Annotation of a Qualitative Research Article

 

This week, you will submit the annotation of a qualitative research article on a topic of your interest. Narrative, ethnographic, grounded theory, case study, and phenomenology are examples of types of research designs or approaches used in qualitative research.

An annotation consists of three separate paragraphs that cover three respective components: summary, analysis, and application. These three components convey the relevance and value of the source. As such, an annotation demonstrates your critical thinking about, and authority on, the source topic. T

An annotated bibliography is a document containing selected sources accompanied by a respective annotation of each source. In preparation for your own future research, an annotated bibliography provides a background for understanding a portion of the existing literature on a particular topic. It is also a useful first step in gathering sources in preparation for writing a subsequent literature review as part of a dissertation.

Please review the assignment instructions below and click on the underlined words for information about how to craft each component of an annotation.

• Use the Walden library database to search for a qualitative research article from a peer-reviewed journal on a topic of your interest.
• Before you read the full article and begin your annotation, locate the methodology section in the article to be sure that the article describes a qualitative study. Confirm that one of the types of qualitative research designs or approaches, such as narrative, ethnographic, grounded theory, case study, or phenomenology, was used in the study.
• Annotate one qualitative research article from a peer-reviewed journal on a topic of your interest.
• Provide the reference list entry for this article in APA Style followed by a three-paragraph annotation that includes:

  A summary
  An analysis
  An application as illustrated in this example

• Format your annotation in Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced. A separate Reference list page is not needed for this assignment.

Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work
Research: A Review of Published Articles,

2008-2010
Christina Gringeri, Amanda Barusch, and Christopher Cambrón

This study explores the epistemological foundations of qualitative social work research.
A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Re-
viewers examined five things: (1) the purpose or aims of the research, (2) the rationale o

r

justification for the work, (3) the populations studied, (4) the presence of four epistemolog-
ical markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) the
implications presented. Results underscore the exploratory nature of qualitative social work
research; authors were most likely to use the word “explore” and least likely to use the
term “understand” to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for the
research was a gap in the literature (77%), followed by the severity or extent ofthe problem
(50%). Authors emphasized the perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be
social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among the epistemological markers exam-
ined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm
(51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent
in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify pracdce implications in their
work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%).

KEY WORDS; epistemology; qualitative methods; research methods; social work research; theory

S ocial inquiry is shaped by the epistemologyof the researcher, his or her underlying as-sumptions about the process of knowing
(Denzin, 2002). Epistemology may be seen as the-
ories of knowledge that justify the knowledge-
building process that is acdvely or consciously
adopted by the researcher (Carter & Litde, 2007;
Pascale, 2010). These assumpdons guide our deci-
sions about topics, research quesdons, theories,
methods, analyses, and conclusions and help us
evaluate the knowledge contribudons of pubhshed
work (Carter & Litde, 2007; Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2011; Pascale, 2010). Koch and Harrington (1998)
recognized that “researchers bring to the research
product, data generated, a range of literature, a po-
sitioning of this hterature, a positioning of oneself,
and moral socio-pohdcal contexts” (p. 882). Ex-
amining the ways our social locations shape our
process of knowing “can help us understand why
certain quesdons get asked and answered, examine
how values shape observadon” (Pascale, 2010;
Takacs, 2003, p. 37). Anastas (2004) noted that the
researcher’s epistemology affects the kind of schol-
arly work done, how one values scholanhip and

understands its polidcal import, and how one situ-
ates oneself in relation to the work.

Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted the impor-
tance of “epistemological integrity,” in which
authors account for the “logical and compelling
connecdons between genre, overall strategy, the re-
search quesdons, the design, and the methods”
(p. 55). Researchers demonstrate their epistemolog-
ical engagement with the work through explicit
discussion of their research paradigm or inquiry tra-
dition, which is fundamental for rigorous qualitative
research (Anastas, 2004; Marshall &c Rossman,
2006). Qualitative research “should reveal a consis-
tency and integrity of approach that is easuy recog-
nized by the reader and the reviewer” (Padgett,
2009, p. 102). Given the importance of epistemol-
ogy to the research endeavor, social work research-
ers must make explicit the decisions made in the
process of inquiry if they are serious about contrib-
uting to the knowledge base of the profession. As
Padgett pointed out, “the burden of proof is on the
researcher” (p. 102) to be accountable to readers re-
garding the underlying assumptions and logic of
our work.

doi: 10.1093/swr/svsO32 © 20)3 National Association of Social Workers 55

We focus our discussion on epistemology as re-
search praxis that contributes to the development of
knowledge in our field. Our aim in this section of
the article is to discuss the practice of epistemology
to support social work researchers using qualitative
methods to think and write more explicitly about
the epistemological foundations of our work. Prac-
tical epistemology encourages us to reflect on the
connections between how we do research and the
credibility of any research products; underlying this
reflection must be an examination of our own
knowledge formation processes (Becker, 1996;
Takacs, 2003).

