help with 3 disc due in 24 hour

Thinking Like a Social Worker: Examining the Meaning of Critical Thinking in Social Work

John Mathias

Critical thinking is frequently used to describe how social workers ought to reason. But how well has this concept helped us to develop a normative description of what it means to think like a social worker? This critical review mines the literature on critical thinking for insight into the kinds of thinking social work scholars consider important. Analysis indicates that critical thinking in social work is generally treated as a form of practical reasoning. Further, epistemological disagreements divide 2 distinct proposals for how practical reasoning in social work should proceed. Although these disagreements have received little attention in the literature, they have important implications for social work practice.

In 1991 John Seelig argued that the concept of critical thinking was the best way to answer the question of how social workers ought to think (p. 21). Since the publication of Seelig’s article, critical thinking has become the dominant way of describing desirable forms of reasoning1 in American social work. Other authors began to promote critical thinking in social work at approximately the same time (Gambrill, 1990; Gibbs, 1991; Witkin, 1990), and the term caught on quickly. In 1992 the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) began requiring that baccalaureate and master’s programs teach students to “apply critical thinking skills” in profess- ional social work practice (CSWE, 1992a, 1992b, as quoted in Gambrill & Gibbs, 1995, p. 194; Huff, 2000, p. 400). More recently, the CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) made critical thinking one of 10 core competencies that all bachelor of social work (BSW) and master’s of social work (MSW) programs should cultivate in their students, presenting a guiding description of the concept that emphasizes “principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment” (CSWE, 2008; see Figure 1). Thus critical thinking has become a major goal of every social work curriculum in the country.

However, as Deal and Pittman (2009) pointed out, the scholarly literature on critical thinking in social work is still quite spare. We know very little about whether or how social work education teaches students to think critically, let alone the extent to which such education affects

Accepted: January 2014 John Mathias is a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan. Address correspondence to John Mathias, University of Michigan, 3704 School of Social Work Building, 1080 South

University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. E-mail: jmathias@umich.edu 1 In the literature on critical thinking, both in social work and more broadly, the terms thinking and reasoning are used

interchangeably. Although I recognize that distinguishing these two processes is helpful in many contexts, I follow that convention here.

Journal of Social Work Education, 51: 457–474, 2015 Copyright © Council on Social Work Education ISSN: 1043-7797 print / 2163-5811 online DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2015.1043196

social work practice. Moreover, few scholars have examined what aspects of critical thinking, as theorized by philosophers and education scholars, are most applicable to social work. Most attention has been directed to improving students’ critical thinking skills, with relatively little consideration of what is meant by the term, or whether all authors are working from the same definition of critical thinking. Many seem to agree that critical thinking is the best way for social workers to think, but do they agree on what they mean by critical thinking?

This article aims to address this question by looking for patterns in the ways social work scholars have taken up the term. Most of the authors reviewed here do not make the conceptualization of critical thinking a primary aim. Nonetheless, the ways they employ the term, both in their definition sections and elsewhere, reveal conceptual features particular to the field of social work. Critical thinking in social work is not critical thinking in philosophy, education, or even nursing; its use in social work sheds light on purposes, problems, and conflicts unique to the field. Thus, through an analysis of what the social work literature has taken critical thinking to mean, this review can also inform discussion of how social workers ought to think.

BACKGROUND: THE CRITICAL THINKING CONCEPT IN AMERICAN EDUCATION

Historically, conceptualizations of critical thinking have drawn on both theories of cognition in psychology and theories of reasoning in philosophy. Philosophically, John Dewey’s pedagogical emphasis on reflective thought is one of critical thinking pedagogy’s most influential antece- dents; the connection he drew between reflective thought and experiential learning is at the heart of most definitions of the term (e.g., Kurfiss, 1988; Paul, 1990). In How We Think, Dewey (1910/1997) argued that the most important part of a child’s education was learning to reflect on perplexing aspects of his or her own experiences. Because all humans had the capacity for reflective thought, the primary work of the schoolteacher was to guide children in developing this capacity (pp. 168, 169). Moreover, the scientific method was merely a more formal elaboration of this basic learning process (p. 84). Thus, according to Dewey, students who

Educational Policy 2.1.3—Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.

Social workers are knowledgeable about the principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment. They use critical thinking augmented by creativity and curiosity. Critical thinking also requires the synthesis and communication of relevant information. Social workers

• distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom;

• analyze models of assessment, prevention, intervention, and evaluation; and • demonstrate effective oral and written communication in working with individuals, families,

groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues.

FIGURE 1 Statement on Critical Thinking from the Council on Social Work Education’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (2008).

458 MATHIAS

mastered reflective thought could extend their education beyond the classroom, partaking in the scientific process of learning directly from the empirical world.

In the mid-20th century, Edward Glaser (1941) and Robert Ennis (1962), similarly motivated to develop educational interventions that would improve students’ thinking processes, moved conceptualizations of critical thinking into the realm of empirical research by associating definitions of critical thinking with standardized tests designed to measure it. Their work was the seed of the modern critical thinking movement, which initially comprised a network of education scholars and philosophers who sought to reform curricula by focusing on reasoning processes.

For several decades, the movement had only limited success. A crucial turning point came in 1981, when the California State University system made training in critical thinking a graduation requirement (Paul, 1990). Following this victory, critical thinking was gradually incorporated into education policy and curricula in elementary, secondary, and higher education throughout the nation. The concept’s popularity spawned a critical thinking industry focused on designing and marketing pedagogical tools and testing instruments (Facione, 1990).

The emergence of critical thinking as a central idea in education also resulted in a prolifera- tion of competing definitions, and the difficulty of ascertaining where these definitions agree or differ has led to conceptual ambiguity. A notable attempt was made to achieve greater clarity when the American Philosophical Association (APA) convened 46 critical thinking experts to develop a consensus definition of the concept. This definition could then be used to assess the many programs claiming to improve critical thinking (Facione, 1990). However, although the APA definition has been widely influential, becoming the basis for the popular California Critical Thinking Skills Test, it has failed to attain consensus. Indeed, many other definitions remain popular, and scholars still proffer new explanations of the concept (e.g., Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999; Barnett, 1997; Ku, 2009; Moon, 2008). Moreover, one prominent figure in the critical thinking movement has argued that it is better not to settle on a single definition, but to “retain a host of definitions” to take advantage of the insights and avoid the limitations of each (Paul, 1990, p. 46). Thus critical thinking remains a difficult concept to pin down.

