an empirical practice paradigm, opportunities existed for transprofes-sional knowledge sharing and collaborationðWalter, Nutley, and Davies2005; Satterfield et al. 2009; Traube, Pohle, and Barley 2012; Bellamy et al.2013Þ. The second way that advancing the EBP movement involved adap-tation rather than innovation pertained to the content of the paradigm.Rather than having to formulate an orientation and template, a coherentphilosophy and practice model had already been articulated in medicine.The task left to social work scholars was to adapt the content of EBM tothe values and contours of social work practice. Moreover, by the late1990s the profession of social work had accumulated a quarter centuryof collective knowledge around forging an empirical paradigm shift. Inparticular, there was an early and profound recognition that effectivelyadvancing the EBP movement would require more attention to organiza-tional contexts and practical constraints. In sum, by the turn of the mil-lennium, we observe a profession that had amassed valuable experience,30|Social Service Review
was situated in the currents of a transprofessional movement towardevidence-based practice, and had a serviceable philosophy and practicemodel at its disposal.creation and application of a practice templateDisagreement plagued both ECP and EBP in the articulation of a templatefor practice. Recall that practice models in both movements detailed amultistep process for vetting empirical research, integrating evidence intopractice decisions, and self-evaluating individual interventions. The centrallocus of dispute in the ECP movement involved the third activity.16Schol-ars promoted vastly different plans for the role practitioners would take inself-evaluating their practice, ranging from conducting publication-qualitysingle-subject designsðBriar 1979, 1980Þ, to using less rigorous designs thatdid not compromise treatment deliveryðThomas 1978bÞ, to refraining fromevaluation activitiesðRosenblatt 1981Þ. Moreover, nonspecific curriculumstandards, disparate enthusiasm for ECP, and disagreement over researcheducation in schools added further complication:“There is little agreementas to whether research education is aimed primarily at comprehension ofpublished research, the use of research methods for evaluating individualprofessional practice, or participation in designing and implementing re-search that are more widely applicable”ðTask Force on Social Work Re-search 1991, 25Þ. Discrepant views of the role of practitioner-researchers,diffuse curriculum requirements, and variation in enthusiasm and focusof research training undermined the promotion of a single practice modelthat would serve as the standard for education and practice.