Interpretation is at the core of all research, and it
is critical that we acknowledge the role of our
“values, histories and interests” in the production of
knowledge (Koch & Harrington, 1998). Guba and
Lincoln (2005) suggested that researchers start by
asking, “[H]ow do I know the world?” (p. 183).
Do I know through my engagement with the
world? How do I account for myself (history, social
positions) in the process of social inquiry? What
questions, assumptions, and beliefe do I bring to this
process? Researchers can also reflect on how the re-
search question has been “defined and limited” by
what can be learned and how the topic might be
examined diJerendy (Dowling, 2006, p. 11).
Pascale (2010) suggested researchers reflect on why
the phenomenon is important to study and examine
the ways the study might proceed. She noted that
“it might seem that standards of good research
would require scholars to be accountable for the
many processes of interpretation involved in knowl-
edge production” (p. 72).

These questions lead us to the practice of
reflexivity, focusing on the relationship between
researchers and their work and with participants,
which is central to epistemology.

Reflexivity

requires researchers to develop an ongoing and
critical awareness of the social inputs shaping the
production of knowledge in their work (Koch &
Harrington, 1998). All research findings are shaped
by the histories that both the researcher and the
participants bring to the project. Critical awareness
helps researchers shine a light on the diversity and
complexity of social locations and relationships we
bring to knowledge production and the ways in
which our own biographies shape the process and
outcomes of research and the interactions with par-
ticipants. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) suggested
a number of thoughtflil questions aimed at helping

researchers niake expUcit the connections between
our social locations and our knowledge-buüding
activities. It is important that researchen practice
reflexivity as an ongoing process of self-observation
throughout the research project rather than as a set
of answers to cut and paste into reports and articles.

Reflexivity can strengthen the validity or
knowledge claims in all research:

Through recognizing and analyzing the cul-
tures in which we are positioned, and that
therefore cannot help but mold our world-
views, we take steps to become more aware
and even more objective. We come to know
the world more fuUy by knowing how we
know the world” (Takacs, 2003, p. 29). This is
not a philosophical exercise in epistemology
but a practice in which the researcher at-
tempts to “identify, acknowledge and do
something about the Kmitations of the re-
search. Powling, 2006, p. 12)

Watt (2007) described her process of reflexivity
by sharing journal reflections from her first experi-
ence using qualitative methods in a pilot study
carried out for a graduate level research course. She
acknowledged that to be accountable to partici-
pants and readers about the decisions that comprise
the process of knowledge construction audiences
should have the opportunity to see how the re-
searcher goes about the process of knowledge con-
struction during a particular study. By engaging in
ongoing dialogue with themselves through journal
writing, researchers may be able to better deter-
mine what they know and how they think they
came to know it. An introspective record of a re-
searcher’s work potentially helps them to take
stock of biases, feelings, and thoughts, so they can
understand how these may be influencing the re-
search. Making such infomiation avañable to
readers provides them with a means to better eval-
uate the findings. Proponents of the openness in
qualitative inquiry assert a need to publicly disclose
research decisions.

Watt (2007) acknowledged her initial uncer-
tainty about how reflexivity would strengthen her
work and wrote that “I now see that it has helped
me to clarify my thinking, values, purposes, and
beliefs. I can now be up firont about this so others

56 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER 1 MARCH 2013

know where I’m coming from. I cannot shake off
my biases, but I can make them known” (p. 94).

Personal reflexivity becomes a practice in which
the researcher “articulates personal and political di-
mensions of the research enterprise so both
researcher and audience can recognize it” (Anastas,
2004, p. 60). Such transparency enables readers and
participants to evaluate the work on its merits-in-
context and acknowledges their participation in the
construction of knowledge.

The relationship between the researcher and the
participants in the project is a central aspect of reflex-
ivity, one in which the researcher reflects on her or
his persona] history and social locations and the ways
these shape interactions with participants and may
contribute to power dynamics in the relationship. It
is critical for researchers to see the multiple positions
they occupy during the process of research, many of
which grant power and privilege to the researcher
relative to the participants: investigator, expert,
decision maker, participant recruiter, and insider/
outsider, among others. In dme, being aware of the
ways these roles play out in the process of the work
and the ways they shape our interacdons with pardc-
ipants and examining the possibiUdes of sharing roles
and privilege become a reflexive acdvity for the re-
searcher. Through development of our awareness of
the dynamic reladonships between researchers and
pardcipants, we increase the visibility of “altemate
claims to power” and are able to “advocate for the
marginalized” by poindng out the “structures that
make the dominant posidonaUty [that of the
academy or of the research enterpdse] seem inevita-
ble” (Takacs, 2003, p. 35). Commenting on this
aspect of research, Denzin (2002) noted that “social
work research becomes a civic, pardcipatory, coUab-
oradve project that joins the researcher with the re-
searched in an ongoing moral dialogue” (p. 31-32).

