Notes: Thinking Like a Social Worker — Critical Thinking in Social Work (Mathias, 2015)
Background: The Critical Thinking Concept in American Education
Critical thinking has roots in both psychology (cognition) and philosophy (reasoning). It is often tied to reflective thought and the connection between reflection and experiential learning, as argued by John Dewey in How We Think (1910/1997).
Dewey emphasized that education should cultivate reflective thought about perplexing personal experiences; the scientific method was viewed as a formal extension of this basic learning process.
Dewey’s view: reflective thought as central to learning; education should guide development of this capacity (pp. 168, 169; pp. 84).
Mid-20th century development connected critical thinking to empirical measurement via standardized tests (Glaser, Ennis).
Glaser (1941) and Ennis (1962) linked definitions of critical thinking to empirical measurement and standardized testing.
Turning point in the U.S. education policy: CSU system required training in critical thinking (1981), helping to move critical thinking into curricula across levels (Paul, 1990).
Emergence of a broader critical thinking industry: development of tools and tests (Facione, 1990).
Proliferation of definitions led to conceptual ambiguity; APA attempted consensus but did not reach full agreement. Various notable definitions persisted (e.g., Bailin et al., 1999; Barnett, 1997; Ku, 2009; Moon, 2008).
In social work, the adoption of critical thinking as a normative standard for professional reasoning began to rise in parallel with education policy.
Seelig (1991) argued critical thinking was the best framework for describing how social workers ought to think (p. 21).
After Seelig, social work authors promoted critical thinking as a central goal (Gambrill, 1990; Gibbs, 1991; Witkin, 1990).
CSWE started requiring critical thinking skills in practice education:
In 1992, baccalaureate and master’s programs were expected to teach students to “apply critical thinking skills” in professional practice (CSWE, 1992a, 1992b; cited in Gambrill & Gibbs, 1995, p. 194; Huff, 2000, p. 400).
The CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS, 2008) designated critical thinking as one of 10 core competencies for BSW and MSW programs, emphasizing “principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment” (CSWE, 2008; see Figure 1).
Taken together, critical thinking has become a major curricular goal across social work programs; yet, Deal and Pittman (2009) note the literature remains sparse on how critical thinking is taught and how it affects practice.
Persistent question in social work: many scholars use the term without adopting a single philosophical definition of critical thinking; social work uses the term to reflect field-specific purposes, problems, and conflicts rather than adopting a single philosophy of thinking.
This article aims to answer: do social work scholars share a coherent conceptualization of critical thinking, or do they repurpose diverse education/Philosophy definitions for social work purposes? It investigates patterns in how the term is deployed in social work literature.
Important contextual note: In this article, critical thinking is treated as a form of practical reasoning specific to social work, not identical to philosophical or nursing definitions, but revealing field-specific purposes and conflicts.
Terminology note (footnote in the article): In the broader literature, the terms thinking and reasoning are often used interchangeably; the author acknowledges this convention here (footnote 1).
Key takeaway: Critical thinking is widely promoted in social work education, often framed around logic, inquiry, and discernment, but there is ongoing conceptual ambiguity in how it is defined and implemented in curricula.
Critical Thinking in Social Work: Two Epistemological Proposals
The article identifies that social work literature treats critical thinking primarily as a form of practical reasoning rather than as fixed philosophical reasoning.
Epistemological divide: There are two distinct proposals for how practical reasoning in social work should proceed, shaping practice and education differently. These proposals have not been widely discussed in the literature but carry implications for practice.
The review seeks to detect patterns in how social work scholars have adopted the term and to highlight field-specific purposes and conflicts tied to critical thinking.
The central claim: Critical thinking in social work is not simply critical thinking in philosophy, education, or nursing; its social-work-specific usage clarifies purposes, problems, and conflicts unique to the field.
By analyzing how social work scholars define and apply critical thinking, the review aims to inform how social workers ought to think in practice.
The CSWE Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) and Critical Thinking
The CSWE EPAS stance on critical thinking translates into a formal competency requirement for social work programs.
Educational Policy 2.1.3 states: “Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.”
EPAS articulation in the article: Social workers are knowledgeable about
the principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment,
and they use critical thinking augmented by creativity and curiosity,
with a synthesis and communication of relevant information as an essential component.
Specific competencies highlighted:
Distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research-based knowledge and practice wisdom.
Analyze models of assessment, prevention, intervention, and evaluation.
Demonstrate effective oral and written communication in work with individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues.
