Introduction

The principle that social care practice should become more strongly informed by research receives widespread support (Wakefield et al., 2022), including from practitioners themselves. Studies indicate that social workers, and other practitioners working in social care, hold positive views about the importance of research for practice (Wakefield et al., 2021; Despard, 2016; Finne, 2021; Gray et al., 2014). However, the same body of research also suggests that practitioners have low levels of confidence, knowledge, and skills in the use of research, and that some practitioners are uncertain about its value. In 1999, Sheldon and Macdonald described this ‘research-practice gap’ as a gap between perceptions of the potential value research and its actual application in practice. Despite many initiatives to promote the use of research, Rojas and Stenström (2020) claim that there is a growing sense of “things not going fast enough”. Writing about social work, Parrish et al. (2023) argue that, despite sustained effort over the past three decades, “it is unclear whether these efforts have increased the adoption of this process in social work practice”.
In this paper we report results of a survey that sought to understand contemporary patterns of engagement with research among practitioners in adult social care. Given the significance of the workplace as the setting for the adoption of new practices, we took an organisation-wide approach to explore the perspectives of a range of practitioner groups. We also maintained a concern with the general use of research in decision-making, as opposed to a more specific interest in evidence-based practice (EBP). There is substantial - and sometimes sceptical - debate on what the application of research evidence should look like in social work (e.g. Gray and McDonald, 2006), occupational therapy (e.g. Dougherty, Toth-Cohen and Tomlin, 2016), and social care more generally. Much of this revolves around the appropriateness of EBP as a model with roots in medicine and healthcare. In the UK context, Wakefield et al. (2022) propose that, while there exist critiques and differences of opinion, there is a consensus that practitioners (in any field) should be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to make use of research evidence and to have the opportunity to engage with research activity. Reflecting similar moves for a common ground, in the US context Parrish et al (2023) note that the ‘new terminology’ of EBP is taking on a more inclusive use to refer to a range of forms of practitioner engagement with research evidence, rather than necessarily reflecting a specific model.
Plath (2014) argues the need for an organisational perspective on implementing evidence-based practice. The dominant model for understanding the use of research among practitioners has entailed a focus on the role of individuals as decision-makers. This has led to a neglect of the diverse team and systems-based environment within which social care practitioners work. Plath’s perspective emphasises the importance of addressing how different practitioner groups engage with research in different organisational situations. This has been partially addressed in some literature on the application of research evidence among practitioners who differ in terms of their level of seniority, professional background, education, and practice experience. For example, taking an organisational perspective, Bäck et al. (2020) reported that tiers of management held different interpretations and applications for the use of research evidence. Staff in senior positions focused on strategic- and system-level issues, such as external comparisons and evidence of innovation in other authorities; middle managers focused on evidence relating to implementation at staff level, such as motivating and involving staff. Similarly, studies by Zardo and Collie (2015) and Gudjonsdottir et al. (2017) found that research evidence was applied differently by management and frontline practitioner staff groups. In adult social care there is also some evidence of profession-based differences in engagement with evidence-based practice. For example, Gudjonsdottir et al. (2017) found that physical therapists were more open to EBP and found EBP more appealing than their social work colleagues. Such interprofessional differences are likely to be particularly significant in contexts where decision-making takes place within multi-disciplinary teams.
Placement students and newly qualified staff with recent education in the application of research can experience difficulties exercising their skills when they enter organisational settings. Gleeson et al. (2021) found that social work students on placement encountered “negative, often dismissive views of research and experience little in the way of role-modelling of evidence-based practice”. Teater and Chonody (2018) reported that social work practitioners felt insufficiently prepared by their professional qualifications to use their education in research. In another study, recently graduated occupational therapists found it challenging to consistently implement research skills in their daily practice (Di Tommaso et al., 2019).
Work-based encounters with research may affect perceptions of research use. Regarding occupational therapists and physical therapists, a study by Thomas et al. 2020 identified a positive association between participation in empirical research activities and confidence in applying EBP. However, duration of general practice experience appears to be another factor. Gray et al. (2014) found that social work staff with long service were more likely to report research-based changes to their practice. Parrish et al. (2023) found that greater years as a licensed social work practitioner was associated with more positive attitudes about, and less perceived difficulty with, evidence-based practice.
Pressures associated with working in organisations are frequently cited by practitioners as a barrier to using research. Often this is expressed in terms of lack of time, pressures on time, or challenges with time management (Upton et al., 2014; Finne, Ekeland and Malmberg-Heimonen, 2022; Scurlock-Evans and Upton, 2015). A further leading area of difficulty concerns training on the use of research evidence, notably its availability, appropriateness, and the opportunities to make use of the learning in practice (Scurlock-Evans and Upton, 2015; Cooke, et al.,2008), with generally fewer opportunities for those working in social care, compared with staff working in healthcare settings (Wittenberg and Hancock, 2018; DHSC, 2018).
Regarding social workers, studies by Gray et al. (2014) and Van der Zwet et al. (2019) both found that some practitioners describe their engagement with research evidence in vague rather than specific terms. Lack of clarity was accompanied by reservations about the ‘EBP agenda’ itself. For example, Gray et al. (2014) found that some staff had concerns about the relevance, useability, and applicability of EBP to their practice. There are also indications that practitioners may take different routes to engage with research evidence. In a related study Gray et al. (2015) report a distinction between those practitioners who preferred to engage in the whole EBP process themselves and those preferring to adopt practice guidelines based on appraisal of research evidence by other experts.
To date much investigation on research use in adult social care has focused on specific professional groups or specific professional hierarchies. In contrast, the study reported here builds on organisation-wide approaches with an aim to assess the views, experiences, and use of research among diverse staff groups working in adult social care services. Our study is based upon a baseline survey conducted as part of the initial stage of ConnectED (Connecting Evidence with Decision Making). ConnectED is a National Institute for Health and Care Research funded programme that intends to build the capacity of adult social care organisations to use research (Macdonald et al., 2022).