Theory is another aspect of epistemology. As
Padgett (2009) stated, “theory matters.” Research-
ers acknowledge that there is no research without
theory, but they frequendy neglect to discuss it
(Barusch, Gdngeri, & George, 2011; Gdngeri,
Wahab, & Anderson-Nathe, 2010). Theoredcal
approaches highlight conceptual maps that guide
our views of the literature, our selection of research
questions and our omission of alternative questions,
our choice of methods, and our analysis and inter-
pretation of data (Anastas, 2004, p. 4).

Theory

helps structure our thinking on a given topic, sup-
ports researchers in extending our interpretations

from descdpdon to explanadon, and provides the
scaffolding and focus for data analysis. “Concepts
and theories are essendal in knowing … and expla-
nation is useful even when one cannot demonstrate
causation or prediction” (Anastas, 2004, p. 3). Ex-
plicit discussion of the theodes that frame our
works shows pardcipants, colleagues, and readers
“how we know the world” and allows them to in-
teract with us and evaluate our work. “The value
of research depends upon the ability of researcher
to substandate a number of claims about. . . the va-
lidity of their interpretation of the evidence in the
light of theory” (Avis, 2005, p. 12).

Each researcher has a paradigm that guides the
work, a view of the process of knowledge pro-
duction composed of the basic elements of ontol-
ogy (nature of existence), epistemology (nature
of knowing), methodology (best ways to buud
knowledge), and axiology (the role of values in
knowledge development) (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Specific paradigms used in social science research
include post-posidvism, constructivism, cdtical
theory, and pardcipatory acdon frameworks; each
paradigm responds differendy to the quesdons
raised by the basic elements. Clear discussion of
the research paradigm informing the work helps
readers undentand the philosophical foundadons
and assumptions that frame the research. Hesse-
Biber and Leavy (2011) noted that

paradigms or worldviews are neither dght nor
wrong; one way of seeing is another way of
not seeing. However, paradigms are powerful
ways of looking at that reality, and they are
windows giving us infomiadon about the
social world and often frame the particular
questions we seek to answer, (p. 38)

Thus, we see the following aspects as cdtical to
the epistemological underpinnings of research: re-
flexivity, articulation of the relationship between
researchers and participants, explicit framing of the
work in theory, and a conscious and integrated use
of a tradidon of inquiry or research paradigm.

We conducted this research to infomi the con-
versation about authors’ epistemological engage-
ment in social work qualitative research. We aimed
to develop in this work a portrait of the epistemo-
logical approaches used in development of the
knowledge base for social work. To address this

GRINGERI ET AL. t Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 57

purpose we used an embedded mixed-methods
design that began with qualitative data, which were
merged into categories and then subjected to quan-
titative analysis (Creswell & Clark, 2011). We
would thus locate this work within the pragmatic
paradigm that characterizes most mixed-methods
research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

METHOD
The study used a retrospective descriptive approach
based on review of a random sample of 100 articles
published between 2008 and 2010 in social work
joumals that are listed in tht Joumal Gitation Reports:
2005 Social Sciences Edition. Data were recorded on a
standardized template and analyzed using descriptive
and bivariate procedures available in SPSS. In this
section we discuss the researchen, the data collection
template and review process, issues concerning reli-
ability, the sample, and the data analysis procedures.

Researchers
Three researchers participated in this study. Two
are senior faculty members in colleges of social
work. Both were trained in the United States, and
both have taught qualitative methods at the doc-
toral level; one continues to do so. Of these two,
one was trained in quantitative methods, coming to
qualitative work mid-career, whereas the other was
trained in and conducted her work exclusively
using qualitative methods. Both senior authors were
appointed to faculty positions over 20 years earlier,
when qualitative methods were given short shrift in
doctoral curriculum; both participated in develop-
ing a curriculum on qualitative methods and facili-
tated, in time, the development of a full semester
required course on qualitative methods in the doc-
toral currictilum. This and previous work on rigor
in qualitative research have greatly sharpened their
awareness of their own research processes and have
deepened their attention to the content and process
of their teaching in this area. The third researcher is
currently pursuing a master of public policy and has
an MSW degree from a U.S. university. He has had
a basic introduction to research design and special-
ized training in statistics.

