Unscientific thinking about scientific practice: Evaluating the scientistpractitioner model

Jerome C. Wakefield

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Advocates of the scientist-practitioner model of social work argue that practitioners should use the model's twin pillars of single-system designs and standardized rapid assessment instruments to evaluate their practices. We evaluate the following central claims of the scientist-practitioner model: that it makes practice more effective, that it is needed to satisfy accountability requirements, that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, that it provides valid causal knowledge of treatment effectiveness that can be generalized to other cases, that it is not biased toward any particular practice theory, and that its lack of adoption by practitioners is not due to any deficiencies in the model itself. We find that the methods of the scientist-practitioner model are of unproved clinical effectiveness, limited scientific value, questionable practicality, and unknown net benefits.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)83-95
    Number of pages13
    JournalSocial Work Research
    Volume20
    Issue number2
    StatePublished - Dec 1 1996

    Fingerprint

    treatment effectiveness
    theory-practice
    social work
    responsibility
    lack
    Values

    Keywords

    • Practitioner
    • Researcher
    • Singlesystem design

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

    Cite this

    Unscientific thinking about scientific practice : Evaluating the scientistpractitioner model. / Wakefield, Jerome C.

    In: Social Work Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, 01.12.1996, p. 83-95.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{73ee56c8ec734688846738e8b553971a,
    title = "Unscientific thinking about scientific practice: Evaluating the scientistpractitioner model",
    abstract = "Advocates of the scientist-practitioner model of social work argue that practitioners should use the model's twin pillars of single-system designs and standardized rapid assessment instruments to evaluate their practices. We evaluate the following central claims of the scientist-practitioner model: that it makes practice more effective, that it is needed to satisfy accountability requirements, that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, that it provides valid causal knowledge of treatment effectiveness that can be generalized to other cases, that it is not biased toward any particular practice theory, and that its lack of adoption by practitioners is not due to any deficiencies in the model itself. We find that the methods of the scientist-practitioner model are of unproved clinical effectiveness, limited scientific value, questionable practicality, and unknown net benefits.",
    keywords = "Practitioner, Researcher, Singlesystem design",
    author = "Wakefield, {Jerome C.}",
    year = "1996",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "20",
    pages = "83--95",
    journal = "Social Work Research",
    issn = "1070-5309",
    publisher = "National Association of Social Workers",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Unscientific thinking about scientific practice

    T2 - Evaluating the scientistpractitioner model

    AU - Wakefield, Jerome C.

    PY - 1996/12/1

    Y1 - 1996/12/1

    N2 - Advocates of the scientist-practitioner model of social work argue that practitioners should use the model's twin pillars of single-system designs and standardized rapid assessment instruments to evaluate their practices. We evaluate the following central claims of the scientist-practitioner model: that it makes practice more effective, that it is needed to satisfy accountability requirements, that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, that it provides valid causal knowledge of treatment effectiveness that can be generalized to other cases, that it is not biased toward any particular practice theory, and that its lack of adoption by practitioners is not due to any deficiencies in the model itself. We find that the methods of the scientist-practitioner model are of unproved clinical effectiveness, limited scientific value, questionable practicality, and unknown net benefits.

    AB - Advocates of the scientist-practitioner model of social work argue that practitioners should use the model's twin pillars of single-system designs and standardized rapid assessment instruments to evaluate their practices. We evaluate the following central claims of the scientist-practitioner model: that it makes practice more effective, that it is needed to satisfy accountability requirements, that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, that it provides valid causal knowledge of treatment effectiveness that can be generalized to other cases, that it is not biased toward any particular practice theory, and that its lack of adoption by practitioners is not due to any deficiencies in the model itself. We find that the methods of the scientist-practitioner model are of unproved clinical effectiveness, limited scientific value, questionable practicality, and unknown net benefits.

    KW - Practitioner

    KW - Researcher

    KW - Singlesystem design

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0010750094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0010750094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:0010750094

    VL - 20

    SP - 83

    EP - 95

    JO - Social Work Research

    JF - Social Work Research

    SN - 1070-5309

    IS - 2

    ER -