Developing multi-professional networks and structures for - - PDF document

Developing multi-professional networks and structures for community-based research and knowledge development: What is the knowledge base?

Åsa Rosengren, Eivor Österlund-Holmqvist Introduction

To forward integration between research, education and social practice the Multi-professional Praxis Arena was initiated in year 2009 by the Swedish-speaking educational establishments in social work (Helsinki University) and social services (Arcada, University of Applied Sciences). The main objective of the Praxis Arena is to develop `real-life´ learning and research environments in municipalities where students, lecturers, researchers, service users and professionals in the social service sector interact and collaborate. In these multi-professional authentic social service settings, social work and social service students develop their professional work skills and get supervision in fieldwork. Practice research, with the aim to develop and create new working methods/models and to promote innovations in the social service sector, is also conducted in these real-life social contexts. Collaborative, experimental learning, appreciation of different sources of knowledge and the involvement of professionals and service users in education and in practice research are the main principals in the project. Besides the educational establishments, five social service offices in southern part of Finland are also involved in the Praxis arena. These social services offices are situated in the municipality of Espoo, Helsinki, Kirkkonummi, Porvoo and Raasepori. The practice research unit Mathilda Wrede Institute within the regional Centre of Excellence of Social welfare (FSKC) in Helsinki coordinates the Praxis Arena activities and acts as a platform for sustainable knowledge development within the field of social work and social services. A partnership agreement between the actors mentioned above was made in year 2010. The aim of this paper is to present and reason on the knowledge base in progress in the Multi-professional Praxis Arena by arising the following questions; 1) Who are the main stakeholders in the Praxis arena and what are their interests in collaboration in research and knowledge development? 2) What type of framework for community-based research and knowledge development could be useful to meet the different interests and needs of the stakeholders in the Praxis Arena? 3) How could dialogical models be used to strengthen multi-professional networks and co-operation between different stakeholders in the Praxis Arena?

Acknowledgement of multiple sources of knowledge

Policy and practice within the field of social service and social work are informed and influenced by multiple sources of knowledge. These sources range from the tacit, experiential knowledge arising from everyday practice, to the knowledge embodied in rules and regulations, to the formal, codified knowledge arising from research into issues in social work/social service practice (see Trevithick 2008). A classification of different types of knowledge has been proposed by Pawson et al. (2003) and Grayson et al.(2004). Each type of knowledge is differentiated by the source from which it derives. These sources include;

• Organizational knowledge gained from the management and governance of social service/social work
• Practitioner knowledge gained from the conduct of social service/social work
• User knowledge gained from experience of service use and reflection there upon
• Policy community knowledge gained from the wider policy environment
• Research knowledge gathered systematically with predetermined design

This classification signalizes to research, policy and practice communities that all the sources of knowledge are

• f potential value and have a vital role in building up the social service/social work evidence base. Pawson et al.

(2003) stress that there is not a hierarchy of knowledge. They are equally valid sources of evidence and “make count” for the development of a knowledge-based practice. The acknowledgement of multiple sources of knowledge can create a more sensitive and informed practice. (Humphreys et al., 2003).

Different stakeholders, interests and needs in practice research and knowledge development

To bridge the gap between education, research and practice multiple sources of knowledge are at different levels involved in the Multi-professional Praxis Arena. The main stakeholders from the municipalities are; practitioners (social work, social service), social service users, administrative leaders, policy makers. From the educational establishments; social work and social service students on BA-and MA- level, lecturers and

• researchers. One of the main principals in the Multi-professional Praxis Arena is to acknowledge the different

type of knowledge each stakeholder represent and to take the interests of all stakeholders seriously by supporting their different needs and goals for collaboration in the development of a knowledge-based practice. From experiences in the Praxis Arena it is clear that there are different interest and needs in research and knowledge development, that are influenced by the field and context where the stakeholders are situated. In the words of Uggerhøj (2011): “There is an essential difference between a researcher and a practitioner: the researcher views research as a goal in itself, while the practitioner views research as means. To the researcher, research and the research process are the main objectives. The practitioner‘s goal is to present initiatives and viable solutions to social

• problem. This does not mean that the interests of research and practice are necessarily different but that

researchers and social workers must remember the difference in interests between them. The struggle between partners and conflict between the two fields has a dynamic and creative function.”