Template
On the basis of our review of literature and our per-
sonal experience, we drafted a template for the
review of each article. We then used this draft to

review a pilot sample of five manuscripts, and the
template was revised on the basis of the results. In
addition to descriptive information about each
article (title, joumal, year published, aims, and
sample size), the template had space to note the pres-
ence or absence of the following: purposes or aims
of the work, its rationale or justification, the sample
studied, the presence of four key epistemological
markers, and the implications identified. Space was
also provided for reviewen to enter specific text
from the article that demonstrated the presence of
each item under consideration.

Our operational definition of reflexivity included
any explicit discussion of the author’s connections to
the research topic, such as personal or professional
experiences that led the author to be interested in the
subject. We examined each article for theoretical or
conceptual frameworks that were used in the litera-
ture review, the methodology, or the analysis and
discussion. We acknowledged the presence of theory
even when a set of interrelated constructs not speci-
fied as theory infomied the work. We also acknowl-
edged any discussion of the relationship between the
researcher and the participants, even if rather brief;
specifically, we looked for the author’s recognition
of the potential power and privilege inherent in the
researcher-participant relationship. We reviewed
each work for the presence of a specified research
paradigm or tradition of inquiry, such as phenome-
nology, constructivism, grounded theory, or critical
theory, keeping in mind Marshall and Rossman’s
(2006) sugestión that authors of qualitative research
articulate the “logical and compelling connections”
in their work, starting with the paradigm. We used
these categories to review published social work liter-
ature from 2008 to 2010, to explore qualitative social
work researchers’ engagement with and accountabil-
ity to these epistemological issues in their work.

Reliability
The initial review of puot articles was followed
by another review of five different articles, which
gave us the opportunity to clarify the meaning of
key terms. “Theory” was clarified to include the
mention of theory, whether or not it was used ex-
tensively throughout the article. Likewise “para-
digm” was operationalized to include the mention
of a methodological approach such as grounded
theory or social constructivism. “Reflexivity” was
defined to include any mention of researcher

58 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 2013

characteristics that would assist the reviewer in deter-
mining the likelihood of bias. Finally, any mention
of the power dynamics inherent in the relationship
between researcher and subject was seen as address-
ing the “power” marker. These definitions en-
hanced the reliability of our re^/iews because it freed
us from judgment calls about whether the use of
these constructs was adequate. Consequendy, in our
third and final puot review of five additional articles,
inter-rater agreement ranged from 86% to 88%. All
15 pilot reviews are included in the sample of 100
articles reviewed.

To check for consistent reviewer differences,
we also computed a chi-square statistic for a cross-
tab of each of the markers by reviewer. No signif-
icant reviewer effects were observed for the four
epistemology markers under consideration.

Sample
A random sample of 100 articles was drawn from
27 journals listed under social work in the Journal
Gitation Reports: 2005 Social Science Edition (JGR).

To be eligible for inclusion in the study, an article
must have reported on the collection and analysis of
exclusively qualitative data. Selection of the initial
pool of articles included those published between
2008 and 2010 that had the word “qualitative” in
either the abstract or the key words. This yielded a
total of 146 articles. This pool of articles was then
numbered, and a random number generator was
used to select 100. A complete list of the articles
reviewed is available from the corresponding author
on request.

As it tumed out, 3% of the initial sample could
not be used, either because che research did not
involve the collection and analysis of data or because
the authors used mixed methods. These were re-
placed using another random sampling of the re-
maining pool with articles that met both sampling
ctiteda. The resulting sample was distributed across all
three years, with a concentration in 2009. The
sample drew from all but three of the 27 joumals
listed in the JGR. The percentage from each joumal
is summarized in Table 1.

Analysis
We collected textual data on each article to
supplement the desctiptive statistics regarding the
epistemological aspects of each work. We recorded
wtitten statements of the aims or purposes of the re-
search, the rationale for the work, articulation of

Table 1: Percentage of Sampled Articles,
by Year and Journal (A/= 100)

2008

2009
2010
Joumal
Administration in Social Work

Affilia
American Journal of Community Psychology

British Joumal of Social Work

Child & Family Social Work

Child Abtue & Neglect

Child Welfare

Children & Youth Services Review

Clinical Social Work Joumal

Family Relations

Health & Social Care in the Community

Health asocial Work

Intemational Joumal of Social Work

Intemational Social Work

loumal of Social

Policy

Joumal of Social Service

Research

Joumal of Social Work Education

Research on Social Work Practice

Social Service Review

Social Work in Health Care

Total

5

70

25
Frequency

4
6
4
22
6
3
3
5
1

5
18

5
4
1
4
1
1
1
1

5
100

theory or conceptual frameworks, and the verbs
authors used to describe their aims. We also gathered
excerpts of statements of implications for research,
practice, policy, and theory. On the basis of thematic
analysis of these excerpts, response categoties were
generated for use in subsequent statistical analyses.

