Print this chapterPrint this chapter

Output 1

7. Appendix 1

GUIDELINES FOR NATIONAL REPORTS FOR OUTPUT 1.

General notes

As our discussions have shown, there has been some variation among the partners regarding various aspects (e.g. the exact focus/ “ranking order” in terms of concepts, the scope in terms of the material to be included, the methodology, and comprehensiveness of the national reports) of this exercise. This seems to us as also partly related to the expected magnitude of the relevant national literature. Thus, our guidelines are an attempt at providing a “middle way” in the above respects, which we hope can be applied in all partner countries and which will make it possible to analyze the national reports also from a comparative perspective.  Hopefully, the analysis resulting in O1 may also later serve as a basis for a joint scientific journal article. Therefore, we think the points of departure in the (national) analysis should be similar to those of a joint article.

As suggested by Griet, the points of departure guiding the analysis are:

  • Participation of service users is a key challenge/complexity for social work professionals in order tobe reflexive, since they have to learn to take into account the question what service users consider supportive
  • This challenge is particularly ‘new’ in relation to professional interfaces in the field of social andhealth care, and our analysis contribute to exploring work in diverse European countries on this topic
  • User participation may have varying meanings and take different forms, resulting in a variety ofcomplex challenges, which may, or may not, be taken into consideration by researchers or practitioners.

Against this background, the aims of the (national) literature analysis that all project members conduct and report are:

  • To provide a knowledge basis for university teachers, students and practitioners when learning abouthistorical and contemporary differences (and deficits) in user participation approaches in social work research and practice in the partner countries – with a particular focus on situations involving interfaces between the social work and health care professionals.

Since our project aims at providing a (self) critical, reflective approach to user participation in the development of services, also the degree and types of direct or indirect references to reflexivity in the reviewed literature, both by researchers themselves and within the types of user participation studied should also be a part of the analysis.

  • Within our project, O1 should also function as a source for students taking part in our later projectactivities, especially when identifying and/or reflecting on good practices regarding user participation. 

Based on these general considerations, we hope that you could conduct a review of the relevant literature on the subject in your country, following the more specific guidelines below:


On the methodology

During our meetings, we discussed various types of reviews (systematic reviews, scoping reviews, integrative reviews, rapid reviews etc. c. (e.g. Davies et al. 2019). After considering these, we have drawn the conclusion that that the most realistic way ahead seems to be to conduct a “light variant” of the type of scoping review described in Hilary Arksey’s & Lisa O'Malley’s (2005) article “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework”

It includes five stages for conducting a scoping review:  Stage 1: identifying the research question; Stage 2: identifying relevant studies; Stage 3: study selection; Stage 4: charting the data Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The guidelines below follow this general outline.

In our reviews, these steps aim to serve a flexible basis for the national report each participating university delivers. Thus, the steps can be applied to the prerequisites in the respective country.

However, is important describe your methodological decisions, so that the reader can understand your choices and procedures, and, for reasons of comparison, we hope you follow the stages listed below.


STAGE 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As agreed on during our meetings, the research questions we should aim at answering on the basis of the analysis of research in/on you country is

What is the current situation and what can be considered main challenges regarding service user participation in social work in [country]?

When answering the question, special attention should be paid to aspects of professional interfaces as well as direct and indirect references to issues of professional reflection - to the extent that they emerge in the material.

In order to make the reader understand the context in which the question is to answered, the report should start by a brief contexualizing description of social work and its history and traditions in your country, with a special reference to issues of user participation.

Here, we suggest that authors depart from their personal (expert) understanding of the current national situation, of the historical factors leading up to the current situation, as well as of the current developmental traits as regards user involvement in their own country, and also the author’s expectations on what kind of research is expected to be found during the scoping review. Other personal perceptions on the current situation, e.g., whether there may be a “gap” between the professional discussion on user involvement and research on the topic, may be noted by way of introduction. Thus, everyone would use an approach/view similar to the one they had when joining the project in the first place – which could perhaps give the reports –and the subsequent parts of the project–  an ‘extra dimension’. 


STAGE 2: HOW TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT STUDIES

The aim of a scoping review is to establish the scope of a phenomenon/field as comprehensively as possible in order to answer the central research question(s). Thus, the search for studies/publications/sources via different sources is recommended: *electronic databases *reference lists *hand-searching of key journals *existing networks, relevant organizations and conferences”.

However, in our study, both for reasons of time & recourses and because the research published on the subject might be quite limited and not necessarily available through electronic databases, your sources should be chosen based on feasibility. Obviously, the most important criteria is that you include the sources consider relevant to the degree possible. Please comment on your choices of sources in your report.

Each participating country should focus on national research in a fairly broad sense: it should be in or on the national context. Thus, the research should either be

  • published in your country or
  • published abroad/or in an international journal/proceeding etc. and concern your country OR beauthored by a scholar from your country

In this way it is hoped that we can get a fairly comprehensive picture of the type of research on the topic going on in each project member country.

Both empirical, theoretical and other more debating-type scientific articles can be included.

The time span should be 5 years backwards (2015->), but also older studies, especially relevant for the field may be included if considered important.

The journals / publications included in your review should be the national one(s) mentioned in the research plan and other national publications (and European journals) you consider relevant. 

a) Electronic databases etc.:

If you can use electronic databases, use the term *participation (and synonyms) *service user  * social work  (in national languages and in English) and other terms that you know are used to describe these same phenomena in your country.

Please remember to document which databases have been searched/used (+which years are covered, the date of the search), as well as which terms (in what languages) that you have used. 

b) Reference lists

You may want to check the bibliographies of publications found through the electronic database searches (to what extent have they been included in the scoping exercise above).

c) Hand-searching of key journal(s)

We believe it might also be relevant to hand-search key journals/ other publications (even if you could use database and reference list searches) in order to detect relevant material.

d) Existing networks, relevant organizations and conferences 

To the extent that you know/believe it to be relevant in order to get a fair picture of the research on our topics, web pages of and/or contacts to relevant national organizations etc. working in the field, could also be included in order to identify, e.g., unpublished scientific work that still seems for some reason to be important.

Please comment on your procedures.


STAGE 3. Selecting studies

At this stage, key studies addressing our research question should be selected, if the material is too vast to analyze in its entirety. Please comment on your choices.


STAGE 4: Charting/appraising the data

In our study, the dominating view among the project team members seems to be that there is no need to report details on all material found, but that references in the text to those publications found to be most relevant for answering the research questions is enough. (However, if not too strenuous, a list of the material found as an appendix would probably be valuable to some readers).

However, the main focus here is on charting and appraising the relevant research found: in what ways, by what actors, and in what publication fora are the topics of service user involvement in social work dealt with, is there a focus on professional interfaces, are there references to reflexivity? What are the most interesting research themes found, what are the main research insights, in your opinion?


STAGE 5. Collating, Summarizing and Reporting the Results

Finally, a “narrative summary” (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005) on user participation in social work, based on the literature you have reviewed should be attempted. The focus should be on conclusions related to the research questions, and should also include comments on the extent and nature of references to professional interfaces and/or references to social worker reflexivity regarding service user involvement (either in study designs, or otherwise) in the reviewed material. Also, it would be nice if the author(s) would reflect on the published material in relation to their initial views and expectations (cf, STAGE 1), and on their (expert) knowledge of ‘what is going on at the moment’ in the respective country.

Reference;

Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8:1, 19-32, DOI:

10.1080/1364557032000119616