Knowledge-Production Processes in Practice Research - Outcomes and Critical Elements

The welfare sector has seen considerable changes in its operational context. Welfare services respond to an increasing number of challenges as citizens are confronted with life’s uncertainties and a variety of complex situations. At the same time the service-delivery system is facing problems of co-operation and the development of staff competence, as well as demands to improve service effectiveness and outcomes. In order to ensure optimal user outcomes in this complex, evolving environment it is necessary to enhance professional knowledge and skills, and to increase efforts to develop the services. Changes are also evident in the new emergent knowledge-production models. There has been a shift from knowledge acquisition and transmission to its construction and production. New actors have stepped in and the roles of researchers are subject to critical discussion. Research outcomes, in other words the usefulness of research with respect to practice development, is a topical agenda item. Research is needed, but if it is to be useful it needs to be not only credible but also useful in action. What do we know about different research processes in practice? What conceptions, approaches, methods and actor roles are embedded? What is the effect on practice? How does ‘here and now’ practice challenge research methods? This article is based on the research processes conducted in the institutes of practice research in social work in Finland. It analyses the different approaches applied by elucidating the theoretical standpoints and the critical elements embedded in them, and reflects on the outcomes in and for practice. It highlights the level of change and progression in practice research, arguing for diverse practice research models with a solid theoretical grounding, rigorous research processes, and a supportive infrastructure.

Tackling Youth Exclusion in the UK: Challenges for Current Policy and Practice

Addressing the situation of marginalised youth has been central to policy initiatives directed at tackling poverty and social exclusion in the UK in recent years. The period since 1997 has therefore witnessed a renewed emphasis upon the development of a coherent framework for youth policy in the UK with the goal of promoting youth inclusion and participation. Nevertheless, understanding the nature and prospects for policies designed to tackle youth exclusion involves a deeper interrogation of the concept of ‘social exclusion’ and its applications within UK policy debates. Here, it is argued that whilst considerable progress has been made in the promotion of a coherent and integrated strategy for youth inclusion in the UK such policies are unlikely to be effective without a re-conceptualisation of the nature of social exclusion, its causes and consequences. In particular, a more holistic understanding is called for which extends beyond an emphasis on labour market activation policies as a response to the circumstances facing marginalised youth in the UK and elsewhere, and one which interrogates exclusionary processes and institutional practices rather than addressing only the symptoms of disadvantage.

Marginalization of the Youth – a Current Societal Development?

The last two years a discussion on reforming the public sector has emerged. At its very heart we find important concepts like ‘quality reform’, ‘democracy’, and ‘development’. Recently I have presented an example of the ‘quality reform’ in SocMag, and this leads me to prolong that discussion on central themes on welfare state and democracy. Much energy is invested in arguing about management of the public sector: Do we need more competition from private companies? Do we need more control? Are more contracts concerning outcome needed? Can we be sure about the accountability needed from politicians? How much documentation, effectiveness measurement, bureaucracy, and evidence-based policy and practice are we looking for? A number of interesting questions – but strange enough we do not discuss the purpose of ‘keeping a welfare state’. What sort of understanding is lying behind the welfare state, and what kind of democracy are we drawing upon?

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

Partnership in Practice Research: a Norwegian Experience

This article outlines some of the issues involved in developing partnerships between service users, practitioners and researchers. It discusses these through some experience in Oslo as part of a national level agreement (HUSK) to improve social services in Norway through research and knowledge development. It begins with a review of the main concepts and debates involved in developing collaborative partnerships for practice-based research, particularly in the social services arena. The HUSK program is then described. The article then traces some specific developments and challenges in negotiating partnership relations as discussed by program participants (users, practitioners and researchers) in a series of workshops designed to elicit the issues directly from their experience.

Fuzzy Multi-Objective Linear Programming and Simulation Approach to the Development of Valid and Realistic Master Production Schedule

Master production schedule (MPS) plays an important role in an integrated production planning system. It converts the strategic planning defined in a production plan into the tactical operation execution. The MPS is also known as a tool for top management to control over manufacture resources and becomes input of the downstream planning levels such as material requirement planning (MRP) and capacity requirement planning (CRP). Hence, inappropriate decision on the MPS development may lead to infeasible execution, which ultimately causes poor delivery performance. One must ensure that the proposed MPS is valid and realistic for implementation before it is released to real manufacturing system. In practice, where production environment is stochastic in nature, the development of MPS is no longer simple task. The varying processing time, random event such as machine failure is just some of the underlying causes of uncertainty that may be hardly addressed at planning stage so that in the end the valid and realistic MPS is tough to be realized. The MPS creation problem becomes even more sophisticated as decision makers try to consider multi-objectives; minimizing inventory, maximizing customer satisfaction, and maximizing resource utilization. This study attempts to propose a methodology for MPS creation which is able to deal with those obstacles. This approach takes into account uncertainty and makes trade off among conflicting multi-objectives at the same time. It incorporates fuzzy multi-objective linear programming (FMOLP) and discrete event simulation (DES) for MPS development.