From "Borrowing" To "Localization": The Development Trajectory of China's Social Work Research on Drug Control

Information from the abstract

This article provides a systematic review of the literature on anti-drug social work in China, with the aim of mapping the existing research landscape, identifying its key characteristics, and diagnosing its structural limitations. Since the establishment of the first specialized anti-drug social work organization in Shanghai in 2003, China's anti-drug social work has undergone more than two decades of institutional development. However, academic research has lagged significantly behind practical exploration—a recurring theme that informs the analytical framework of this review. The review proceeds in three main steps. First, it traces the institutional evolution of anti-drug social work in China, identifying four distinct developmental phases: the early exploratory period (1990s–2003), the institutionalization period (2003–2008), the legalization and expansion period (2008–2015), and the system-building period (2015–present). Second, it synthesizes the existing literature across three thematic areas—practice models, practice methods (case management, group work, and community work), and professional development—highlighting both the contributions and the limitations of each body of research. Third, it critically examines the shortcomings of the current literature, focusing on two interrelated deficiencies: (1) the instrumentalization of social workers, who are treated as stable, impersonal "method deliverers" rather than as agentive subjects with personal judgments, emotional responses, and discretionary decision-making; and (2) the predominance of fragmented micro-level case studies, which produce rich contextual knowledge but fail to generate cumulative, generalizable theoretical insights across different regional and institutional contexts. Based on this critique, the article concludes by outlining two priority directions for future research. First, scholars should shift their analytical focus from "what methods are used" to "how practitioners exercise discretion," drawing on the street-level bureaucracy framework (Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003) to theorize the role of frontline implementers in mediating between policy mandates and client needs. Second, future studies should complement the dominant case-study approach with systematic comparative and theoretically-driven analyses that can connect micro-level observations to the broader institutional and policy environment shaping China's drug governance. By addressing these gaps, the next generation of research can move beyond the current "practice-heavy, theory-light" condition of the field and contribute to a more robust, policy-relevant body of knowledge on anti-drug social work in China.

Why this record is monitored

This record has an Impact Signal of 79/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.

Related topics: Social Work Education and Practice · China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance · Homelessness and Social Issues