Diagram 1: Different levels of theories and their interconnectedness

Diagram 1 helps us see how different levels of theories shape our understanding of ‘reality’, ‘knowledge’, ‘data and evidence’ as well as ‘scope’, ‘usefulness’ and ‘value’ of the research; hence methodological choices, such as

• (meta-theories) the nature of knowledge (epistemic questions), the research design and tools for data collection

• (macro-, mid-range and micro-theories) research questions and analysis to explain social phenomena and human/non-human agency and interactions.

​​

Notwithstanding, practice research distinctively requires these methodological choices, informed by multi-level theories, to be grounded in and modifiable to fit the emerging practice concerns and professional realities (Kong, 2015). Practice research can be, therefore, a transformative process that unites three functions of social science – the production of constancy (upholding continuity), criticality (challenging the existing) and constructiveness (renewal) – and benefits all of these in a fruitful way. (Saurama & Julkunen, 2012).

Being close and fit to practice is related but not limited to the practicality of the methods, and the relevance of the underpinning theories, but also whether social workers and service users are sufficiently involved in setting the scope of the research, formulating the research questions and making interpretations of the data as knowledge makers. The epistemic agency of practitioners and service users can be genuinely activated only when we acknowledge their theory-in-practice–ways (Argyris and Schon, 1992) they conduct their professional practice and lives, partially guided by how they make sense of the world and their embodied knowledge. These theories-in-practice are deemed to be evolving and at times contradictory. Nevertheless, they are part and parcel of social work practice and experiences of service users.

Concerning direct effects that theories could have on practice, theories can support practitioners with making their interpretations and assumptions more explicit, finding new ways to operate in work, to bring in new perspectives to ‘old’ understandings and strengthening their epistemic agency (Muurinen & Kääriäinen 2022). Theories focusing on social practices, activities and interactions, such as CHAT, ANT and social interactionism, might be effective for this purpose. Foot (2014) demonstrated how CHAT can be used to identify discrepancies in an activity system, hence improving outcomes. Theories are also helpful for fostering reflection and enriching reasoning (Dewey 1929; Serbati 2025). Schon’s theory of framing and reframing has been widely used to inform social work reflective practice as both a tool for learning and research (Fook, 2007); and practice reflexivity is further understood and enhanced when von Foerster’s theory of observation (2nd order of cybernetics) is linked to social work practice (Bradman, 1996).

To facilitate the trialogical relationships among theories, research and practice, the core mechanism is theorising from practice, for practice and during practice (Coulshed and Orme, 2018; Serbati, 2020). This curiosity about the theory–research–practice connection involves conceptualization of data, leading to new and expanding theories through sensemaking and disciplined reflexivity (Austin & McBeath, 2022). Theorising is rooted in the concept of ‘sensemaking’ whereby practice research stakeholders engage in collective imagination by reflecting on diverse forms of theories, being attentive to specific practices and problems, and moving between intuition and reasoned explanation. Methods/methodologies for practice research allow people, not just academics, to build and modify theories from everyday practices and practice experiences. When the tools for theorising are also possessed by practitioners, service users and carers and community members, the knowledge production process can be democratised in ways that allows practice research to be carried out collaboratively to integrate lived experiences, practice wisdoms, evidence and concepts/theories (Kong et al., 2023).

Multi-voiced
Practice research in social work is essentially value-laden and purpose-driven, reflected by the reality that social work practice and research are both guided by specific codes of ethics and proficiency standards. Knowledge developed in practice research is a quest for social justice and an inclusive and caring society, that requires us to seek insights from meta-theories (ontology, epistemology and moral theories) that address grand questions, such as, what is right and wrong? how does the world exist? what is knowledge and truth? how knowledge can be obtained? Pragmatism is useful when developing new knowledge using consistent redescriptions of realities (e.g. Richard Rorty, 1998; see also Reason, 2003), which can be ethical only if it involves egalitarian participation of community members to make it useful for many not a few. Practice research engages stakeholders in identifying power imbalances in a knowledge community and seeks ways to enable egalitarian participation to maintain epistemic diversity (Austin & Carnochan, 2020).

Sustaining a multi-voiced space for practice research is not as easy to accomplish. Challenges often arise from communication, tension between individuals and the collective developments, and the different learning goals that emerge and change over time. While there are not?  definitive ways to match up these challenges, the following approaches? have been applied in practice research:
 

• The translative framework (Westerback et al ., 2020; Callon, 1984) provides a structure and a process for creating and developing the research relations in a co-creative manner also paving way for incorporating both human and non-human elements into practice.

