Praksa zasnovana na dokazima u središtu paradigmatskog preokreta u socijalnom radu?
Sažetak
Pristup prakse zasnovane na dokazima u socijalnom radu izaziva širok spektar reakcija, koje odražavaju dinamiku modernih i postmodernih pristupa, gde se tradicionalni naglasak na empirijskim metodama i objektivnosti suočava sa izazovima postmodernističkog skepticizma i relativizma. Polazeći od modela naučnog razvoja Tomasa Kuna kao teorijskoanalitičkog okvira, cilj rada je da analizira debatu između modernog i postmodernih pristupa povodom prakse zasnovane na dokazima u socijalnom radu. Koristeći metode analize sadržaja, komparativne i narativne analize, kao i sinteze, rad se fokusira na tekuću debatu kao izraz krize i sukoba između ovih dveju paradigmi, uzimajući u obzir njihove osnovne ontološke, epistemološke, metodološke i aksiološke postavke. Prikazuje se razvoj prakse zasnovane na dokazima kroz sukcesiju stadijuma normalne nauke i krize, a zatim diskutuju osnovni modernistički i postmodernistički argumenti, čime se otvara pitanje implikacija ovog sukoba na primenu i dalji razvoj pristupa prakse zasnovane na dokazima u socijalnom radu. Zaključuje se da, uprkos prividnoj nepomirljivosti ovih pristupa, njihova kritička interakcija, osvetljena kroz Kunove ideje o naučnim paradigmama, igra ključnu ulogu u razvoju prakse zasnovane na dokazima.
Reference
Bonaventure Chike, A. (2021). Karl Popper’s Critique of Thomas Kuhn’s Concept of Normal Science: An Evaluation. African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, vol. 4 (3), 105–115. doi:10.52589/AJSSHR-NROPSRCB.
Burke, A. C., Early, T. J. (2003). Readiness to adopt best practices among adolescents’ AOD treatment providers. Health & Social Work, 28 (2), 99–105. doi:10.1093/hsw/28.2.99.
Doel, M., Shardlow, S. M. (2005). Modern social work practice. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Available at: http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/34735/1/1.pdf.pdf
Dominelli, L. (2007). The Postmodern ‘Turn’ in Social Work: The Challenges of Identity and Equality. Social Work and Society, 5 (3). Available at: https://ejournals.bib.uniwuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/144/513.
Drisko, J., Grady, M. (2012). Evidence Based Practice in Clinical Social Work. New York: Springer. Available at: http://educatererindia.com/wp–content/uploads/2021/01/2019_ Book_Evidence–BasedPracticeInClinic.pdf.
Dulmus, C. N., Karen M., Sowers, K. M. (2012). The Profession of Social Work: Guided by History, Led by Evidence. Hoboken: Wiley. Available at: https://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/1X/11181769/111817691X–178.pdf.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London. Humanities Press. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_ Against_Method.pdf.
Firinci Orman, T. (2016). “Paradigm” as a Central Concept in Thomas Kuhn’s Thought. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6 (10), 47–52. Available at: https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_10_October_2016/8.pdf.
Fischer, J. (1973). Is casework effective? A Review. Social Work, 18 (1), 5–20. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23712511.
Fischer, J. (1978). Does Anything Work?. Journal of Social Service Research, 1 (3), 215–243. DOI: 10.1300/ J079v01n03_01
Flexner, A. (1915). Is Social Work a Profession?. In: Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction at the Forty–second Annual Session Held in Baltimore (576–590). Chicago: Hildmann. Available at: https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/social–work/is–social–work–a–profession–1915/.
Foucault, M., Gordon, C. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/5/5d/Foucault_Michel_Power_Knowledge_Selected_Interviews_and_ Other_Writings_1972–1977.pdf.
Freshwater, D., Rolfe, G. (2004). Deconstructing Evidence–based Practice. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203422311/deconstructing–evidence–based–practice–dawn–freshwater–gary–rolfe-
Gajić, M. (2022a). Individual and society from the point of view of the theory of empowerment in social work. In: Z. Kuburić, A. Zotova, Lj. Ćumura (eds.). Individuality and collectivity from the perspective of interdisciplinary research (425–446). Novi Sad: Centar za empirijska istraživanja religije (CEIR). Available at: http://www.ceir.co.rs/upload/2022/ZBORNIK%20–%20%20Individualnost%202022.pdf. [In Serbian]
Gajić, M. (2022b). About the position of Roma children in the social protection system in Serbia. Srpska politička misao, 1/2022, 29 (75), 267–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22182/spm.7512022.12. [In Serbian]
Gambrill, E. (2001). Social Work: An Authority–Based Profession. Research on Social Work Practice, 11 (2), 166–175. doi: 10.1177/104973150101100203.
Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence–Based Practice and Policy: Choices Ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16 (3), 338–357. doi: 10.1177/1049731505284205.
Gambrill, E. (2008). Evidence–Based (Informed) Macro Practice: Process and Philosophy. Journal of Evidence–Based Social Work, 5 (3–4), 423–452. doi: 10.1080/15433710802083971.
Giacomucci, S. (2021). Creating an Evidence Base for Social Work, Group Work, and Psychodrama. In: S. Giacomucci, J. Becker–Ebel (eds.). Social Work, Sociometry, and Psychodrama. Psychodrama in Counselling, Coaching and Education (187–210). Singapore: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981–33–6342–7_10.
Gibbs, A. (2001). The Changing Nature and Context of Social Work Research. British Journal of Social Work, 31 (5), 687–704. doi:10.1093/bjsw/31.5.687.
Goldenberg, M. J. (2006). On evidence and evidence–based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Social Science & Medicine, 62 (11), 2621–2632. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.031.
Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D. & Webb, S. A. (2013). Opinions about evidence: A study of social workers’ attitudes towards evidence–based practice. Journal of Social Work, 14 (1), 23–40. doi: 10.1177/1468017313475555.
Gray, M., Plath, D., Webb, S. A. (2009). Evidence-Based Social Work: A Critical Stance. London: Routledge. Available at: http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/5060/1/68.pdf.pdf.
Hasel, F. M. (1991). Scientific Revolution: An Analysis and Evaluation of Thomas Kuhn’s Concept of Paradigm and Paradigm Change for Theology, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2 (2), 160–177. Available at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=jats.
Howard, M. O., McMillen, C. J., Pollio, D. E. (2003). Teaching Evidence–Based Practice: Toward a New Paradigm for Social Work Education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13 (2), 234–259. doi: 10.1177/1049731502250404.
Howe, D. (1994). Modernity, Postmodernity and Social Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 24 (5), 513–532. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a056103.
Hrnčić, J., Marčetić Radunović, G. (2018). Assessment of resources of children and youth in conflict with the community norms. Sociološki pregled, 52 (3), 985–1019. doi: 10.5937/socpreg52–18933.
Hrnčić, J., Polić, S. (2019). Assessment of aspects and effects of field practice realization by students of social policy and social work. Godišnjak Fakulteta političkih nauka, XIII, 21, 9–36. UDC 378:304.2:364. Available at: https://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/523/736.pdf. [In Serbian]
Hugman, R. (2003). Professional Values and Ethics in Social Work: Reconsidering Postmodernism?. The British Journal of Social Work, 33 (8), 1025–1041. doi:10.1093/bjsw/33.8.1025.
Kirk, S. A., Reid, W. J. (2002). Science and Social Work: A Critical Appraisal. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/kirk11824.
Kuhn, S. T. (1974). The structure of scientific revolutions. Beograd: Nolit. [In Serbian]
Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965 (pp. I–II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.
Laudan, L. (1978). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32 (1), 57–71. Available at: https://fenix.ciencias.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/1688987299217629/Laudan,%20Progress....pdf.
Marsh, D., Stoker, G. (2005). Theories and methods of political science. Zagreb: FPZ.
Masterman, M. (1970). The Nature of a Paradigm. In: I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Proceedings of the 1965 International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, 4 (3 ed.), 59–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.008.
McNeece, A. C., Thyer, B. A. (2004). Evidence–Based Practice and Social Work. Journal of Evidence–Based Social Work, 1 (1), 7–25. doi: 10.1300/J394v01n01_02.
Morago, P. (2006). Evidence-based practice: from medicine to social work. European Journal of Social Work, 9 (4), 461–477. doi: 10.1080/13691450600958510.
National Association of Social Workers (2021). NASW code of ethics. Available at: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English.
Noble, C. (2004). Postmodern Thinking Where is it Taking Social Work?. Journal of Social Work, 4 (3), 289–304. doi: 10.1177/1468017304047747.
Nothdurfter, U., Lorenz, W. (2010). Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence–Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work. Social Work and Society, 8 (1), 46–59. Available at: https://ejournals.bib.uni–wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/22/61.
Ogundele, E., Ogunyomi, A. (2020). A Critical Assessment of Thomas Kuhn’s Understanding of Scientific Progress. Caribbean Journal of Philosophy, 12 (2), 62–77. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362265925_A_Critical_Assessment_of_Thomas_Kuhn%27s_Understanding_of_Scientific_Progress.
