By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

From the same journal

Forms of Practitioner Research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Forms of Practitioner Research. / Shaw, Ian Frank; Lunt, Neil.

In: British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 48, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 141-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Shaw, IF & Lunt, N 2018, 'Forms of Practitioner Research', British Journal of Social Work, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx024

APA

Shaw, I. F., & Lunt, N. (2018). Forms of Practitioner Research. British Journal of Social Work, 48(1), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx024

Vancouver

Shaw IF, Lunt N. Forms of Practitioner Research. British Journal of Social Work. 2018 Jan 1;48(1):141-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx024

Author

Shaw, Ian Frank ; Lunt, Neil. / Forms of Practitioner Research. In: British Journal of Social Work. 2018 ; Vol. 48, No. 1. pp. 141-157.

Bibtex - Download

@article{5924dc99235441dd8804d36e87da5773,
title = "Forms of Practitioner Research",
abstract = "The aim of this paper is to draw on evidence to identify distinctions within those forms of research which are to significant degrees practitioner engaged. The research review on which this is based took place in the fields of health, social care and social work. We suggest there are different forms of practitioner research, and that using a blanket term for all instances of such inquiry may confuse rather than enlighten. Drawing from the data we characterize these as ‘practitioner-led’ and ‘academic partnership’ research. We set out a range of distinctions with regard to the occupational roles of researchers, research relationships, writing relationships, the focus of the research questions and problems, research methodology, the extent to which benefits and utilisation are addressed, and the writing ‘voice’ in published outputs. We conclude that the policy and practice implications ought not to be cast in stone through any regulatory framework, but should be seen as implying a flexible and enabling reference point. Practitioner research should not be petrified in ways that suit the dominant identity of this or that professional community.",
keywords = "Practitioner research, practice research",
author = "Shaw, {Ian Frank} and Neil Lunt",
note = "{\circledC} The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bjsw/bcx024",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "141--157",
journal = "British Journal of Social Work",
issn = "1468-263X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forms of Practitioner Research

AU - Shaw, Ian Frank

AU - Lunt, Neil

N1 - © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - The aim of this paper is to draw on evidence to identify distinctions within those forms of research which are to significant degrees practitioner engaged. The research review on which this is based took place in the fields of health, social care and social work. We suggest there are different forms of practitioner research, and that using a blanket term for all instances of such inquiry may confuse rather than enlighten. Drawing from the data we characterize these as ‘practitioner-led’ and ‘academic partnership’ research. We set out a range of distinctions with regard to the occupational roles of researchers, research relationships, writing relationships, the focus of the research questions and problems, research methodology, the extent to which benefits and utilisation are addressed, and the writing ‘voice’ in published outputs. We conclude that the policy and practice implications ought not to be cast in stone through any regulatory framework, but should be seen as implying a flexible and enabling reference point. Practitioner research should not be petrified in ways that suit the dominant identity of this or that professional community.

AB - The aim of this paper is to draw on evidence to identify distinctions within those forms of research which are to significant degrees practitioner engaged. The research review on which this is based took place in the fields of health, social care and social work. We suggest there are different forms of practitioner research, and that using a blanket term for all instances of such inquiry may confuse rather than enlighten. Drawing from the data we characterize these as ‘practitioner-led’ and ‘academic partnership’ research. We set out a range of distinctions with regard to the occupational roles of researchers, research relationships, writing relationships, the focus of the research questions and problems, research methodology, the extent to which benefits and utilisation are addressed, and the writing ‘voice’ in published outputs. We conclude that the policy and practice implications ought not to be cast in stone through any regulatory framework, but should be seen as implying a flexible and enabling reference point. Practitioner research should not be petrified in ways that suit the dominant identity of this or that professional community.

KW - Practitioner research

KW - practice research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042876757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/bjsw/bcx024

DO - 10.1093/bjsw/bcx024

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 141

EP - 157

JO - British Journal of Social Work

JF - British Journal of Social Work

SN - 1468-263X

IS - 1

ER -