![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Evidence-based practice in social work is an intensely debated topic, with many differing perspectives on how it should be done. However, we know surprisingly little about how social workers actually engage in professional problem-solving and about the knowledge base of those processes. To shed light on this topic of social work expertise, we present a novel model of scientific reasoning and argumentation and investigate how experts and novices differ in the reasoning processes they engage in as they are confronted with social work problems. Vignettes were used to capture reasoning processes, and the corresponding verbal data were then analysed. In this study, 26 probation officers and 22 social work students participated. The findings show that experts differ from novices with respect to both their knowledge bases and the epistemic activities in which they engage. Furthermore, a cluster analysis revealed three common problem-solving strategies: evidence-based solution seeking (15 experts and 15 novices), shared problem-solving (8 experts) and explanation seeking (1 expert and 7 novices). The results indicate the need to improve the practical problem-solving skills of students through situated teaching methods.
ABSTRAKT
Das Konzept ‘Evidenzbasierte Praxis’ wird in der Sozialen Arbeit intensiv diskutiert. Dabei existieren viele sich unterscheidende Perspektiven darüber, wie evidenzbasierte Sozialarbeitspraxis optimalerweise aussehen sollte. Relativ wenig ist bisher darüber bekannt, wie Sozialarbeitende tatsächlich praktische Probleme lösen und welche Wissensressourcen sie dabei nutzen. Um sich diesem Thema anzunähern, präsentieren wir ein Modell wissenschaftlichen Denkens und Argumentierens und untersuchen, wie sich ExpertInnen von NovizInnen hinsichtlich der Denkprozesse beim professionellen Problemlösen unterscheiden. 26 BewährungshelferInnen und 22 Sozialarbeitsstudierende wurden mit einer Fallvignette konfrontiert, zu der sie laut denken sollten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich ExpertInnen von den NovizInnen hinsichtlich der Anwendung verschiedener Wissensarten und epistemischer Aktivitäten unterscheiden. Zudem konnten wir per Clusteranalyse drei Typen von Problemlösestrategien identifizieren, die teilweise in stark unterschiedlichem Maße von ExpertInnen und NovizInnen verfolgt werden: Evidenzbasierte Lösungssuche (15 ExpertInnen und 15 NovizInnen), geteiltes Problemlösen (8 ExpertInnen, 0 NovizInnen) und Erklärungssuche (1 ExpertIn und 7 NovizInnen). Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen Bedarf auf, die praktischen Problemlösekompetenzen bereits während des Studiums der Sozialen Arbeit zu fördern.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful for the support of András Csanadi in terms of coding training and reliability testing as well as for the useful feedback of the manuscript reviewers. We thank all probation officers and students who participated in this study.
Disclosure statement
The other authors do not have any conflicts of interest. The first author is a probation officer who is on special leave (without salary) for the time of his PhD. However, the study was not funded by the Ministry of Justice.
Notes on contributors
Christian Ghanem (M.A.) is a probation officer at the county court in Munich, Germany. Currently, he is on special leave to work on a Ph.D. at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München as well as a social work lecturer at the Katholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München. Furthermore, he is a member of the International Graduate School ‘REASON’ funded by the Elite Network of Bavaria. His research interests focus on Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work, Professionalization in Social Work as well as on Social Networks.
Ingo Kollar is a full professor for Educational Psychology at the University of Augsburg, Germany. He also is a member of the Munich Center of the Learning Sciences and an associated member of the International Graduate School ‘REASON’ funded by the Elite Network of Bavaria.
Frank Fischer is a full professor for Educational Science and Educational Psychology at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Germany. He is also the speaker of the Munich Center of the Learning Sciences and the REASON Graduate School. His research interests focus on learning with digital media, collaborative learning, SRA as well as EBP in education.
Thomas R. Lawson, Ph.D., is Professor and Director of International Programmes at the Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, USA. He has published and been a visiting professor in numerous countries to include Germany, Hungary, Russia, Poland, England, South Africa and China. He just completed a Chinese-English Dictionary of Social Work that is a 10,000 word and explanation text and audio application for smart phones and pads.
Sabine Pankofer is a full professor for psychology in social work at the Katholische Stiftungsfachhochschule München since 1998. There she is the director of the Master Programme ‘Social Work’ and the head of the Coaching Training Programme. Research interests are Empowerment, Power in Organisations, Palliative Care and Social Work with young delinquents.
Notes
1 The leaves of the kratom plant can be consumed and the intoxication is similar to opioids (Babu, McCurdy, & Boyer, Citation2008).
2 Citations of participants were labelled according to the structure of the data within the used software ‘MAXQDA 11’: P10 = probation officer number 10; 30, 31 = Segment numbers 30 and 31.
3 Calculated by use of the online tool provided by ‘Psychometrica – Institute for Psychological Diagnostic’, which applies the effect size analysis of Borenstein (Citation2009, pp. 228f.).