Initially we set out to describe the epistemologi-
cal foundations of qualitative social work research.
For this purpose, simple descriptive measures were
computed to determine the percentage of articles
that included the characteristics under consider-
ation. During the course of data collection and
analysis, several questions arose that required the use
of bivariate statistics. We wondered, for instance,
whether specific research aims were associated with
the application of epistemological markers. Chi-
square statistics were computed to address these
bivariate questions.

Once statistical analysis of the data was complete,
we undertook a process of peer review. Seven col-
leagues agreed to participate in the review of our
preliminary findings and met with us one aftemoon
to discuss and interpret the studies. On the basis of

GRINGERI ET AL. lEpistemobgy in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 59

Verb Used to Describe Purpose
ExploR

Examine

Report

Describe

Understand

49
28
19
14
14

their feedback, we undertook addidonal analysis
and modified our interpretation ofthe findings.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the verbs authors used to describe
their aims. The terms “explore,” “report,” and
“describe” tended to denote more descriptive
work leading to general implicadons rather than
development of the analysis with links to theoreti-
cal explanadons. “Examine” and “understand”
suggested work that moved fixjm descripdon toward
a more developed analysis.

In descriptions of the purposes of research,
authon most often used “experience” or “percep-
don”; 70% of the árdeles used one of these temis
to lay out the aim of their work. Typically, the
authors’ main goal was to focus on pardcipants’
experiences or percepdons in order to understand
pardcular social phenomena.

Most authors jusdfied their research based on a
gap in the literature. Findings on justification are
summarized in Table 3.

About half (49%) ofthe árdeles mendoned using a
research paradigm; 20 authors used grounded theory
to some extent, eight used Pardcipatory Acdon Re-
search, and six specified phenomenology. Most
authors who mendoned grounded theory used it as a
data analysis strategy rather than as a comprehensive
paradigm designed to generate experienee-based
models or theory. Fifty-one pereent did not specify
a research paradigm.

Details ofthe populations that were studied are
presented in Table 4. One-third of the articles
used a variety of categories of participants.

The implications identified by the authors for
their work are presented in Table 5. A summary
index was computed to gauge the number of areas
in which authon listed imphcations. Results indi-
cated that 21% identified one ofthe four types of
imphcadons, 44% identified two, 28% idendfied
three, and only 7% indendfied all four. Authors
most commonly mendoned pracdce and research
implications together.

Tablë>3TiRational[oïvJustif ¡cation for the;

|Rationale o/o|

Gap in literature

The problem (nature, severity, extent)

Practice or practical implications

Neglected voices

Other rationale:

Importance

New approach

Interest

Theory

Curricular deficiency

77
501

Notes: A/=100. However, authors of articles could use more than one verb to
describe the purpose or articulate more than one rationale, and thus totals may be
greater than 100.

Practitioners

Clients

Parents and families

Survivors and victims

Students

Caregivers

Marginalized groups (not othenvise included: immigrants.
aged, street youths)

Elites (advocates, policymakers, stakeholders.

researchers)

Other

39
28

8′

6_
5′
i’

5

5
8

We constructed an index of epistemological
markers evident in each article based on whether
authors apphed theory, mentioned a research para-
digm, engaged in reflexivity, or discussed power in
the research relationship. The percentage of arti-
cles having one, two, three, or all four of the
marken are presented in Table 6: 61% contained
one or two markers, whereas 12% contained three
or all four epistemologieal markers, and 27% eon-
tained none ofthe marken.

We also estimated ehi squares to describe the re-
lationships among the epistemological indicators.
We found that authon who described the theoret-
ical foundations of their work were more likely
than those who did not to use reflexivity. Among
those who described their theoredcal framework,
24% addressed reflexivity. Among those who did
not, only 7% mentioned reflexivity {p < .03).

The appHcadon of theory was also associated
with the use of “examine” as a verb to describe the
aims ofthe research. Among authon who identified
a theoredcal framework, 36% had set out to

Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 201360

Table S: Implications Identified
[type of Implication
Practice

Research
Theory
Policy

90
60
38

29

Notes: N= 100. However, studies may have participants from more than one group
and articulate one or more types of implications, and thus totals may be greater
than 100.

Table 6: Epistemological Markers

Theory

Paradigm

Reflexivity

Power

Number of Markers

r

32

29

Notes: N= too. However, authors of articles coutd employ more than one f
and thus totals may be greater than 100.