In the municipalities practitioners in social work and social service are bound to professional, organizational and political frameworks. Their educational background, work experience, professional values and ideals influence their interests in community-based research and knowledge development. Service users again are influenced by their living conditions and help needs and have therefore an natural interest in receiving the best support possible. Administrative managers are influenced by politically defined boundaries and local cultures and wish to know more about the effectiveness of social work and social services. Local politicians again are interested in measuring the effects of political decision-making and to explain them to citizens in the municipality.(See e.g. Uggerhøj 2011) In the educational institutions lecturers need to constantly develop their work and they need to explore and understand why and how different teaching/learning methods, strategies and environments make a difference to students learning. Social work and social service students again are interesting to develop skills that makes it possible for them to meet the complex and concrete world in different social work/social service settings. The varoius interests and needs are essential to all the partners involved in the Praxis Arena. Important is that knowledge production is built on every partner instead of one and to develop a framework for community-based research and knowledge development that includes different stakeholders and areas of inquiries.

Towards an inclusive knowledge base for community-based research and knowledge development

To acknowledge multiple sources of knowledge and to include the different interests and needs of the stakeholders in the Praxis arena a suggested model for strategic development of a knowledge-based practice in the municipalities is presented in figure 1. The model is adapted from the conceptual frameworks of Upshur et

• al. (2001) and Gould (2006) and could be used to visualize the extent and diversity of knowledge that can be

identified that is relevant to social work/social service contexts of practice in the municipalities. The two-dimensional model captures distinct characteristics of knowledge - one which is methodological, the

• ther relates to the level of analysis (context). The vertical dimension of the framework relates to the distinction

between approaches which prioritize measurement as a method for capturing knowledge (quantitative), and the tradition which prioritizes meaning and interpretation (qualitative). The horizontal axis sets out the poles of context and differentiates between the unit of analysis or context of the research, between that which is concerned with the individual and that which addresses social or collective contexts. The intersection of the dimensions creates quadrants which can be said to capture contrasting forms of knowledge, without placing them within a hierarchical order. Knowledge can then be understood as a mediation between the context of its use and method of its production. The model acknowledges a broader range of research methodologies. This approach supports a view that the fundamental purpose of research is to produce answers to questions. The framework generates four archetypal questions; each related to a quadrant of the framework that drive social service and social work research:

• What are the experiences of and meanings produced by people who use or deliver services? (Meaning–Individual

quadrant); e.g. How do users of services experience them? Are the services delivered by professionals in ways which they find empowering rather than disempowering? Are the services improving their lives?

• Are the interventions in social work/social service effective? (Measurement–Individual quadrant); e.g. What is

the level of effectiveness of the different forms of intervention? What is the cost-effectiveness of those interventions compared to existing methods? What are the outcomes of different interventions and what is their impact on the quality of life of the person?

• What are the organizational and policy approaches to effective services? (Meaning–general quadrant): e.g. What

are the priorities that should be reflected in the policy framework for social work and social services? What lessons can be learned from the process of service reorganization?

• What social conditions are associated with problems of users, practitioners and communities? (Measurement–

general quadrant); e.g. What are the pathways by which people find themselves subject to social exclusion?

These questions could be regarded as ‘ideal types’. They are not the only questions in the specific social service/ social work setting but they typify and stand for the range of inquiries that can be made. Nor can every element of knowledge be definitively placed, some questions may overlap or be asked in combination. Figure 1.Inclusive model for strategic development of a knowledge-based practice in the Praxis Arena

What are the

• rganizational and

policy approaches to effective services? What social conditions are associated with problems of users,practitioners and communities? What are the experiences and meanings produced by service users and practitioners? Which interventions are effective for users and practioners?