Okpych, N. J., Yu, J. L.–H. (2014). A historical analysis of evidence–based practice in social work: The unfinished journey toward an empirically grounded profession. Social Service Review, 88 (1), 3–58. doi: 10.1086/674969.
Peile, C., McCouat, M. (1997). The Rise of Relativism: The Future of Theory and Knowledge Development in Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 27 (3), 343–360. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjs.
Popper, K. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In: I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–8. Available at: https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week1/Normal%20 Science%20and%20its%20Dangers.pdf.
Porter, S., O’Halloran, P. (2009). The postmodernist war on evidence–based practice. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46 (5), 740–748. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.11.002.
Ramey, H. L., Grubb, S. (2009). Modernism, Postmodernism and (Evidence–Based) Practice. Contemporary Family Therapy, 31 (2), 75–86. doi: 10.1007/s10591–009–9086–6.
Richmond, M. (1917). Social Diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Available at: https://www.historyofsocialwork.org/PDFs/1917,%20Richmond,%20Social%20 Diagnosis%20OCR%20C.pdf.
Rodwell, M. K. (1998). Social Work Constructivist Research. New York: Garland. Available at: https://annas–archive.org/md5/e307003979ddc395984136e08cb5282f.
Rosen, A. (2003). Evidence-based social work practice: Challenges and promise, 27 (4), pp. 197–208. doi:10.1093/swr/27.4.197.
Scheffler, I. (1967). Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, INC. Available at: https://ktxr.rs/d2/y/1699924798/31/u/annas-archive-ia-2023-06-acsm/s/sciencesubjectiv0000sche_c8d6.pdf~/vtSWXVptaTuj6LeKSorlWg/Science%20 and%20subjectivity%20--%20Scheffler%2C%20Israel%20--%201967%20--%20 Indianapolis%2C%20Bobbs-Merrill%20--%209780672511707%20--%207ce5744a-b3508b69c3d6db72503b6bf8%20--%20Anna%E2%80%99s%20Archive.pdf.
Shapere, D. (1964). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The Philosophical Review, 73(3), 383–394. doi: 10.2307/2183664.
Sheldon, B. (1998). Evidence based Social Services: prospects and problems. Research Policy and Planning, 16 (2), 16–18. Available at: http://ssrg.org.uk/wp–content/uploads/2015/10/Vol–16.–No.–2..pdf.
Strauss, E. S., Glasziou, P., Richardson, S. W., Haynes B. R. (2019). Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 5th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier. Available at: https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files4/0151c55f69e2fcd3a6d1f99b6430a288.pdf.
The Law on Social Protection of Republic of Serbia, Official Gazette of RS, no. 24/2011. Available at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/sites/default/files/2018-11/Zakon%20o%20socijalnoj%20zastiti.pdf. [In Serbian]
Vučinić Jovanović M. (2020). Historical development of group work: from movement to method in social work. Godišnjak Fakulteta političkih nauka, XIV, 23, 299–317. UDC 36:316.45. Available at: https://www.fpn.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/FPN-Godisnjak-23-2020.pdf. [In Serbian]
Webb, S. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence–based practice in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31 (1), 57–79. doi:10.1093/bjsw/31.1.57
Wieringa, S., Engebretsen, E., Heggen, K., Greenhalgh, T. (2017). Has evidence–based medicine ever been modern? A Latour–inspired understanding of a changing EBM. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 23 (5), 964–970. doi:10.1111/jep.12752.
Williams, F. (1996). Postmodernism, feminism and the question of difference. In: N. Parton (ed.). Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work (61–76). London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/30830670/Social_Theory_Social_Change_and_Social_W_pdf.
Williams, L., Sewpaul, V. (2004). Modernism, postmodernism and global standards setting. Social Work Education, 23 (5), 555–565. doi: 10.1080/0261547042000252280.
Žegarac, N. (2014). Reflexivity and objectivity in decision–making. In: N. Žegarac (ed.). In the labyrinth of social protection: lessons learnt from research on children in care (64–66). Beograd: UB–FPN, Available at: https://www.unicef.org/serbia/sites/unicef.org.serbia/files/2018–08/U_lavirintu_socijalne_zastite.pdf. [In Serbian]
Žegarac, N., Vučinić, M., Milanović, M. (2014). Roma children in care within the social protection system in Serbia. In: N. Žegarac (ed.). In the labyrinth of social protection: lessons learnt from research on children in care, 219–250. Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka – Centar za istraživanja u socijalnoj politici i socijalnom radu. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/serbia/sites/unicef.org.serbia/files/2018-08/U_lavirintu_socijalne_zastite.pdf. [In Serbian]