“examine” a social issue or problem. Of those who
did not describe their theoretical framework, only
18% used the temi “examine” to describe their
ainTs {p< .05).

It is not surprising that the theoretical framework
and theoretical implications were positively associat-
ed: 52% of articles that articulated a theoretical
framework identified theoretical implications,
whereas 20% of those that did not describe the the-
oretical basis of their work identified theoretical im-
plications (p< .01).

DISCUSSION

This study examined the presence of epistemologi-
cal indicators in qualitative social work articles pub-
lished from 2008 to 2010. We argue that the
development and discussion of epistemological
dimensions strengthen the potential knowledge
contributions of qualitative research. In particular,
one may think of theory and reflexivity as twin
pulan of rigorous qualitative research; certainly both
are strongly encouraged by qualitative research texts
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Marshall & Rossman,
2006; Olesen, 2005; Pascale, 2010). The impor-
tance granted to these indicators is justified because
theoretical frameworks support researchers in moving
their work toward the explanatory or analytic
level, and reflexivity helps researchen develop

critical awareness of their relationship to their
work. Thus, theory and reflexivity are important
aspects of epistemology that support the process of
knowledge building.

Given the importance of these strategies, it was
affimiing to find positive associations between
theory and reflexivity. Those who incorporated
theory in their work were more likely to locate
themselves in their research. However, the low rate
of reflexivity in social work articles requires our at-
tention. It is somewhat puzzling that social workers
would be reluctant to situate themselves in their re-
search. As Kanuha (2000) noted with regard to low
rates of reflexivity overall, “[SJocial science and cer-
tainly social work literature are not proliferated by
first person accounts ftom either nonnative or
native researchers about the experience of conduct-
ing research” (p. 441). It is not clear whether social
work researchen’ lack of reflexivity in published ar-
ticles is due to discomfort with disclosure or with a
desire to maintain the post-positivist penpective
that our positionality does not, or should not,
matter (Kanuha, 2000). The low rate of reflexivity
in published articles may obscure its presence in the
process of research that is not reported in publica-
tions; this, together with lack of expectation on the
part of peer reviewers and joumal editors, may con-
tribute to its relative absence in published articles.
We encourage graduate-level training in qualitative
research and joumal editors and reviewen’ giving
substantial emphasis to theory and reflexivity so that
in greater numbers of social work publications
researchers will “incorporate a reflexive account
into their research product by signposting to readers
‘what is going on’ while researching” (Koch &
Harrington, 1998, p. 887).

Discussion of power dynamics in the researcher-
participant relationship received short shrift; it was
addressed in only 7% of the articles. This finding is
not puzzling, given that only 16% of the sample
shared reflexive accounts. As researchers become
more accustomed to disclosing reflexive accounts
and editors and reviewers more often require it, we
believe more publications wül include reflections
on the power dynamics in the process of the re-
search project.

Research paradigms are equally important. Al-
though researchers using qualitative methods tend to
be eclectic in combining paradigms or parts of
various paradigms, we need to be accountable to
participants and readers regarding our approach to

GRINGERI ET AL. t Epistemology in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published Articles, 2008-2010 61

knowledge building. We are encouraged that about
half (49%) of the sample did specify a paradigm, and
we strongly encourage aU researchers and editors to
consider this a requirement of dgorous quaütadve re-
search. Journal editors, in pardcular, should consider
sending manuscdpts using qualitadve methods to re-
viewers who are weU acquainted with dimensions of
dgor and epistemology in qualitadve research.

The verbs used by authors most often to articu-
late the purposes of the research were “expedence”
or “percepdon,” suggesting that ways of knowing
in social work qualitadve research are expedendaUy
based and grounded in the social world of pardci-
pants. This also suggests that social work researchers
place a high value on stardng with individual
expedence and the ways in which people make
meaning from those experiences, both of which are
consonant with professional values.

AuthoR most frequently developed imphcadons
for social work pracdce and least frequently devel-
oped implications for pohcy change. We suggest
that authors’ implications point to where we as
social workers tend to place our hope for change;
from these results, most social work researchers are
aiming to affect practice, whereas less than one-
third are aiming for macro-level change. It may be
that researchers less fi-equendy think of qualitative
research methods as consonant with policy research
or that researchers focused on individual-level expe-
dences are not drawing out the macro-level impUca-
dons fix)m those expedences.