Individual General Measurement Meaning

Dialogical models used to strengthen multi-professional networks and co-operation between different stakeholders

For the stakeholders in the Praxis Arena to gain greater understanding of each others interests and needs in research and knowledge development praxis seminars and workshops have been held. Through these “network meetings” the stakeholders (mainly managers and practitioners) elaborated common areas for collaboration and knowledge development. Anticipations Dialogues (see Seikkula & Arnkil 2006) were here used to strengthen multi-professional networks and co-operation between different stakeholders. When discussing multi-stakeholder situations, needs and interests the issue is a binding force for each party with regard to the matter. Each party has to weigh up its own commitments. Anticipation Dialogues are a means for carrying out network meetings in a manner that helps the participants to find ways of coordinating their

• actions. These dialogues are useful especially when there are multiple parties involved in the matter and it is

unclear what each party is doing or even who are the parties involved. The network meeting uses a method called "recalling the future" and is conducted by a facilitator pair. The target is to make concrete plans for

• collaboration. The emphasis is on the future. You pay attention on good solutions and notice the possibilities in

the network. You will get a more balances picture of obstacles and possibilities. The basic principles are that you think that a year has passed and the current state of affairs is quite good. The facilitators are leading the network meeting, one interviews and the other "make public notes". Everyone gets the same basic questions e.g.

• A year has passed. As you heard, things are quite well in the Praxis Arena. What did you do to

support the good development - and who was helpful to you?

• What were you worried a year ago and what lessened your worries?

Talking and listening will be separated and everyone talks from his or her own point of view. The discussion has a clear structure and clearly worded aim. The discussion leads to a concrete workable plan. There is a clearly said theme for the meeting in forehand and the stakeholders knows it in advance. The worry should be clearly expressed. The result of the meeting is a plan that everybody in the network can accept. The dialog in these network meetings can be described as a flow of meanings (see Isaacs 1999). The dialogue fulfill deeper needs than merely acceptance. In a conversation the aim is to find out an agreement between two

• r more disagreeing parties, but in this dialogue model the aim is to gain a new understanding as a foundation

for later thinking and action. The dialogue aims not only at an agreement, but at creating a new context for new deals and creating a foundation that could assist in coordinating both values and joint actions in the Praxis Arena.

Concluding comments

The development of a knowledge-based practice through the Praxis Arena initiative is undoubtedly ambitious. Hopefully, small steps within this framework can be recognized and acknowledged as contributing to the aspirations of a more knowledge-based practice and that the increased knowledge can be made to count within the changing organizational contexts of social work and social service in the municipality of Espoo, Helsinki, Kirkkonummi, Porvoo and Raasepori.

References Gould, N. (2006) ‘An inclusive approach to knowledge for mental health social work practice and policy’, British Journal of Social Work, 36, pp. 109–25. Grayson, L., Boaz, A. and Long, A. F. (2004) Organising social care knowledge: in search of a ‘fit for purpose’ classification, Journal of Integrated Care, 12(1), pp. 42–48. Humphreys, C., Berridge, D., Butler, I. & Ruddick, R. (2003) Making research count: the development of knowledge-based practice, Research, Policy and Planning, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 41–50. Isaacs, W. (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Currency. Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A. F. and Barnes, C. (2003) Types and Quality of Knowledge in Social Care, London, Social Care Institute for Excellence (Knowledge Review 3). Available via http://www.scie.org.uk/sciesproducts/knowledgereviews/knowledgereviewsand summaries.htm Seikkula, J., Arnkil, T.E. (2006) Dialogical Meetings in Social Networks .London: Karnac. Trevithick, P. (2008) Revisiting the Knowledge Base of Social Work: A Framework for Practice. British Journal of Social Work 38, 1212–1237. Upshur, R., Van den Kerkhof, E. and Goel, V. (2001) ‘Meaning and measurement: An inclusive model of evidence in health care’, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 91–6. Uggerhøj, L. (2011). What is Practice Research in Social Work - Definitions, Barriers and Possibilities, Social work and Society, vol.9, no.1, pp 45-59.