HIPÓTESIS Y OBJETIVOS
4. INTERÉS Y ACTUALIDAD DEL TEMA DE LA TESIS
Each of the 20 articles was assessed in terms of their overall quality and in terms of their relevance to the actual focus of my empirical research. In terms of quality Rutter et al. (2010) argued that greater weight should be given to research that appropriately supports their interpretations with quotations from participants: ‘using direct verbatim quotations in the review process sensitises the reviewer to the theme or category and can then be replayed into the report of the synthesis to lend greater authenticity’ (Rutter et al. 2010 p.49). Each article was labelled ‘strong’, ‘medium’ or ‘fairly weak’ in relation to both quality and relevance. For purposes of transparency, these judgments and the reasons given for them are detailed in the table below.
Table Three: Articles rated by approach, quality and relevance
Author(s)
and Approach Quality Relevance
Rabin and Zelner (1992) Quantitative
Medium: Use of self-reports is problematic. Strong use of quantitative analysis. Use of ratings in questionnaires means there are no direct quotations from social workers
Fairly weak: No qualitative data but does highlight the importance of the articulation of the distinctive social work contribution to mental health teams
Onyett et al. (1994) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: Some direct quotations in the report but difficult to see the link between conclusions and evidence.
Medium: The views of social workers on being part of a multi-disciplinary team are explored.
57 Author(s)
and Approach Quality Relevance
Carpenter and Platt (1997) Qualitative & Quantitative
Strong: Use of direct quotations from social workers as evidence for the themes developed; use of case examples as illustrations
Strong: Explores the identity of social workers in a mental health setting and how this is related to social work values
Duggan (1997) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: Comprehensive and clear report. However, there is little discussion of methodology; no direct quotations from participants to give support to the conclusions made.
Strong: Although there are no quotations from social workers, the issues with which the report is concernedare highly relevant Mauthner et al.
(1998) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: The findings section does provide a good overview of the current service. However, there is no information given on the qualitative analysis and no direct quotations from participants.
Fairly weak: Many areas were not relevant. Themes from the interview are relevant but the professional background of participants is not identified
Peck and Norman (1999) Qualitative
Medium: Very little discussion of
methodological issues or quality criteria but the process of review, amendment and validation with each group is a type of membership validation.
Strong: The social workers’ construct their own ‘story’ in their own words (similar to a narrative approach); examines social work culture, identity and inter-professional working
Peck et al. (2001) Qualitative & Quantitative
Strong: Very detailed methodological information; statements are backed up with direct quotations; limitations are
acknowledged
Strong: Explores identity; social workers being transferred to a Health Trust; boundary work; culture being enacted in talk and text Gullivar et al.
(2002) Qualitative
Strong: Very detailed methodological information; statements are backed up with direct quotations
Strong: Explores professional boundaries in mental health teams
Colombo et al. (2003) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: Ethical issues of power in selection of participants are discussed; claims made are supported by direct quotations; results are clearly shown in tables. However, there is no mention of the successful examples of inter-agency co-operation
Medium: The implicit models of mental disorder are a way of explaining some of the conflict between members of CMHTs. Carpenter el al.
(2003) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: Detailed methodological discussion, use of tables and direct quotations. However, some sample sizes were too small
Medium: The study suggests that social workers experience multi- disciplinary working as more negative.
Blinkhorn (2004) Qualitative
Medium: Skilful use of policy and legislation to inform the findings. However, there are no indicators of the numbers of ASWs who identified the various themes; and no direct quotations
Strong: Examines social work values and identity, the distinctiveness of the social work contribution to multi- disciplinary working in mental health services.
58 Author(s)
and Approach Quality Relevance
McCrae el al. (2004) Qualitative
Strong: Detailed methodological
information; statements are backed up by direct quotations
Strong: Focuses on integration; develops a useful typology Larkin and
Callaghan (2005) Quantitative
Medium: Clear methodology. However, the statistics do not give a full picture of the teams; use of convenience sample
Medium: Examines the perceptions of professionals including social workers in CMHTs. However, results presented only in a statistical format. Huxley et al.
(2005) Qualitative
Medium: Clear methodology and claims are illustrated by direct quotations. However, it does feel like the qualitative part of the study was an ‘add on’ to the main quantitative research
Medium: The direct quotations from mental health social workers are very relevant. However, it does not seem like a fully qualitative study Evans et al.
(2005) Qualitative & Quantitative
Strong: Detailed methodological information and clear results. However, there are no direct quotations to illustrate the findings.
Medium: Examines the experiences of mental health social workers. However, no qualitative findings are discussed in the article.
Evans et al. (2006) Qualitative & Quantitative
Strong: As above Medium: As above
Hurley and Linsley (2006) Qualitative
Strong: Discussion of validity and reliability in a qualitative framework; detailed description of the process of analysis; limitations are acknowledged; use of direct quotations
Strong: Qualitative study using interviews with ASWs using an approach similar to narrative research. Focuses on the emotional nature of ASW work.
Jackson and Hewitt-Moran (2009) Qualitative & Quantitative
Medium: Good quantitative information and contains direct quotations. However, there is a complete lack of detail given on the qualitative study
Medium: Provides some relevant quantitative information and contains the views of social workers on non-social workers becoming AMHPs.
Gregor (2010) Qualitative
Medium: Detailed methodological information (including the interview schedule) and direct quotations from service users. However, Gregor only interviewed people that she knew
Strong: The study interviews ASWs about the experiences of working in mental health services.
Hannigan and Allen (2011) Qualitative
Strong: In-depth of information, including the methodological process. Statements were illustrated with lengthy and verbatim quotations.
Strong: Ethnographic approach which focuses on the views of social workers in mental health teams.
59