Suchergebnisse

Editor's note: This article is reprinted from Volume 80-4 (1999) as part of the Revisiting Our Heritage series. Nearly 20 years ago, one of the earliest articles to appear in a social work journal on evidence-based practice (EBP) was presented by Eileen Gambrill. While many are familiar with Gambrill's contributions as a pioneer of the EBP movement in social work, it is worth noting her emphasis on client voice as a vital part of EBP in advancing the field's efficacy: "Evidence-based practice requires an atmosphere in which critical appraisal of practice-related claims flourishes, and clients are involved as informed participants. A notable feature of EBP is attention to clients' values and expectations. Clients are involved as active participants in the decision-making processes." As you reflect on two decades of EBP influence in research, practice, and policy, consider how successful (or not) social work has progressed in keeping the foundation of client self-determinism strong and relevant.

The manifest purpose of professional journals is to share important knowledge. Increasing revelations of flaws in the peer-reviewed literature shows that this purpose is often not honored and that inflated claims of knowledge as well as other concerns such as misrepresentations of disliked or misunderstood views are rife. In this article, avoidable misunderstandings of science and evidence-based practice (EBP) in publications in the British Journal of Social Work 2005–2016 are described as well as strategies used to forward misinformation. Such discourse misinforms rather than informs readers and decreases opportunities to accurately inform social workers about possibilities to help clients and to avoid harming them and to involve clients as informed participants. Those writing about avoidable ignorance highlight how it is used strategically, perhaps to neutralize what is viewed as dangerous knowledge—the process of EBP and science generally, which may threaten the status quo.

Integrating practice and research is vital in all helping professions in order to offer the most ethical, evidence-informed interventions to clients. This article describes some avoidable distractions that hinder integration, discusses controversies related to integration, and describes options for moving forward, including making wasted resources visible, use of an Environmental Deprivation Scale, and courage training.

Professor Thyer addresses the vital question "How can we prepare practitioners to integrate research in practice settings?" His focus on ethical concerns due to a failure in integration and suggestion to seek legal remedies are welcome ones. Their importance is highlighted by continuing to disregard the close relationship between ethical and evidentiary concerns in everyday practice and policy.

The Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations were created to reveal the evidentiary status of claims focusing especially on the effectiveness of specific interventions. Such reviews are constrained by the population of studies available and biases that may influence this availability such as preferred framing of problems. This highlights the importance of attending to how problems are framed and the validity of measures used in such reviews, as well as the importance of reviews focusing on questions concerning problem framing and the accuracy of measures. Neglecting such questions, both within reviews of effectiveness and in separate reviews concerning related claims, results in lost opportunities to decrease avoidable ignorance. Domains of avoidable ignorance are suggested using examples of Cochrane/Campbell reviews. Without attention to problem framing, systematic reviews may contribute to maintaining avoidable ignorance.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM) is one of the most successful technologies in modern times. In spite of well-argued critiques, the DSM and the idea of "mental illness" on which it is based flourish, with ever more (mis)behaviors labeled as brain diseases. Problems in living and related distress are converted into medical problems, obscuring the role of environmental factors such as poverty and related political, social, moral, and economic factors such as the interest of the state in controlling deviant behavior and maintaining the status quo. This view shrinks rather than expands opportunities for freedom, growth, and dignity. It ignores the vast literature showing that unusual environments create unusual behaviors and that by arranging learning opportunities we can change behavior. Reasons for this marketing success are discussed and alternatives suggested including consensual counseling regarding problems in living and drawing on a science of behavior attending to environmental learning opportunities.

Applied behavior analysts have been helping people to enhance the quality of their lives for decades. Its characteristics as described by Baer, Wolf, and Risley continue to guide efforts to help clients and their significant others. Yet, this knowledge often languishes unused and unappreciated. Distortions and misrepresentations of applied behavior analysis and radical behaviorism abound. Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is contextual and concerned with social validity—with the views of clients and significant others regarding outcomes. These characteristics make it radical in shedding light on dysfunctional contingencies some may wish to remain hidden. Given that ABA and quality of life are birds of a feather, we must become more successful in highlighting this close relationship as a route to increased dissemination of effective methods. Obstacles are suggested as well as a path for accomplishing this, including making avoidable suffering due to failure to use effective methods more visible.