• Interestingly, this framework engages, in collaboration with different actors, with possibly competing ambitions, pointing out that adapting to unpredictability and uncertainties requiring high levels of trust between actors, which can lead to new interpretations and insights and enhancing exchange of knowledge.

• A network approach (Kong et al., 2023; Kelly et al., 2020; Sage et al., 2021) that fosters weak ties among academics and practitioner researchers to exchange and produce knowledge through discussions and co-produced research. Flexibility, continuous validation of different forms of knowledges and parallel spaces for individuals and collective learning are key to genuine collaboration such as disagreements and well- intentioned criticisms (Noone and Kong, 2025).
   

Knowledge democracy
Democratisation of knowledge production demands the research process to be co-created, often informed by feminist and decolonising scholarships (Arce, 2025). The practice research process itself is a form of justice intervention where co-researchers co-create safe spaces to: (1) contest the dominant notion of the knower, (2) build a sense of community for knowledge making, and (3) embrace extended epistemology for telling silenced stories (Kong, 2015; Kong et al., 2020).

Practice research ought to embrace multiple forms of knowledge – theories/concepts, practical knowledge, embodied skills and creative representation of lived experiences– for them to be integrated and used for human flourishing (Heron and Reason, 1996). Many who engage with knowledge democracy in social work research also draw on Miranda Fricker’s (2007) work on epistemic injustice, highlighting the discriminatory practices in deeming some groups (e.g. academic researchers) better knowers and other groups (e.g. social workers and service users) less so. Knowledge democracy, therefore, aims to promote plurality of knowledge that can contribute to a better society; and to rectify biases in determining who are credible knowers through collaborative knowledge production processes.

Knowledge democracy is particularly important when practice research is often conducted with people who inhabit societal positions that carry institutionalised stigma and whose participation in research is usually highly limited (Kulmala et al., 2024). To promote knowledge democracy is also about promoting equal access to information, resources and opportunities for all members of the learning community. Diverse voices captured and redescribed in a democratic process inevitably challenge power asymmetries within and beyond the research itself. Democratising knowledge production requires more than an ethical and practical agenda but also a political one (Edwards & Brannelly, 2017). 
 

Socially robust
The concept of social robustness (Nowotny, 2003) emphasises that research knowledge shall be disseminated through dialogues with practice, seeking and reflecting a learning process that is reflexively situated in research and practice contexts, cultural differences and the process of change. Socially robust knowledge is a central element in mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 2000) where knowledge production calls for moving beyond questions of effectiveness by focusing on the relational dimension of socially robust knowledge where reflexive analysis and deliberation about values and interests. Socially robust knowledge addresses praxis and thereby promotes value rationality over epistemic rationality so to produce knowledge that works to create desirable changes.
 

To become socially robust, practice research needs to engage with a range of theories that provide kaleidoscopic views on complex systems that explain social phenomena, human behaviours and social changes over time (Nicolini, 2017). Through reading and engaging with meta-, macro-, mid-range and micro- theories, it lays the necessary condition for making sense of multi-level and multi-system social practices attributable to social injustices. For example, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory provides a robust framework for analysing professional work practices, including social service provision by offering a multi-dimensional, systemic approach that includes both psychological motives and all kinds of tools, as well as the always- present dynamics of power, money, culture, and history (Engeström 2015; Foot, 2014). Activity theory argues that activities need be studied in real life situations and real practices are transformed through the enquiries conducted within activity theory (Bergman, 2024), thus, enabling analyses of complex and evolving professional practices. The fourth generation of the activity theory (Engeström and Sannino, 2021) involves a radical expansion of social relations concentrating on resolving critical and complex societal challenges, such as climate change, poverty, and homelessness.

These theoretical elements of sensitivity and sensibility need to be consistently verified in ongoing relationships and knowledge alliances to enable thoughtful and explicit use of methodologies and actions at different levels (Nowotny, 2003). To ensure research in practice is socially robust, the process needs to provide a democratic space where decisions on research questions, design, analysis and knowledge application can be deliberated, discussed and agreed on. This inevitably involves
 

• An emphasis on the ethical, emotional and political dimensions of knowledge;

• Strategic choice of collaborative partners to help validate the ethical and practical value of knowledge;

• Conscious embedding of knowledge dissemination in the research strategy; and

• Ongoing negotiation on the values, process and utility of the knowledge produced (Helsinki Statement 2014). 

​​

One of the critical issues in promoting social robustness is to identify possible actors or stakeholders ready to invest in common practice opportunities and possibilities and/or themes. This process involves deliberately inviting different actors to participate and encouraging debate from the outset.