It seems that, as researchers, we have started to
acknowledge the importance of epistemology in
our work; that three-fifths of the articles we re-
viewed had one or two markers indicates a begin-
ning recognition that it is important. That more
than one-quarter of the sample articles contained
no epistemological markers is, however, a strong in-
dicator of the improvement needed in qualitative
social work research. These findings suggest that we
are not paying as much attendon to underlying
issues of epistemology as we could, and thus, when
we use qualitative methods, we are not positioning
our work to make a stronger contribudon to the
knowledge base in social work.

Social work educadon plays an important role in
training future researchers to deliberately incorporate
epistemological consideradons throughout the re-
search process. Research courses in social work
should direcdy address the epistemological founda-
dons of research. For example, research instructors

can provide opportunides for students to discuss the
epistemological underpinnings of published árdeles.
Faculty who mentor graduate students in the early
developmental phases of independent research can
challenge them to make their epistemological foun-
dadons explicit. Mentors can also encourage doc-
toral students to discuss epistemological foundadons
of their research in manuscdpts submitted to
journals.

Editors and peer reviewers in social work jour-
nals play a cddcal role in improvement of the cladty
and ardculation of the epistemological foundations
of social work research. At present, we are aware of
few review forms used in joumals that direct re-
viewers’ attendon to theory and even fewer that go
beyond this to incorporate other epistemological
concems. Consequendy, this foundational aspect of
the research process may faU by the wayside in the
review of manuscdpts. We suggest that editors con-
sider adding epistemological markers to review
forms and that reviewers call on authors to incorpo-
rate epistemological foundadons—at a minimum,
theory, power, reflexivity, and paradigm—in man-
uscdpts submitted for pubUcation.

Epistemological integdty means that researchers
hold themselves to high standards of accountability
in their published work with regard to open and
clear discussion of their research paradigm, appUca-
don of theory, reflexivity, and undentanding of
power in their reladonship with pardcipants. Build-
ing our work on a solid epistemological foundadon
requires anchodng the work in theory, consciously
interweaving reflexive accounts throughout the
process, and deliberately linking each aspect of the
work within the paradigm. This is indeed a high
standard, and although very few authors of the
sample árdeles included discussion of aU four episte-
mological aspects, we encourage editors and review-
en to evaluate manuscdpts along these dimensions
of research. As Anastas (2004) noted, “[TJhere is no
dght and wrong in epistemology, only in not being
willing to know about knowing” (p. 9).

REFERENCES
Anastas, J. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues

and possible answers. Research on Social Work Practice,
14, 57-65.

Avis, M. (2005). Is there an epistemology for qualitative
research? In I. HoUoway (Ed.), Qualitative research in
healthcare (pp. 1-15). Berkshire, England: McGtaw
Hill, Open University Press.

Barusch, A., Gringeri, C , & George, M. (2011). Rigor in
qualitative social work research: A review of strategies

62 Social Work Research VOLUME 37, NUMBER I MARCH 2013

used in pubhshed articles. Social Work Research 35
11-19

Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of quahtative re-
search. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder, Eth-
nography and human development: Context and meaning
in social inquiry (pp. 53-71). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge,
justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies,
methodologies, and methods in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11, 1316-1328.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and
conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. (2002). Social work in the seventh moment.
Qualitative Social Work, 1, 25-38.

Dowhng, M. (2006). Approaches to reflexivity in qualita-
tive research. Nurse Researcher, 13Ç>), 7-21.

Cringed, C , Wahab, S., & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2010).
What makes it feminist? Mapping the landscape of
feminist social work research. Affilia, 25, 390-405.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controver-
sies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Tlie Sage handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 183-216). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). Vie practice of quali-
tative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed
methods research: A research patadigm whose time
has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Kanuha, V. K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going
native”: Conducting social work research as an
insider. Social Work, 45, 439-447.

Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing
rigour: The case for reflexivity. Jowmai of Advanced
Nursing, 28, 882-890.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Olesen, V. (2005). Early millennial feminist qualitative re-
search: Challenges and contours. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 235-278). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Padgett, D. K. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods in
social work knowledge development. Social Work, 54,
101-105.

Pascale, C.-M. (2010). Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring
qualitative epistemologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Takacs, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your
epistemology? NEA Higher Education humal, 19,
27-38.

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher:
The value of refiexivity. Qualitative Report, 12,
82-101.

Christina Gringeri, PhD, is associate professor. College of
Social Work, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Amanda
Barusch, PhD, is professor. College of Social Work, Univer-
sity of Utah, Salt Lake City, and associate dean for research.
University of Otago. Christopher Cambrón, MSW,
MPP, is research assistant. College of Social Work, Universi-
ty of Utah, Salt Lake City. An earlier draft of this article was
presented at a Qualitative Inquiry meeting. May 21, 2011,
Champaign, IL. Several colleagues participated in a peer
review of an earlier draft of this article, and contributed helpful

insights. The authors are grateful for their collaboration, which
improved their work.- Address correspondence to Christina
Gringeri, College of Social Work, University of Utah, 395
South 1500 East, Salt Uke City, UT 84112; e-mail:
Christina.Gringeri@socwk.utah.edu.