Table 1 displays the APA definition of critical thinking alongside two other definitions from education, those of Brookfield (2012) and Kurfiss (1988), each of whom is widely cited in social work (e.g., Deal, 2003; Johnston, 2009; Kersting & Mumm, 2001; Nesoff, 2004). In certain respects, the definitions are quite similar. For example, Brookfield’s “looking at our ideas and decisions from several perspectives” clearly overlaps with Kurfiss’ “divergent views are aggres- sively sought” and the APA’s affective disposition of “open-mindedness regarding divergent world views.” Likewise, the definitions appear to concur with regard to the importance of taking account of one’s own assumptions and of a more-or-less systematic process from inquiry to conclusion.

However, Brookfield’s definition is arguably narrower than the others. He explicitly contrasts critical thinking with “being logical,” “solving problems,” and “being creative” but allows that aspects of all of these may be relevant to critical thinking. Kurfiss’ opening phrase, “a rational response,” would seem to include “being logical,” and it emphasizes the process of exploring and organizing information to reach a justifiable conclusion. The APA definition appears to be much broader, not only indicating the importance of logic with the phrases “evaluation of claims

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 459

and arguments” and “inference to conclusions” but also including a host of “affective disposi- tions” such as inquisitiveness, honesty, and prudence.

It is difficult to determine whether or not such differences are contradictions or merely differences in emphasis because each definition leaves certain crucial terms undefined. For example, does Kurfiss’ use of “a rational response” to describe critical thinking mean the same thing as Brookfield’s “being logical?” On one hand, inasmuch as critical thinking describes rationality, to say that critical thinking is rational is obvious, if not tautological. On the other, if critical thinking and rationality are equivalent, one would expect “being logical” to be central to critical thinking. Without a clear idea of what these terms mean, it is difficult to know whether, or to what extent, Brookfield’s statement that critical thinking is not “being logical” is in conflict with the centrality of “a rational response” or “inference to conclusions” in Kurfiss’ or the APA’s definitions, respectively. The use of such vague language among available definitions in the education literature makes it hard to say where they conflict and where they overlap.

Thus in adopting the idea of critical thinking from education, social work has been faced with numerous definitions that are difficult to compare or contrast with one another in any rigorous way. By examining how social work scholars have selected from this diverse field of critical thinking concepts and repurposed them for their own profession, this review aims to shed light on what kinds of thinking are valued in social work.

TABLE 1 Comparison of Definitions of Critical Thinking Frequently Cited in Social Work

Brookfield Kurfiss APA Consensus Definition

Critical thinking entails: Critical thinking is: Cognitive skills 1) “Identifying the assumptions that

frame our thinking and determine our actions”

“a rational response to questions that cannot be answered definitively and for which all the relevant information may not be available. It is defined here as ‘an investigation whose purpose is to explore a situation, phenomenon, question, or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion about it that integrates all available information and can therefore be convincingly justified.’ In critical thinking, all assumptions are open to question, divergent views are aggressively sought, and the inquiry is not biased in favor of a particular outcome” (1988, p. 20)

• Interpretation of meanings • Analysis of relations among representations

2) “Checking out the degree to which these assumptions are accurate and valid”

• Evaluation of claims and arguments

• Inference to conclusions 3) “Looking at our ideas and

decisions (intellectual, organizational, and personal) from several different perspectives”

• Explanation of the results of one’s reasoning

• Self-regulation of one’s thinking process

4) “On the basis of all this, taking informed actions”

(Facione, 1990, pp. 12–19)

(2012, p. 1) Affective dispositions • Inquisitiveness

Critical thinking is not: “the same as being logical, solving

problems, or being creative— though aspects of some or all of these are sometimes present when we think critically” (2012, p. 11)

• Concern to remain well informed

• Open-mindedness regarding divergent world views

• Honesty in facing one’s own biases

• Prudence in suspending, making or altering judgments

• And more. . . (Facione, 1990, p. 25)

460 MATHIAS

METHODS

There are three aspects to the interpretive methods used in this critical review: the data sources, the organization and analysis of the data, and the approach to findings as emergent properties of the data.2

The primary data source was the Social Services Abstracts database, which provides biblio- graphic coverage of publications on social work research, education, and practice. A keyword search located 125 articles or dissertations published between 1980 and 2011 and containing the terms critical thinking and social work in their titles, abstracts, or indexes. Based on an initial review of abstracts, the author excluded records that were about disciplines other than social work (e.g., nursing or psychology) or that did not take critical thinking as a central topic. The author defined the latter criterion as either (1) for research, critical thinking had to be either the independent or dependent variable, or (2) for other works, the abstract had to give some indication that the concept of critical thinking would be discussed. Borderline cases were tentatively included in a review of the full text of the remaining records, and those that did not contain at least one paragraph for which critical thinking was the primary topic were eliminated. In addition, a search of references during the reading process located two additional publications that met the inclusion criteria, and these were added to the study. Although text- books are not included in this review, the textbooks of Gambrill and Gibbs, which contain theoretical discussions frequently cited in the literature, are cited with reference to these authors’ influential conceptualization of critical thinking, discussed below. In total, 49 articles or dissertations were included in the review.

The author began the process of analysis by taking notes on all aspects of each record relevant to the question “What does critical thinking mean?” Relevant aspects included not only formal definitions and explicit discussion of meaning but also any choice by an author that implied a commitment to a particular conceptualization of critical thinking. For example, the use of a particular test to measure critical thinking was understood to imply some level of commit- ment to the concept of critical thinking measured by that test. Data from these notes were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with a row for each article and a column for each type of data that appeared relevant. As the data were entered, new columns were added and column headings were adjusted to improve the fit between the data and the categories. Data were then examined for patterns within each column or category. From this process, three relevant categories of findings emerged: definitions and purposes of critical thinking, theoretical discus- sions of its importance to social work, and pedagogical interventions. Findings for each category are presented in separate subsections below.