The figure (Figure 1) associated with EPAS (2008) summarizes the CSWE’s statement on critical thinking in social work education.
Practical implication: Critical thinking is positioned as a core, teachable skill across all levels of social work education, underpinning professional judgment and practice decisions.
Origins and Variations in Educational Conceptualizations of Critical Thinking
Historically, critical thinking integrated several strands: cognition from psychology and reasoning from philosophy.
Dewey’s influence (How We Think, 1910/1997): reflective thought is central to learning; education should cultivate reflective thinking and guide students in engaging with perplexing experiences; the scientific method is a formal elaboration of this learning process.
Dewey’s claim: reflective thought enables learning beyond classroom boundaries and connects to empirical inquiry.
Mid-century empirical turn: Glaser (1941) and Ennis (1962) connected critical thinking to standardized tests, anchoring definitions to measurable constructs.
The modern critical thinking movement expanded in the late 20th century, precipitating a “critical thinking industry” focused on pedagogical tools and testing instruments (Facione, 1990).
The APA’s attempt to unify definitions involved convening 46 critical thinking experts; however, despite its influence (e.g., shaping the popular California Critical Thinking Skills Test), consensus was not fully achieved, and multiple definitions persisted (e.g., Bailin et al., 1999; Barnett, 1997; Ku, 2009; Moon, 2008).
A notable stance in the movement is to retain a plurality of definitions rather than forcing a single definition, as suggested by Paul (1990): retain a host of definitions to leverage diverse insights.
In social work, these educational debates intersect with field-specific purposes, prompting social work to adapt and repurpose education-focused definitions of critical thinking to fit professional practice needs.
Table 1: Comparison of Definitions of Critical Thinking Frequently Cited in Social Work
Brookfield (1987/2012 in later summaries) defines critical thinking as:
Entails four cognitive skills (presented as a sequence):
1) Identifying the assumptions that frame our thinking and determine our actions,
2) Checking out the degree to which these assumptions are accurate and valid,
3) Looking at our ideas and decisions from several different perspectives,
4) On the basis of all this, taking informed actions.Affective dispositions: emphasizes not just cognitive skills but dispositions like openness, curiosity, and ongoing self-evaluation.
Kurfiss (1988) presents critical thinking as:
A rational response to questions that cannot be answered definitively with all relevant information available; an investigation aimed at arriving at a justifiable conclusion that integrates all available information.
In this view, all assumptions are open to question, divergent views are aggressively sought, and inquiry is not biased toward a particular outcome.
Core emphasis on cognitive skills and process: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation of one’s thinking.
APA Consensus Definition (as discussed in the article):
Critical thinking entails a combination of cognitive skills and affective dispositions, including:
Evaluation of claims and arguments,
Inference to conclusions,
Interpretation of meanings,
Analysis of relations among representations,
Explanations of the results of reasoning,
Self-regulation of one’s thinking process.
Affective dispositions include inquisitiveness, honesty, open-mindedness regarding divergent world views, prudence, and other ethical dispositions.
Cross-cutting observation:
The definitions share common themes (evaluation, interpretation, analysis, inference, and self-regulation) but differ on emphasis (cognitive vs. affective components; rationality emphasis vs. broader dispositions).
Brookfield’s view is narrower than the APA’s broader emphasis; Kurfiss emphasizes the process of rational inquiry and the openness of assumptions; the APA emphasizes a broader set of thinking skills plus affective traits.
It remains unclear whether these definitions are fully compatible or if tensions exist between them (e.g., “being logical” vs. “a rational response” vs. “inference to conclusions” vs. open-ended inquiry).
Conclusion from the author: because social work literature adopts several competing definitions, social work has faced challenges in comparing or contrasting the conceptualizations in any rigorous way.
The Methods of This Critical Review
The article employs three interpretive methods: data sources, organization and analysis of data, and emergent findings.
Data sources:
Primary source: Social Services Abstracts database, covering social work research, education, and practice.
Search strategy: keyword search for 125 articles or dissertations (1980–2011) containing critical thinking and social work in titles, abstracts, or indexes.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria:
Excluded studies focusing on disciplines outside social work (e.g., nursing, psychology) or where critical thinking was not central.
Borderline cases were included for full-text review; records lacking a clear focus on critical thinking as a primary topic were excluded.
Augmenting sources:
Two additional publications located via reference searching were included.
Textbooks by Gambrill and Gibbs are cited to contextualize influential conceptualizations of critical thinking (though not included as textbooks in the review).
