The Art and Science of Social Work Revisited: Relevance for a Changing World

Abstract

Debates on the art and science of social work persist (Grady & Keenan, 2014). Recently, I heard fellow social workers ask how the profession can stay relevant as it balances the art and science of social work. Some social workers emphasize that practitioners should use science-based approaches to advance practice goals. Others encourage the profession to not abandon the art of social work. Still others point to practice wisdom as the bridge that connects the art and science of social work (Samson, 2014). Reflecting on this discussion, I looked at the collection of articles in this issue and could see the synergy of art and science in social work practice. These articles remind us that to continue to be relevant, social work must embrace the art and science of practice. Science has been defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (“Science,” 2015). The science of social work is, consequently, a necessity to advancing the profession. It includes our ability to systematically evaluate our collective practices. Although evidence-based practice furthers our understanding of practice intervention, it is only one aspect of the science of social work (Gitterman & Knight, 2013). Overall, using a scientific approach and inquiry deepens our knowledge and understanding of practice. It provides important linkages across practitioners and settings, allowing us to build on our knowledge and understanding of shared similarities between groups. It creates a sense of consistency and predictability to practice. These ideas are necessary for the profession to build on practice interventions for the future of social work practice. It creates a common language for us to build on and allows for cross-fertilization of knowledge development.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.