AUTUMN 2007 SOCIAL WORK REVIEW PAGE 39 Growing Research In Practice: The story so far Liz Beddoe, Christa Fouché, Phil Harington, Glenda Light, Neil Lunt and Deborah Yates Christa Fouché is a member of the School of Social and Cultural Studies at Massey University at Albany in Auckland. Neil Lunt was formerly a member of the School of Social and Cultural Studies, but is now based at University of York, in the UK. Liz Beddoe and Phil Harington are members of the School of Social and Policy Studies at the University of Auckland. Deborah Yates is the GRIP Pro- gramme Manager and Glenda Light is a clinical social worker and the GRIP practitioner advisor. Abstract This article presents an initial account of an innovative programme aimed at raising the profile of practitioner research across a range of social work settings within the Auckland region. It describes a pilot development that grew from initial discussions between members of staff of social work programmes at Massey University (Albany) and the University of Auckland (Faculty of Education) concerning the lack of practitioner research in New Zealand social work. The article briefly considers issues for practitioner research in social work and outlines the ‘work in progress’ that is the Growing Research in Practice (GRIP) programme. Background The nature and quantity of research activity undertaken by social work practitioners has been subject to critical comment for some time. There is longstanding concern that social workers concentrate on the ‘prime tasks’ working at the front line ahead of developing an empirical basis for their decision making, and developing a body of research on practice outcomes (Munro, 1998). This impacts on the status and credibility of social work as a profession. McCrae et al. (2005), for example, express concern about the weak position of social work in mental health services, due to the lack of research produced, especially in comparison with allied health professions, such as psychiatry. McCrae et al. assert that ‘until social work can assert the value of its unique contribution, its impact on policy and practice will remain weak, and the prospects for a more socially based model in integrated services may be undermined’ (McCrae et al.: 70). Overseas there have been attempts to develop ‘evi- dence based practice’ where data keeping, interpretation, the appraisal of client needs and evaluation were to be integrated into the practice role (Bradbury and Reason, 2003; McNeill, 2006). However, attempts to impose/develop models of evidence-based practice in which ‘interventions must be selected and used on the basis of their empirically demonstrated effectiveness’ (Mantysaari, 2005: 254) have run into difficulties and criticism. This has been due to both the difficulties in producing such control-oriented knowledge and the tendency for such ‘evidence’ to overlook local and socio-economic contexts.