Study size: 49 articles or dissertations included in the review.
Data extraction and coding:
The author took notes on all aspects relevant to the question “What does critical thinking mean?” including formal definitions, explicit meaning discussions, and explicit commitments implied by data (e.g., measurement instruments imply certain conceptions).
Notes were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with one row per article and columns for relevant data types; codes and column headers were adjusted as patterns emerged.
Data analysis and interpretation:
Data were examined for patterns within each category.
Three categories of findings emerged: (1) definitions and purposes of critical thinking, (2) theoretical discussions of its importance to social work, and (3) pedagogical interventions.
Emergent patterns:
The author treats findings as emergent patterns of meaning that arise from the interaction of multiple parts; i.e., the whole is not reducible to any single article but emerges from cross-textual patterns (analogy: geese flying in a V-formation).
Purpose and stance:
The review treats patterns as meaningful constructs that illuminate how social workers ought to think, rather than simply cataloging definitions.
Note in the methods: readers seeking more detail on methods can contact the author (footnote 2).
Emergent Findings and Implications (Based on Methods)
The review identifies three broad categories of findings (definitions and purposes, theoretical discussions of importance to social work, and pedagogical interventions).
The patterns are described as emergent meanings within the social work literature on critical thinking.
The discussion highlights the need to understand how social workers are being taught to think and how those teachings align with foundational principles of logic, evidence, and professional judgment.
Connections to Practice, Education, and Ethics
Real-world relevance: Critical thinking in social work is framed to support ethical decision-making, reflective practice, and evidence-informed interventions.
Practical implications include the need for curricula to address both cognitive skills and affective dispositions (e.g., inquisitiveness, honesty, open-mindedness, prudence).
The variability in definitions suggests a curricular emphasis on multiple competencies: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, self-regulation, and communication across diverse settings (individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities).
The integration of empirical inquiry and practical wisdom is a recurring theme: combining research-based knowledge with practice wisdom to inform judgments.
Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications
Ethical implications:
Emphasizing open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgments helps mitigate bias and promote fair assessment of clients’ situations.
Prudence in altering judgments aligns with professional ethics and ongoing supervisory processes.
Philosophical implications:
The ongoing debate over definitions reflects broader tensions between rationalistic approaches and those that emphasize inquiry as a process with affective commitments.
The position to retain multiple definitions (Paul, 1990) may better support diverse educational contexts but complicates assessment and standardization.
Practical implications:
Educational policy (EPAS) codifies critical thinking as a core competency, but teaching methods, assessments, and outcomes may vary widely.
There is a need for empirical research on how critical thinking skills are actually taught in social work programs and how those teach practices affect professional practice.
Key Takeaways for Study and Examination
Critical thinking in social work is largely framed as practical reasoning guided by logic, inquiry, and discernment, not just abstract logic.
Social work definitions of critical thinking are drawn from multiple education theories (Brookfield, Kurfiss, APA/Facione) and adapted to social work practice, leading to definitional diversity.
The CSWE EPAS (2008) explicitly foregrounds critical thinking as a core competency with emphasis on logic, inquiry, reasoned discernment, creativity, curiosity, synthesis, and communication.
Historical trajectory shows waves of emphasis: Dewey’s reflective thought, mid-20th-century empirical measurement, late-20th-century consensus-building (APA), and the social work-specific adaptation of the concept.
Methodologically, the review synthesizes 49 social work–related sources (1980–2011) via a qualitative, emergent-pattern approach, highlighting three primary categories of findings.
When studying critical thinking in social work, beware: terminology and definitions vary across authors; consider both cognitive skills and affective dispositions; think about how these map onto ethical and practical professional judgment.
Key references mentioned in the transcript (for context):
Dewey, J. How We Think (1910/1997).
Glaser, E. (1941); Ennis, R. (1962).
Paul, R. (1990).
Facione, P.A. (1990).
California State University system actions (1981).
Gambrill, D. (1990); Gibbs, J. (1991); Witkin, J. (1990).
CSWE (1992a, 1992b; 2008 EPAS).
Deal and Pittman (2009).
APA (various definitions; consensus attempt).
Brookfield (2012) and Kurfiss (1988) definitions used in social work literature.
Note: This summary preserves the major and minor points presented in the transcript, including the historical context, the CSWE policy, the comparison of definitions, the methodological approach of the review, and the emergent pattern framework. It reflects the content up to the end of Page 5 of the transcript. For deeper detail on any specific author or definition, consult the cited works directly.