The findings in this review are treated as emergent patterns of meaning in the use of the term critical thinking in social work. An emergent pattern is one that results from the interaction of multiple parts, where the whole is not reducible to the sum of the parts. For example, geese fly together in a V-shape, a pattern that is not present in the flight of any single goose, but only in their relation to one another. Similarly, this review identifies patterns of meaning that are not necessarily present in any one use of critical thinking, or in the writing of any individual author, but that emerge from multiple uses of critical thinking by multiple authors when considered in relation to one other. The identification of these patterns as meaningful was an interpretive

2Readers who would like additional detail about the methods used in this study may contact the author directly.

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 461

process, fundamentally dependent on inferences by the author. This is not to say that the method was entirely subjective; in an approach akin to grounded theory, the consistency of any apparent pattern was tested against further reading, and only those found to be broadly consistent are presented below. Because interpretation was fundamental to the discovery of the patterns themselves, inferences about the meaningfulness of patterns of use are integrated into the findings.

FINDINGS

Definitions and Purposes

The majority of records (40 of 49) contained some discussion of definitions of critical thinking, referred to here as a “definitional subsection” (exceptions are Balen & White, 2007; Cossom, 1991; Gambrill, 1994; Latting, 1990; Lynch, Vernon, & Smith, 2001; Pray, 2001; Reid, 2011; Witkin, 1990; Zickler & Abbott, 2000). A review of definitional subsec- tions revealed that in social work, as in education, no agreed-on definition of critical thinking exists. Indeed, the definitional ambiguity that social work has imported from education seems to have been exacerbated in the process. Faced with multiple, competing definitions, social work authors have tended toward breadth rather than specificity in the way they consider the concept. For example, Johnston (2009) briefly highlighted aspects of several definitions and, with little discussion of the relation between them, offered a “summary definition” that used terms such as “wide and differing range of reasoning tasks” to retain maximal generality. Thus he treated the definitions cited not as competitive, nor as complementary, but as supplementary. Similarly, although Huff (2000) stated that she was using a definition from the manual of the test she employed in her study, she also discussed several other definitions but did not make clear how these relate to the definition she had selected. Instead, she cited the opinion, mentioned above, that a “host of definitions” should be maintained and argued that “by using a combination of definitions of critical thinking, one can avoid the limitations of each” (Huff, 2000, p. 402). Likewise, when authors cited multiple definitions, they tended to leave the relation between them unclear. This style of presentation reproduced (and, at times, magnified) the ambiguity found in the broader literature.

Nonetheless, the definitional subsections did help to clarify certain aspects of the critical thinking concept as it has been taken up in social work. Many definitional subsections included statements about the purposes of critical thinking in social work, which revealed clearer, more consistent patterns than could be found in the definitions cited. The four purposes most commonly noted in the literature analyzed for this review were avoiding errors in decision making (23 of 40), practicing in accordance with social work values (19 of 40), applying research knowledge to practice (14 of 40), and dealing with messy or complex problems in social work practice (12 of 40). Emphases on the importance of critical thinking for avoiding errors and applying research knowledge were frequently coupled with one another. With a few exceptions (e.g., Deal & Pittman, 2009), purposes of avoiding errors and social work values were usually not coupled, or else much greater emphasis was given to one as the primary purpose of critical thinking. The fourth frequently mentioned purpose—dealing with messy or

462 MATHIAS

complex problems—was sometimes associated with an emphasis on avoiding error and some- times with an emphasis on values.

The most striking finding here is what all of the presented purposes share: a focus on action or practice. This indicates some consensus that critical thinking in social work is a form of practical reasoning, that is, reasoning about what one ought to do (Walton, 1990). Although the aim of theoretical reasoning (i.e., reasoning about what is) is correct explanation or prediction, practical reasoning aims at correct action. All of the purposes authors give for critical thinking in social work are of the latter sort; they all aim at the correct action of social work practitioners. Within this broad consensus, there are tensions—most notably, that between emphasis on avoiding error in decision making and on practicing in accordance with social work values. Nonetheless, as illustrated by Table 1, such a focus on practical reasoning is narrower than the conceptualization of critical thinking in education; of these three prominent definitions, only Brookfield’s takes “informed action” as an end. Thus this common emphasis on correct action as the purpose of critical thinking sets its conceptualization in social work apart from the education literature.

Theoretical Discussions of the Importance of Critical Thinking to Social Work

Two distinct conceptual strains emerge from theoretical discussions of the importance of critical thinking to social work. Each strain attempts to use the concept of critical thinking to address a different perceived challenge in social work practice. The first, which focuses on the challenge of avoiding logical errors in clinical decision-making, is best represented by the work of Gambrill and Gibbs (Gambrill, 1993, 2012; Gibbs, 1991; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999, 2002; Werner & Gibbs, 1987). For Gambrill and Gibbs, critical thinking is synonymous with scientific reasoning, and it should be employed as a complement to evidence-based practice (EBP), a framework that aims to maximize the likelihood of good decisions (Gambrill, 2000). The second strain, which focuses on the application of social work values in dealing with complex problems, is best represented in articles by Witkin (1990) and Gibbons and Gray (2004). For these authors, critical thinking is closely allied with social constructionism and aims to help social workers identify the values inherent in any particular understanding of reality to construct analyses and make decisions consistent with social work values. Thus the contrast between the two con- ceptual strains hinges on differences in the roles each assigns to facts and values in the practical reasoning process.