Original manuscript received March 11, 2011
Finai revision received June 7, 2011
Accepted June 24, 2011
Advance Access Publication February 7, 2013

RESEARCH NOTES

The Research Notes column presentsconcise reports on the results of a study,
discussions of methodological issues, solu-
tions to problems, and development of ideas
or insights. Send your manuscript as a Word
document through the online portal at http://
swr.msubmit.net (initial,one-time registration
is required).

GRINGERI ET AL. lEpistemobgy in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Published ArticUs, 2008-2010 63

Copyright of Social Work Research is the property of National Association of Social Workers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

1

8

Annotated Bibliography

Author Name

Walden University

RSCH 8110/7110/6110: Research Theory, Design, and Methods

Instructor Name

Due Date

Annotated Bibliography

A
utism researchers continue to grapple with activities that best serve the purpose of fostering positive interpersonal relationships for children with autism. Children have benefited from therapy sessions that provide ongoing activities to aid their ability to engage in healthy social interactions. However, less is known about how K–12 schools might implement programs for this group of individuals to provide additional opportunities for growth, or even if and how school programs would be of assistance in the end. There is a gap, then, in understanding the possibilities of implementing such programs in schools to foster the social and mental health of children with autism. The six articles I selected for this assignment present research on different types of therapeutic programs that have been used to promote social interactions in children with autism.

Annotated Bibliography

Wi
mpory, D. C., & Nash, S. (1999). Musical interaction therapy – therapeutic play for children with autism. Child Language and Teaching Therapy, 15(1), 17–28.

https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909901500103

Wi
mpory and Nash provided a case study for implementing music interaction therapy as part of play therapy aimed at cultivating communication skills in infants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The researchers based their argument on films taken of play-based therapy sessions that introduced music interaction therapy. To assess the success of music play, Wimpory and Nash filmed the follow-up play-based interaction between the parent and the child. The follow-up interactions revealed that 20 months after the introduction of music play, the child developed prolonged playful interaction with both the psychologist and the parent. The follow-up films also revealed that the child initiated spontaneously pretend play during these later sessions. After the introduction of music, the child began to develop appropriate language skills.

Si
nce the publication date for this case study is 1999, the results are dated. Although this study found that music interaction therapy is useful, emerging research in the field has undoubtedly changed in the time since this article was published. Wimpory and Nash wrote this article for a specific audience, including psychologists and researchers working with infants diagnosed with ASD. Their focus means that others beyond these fields may not find the findings applicable to their work.

I
am interested in the role of music in therapy to foster social and mental health in children with ASD. Therefore, Wimpory and Nash’s research is useful to me for background information on the implementation of music into play-based therapy in infants with ASD. Wimpory and Nash presented a basis for this technique and outlined its initial development. Therefore, their case study can be useful to my research when paired with more recent research on the topic.

Conclusion

For the Week 10 Application assignment, include a one-paragraph conclusion that presents a 

synthesis

 of the six articles you annotated.

�An introduction paragraph is a helpful addition to your annotated bibliography to tell your reader about your topic of interest and the general context of your topic.

An introduction paragraph is not required for the Week 6 and Week 8 Application assignments.

An introduction paragraph is required for the Week 10 Application assignment; this single paragraph should provide context for why you selected the six research articles that you did.

�Each APA style-formatted reference entry should be followed by a three-paragraph annotation that includes (a) a summary of the source, (b) an analysis of the source, and (c) an application of the source.

�The first paragraph of the annotation is a � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/summary” ��summary� of the source.

The summary should present the (a) main findings of the study, (b) primary method(s) of the study, and (c) theoretical or conceptual basis of the study.

�The second paragraph of the annotation is an � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/critique” ��analysis� of the source.

The analysis should explain the strengths and limitations of the source.

�The third paragraph of the annotation is an � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies/application” ��application� of the source.

The application should (a) justify how the source is applicable to your research interest, (b) describe how the source’s method is applicable to your research interest, and (c) indicate how the source might help to guide your future research on the topic.

In this paragraph, it is acceptable to use the � HYPERLINK “https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoice/first” ��first person� (I, me, my) in your writing.

��A conclusion is not required for the Week 6 and Week 8 Application assignments.

A conclusion is required for the Week 10 Application assignment; this single paragraph should present a � HYPERLINK “http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/evidence/synthesis” ��synthesis� of the six research articles you annotated.