Prevalence and Impact of Biosocial Research in Social Work Journals: A Systematic Review

Background/Purpose: Despite social work’s emphasis on using a biopsychosocial conceptualization for assessment and treatment, and the relevance of biosocial research to social work theory and practice, it is not clear whether social work is contributing new knowledge in this area. Given that research housed in a discipline’s journals reflects the knowledge central to the field, this study aims to examine whether and to what extent social work is contributing to advancing biosocial research as evidenced by whether biosocial research is being published in social work disciplinary journals. Specifically, the research questions guiding this study are: 1) Is biosocial research being published in social work journals? and 2) What are the characteristics of biosocial studies published in social work journals?

Methods: Systematic review methods were employed to search for biosocial research published in social work journals from January, 2000 to January 31, 2015. Biosocial research was defined as including at least one biological factor (genetic factors- e.g., twin or adoption studies, genes or physiological factors- e.g., heart rate, saliva, blood, MRI) in the analysis. A systematic search of 74 social work journals (as identified by Hodge and Lacasse) was conducted in Social Services Abstracts using a keyword search (keywords: biosocial OR gene OR genetic OR biolog* OR neuro* OR physio*) in all fields to locate studies that included biological variables (e.g., genetic or physiological factors) related to behavior. Studies were screened and coded by two independent reviewers and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Results: A total of 370 citations were screened for relevance and the full text of 103 articles were then screened for eligibility. Eleven studies met eligibility for inclusion in this review; one study was a behaviour genetics study, two were molecular genetics studies, two were neurological studies and six studies examined physiological factors such as skin conductance and salivary cortisol.

Conclusions and Implications: Our search yielded only 11 studies that directly measured a biological variable. The prevalence of a biosocial study being published in a social work journal, at 0.0003, is similar to the odds of ever being struck by lightning. Findings suggest that social work as a discipline is not contributing new knowledge to advance the “bio” component of the biopsychosocial framework. The relevance of rapid advances in the biological sciences to social work practice and research can’t be overstated. If social work wants to remain relevant and advance a “science of social work” and achieve progress towards the Grand Challenges, we must contribute in a scientific way to testing and refining all aspects of the biospsychosocial framework. Consideration of barriers and discussion of how social workers can engage in biosocial research will be discussed.