pipeline for human serviceorganizational and management research pro-jects, investigators, and traineeships


Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



Social Work Research is a professional journal concentrated on advancing the development of knowl-edge and informing social work practice. It is one of the chief outlets for primary research articles

in social work and social welfare. As a repository for an evolving body of knowledge, the journal makes an important contribution to the quality of educational materials and social work practice.

From 1977 to 1993, Social Work Research was a section of Social Work Research & Abstracts. In rec-ognition of the growing need for social work research, NASW separated the two sections in 1994, and the Press now publishes Social Work Research and Social Work Abstracts as independent journals.

Articles include analytic reviews of research, theoretical articles pertaining to social work research, practice-based research, evaluation studies, and diverse research studies that contribute to knowledge about social work issues and problems. Criteria for acceptance include readability, sound methodology, and utility for practice.

ARTICLESManuscripts for full-length articles may not exceed 28 pages,review process is anonymous. At least three reviewers critique each manuscript, after which the edi-tor-in-chief makes a decision, taking those reviews into consideration.

COLUMNSInstrument Development column publishes psychometric research establishing reliability or validity

of instruments relevant to social work. It also includes critical reviews of multiple instruments in a particular area. Instrument Development submissions may be no longer than 12 pages.

Research Notesarticles. Reports may examine the results of a study, methodological issues, or works in progress and

-missions are selected through the standard review process. Research Notes submissions may be no longer than 12 pages.

Letters from readers are strongly encouraged. Readers may react to articles published in the journal or comment on contemporary issues in social work research that have not been covered in the journal. Although space constraints preclude publishing every letter received, all will be considered. Letters may be no longer than two pages.

To prepare your manuscript in the proper format for submission, view Writing for the NASW Press: Information for Authors at http://www.naswpress.org/authors/guidelines/00-contents.html. Please submit manuscripts as Word documents through the online submission portal at http:// swr.msubmit.net (initial, one-time registration is required).

Dow


ic.oup.com/sw



Documents

BuildingKnowledge toSupportHumanService Organizational ......of community and societal issues (Mosley & Smith, 2018). In furtherance of this goal, organization and management science