For Gambrill and Gibbs, the practice of critical thinking consists primarily of decision- making strategies that mimic a specific conceptualization of scientific reasoning (Gambrill, 1997, 2012; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1996). Like Dewey, Gambrill and Gibbs aimed to bring the apparently progressive and self-correcting qualities of scientific method into other domains of reasoning—in this case, into the practical reasoning of social workers. For these authors, however, the crucial link between scientific reasoning and critical thinking is found in Karl Popper’s “critical rationalist” philosophy of science (Popper, 1963). Popper argued that science progresses through the elimination of false hypotheses rather than through proving true hypoth- eses. In Popper’s ideal scientific process, researchers attempt to falsify, rather than justify, their own and each other’s hypotheses (p. 37). A hypothesis is never conclusively demonstrated to be true, but those hypotheses that no one has thus far been able to falsify can, for the time being, be accepted as true. In the same way, objectivity is possible because “no theory is exempt from

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 463

criticism,” and theories are accepted as valid not because they seem right from a particular perspective but because they have not yet been contradicted by available evidence (Popper, 1992, p. 67, cited in Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999, p. 20). Working from Popper’s theorization of scientific reasoning, Gambrill and Gibbs (1999) conceptualized critical thinking in social work as an analogous process that works to eliminate erroneous assumptions and biases and thus leads to more accurate decisions.

In contrast, for Gibbons and Gray, critical thinking in social work should begin from a social constructionist epistemology, which “presumes that each person constructs or makes sense of his or her own reality; is able to recognize the limits of his or her knowledge; and to see knowledge as ever-changing, even shifting and unstable” (2004, p. 21). More than a decade earlier, Stanley Witkin (1990) suggested a similar connection between critical thinking and social construction- ism in social work education. According to Witkin, constructionism challenges the notion that the scientific method is capable of achieving a “morally neutral, value free stance of scientific objectivity,” which he argued is “more a ‘storybook image’ than a descriptive account of science” (p. 44, citing Mahoney, 1976). In this view, critical thinking is a process of challenging the values and interests reflected in the theories underpinning scientific explanation (Witkin, 1990, p. 42). Like Witkin, Gibbons and Gray argued that “critical thinking, rather than claiming objectivity, is value-laden thinking,” as opposed to the “logical, analytical, and value-free thinking” commonly associated with science (2004, pp. 36, 37). This is not to say that either Witkin or Gibbons and Gray believe critical thinking is opposed to science; rather, the social constructionist view of both science and critical thinking stresses the centrality of values in both domains. Thus these scholars present a clear contrast to Gambrill and Gibbs, for whom both science and critical thinking aim at bringing about an objectively accurate understanding of reality.

Although opposed in certain respects, these two conceptualizations of critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible. Both sets of authors retain broad definitions of critical thinking, some- times citing the same sources, and the contrast between the two conceptualizations should be understood as a difference in emphasis, rather than a polar opposition. For example, Gambrill and Gibbs urged social workers to attend to the role of vested interests in knowledge production and to question the politics of some scientific categories, including the psychiatric disorders in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (Gambrill, 2000, p. 52; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999, p. 21). However, their concern is primarily that such interest-driven and value-laden categories receive an “aura of science,” when they are, in fact, not backed by strong evidence. Thus, for Gambrill and Gibbs, using categories such as those in theDSM-IVwould be unethical because the categories are inaccurate, and their use is unlikely to benefit clients. From Witkin’s perspective, by contrast, such labels are objectionable because they help to construct an undesirable and unjust social reality (1990, p. 45).

The difference between these two theoretical strains is starkest in their respective treatment of the relation between fact and value in critical thinking. Whereas Gambrill and Gibbs regard critical thinking as a process that helps to distinguish fact from value (Gambrill, 1993, p. 144; Gibbs, 1991), the social constructionist conceptualization of critical thinking blurs this distinc- tion: critical thinking inquires into the values embedded in any scientific fact. Although both processes of critical thinking are concerned with both facts and values, they situate fact and value in relation to one another in very different ways. This is fundamentally an epistemological difference; it has to do with how one knows what one ought to do. Those committed to scientific

464 MATHIAS

reasoning describe critical thinking as a primarily fact-oriented form of practical reasoning, whereas the social constructionist conceptualization is primarily value-oriented.

As shown in Table 2, most (8 of 13) records with substantial theoretical discussion can be categorized as aligning with either a scientific reasoning or social constructionist conceptualiza- tion of critical thinking.3 The division is even more consistent with regard to whether authors describe critical thinking as fact-oriented or value-oriented practical reasoning, for which 11 of 13 records fall clearly into one of two categories. Thus the epistemological differences that divide these two proposals for critical thinking appear to be broadly salient in the literature.

Indeed, many authors present more starkly contrasting proposals than those discussed above. For example, some authors take the emphasis on values well beyond that of Witkin (1990) or Gibbons and Gray (2004) by arguing that thinking, to be critical, must align with a particular

TABLE 2 Categorization of Theoretical Discussions of Critical Thinking

Author Date What Critical Thinking Is Sci/Cona Fact/Valueb

Bronson, D. E. 2000 Scientific reasoning. Opposed to postmodernism and pseudoscience.

Sci Fact

Deal, K. H. 2003 Uses Gambrill’s definition, but with emphasis on contextual basis of knowledge.

None Fact

Ford, P. et al. 2004 Involves reflexivity, action, and transformation, with an emphasis on values.

None Value

Gambrill, E. 1994 Not discussed here. Elsewhere analogous to scientific reasoning.

Sci Fact

Gibbs, L. et. al 1995 Analogous to scientific reasoning. Sci Fact Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. 2004 Openness to multiple perspectives and relativity of

knowledge. Con Value

Hancock, T. U. 2007 Intellectual values such as clarity and logic that lead to value-laden conclusions.

Con Value

MacMorris, S. H. 1996 Two competing models in social work: the empirical and the reflective.

None None

Meacham, M. G. 2007 Deliberate thinking about social problems, with a focus on values.

None Value

Miley, K., & Dubois, B. 2007 Analyzing complex issues with an emphasis on race, gender, and class.

Con Value

Pardeck, J. T. 2004 Rational discussion and scientific inquiry. Relates to Popper’s thought.

Sci Fact

Seelig, J. M. 1991 Understood broadly to include creative and critical thinking.

