Abstract: Exploring the Research Activity of UK Social Work Academics: Contributing and Impeding Factors (Society for Social Work and Research 20th Annual Conference - Grand Challenges for Social Work: Setting a Research Agenda for the Future)

Schedule:

Saturday, January 16, 2016: 3:00 PM

Meeting Room Level-Meeting Room 5 (Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel)

* noted as presenting author

Barbra Teater, PhD, Associate Professor, College of Staten Island, The City University of New York, Staten Island, NY

David C. Kondrat, PhD, MSW, Associate Professor, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN

Background and Purpose:

The research activity of social work academics in the UK has been of interest and concern among academics and research funders and has been described as ‘piecemeal, patchy and small scale’ (Sharland, 2009, p. 140). Multiple initiatives have been implemented to develop social work research activity, yet research by social work academics remains limited and is said to be hindered by lack of time, support infrastructures, funding, and training. This cross-sectional, exploratory study aimed to provide a current picture of: the research activity of social work academics; the proportion of academics’ time that universities expect to be spent on research, teaching, and administration and how this compares to the actual time spent on research, teaching, and administration; and the factors that contribute to or impede research activity.

Methods:

This study consisted of an online survey comprised of 55 closed and open-ended questions that covered: the characteristics of the social work academics; their academic roles and aspirations; their perceptions of social work and social work education; their past and present experience of practicing social work; and their current research activity. The online survey was distributed to social work academics across the UK in May-June of 2014 using academic list serves and social media. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multiple regression analysis. Research activity, as the outcome variable, was measured as the percentage of time spent on research. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis.

Results:

The academics (N=202) were predominately female (62.1%) and White (91.3%), with a mean age of 51 years. Nearly 73% reported being research active. The academics reported spending less time on research activities (M = 20.91, SD = 18.91) than was expected of their universities (M = 32.28, SD = 17.22), t(157) = 6.15, p < .001, less time on teaching (M = 40.57; SD = 18.63) than was expected of their universities (M = 44.60; SD = 16.32), t(163) = 2.50, p = .01, and more time on administration (M = 39.10; SD = 18.64) than was expected of their universities (M = 22.42; SD = 11.90), t(162) = -11.00, p < .001. Less time spent on administration, less time spent on teaching, being from a pre-1992 university and the number of university supports explained 99% of the variance in research activity (R² = .99, F(4,91)=3322.49, p <.001). Sex, age, number of years employed, holding a Doctorate, number of administrative positions, universities’ expectation of research, universities’ expectation of teaching, and type of research methods were not significant.

Conclusion:

The findings indicate that the administrative burdens associated with teaching and assessment in social work education result in academics struggling to fit research into their busy lives, despite initiatives to raise the profile and productivity of social work research. Research support infrastructures and strategies should be reviewed in light of such findings.