Science of Social Work: Public Perceptions

Background: Numerous studies have examined the public’s perceptions of social work as a direct practice profession ((LeCroy & Stinson, 2004; Stainforth, Deane, & Beddoe, 2016; Williams, Simon, & Bell, 2015) as well as academics’ perceptions of social work as an empirically sound research practice (Gibbs, 2001; Shaw, Arksey, & Mullender, 2006; Sellers, Mathiesen, Smith, & Perry, 2006). There is little research, however, on public perceptions of social work as a scientific discipline. The focus of the present study is to examine the public opinions of social work as a scientific, evidence-based profession.

Methods: The data were obtained from a representative sample of adults from the United States. The participants (N=468) were recruited from US Amazon Turk workers. Participants completed an online 52-item measure developed for the present study. The survey included questions to measure the individual’s comprehension of science (Both “hard” and “soft” science research follows the scientific method), as well as their perceptions of the relationship between science and social work (Social work cannot be scientific because everyone is unique; Social workers may use scientific methods in their daily practices). The survey also included questions that assessed individual’s perceptions of how science may be used to resolve social problems (Social change may be influenced by contemporary science).

Results: Most participants had a comprehension of science, including a differentiation of “hard science” (most common responses: physics, chemistry, biology) and “soft science” (most common responses: social, psychology, sociology.) The slight majority of participants also reported some level of agreement that social work is a science (53.84%, M=4.35 on a 7 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree); however, when asked about amount of scientific support, participants responded that social work has less scientific support (M=3.20 on a 5 point scale) compared to “hard sciences” like physics (M=4.50) and chemistry (M=4.49) as well as other fields including psychology (M=3.70) and teaching (M=3.43). The majority of participants also reported some level of trust in research findings published by social workers (69.32%, M=4.99 on a 7 point scale from extremely unlikely to trust to extremely likely). 77.71% of participants agreed that science may be used to solve social problems, with “advance long and productive lives” and “harness technology for social good” being rated as the most likely social goals to be solved with scientific methods (M=4.09 on a 5 point scale).

Implications: This study provides greater insight into the public’s perceptions of science in relation to social work. While there is an improved understanding of the relationship between social work and science, the profession of social work continues to be viewed as less scientific compared to other fields of study. Efforts to increase the public’s understanding of social work as a scientific profession may be informed using these findings.