None None

Witkin, S. L. 1990 One aspect of a social constructionist approach to social work.

Con Value

aAssociates critical thinking with scientific reasoning (Sci) or social constructionism (Con). bTreats critical thinking as primarily concerned with the accuracy of facts (Fact) or with social work values (Value).

3Although MacMorris (1996) does not fit with either category, the dissertation identifies distinct “empirical” and “reflective” models of critical thinking in the social work literature. Like the distinction between scientific reasoning and social constructionist conceptualizations of critical thinking, MacMorris’ distinction is fundamentally epistemological, though it was not found to be salient among the records reviewed here.

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 465

political stance (Hancock, 2007; Miley & Dubois, 2007). On the other hand, Bronson (2000) called for more critical thinking as an antidote to a constructionist/postmodernist threat to objective knowledge. For such authors, the difference between scientific reasoning and social constructionism is more than a matter of emphasis; they present directly opposed visions for how practical reasoning should proceed.

Given this clear contrast, it was remarkable that no authors of either persuasion acknowl- edged any controversy over how critical thinking should be conceptualized in social work. As in the definitional subsections discussed above, none of these more thorough theoretical discus- sions mentioned that the term critical thinking has been used in other ways that conflict with the author’s own conceptualization. All authors simply called for more critical thinking in social work, not for more of one kind of critical thinking and less of another.

Pedagogical Interventions—Descriptions and Measures

Descriptions of pedagogical interventions. The most prominent feature of the literature addressing pedagogical intervention (34 of 49 records) was the extreme diversity of pedagogical interventions recommended. The second column of Table 3 presents brief descriptions of each of the interventions. Some of these interventions are much more targeted in focus than others. For example, the argument mapping software recommended by Reid (2011) aims to teach a step-by- step analytical thinking process that can then be reiterated in multiple contexts. The MSW curriculum studied by Tucker (2008), on the other hand, embeds attention to critical thinking in multiple courses without stipulating any single step-by-step process by which thinking should proceed. Other interventions are teaching tools as narrow in focus as Reid’s, but target very different thinking processes, such as questioning media bias (Hawkins, 1996), recognizing and avoiding stereotypes (Johnston, 2009), or reflecting on one’s own experiences (Johansen, 2005; Nesoff, 2004). Still others are intensive courses that, though much shorter in duration than the intervention Tucker studied, teach a much broader range of thinking processes than any of the teaching tools mentioned above.

It is difficult to find any clear pattern of meaning in this diversity. In particular, the term critical thinking seems to be associated with such a wide range of tasks and skills that it is difficult to see how they all hang together, if they do at all. If they are taken together, as the use of a common term implies, then one can infer that the concept of critical thinking must be extremely broad and might better be described as a group of thinking processes rather than a single way of thinking. If they are not taken together, however, then the pattern is simply one of disagreement; one can only infer that there are many concepts of critical thinking in social work, and that their relation to one another is unclear. If this is the case, then the unity suggested by the common use of the term critical thinking only masks this multiplicity, allowing very different thinking processes to pass as equivalent.

Methods of measurement. Of the 34 records describing pedagogical interventions, the majority (21) presented some attempt to measure the effect of the intervention on critical thinking skills. Of these, nine used standardized tests and 12 used teacher-designed assessments.

A review of assessments using standardized tests suggests that the authors are not operating from the same definition of critical thinking. As shown in Table 3, six records adopted standardized tests from education, including the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), the Watson-Glaser

466 MATHIAS

Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), the Ennis-Weir Essay Test, and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT). All of these tests are based on broad definitions of critical thinking and include subscales for more specific thinking skills, among them analysis, interpretation, and inference.

TABLE 3 Pedagogical Interventions Aimed at Promoting Critical Thinking

Author Date Intervention Assessment

Clark, H. G. 2002 BSW and MSW education CCTST Huff, M. T. 2000 Policy course live and via TV CCTST Tucker, T. M. 2008 MSW curriculum focused on critical

thinking CCTST

Plath, D. 1999 Intensive critical thinking course CCTT, EWET Ryan, L. G. 1996 Intensive critical thinking course PTF Whyte, D. T. 1999 Intensive critical thinking course PTF Kersting, R. C., & Mumm, A. M. 2001 Intensive critical thinking course PRIDE Hesterberg, L. J. 2005 Problem-based learning WGCTA Rogers, G., & McDonald, L. 1992 Intensive critical thinking course WGCTA Burman, S. 2000 Pedagogy using Perry’s (1970) theory of

cognitive development Teacher-Designed

Carey, M. E., & McCardle, M. 2011 Observing/shadowing professional social workers

Teacher-Designed

Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. 2004 Experience-based education Teacher-Designed Gregory, M., & Holloway, M. 2005 Classroom debate Teacher-Designed Heron, G. 2006 Higher education in social work Teacher-Designed Johansen, P. S. 2005 Online journaling Teacher-Designed Jones, K. 2005 Teaching with case studies Teacher-Designed Lietz, C. 2010 Supervision of child welfare workers Teacher-Designed Lietz, C. 2008 Group supervision of child welfare workers Teacher-Designed Mumm, A. M., & Kersting, R. C. 1997 Generalist practice course with critical

thinking emphasis Teacher-Designed

Nesoff, I. 2004 Student journals Teacher-Designed Noer, L. O. C. 1994 Teaching literature Teacher-Designed Pray, J. L. 2001 Online discussion forums Teacher-Designed Prior, J. 2000 Anti-oppressive learning environment Teacher-Designed Alter, C., & Egan, M. 1997 Logic modeling None Balen, R., & White, S. 2007 Discussion and humor in the classroom None Coleman, H., Rogers, G., & King, J.

2002 Student portfolios None

Cossom, J. 1991 Teaching with case studies None Deal, K. H. 2003 Guidelines for clinical supervision None Hawkins, C. 1996 Media analysis None Johnston, L. B. 2009 Teaching about diversity and stereotypes None Latting, J. K. 1990 Classroom discussion None Lay, K., & McGuire, L. 2010 Challenging hegemony None Lynch, D., Vernon, R. F., & Smith, M. L.

