What Makes Research Abolitionist? Process, Accountability, and Action In Social Work

If social work research aims to transform systems of harm, naming injustice is only a starting point. As abolitionist activists and writers Kaba and Hayes (2023) point out, it is not enough to name the “machine.” Transformative action requires understanding how it functions: how its parts interact, how it is sustained, and how to disrupt it. At the same time, “to create something new,” it is necessary to understand how people relate to one another and to the land, and what dynamics have produced current conditions (p. 81).

This abolitionist orientation aligns with and advances the 2027 Society for Social Work and Research Call for Papers, which asks scholars to identify changes resulting from research. While this resonates with abolitionist commitments, abolitionist research praxis raises additional questions about what counts as meaningful change, for whom, and under what conditions, particularly in relation to power, accountability, and structural harm.

This roundtable engages the conference theme by examining the conditions under which research can meaningfully contribute to democracy and the common good. While social work often positions itself as advancing equity and building bridges across difference, research that fails to account for power, structural violence, and historical context may reproduce inequities it seeks to address. Recent critiques within social work have raised concerns that power-centered approaches are “ideological” or “divisive,” prompting questions about what it means to build bridges and whether some forms of connection obscure harm or reinforce inequity.

The session brings together six scholars working on a special journal issue, with more than 40 contributors participating. The collaboration began with five early-career scholars connected by shared concerns about racism and punishment in K–12 education. Through shared projects, they created a counterspace for critical reflection, accountability, and intellectual safety, deepening relationships and shaping their shared approach. As this collaboration evolved, it expanded into a broader scholarly community by working with the journal editor and scholars across a range of focus areas to develop the special issue. Across these efforts, the process itself produced change by deepening connections, strengthening accountability, and sustaining an expanding, liberation-centered scholarly community. During the roundtable, the co-conveners will reflect on their trajectories and collective work, including how these experiences inform their understanding of abolitionist research praxis.

Building on these reflections, participants will connect these ideas to their own work and develop a shared understanding of abolitionist research praxis. We begin with a working definition: an approach that integrates critical theory, lived experience, reflection, and empirical inquiry to examine and transform systems of harm, while recognizing that knowledge-making can reproduce carceral logics or serve as a site for disruption and life-affirming conditions. Key questions include: What are the goals of abolitionist research praxis? What tensions arise between rigor, relationality, and accountability? What distinguishes an abolitionist research process? How can outcomes move beyond critique to inform action and accountability to those most impacted?

Participants will leave with a working definition of abolitionist research praxis, strategies to align research with accountability and action, and stronger connections for ongoing collaboration.