Qualitative Research in the Chinese Social Work Academy: Invisible Disadvantages or Optimism?

Background and purpose

Social work has recently re-emerged as a profession in China with the instatement of a licensing examination in 2008 after it was removed from the Chinese higher education system in the mid-1950s (Ministry of Civil Affairs & Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of PRC, 2008; Leung, 1994; Yip, 2007). Accompanying emerging social work education and practice, social work research in China is at the exploratory stage.

Social work academics have long debated the value of qualitative research, both in terms of its fit for the profession and its contribution to scholarly knowledge (Gilgun, 1994; Padgett, 1998; McCoyd, Johnson, Munch, & LaSala, 2009). However, experiences of social work faculty as qualitative researchers are rarely known. The current study explores the experience of qualitative social work researchers in the Chinese social work context. Study questions included the role of qualitative research methods and how they inform social work knowledge and practice and qualitative faculty members’ experiences regarding methodological choices and their professional career trajectories.

Methods

Nine semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted via phone or Skype from March 2016 to July 2016. Chinese social work faculty members who employ qualitative research methods were recruited using a purposive sampling approach. Two of nine are male, with three assistant professors, four associate professors, and two full professors from seven different universities. Among them, two received their Ph.D. degrees from Mainland China; five received Ph.D. degrees from other parts of China, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan; and two trained in Europe and North America, respectively.

All the recordings were transcribed to Chinese and translated into English. NVivo 11 was utilized to facilitate data analysis. The research team developed a coding scheme and sorted codes into themes through discussion and consensus. The research team utilized peer debriefing to enhance the rigor of the analysis, meeting regularly to discuss the interviews and revise codes and themes as necessary.

Findings

Data analysis reveals three major themes: suitability, methodological challenges and benefits, and structural support and barriers. Qualitative research was suitable because of social work ethos and practice methods, topics and population relevant to social work, and the developmental stage of the profession and social work research in China. Methodological challenges and benefits include the government’s role in data collection, recording, transcribing, relationship building, data analysis, software application, and writing. Ethical issues are also a big concern. Structural supports and barriers include training, funding, publishing, hiring and promotion, teamwork, and network.

Conclusion and implications

Findings indicate that qualitative social work research has an optimistic future, but methodological challenges and structural barriers create invisible disadvantages. The conclusions highlight the need for rigorous qualitative training, including apprenticeship, translating more qualitative learning materials into Chinese, and providing for the purchase, training, and use of qualitative software packages. The result also point to the need for Institutional Review Boards or other ethical oversight mechanisms. More importantly, there must be greater consensus regarding what constitutes scientific rigor, which projects should be funded, who to hire and promote, and evaluative criteria for publication.