2001 Doing research on the Web None

Nurius, P. S. 1995 Computer-assisted reasoning None Reid, C. E. 2011 Argument-mapping software None Vandsburger, E. 2004 Analytical frameworks and social theory None Zickler, E. P., & Abbott, A. A. 2000 Teaching literature None

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 467

Nonetheless, even these broad definitions differ; one recent study found that college students scored very differently in critical thinking development depending on the test used to measure their skill (Hatcher, 2011). An even sharper contrast exists between these studies and the three records that employed the Professional Thinking Form (PTF) or Principles of Reasoning, Inference, Decision- making, and Evaluation (PRIDE) tests, which are social work–specific tests designed by Gambrill and Gibbs to assess critical thinking as they have conceptualized it (see above). The PTF and PRIDE tests examine a much narrower range of skills than the tests adopted from education, focusing exclusively on students’ ability to identify and correct a specific set of social work “practice fallacies” (Gibbs, 1991; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999; Gibbs et al., 1995). Thus there are at least two competing conceptualizations of social work implied by the standardized tests, and possibly more.

The 12 teacher-designed assessments imply even greater divergences in the conceptualization of critical thinking. Indeed, it was often difficult to see how these assessments tested anything more than an idiosyncratic set of skills or habits that fit the teacher’s own assessment measures. For example, Prior (2000) and Noer (1994) both employed content analysis to assess whether their interventions—an antioppressive classroom environment and a literature-based ethics seminar, respectively—were improving critical thinking. In each case, the authors looked for indicators of critical thinking in the ways that students talked or wrote about complex ethical issues before and after the intervention. However, the indicators Prior looked for emphasized attentiveness to questions about social inequality, whereas Noer’s scoring method emphasized attentiveness to the diversity of human experience. In both cases, the concept of critical thinking operationalized in the assessment was very closely matched to the content of the course—the independent variable (discussing in ways that attend to social equality or diversity, respectively) and the dependent variable (critical thinking, defined as writing in ways that attend to social inequality or diversity, respectively) were very nearly identical. This raises questions about the validity of these assessments. However, the more important point for the purposes of this review was the narrowness of conceptualization implied by such studies. It is not at all clear that the measures used in teacher-designed assessments were applicable beyond their own classrooms. If not, then the conceptualization of critical thinking implied by such tests is greatly impoverished.

DISCUSSION

Each of the methods employed in this review found that there is no widely agreed-upon conceptualization of critical thinking in social work. Rather, the evidence suggests that the term has multiple conflicting meanings, and that its usage in social work may be even more ambiguous than its usage in education. However, the findings from definitional subsections do indicate consensus on one point: for social work, critical thinking is a process of practical reasoning, aimed at correct action. This distinguishes the conceptualization of critical thinking in social work from its conceptualization in education, where the emphasis on correct action is not integral to most definitions. This is not to say that social work is unique in this respect; all professions can be expected to share an emphasis on practical reasoning to some extent (Tucker, 2013). In nursing, for example, critical thinking has been associated with action in the form of clinical decision-making (Adams, 1999; Turner, 2005; but see Tanner, 2005). Nonetheless, the link between critical thinking and practical reasoning may be an apt starting point for under- standing what is specific to thinking like a social worker.

468 MATHIAS

The two conceptual strains identified in records calling for more critical thinking appear to bolster this point; despite their differences, both describe processes of practical reasoning. However, the two versions of critical thinking recommend very different procedures for deter- mining what one ought to do. For those working from a model of Popperian scientific reasoning, critical thinking separates facts from nonfacts to minimize error in social work practice. For social constructionists, critical thinking recognizes the values inextricably embedded in facts, helping to ensure that practice is aligned with good values. The contrast between these two proposals is paralleled, to some extent, by a contrast between records that describe the purpose of critical thinking as avoiding error or applying research, on one hand, and records that emphasize accountability to social work values, on the other. Thus the literature presents two clearly contrasting visions for how practical reasoning in social work should proceed.

Notably, however, the distinction between scientific reasoning and social constructionism was not a salient pattern in the review of descriptions and measures of pedagogical interventions. Although some records addressing pedagogical intervention appeared to more closely align with one of these two conceptualizations, these alignments were not consistent. For example, Kersting and Mumm (2001) made use of a textbook and assessment test designed by Gambrill and Gibbs and, thus, appeared to employ a model of critical thinking as scientific reasoning. However, quoting Kurfiss, they also describe critical thinking as “a diligent, open- minded search for understanding, rather than for discovery of a necessary conclusion” (Kersting & Mumm, 2001, p. 55; Kurfiss, 1988, p. 42; Mumm & Kersting, 1997, p. 75). This description appears inconsistent with Gambrill and Gibbs’ aims of error elimination and objective accuracy, making it difficult to categorize Kersting and Mumm’s study with either conceptualization. More generally, although findings from reviews of pedagogical interventions suggest a lack of con- sensus among social work scholars about how to define critical thinking, the points of disagree- ment found did not fit neatly into a division between scientific reasoning and social constructionist conceptualizations.

As mentioned above, the CSWE recently listed critical thinking as one of 10 core compe- tencies to be addressed by BSW and MSW curricula, and its 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards describe the major features of critical thinking in social work. The influence of this document on the meaning of critical thinking in social work is unclear; of the eight records included in this review that were published since 2008, only two mentioned the CSWE’s description, and neither of these employed this conceptualization as the basis of its study (Deal & Pittman, 2009; Tucker, 2008). Nonetheless, it is revealing to consider this standard in light of the findings of this review. As shown in Figure 1, the EPAS emphasizes how critical thinking helps social workers use knowledge to arrive at good decisions or “professional judgments” and communicate about those judgments. In other words, critical thinking is described as a form of practical reasoning. In addition, the document foregrounds “logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment,” and the “synthesis and communication of relevant information.” Both phrases resonate with the conceptualization of critical thinking as analogous with scientific reasoning. However, in the same document CSWE also calls on social workers to “integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom” but does not elaborate on how these two sources of knowledge should be integrated. Those promoting critical thinking as scientific reasoning have argued that practice wisdom is, at best, a source of conjecture, requiring substantiation by research (Bronson, 2000; Gambrill, 1994), whereas proponents of social constructionist critical thinking give practice wisdom a

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 469

much more central role (Gibbons & Gray, 2004). Moreover, it is unclear whether the critical thinking that should inform professional judgment is more concerned with facts or with values. In analyzing models of assessment, for example, should critical thinkers be more concerned with discerning the accuracy of the model or with questioning the values and power dynamics assumed or perpetuated by the model? Thus, although the description of critical thinking in the CSWE’s EPAS is consistent with the broader consensus on practical reasoning, its position is ambiguous with regard to the two major proposals for how practical reasoning should proceed.

