No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Summary Social work has grappled with quality of its knowledge base for over a hundred years. In the tradition of critical self-examination, this study was conducted to describe the methods employed in quantitative studies published in social work journals and to assess the extent to which they conform to widely accepted standards of quality. A random sample of 120 articles published in the top thirteen social work journals from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed to identify indicators of quality and rigor. Additional data on citations per year were collected through July 2022. Findings Most studies were cross-sectional and descriptive in nature (62%). While the majority of articles addressed the limitations of the study, only 40% contained reference to theory and 15% described how missing data were handled. Citations per year averaged 4.82, and citations per year exhibited a small, statistically significant positive association with quality indicators and reviewer global evaluations, but not with journal impact factor. Results did underscore the role of doctoral programs in promoting quality research. Applications Social work education programs should continue emphasizing quality social work research methodologies, particularly given the move toward postpositivism as a profession. We note a cycle of disincentivization may be occurring, where social work researchers take their best work to higher impact factor, non-social work journals. We also suggest lack of traditional indicators of rigor may be the result of “concerted resistance” to borrowed epistemologies; we call for consensus-based measures of rigor that reflect the realities of the social work profession.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.