HIDING IN PLAIN

SIGHT: SOCIAL

WORK-SPECIFIC

RESEARCH AND THE

CHICAGO SCHOOL

OF SOCIOLOGY

Jane F. Gilgun, PhD, LICSW

Professor

School of Social Work

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

Topics

Social Work-Specific Research

Chicago School of Sociology

Types of Chicago School Research

• Are they actually social work-specific research approaches?

Your Experiences

Format of Today’s Presentation

Presentation (35 minutes)

Reflection Panel (20 minutes)

Reflection & Writing (10 minutes)

Audience Response (20 minutes)

Wrap-Up (5 minutes)

Social Work Specific Research

Based upon researcher immersion into social settings

Researchers seek to understand perspectives of others and the self

Recognition of reciprocity between persons and the multiple environments over time

Social Work Specific Research

Descriptions

Interpretations

& Meanings

Social Work Specific Research

Value-based: justice, care, dignity, worth, autonomy, sensitivity to vulnerability

Critical & therefore emancipatory

Has strategies for ensuring impact of findings

Chicago School of Sociology

Hull House

Understand Perspectives of Others

Multiple Methods

Reciprocity Between Persons & Environments

Immersion

Emancipatory Research

Chicago School of Sociology:Methodology

Symbolic Interactionism

American Pragmatism

Constructivist

Vivid Writing: Grab

Critical Realist

Chicago Style Approaches

Fieldwork/Ethnographies

Analytic Induction/Deductive Qualitative Analysis

Grounded Theory

Multiple Methods

Chicago Style Approaches

General Reflections

How ideas presented apply or do not apply to your own work

Brainstorm Final Thoughts• Many Chicago Schools

• Maybe it’s chicago school of social work research

• Can Add perspectives—knowledge is always incomplete

• Why theory?

• Meso level studies & Chicago social work research

• “we are not animals in a zoo”

• Importance of pragmatism in terms of our common humanity

• No rigidification

• Lets’ welcome various perspectives that support the foundations

• Embracing the messiness

• We mess with the canon—if we had one

References• Gilgun, Jane F. (in press). Deductive qualitative analysis and grounded theory: Sensitizing concepts and

hypothesis testing. To appear in Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Gilgun, Jane F. & Samantha Hirschey (2017). A four-factor outcome model for family case management services for children who have experienced complex trauma. Journal of Family Theory and Review, published in December.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2015). Beyond description to interpretation and theory in qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 14, 741-752. This article is number 31 in the most read articles in this journal.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2015). Research and theory building in social work. In William Nichols (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed) (pp. 502-507. New York: Elselvier.

• Gilgun, Jane. F. (2014). Chicago School traditions: Deductive qualitative analysis and grounded theory.Amazon.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2014). Writing up qualitative research. In Patricia Leavy (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research methods (pp. 658-676). New York: Oxford University

• Gilgun, Jane F. & Gwendolyn Anderson (2013). Mothers’ perspectives on signs of sexual abuse in their families. Families in Society, 9 (4), 259-266.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2012). Enduring themes in qualitative family research. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4, 80-95.

• Gilgun, Jane F. & Roberta G. Sands (2012). Special issue editorial: The contribution of qualitative approaches to developmental intervention research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 11(4), 349-361.

References

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2012) Hand into glove: Grounded theory, deductive qualitative analysis and social work research and practice. In Anne E. Fortune, William Reid, & Robert Miller (Eds.). Qualitative Methods in Social Work (2nd ed.) (pp. 107-134New York: Columbia University Press.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2010). Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In Katherine Briar, Joan Orme, Roy Ruckdeschel, & Ian Shaw, The Sage handbook of social work research (pp. 281-297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2010). Reflections on 25 years of research on violence. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(4), 50-59.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2008). Lived experience, reflexivity, and research on perpetrators of interpersonal violence. Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 181-197.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2006). The four cornerstones of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(3), 436-443. (

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 40-50.

• Gilgun, Jane F. (2005). “Grab” and good science: Writing up the results of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 15(2), 256-262.

References• Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.).London: Sage.

• Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34-4

• Cressey, D. R. (l950). Criminal violation of financial trust. American Sociological Review, 15 (6), 738-743. Future revisions will be necessary if negative cases are found

• Deegan, M. J. (1990). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918. New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction.

• Denzin, N. K. (2010). Grounded and indigenous theories and the politics of pragmatism. Sociological Inquiry, 80(2), 286-312.

• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (2nd ed.). New York: D.C. Heath.

• Dilthey, W. (1961). Pattern & meaning in history: Thoughts on history and society. (H.P. Hickman, ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

• Dollard, J. (1937). Caste and class in a southern town. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

References

• Forte, J.A. (2004b). Symbolic interactionism and social work: A forgotten legacy. Part 1. Families in Society, 85(3), 391-400.

• Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

• Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (l967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

• Lindesmith, A. R. (l947). Opiate addiction. Bloomington, IN: Principia.

• Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L. & Lofland, L. (2006). Analyzing social settings (4th ed.). Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.

• Peirce, C.S. (1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (1893-1913). Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kindle Edition.

• Robinson, W. S. (1951). The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological Review, 16, 812-818.

• Rorty, R. (1982b). Method, social science, social hope. In Richard Rorty, Consequences of pragmatism (pp. 191-210). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

• Shaw, C. R. (1930) The jack roller: A delinquent boy’s own story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Strauss, A. (l987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge.

• Znaniecki, F. (l934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.