Although calls for more critical thinking present two contrasting options for how the term should be conceptualized, the theoretical differences between these two conceptualizations have yet to be debated explicitly. Few authors addressing pedagogical intervention could be categor- ized as consistently aligning with one conceptualization or the other. The same is true of the CSWE’s EPAS, which arguably shares with these authors an emphasis on how critical thinking should be taught over how it should be conceptualized. Moreover, even authors who clearly aligned with one of these two versions of critical thinking treated it as the only version, not recognizing that a competing proposal existed. Thus, what this review identifies as a disagree- ment about the epistemological basis of critical thinking (and, by extension, good thinking in social work) has yet to be recognized as such in the literature.

CONCLUSION

Even though it is clear that social workers do not all mean the same thing by critical thinking, a careful reading of the literature offers, at least, a starting point for answering the question of how social workers ought to think. Not only can we say that social work scholars are primarily concerned with practical reasoning, but we have identified two distinct proposals regarding what specific processes of practical reasoning are appropriate to social work practice. Further debate about the relative merits of these two proposals would do much to enrich the conceptualization of critical thinking as a description of how social workers ought to think.

The contrast between scientific reasoning and social constructionist versions of critical thinking is clearly linked to debates about the role of science in social work and the relation between research and social work practice, but it should not be conflated with those debates. Although the latter have been concerned primarily with the epistemological foundations of theoretical reasoning in social work—that is, how we know what is—the focus of the critical thinking literature is on how we know what we ought to do. These concerns are certainly not unrelated, but the relation between them should itself be a topic for discussion.

The epistemological concerns that divide these two proposals have real consequences for the everyday practice of social work. Although both fact and value are obviously important to social work practice, different ways of theorizing the relation between fact and value will, ultimately, entail differences in what counts as correct action. A student who learns Popperian scientific reasoning will practice differently from one who learns social construc- tionist reasoning, even if both learn to call their thinking “critical.” Moreover, the two proposals highlighted by this review should not be assumed to exhaust the possibilities for

470 MATHIAS

how social workers might bring facts and values to bear in practical reasoning. They should be taken, rather, as setting the stakes for a discussion that has only just begun.

ORCID

John Mathias http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-0078

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Adams, B. L. (1999). Nursing education for critical thinking: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Education, 38, 111–119.

*Alter, C., & Egan, M. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching critical thinking in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 85–102.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 285–302.

*Balen, R., & White, S. (2007). Making critical minds: Nurturing “not knowing” in students of health and social care. Social Work Education, 26, 200–206.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Bristol, PA: Open University Press. *Bronson, D. E. (2000). Progress and problems in social work research and evaluation in the United States. Journal of

Social Work Research and Evaluation, 1, 125–137. Brookfield, S. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. *Burman, S. (2000). Critical thinking: Its application to substance abuse education and practice. Journal of Teaching in

Social Work, 20, 155–172. *Carey, M. E., & McCardle, M. (2011). Can an observational field model enhance critical thinking and generalist practice

skills? Journal of Social Work Education, 47, 357–366. *Clark, H. G. (2002). A comparison of the critical thinking skills of BSW and MSW students. Journal of Baccalaureate

Social Work, 7, 63–75. *Coleman, H., Rogers, G., & King, J. (2002). Using portfolios to stimulate critical thinking in social work education.

Social Work Education, 21, 583–595. *Cossom, J. (1991). Teaching from cases: Education for critical thinking. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5,

139–155. Council on Social Work Education. (1992a). Curriculum policy statement for baccalaureate degree programs in social

work education. Alexandria, VA: Author. Council on Social Work Education. (1992b). Curriculum policy statement for master’s degree programs in social work

education. Alexandria, VA: Author. Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from www.cswe.

org/File.aspx?id=41861 *Deal, K. H. (2003). The relationship between critical thinking and interpersonal skills: Guidelines for clinical super-

vision. Clinical Supervisor, 22(2), 3–19. *Deal, K. H., & Pittman, J. (2009). Examining predictors of social work students’ critical thinking skills. Advances in

Social Work, 10, 87–102. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published in 1910) Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 81–111. Facione, P. (1990) Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and

instruction. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association. *Ford, P., Johnston, B., Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Social work education and criticality: Some thoughts from

research. Social Work Education, 23, 185–198.

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 471

Gambrill, E. (1990). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the accuracy of judgments and decisions about clients. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gambrill, E. (1993). What critical thinking offers to clinicians and clients. Behavior Therapist, 16(6), 141–147. *Gambrill, E. (1994). Social work research: Priorities and obstacles. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 359–388. Gambrill, E. (1997). Social work practice: A critical thinker’s guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gambrill, E. (1999). Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based practice. Families in Society, 80,

341–350. Gambrill, E. (2000). The role of critical thinking in evidence based social work. In P. Allen-Meares & C. Garvin (Eds.),

The handbook of social work direct practice (pp. 43–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gambrill, E. (2012). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (3rd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. *Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. (2004). Critical thinking as integral to social work practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,

24, 19–38. Gibbs, L. E. (1991). Scientific reasoning for social workers: Bridging the gap between research and practice. New York,

NY: Macmillan. Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (1996). Critical thinking for social workers: A workbook. Newbury Park, PA: Pine Forge. Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (1999). Critical thinking for social workers: Exercises for the helping professions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Making practice decisions: Is what’s good for the goose good for the gander? Ethical

Human Sciences and Services, 4, 31–46. *Gibbs, L., Gambrill, E., Blakemore, J., Begun, A., Keniston, A., Peden, B., & Lefcowitz, J. (1995). A measure of

critical thinking about practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 193–204. Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: AMS Press. *Gregory, M., & Holloway, M. (2005). The debate as a pedagogic tool in social policy for social work students. Social

Work Education, 24, 617–637. *Hancock, T. U. (2007). Come the revolution: Human rights, the far right, and new direction for social work education.

Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(2), 1–12. Hatcher, D. L. (2011). Which test? Whose scores?: Comparing standardized critical thinking tests. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 149, 29–39. *Hawkins, C. (1996). Minding the media and analyzing the agenda: Teaching critical thinking skills to social work

undergraduates. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 1(2), 15–26. *Heron, G. (2006). Critical thinking in social care and social work: Searching student assignments for the evidence.

Social Work Education, 25, 209–224. *Hesterberg, L. J. (2005). Evaluation of a problem-based learning practice course: Do self-efficacy, critical thinking, and

assessment skills improve? Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304992325

*Huff, M. T. (2000). A comparison study of live instruction versus interactive television for teaching MSW students critical thinking skills. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 400–416.

*Johansen, P. S. (2005). Using reflective online journals to create constructivist, student centered learning environments in undergraduate social work education. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 11, 87–100.

*Johnston, L. B. (2009). Critical thinking and creativity in a social work diversity course: Challenging students to “think outside the box.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 646–656.

*Jones, K. (2005). Widening the lens: The efficacy of the case method in helping direct practice MSW students understand and apply mezzo and macro dimensions of practice. Social Work Education, 24, 197–211.

*Kersting, R. C., & Mumm, A. M. (2001). Are we teaching critical thinking in the classroom? Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 7, 53–67.

Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 70–76.

Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. College Station, TX: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

*Latting, J. K. (1990). Identifying the “isms”: Enabling social work students to confront their biases. Journal of Social Work Education, 26, 36–44.

*Lay, K., & McGuire, L. (2010). Building a lens for critical reflection and reflexivity in social work education. Social Work Education, 29, 539–550.

472 MATHIAS

*Lietz, C. (2008). Implementation of group supervision in child welfare: Findings from Arizona’s supervision circle project. Child Welfare, 87(6), 31–48.

*Lietz, C. (2010). Critical thinking in child welfare supervision. Administration in Social Work, 34, 68–78. *Lynch, D., Vernon, R. F., & Smith, M. L. (2001). Critical thinking and the web. Journal of Social Work Education, 37,

381–381. *MacMorris, S. H. (1996). Linking models of critical thinking with empirical and reflective practice in social work.

Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304359690 Mahoney, M. J. (1976). Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing

Company. *Meacham, M. G. (2007). Ethics and decision making for social workers. Journal of Social Work Values and

Ethics, 4(3), 1–13. *Miley, K., & Dubois, B. (2007). Ethical preferences for the clinical practice of empowerment social work. Social Work

in Health Care, 44, 29–44. Moon, J. A. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge. *Mumm, A. M., & Kersting, R. C. (1997). Teaching critical thinking in social work practice courses. Journal of Social

Work Education, 33, 75–84. *Nesoff, I. (2004). Student journals: A tool for encouraging self reflection and critical thought. Journal of Baccalaureate

Social Work, 10, 46–60. *Noer, L. O. C. (1994). Using literature to teach critical thinking to social work students. Doctoral dissertation.

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304147909 *Nurius, P. S. (1995). Critical thinking: A meta-skill for integrating practice and information technology training.

Computers in Human Services, 12, 109–126. *Pardeck, J. T. (2004). Strategies for improving social work intervention in the twenty-first century. Family Therapy, 31,

33–42. Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (Rev. 3rd ed.).

Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston. *Plath, D., English, B., Connors, L., & Beveridge, A. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes of intensive critical thinking

instruction for social work students. Social Work Education, 18, 207–217. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge. Popper, K. R. (1992). In search of a better world: Lectures and essays from thirty years. London, UK: Routledge. *Pray, J. L. (2001). Enhancing critical thinking and professionalism through use of the discussion forum in social work

practice courses. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 18, 65–75. *Prior, J. (2000). Social psychology of a learning environment and the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Social Work

Education, 19, 501–511. *Reid, C. E. (2011). Rationale argument mapping software. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 147–154. *Rogers, G., & McDonald, L. (1992). Thinking critically: An approach to field instructor training. Journal of Social

Work Education, 28, 166–177. *Ryan, L. G. (1996). Critical thinking in social work practice: A quasiexperimental investigation. Doctoral dissertation.

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304315835 *Seelig, J. M. (1991). Social work and the critical thinking movement. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5, 21–34. Tanner, C. A. (2005). What have we learned about critical thinking in nursing? Journal of Nursing Education, 44(2),

47–48. Tucker, D. J. (2013). Some thoughts on performance appraisal of university based professions. Unpublished manuscript.

School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. *Tucker, T. M. (2008). Predictors of critical thinking as a component of an outcomes assessment in a graduate level

school of social work. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304555297

Turner, P. (2005). Critical thinking in nursing education and practice as defined in the literature. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26, 272–277.

*Vandsburger, E. (2004). A critical thinking model for teaching human behavior and the social environment. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 10, 1–11.

THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL WORKER 473

Walton, D. N. (1990). Practical reasoning: Goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Werner, J. S., & Gibbs, L. (1987). Clinicians fallacies in psychiatric practice. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 25(8), 14–17.

*Whyte, D. T. (1999). The effect of an educational unit on the critical thinking skills of social work students. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Document ID: 304453773

*Witkin, S. L. (1990). The implications of social constructionism for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 4(2), 37–48.

*Zickler, E. P., & Abbott, A. A. (2000). “The subjective necessity”: Literature and the social work curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(3–4), 63–79.

474 MATHIAS

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.