Response to Padgett's "Does the glove really fit?".

Pieper, Martha Heineman ; Tyson, Katherine

We are writing because Deborah Padgett's (1998) article is misleading as a result of her misunderstanding of the distinction between a metatheory and a research method and the definition of naturalistic and interventionist research. Although we earlier addressed such misunderstandings, Padgett's article proves the urgency of another consideration of these issues.

First, in erroneously characterizing us as "critics of quantitative research in social work," Padgett (1998, p. 379) conflates a method (collection and analysis of quantified data) with a metatheory (or research paradigm). We have never equated a specific method of data collection and analysis with the postpositivist metatheory we call the heuristic paradigm (Heineman Pieper, 1981, 1986, 1989; Tyson, 1995). Both logical positivist researchers and postpositivist researchers sometimes use qualitative methods of data collection and analysis and both logical positivist researchers, and postpositivist researchers sometimes quantify their data and analyze it quantitatively. Only, postpositivist researchers recognize there is no sound bases for privileging any one methodology, because all methods are heuristics that, although useful for some problems, also create different forms of bias (Wimsatt, 1986).

Second, Padgett misrepresents our definition of naturalistic clinical research when she says that "naturalistic clinical research . . . places the researcher in an untenable position with regard to conflicting paradigms and goals. . . it raises ethical issues regarding the potential for coercion implicit in the clinician-client relationship" (1998, p. 379). But in the very same articles cited by Padgett, we define "naturalistic clinical research" as "the systematic study of clinical practice that is not intentionally altered for research purposes" (Heineman Pieper, 1994, p. 72; 1995, p. xxi). When a researcher uses naturalistic methods to study an organization or a culture, the researcher is "a member of the group under study, not an outsider" and does not change the system under study for research purposes (Heineman Pieper, 1994, p. 72; 1995, p. xxi). Accordingly, the criticisms Padgett raises with regard to naturalistic clinical research are entirely unwarranted.

In contrast to the naturalistic design advanced by Heineman Pieper, interventionist research designs intentionally alter the system under study for research purposes. Padgett fails to recognize the ethical and theoretical issues at stake when interventionist research designs are applied in clinical practice settings (Heineman Pieper, 1981, 1994; Tyson, 1995). Furthermore, Padgett does not mention the biases inherent in interventionist research designs. For example, data about the system as it would function naturally without the research process occurring cannot be studied, and some data are a function solely of the research-motivated interventions. Naturalistic clinical research is free of these biases.

It is ironic that Padgett charges us with being unethical when she is recommending that social workers "suspend" their "helping mandate . . . until the study is completed so that rigorous findings can be obtained and their implications made known" (p. 380). Naturalistic clinical research has the advantage that social workers who engage in it never have to compromise their fundamental professional mission. In fact, the naturalistic clinical research we advocate is the only form of research that is compatible with the clinician's commitment to the primacy of the client's needs for therapeutic services. This postpositivist, naturalistic approach to research has been fruitful. For example, it has been used to generate a comprehensive theory of child development, psychopathology, and treatment - intrapsychic humanism (Pieper & Pieper, 1990) - and to develop practical applications to child development and child rearing (Pieper & Pieper, 1999).

The issue of how to study clinical practice without distorting it for research purposes is one of the most serious problems facing our profession today. As Witkin (1998) has emphasized, the diversity in our roles as researchers and practitioners can be a source of strength if we respond to it with respect and openmindedness, rather than with prescriptions and proscriptions. Naturalistic clinical research is ideally suited to advance knowledge in social work, because it encourages practitioners simultaneously to engage in the best practice of which they are capable and to generate rigorous and valuable research. *

References

Heineman (Pieper), M. (1981). "The obsolete scientific imperative in social work research." Social Service Review, 55, 371-396.

Heineman Pieper, M. (1995). Preface. In K. Tyson (Ed.), New foundations for scientific social and behavioral research: The heuristic paradigm. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Padgett, D. (1998). Does the glove really fit? Qualitative research and clinical social work practice. Social Work, 43, 373-381.

Pieper, M. H. (1986). Some common misunderstandings of the heuristic approach [Opinions from the Field]. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 22(1), 2, 22.

Pieper, M. H. (1989). "The heuristic paradigm: A unifying and comprehensive approach to social work research." Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60, 8-34.

Pieper, M. H. (1994). Science, not scientism: The robustness of naturalistic clinical research. In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work. New York, Columbia University Press.

Pieper, M. H., & Pieper, W. J. (1990). Intrapsychic humanism: An introduction to a comprehensive psychology, and philosophy of mind. Chicago: Falcon II Press.

Pieper, M. H., & Pieper, W. J. (1999). Smart love: The compassionate alternative to discipline that will make you a better parent and your child a better person. Boston: Harvard Common Press.

Tyson, K. (1995). New foundations for scientific social behavioral research: The heuristic paradigm. Needham Heights, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Heuristics and the study of human behavior. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 293-314). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Witkin, S. (1998). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Creative tensions, the academy, and the field [Editorial]. Social Work, 43, 389-391.

Martha Heineman Pieper, PhD, is professor, and Katherine Tyson, PhD, is associate professor, School of Social Work, Loyola University, Water Tower Campus, 820 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611.