PubMed1998
There are two sources of literature in social work-one from academics and the other from practitioners. Each group is driven by different motivations to write. Academics seek a 'scientific rationality' for the field, while practitioners assume practical and intuitive reasoning, experience aligned with theory, and the 'art of practice' to guide them. It has been said that practitioners do not write and that 'faculty' are the trustees of the knowledge base of the profession, and are responsible for its promulgation via publication. Practitioners, however, do write about their practice and their programs, and analyze both, but publish much of their work in non-social work media. Their work tends not to be referenced by academic writers. One department's social workers' publications are described. We learn, from their practice writings, what concerns clinicians. Theirs is case-based learning, theoretically supported, in which the organization of services calls for their participation in multi-professional decision-making. There is the growing realization among social workers that practice wisdom and scientific technologies need to be reassessed together to find ways to enhance social work services. Clinicians' knowledge can lead to continuing refinement of practice and enhanced institutional services. If practitioners' writings can be assessed, they may lead to a written practice knowledge base, subject to timely change. Academic and practitioner separateness hampers progress in the field. They need each other, and a shared professional literature. There is beginning indication they are getting together.