Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti

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:
[email protected]
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
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-0078
mailto:[email protected]
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.
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
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 tw o
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.
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
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 er ror
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
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.
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 i n
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
*Coleman, H., Rogers, G., & King, J. (2002). Using portfolios
to stimulate critical thinking in social work education.
*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
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.
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-0078
http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=41861
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.
*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.
*Kersting, R. C., & Mumm, A. M. (2001). Are we teaching
critical thinking in the classroom? Journal of Baccalaureate
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

*Lay, K., & McGuire, L. (2010). Building a lens for critical
reflection and reflexivity in social work education. Social
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
*Nesoff, I. (2004). Student journals: A tool for encouraging self
reflection and critical thought. Journal of Baccalaureate
*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
*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 thinki ng 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.
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.
AbstractBACKGROUND: THE CRITICAL THINKING
CONCEPT IN AMERICAN
EDUCATIONMETHODSFINDINGSDefinitions and
PurposesTheoretical Discussions of the Importance of Critical
Thinking to Social WorkPedagogical Interventions—
Descriptions and
MeasuresDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONORCIDREFERENCES
Recasting Licensing in Social Work: Something More
for Professionalism
Erlene Grise-Owens, Larry W. Owens, and Justin Jay Miller
ABSTRACT
Abraham Flexner contended that “something more than a degree
or claim”
is needed to make a profession. He further asserted that the
definitions of a

profession require recasting over time. This article critically
considers recast-
ing licensing as something more for social work. Analysis of
past and
present discourse on licensing in social work revealed three
overarching
themes: (a) advocacy and rationale for licensing, (b) scrutiny
and critique of
licensing, and (c) the disconnect and dissonance between
professional
licensing and social work education. Moving forward, we
suggest recasting
social work’s professional paradigm in the common framework
of compe-
tency, with licensing part of the continuum of
professionalization. This
recasting can promote critical congruence between social work
education
and ongoing professional competency.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Accepted: March 2016
Flexner’s (1915/2001) pivotal speech reverberates through the
decades. The impact and intent of that
speech has been analyzed critically by some, argued against by
some, and accepted implicitly by
others (Baylis, 2004; Glaser, 2001; Holosko & Leslie, 2001;
Johnson, 1999, 2008; Morris, 2008; Wong,
2001). Somewhat ironically, given the impact of this speech,
even Flexner questioned whether he had
the “competency” (p. 152) to assess social work. Later, he
stated that the definitions of a profession
will require “recasting from time to time” (p. 153).
Yet, Flexner (1915/2001) asserted that “to make a profession in

a genuine sense, something more
[emphasis added] than a mere claim or an academic degree is
needed” (p. 153). In many professions, in
part, licensing, regulation, and credentialing are cast as the
primary means for achieving this something
more. The terms, credentialing, licensing, regulation, and
certification are used somewhat interchange-
ably, and the distinctions among them are delineated elsewhere
(e.g., Crane et al., 2010; Iverson, 1987;
Miller, Deck, Grise-Owens, & Borders, 2015; Miller, Grise-
Owens, & Escobar-Ratliff, 2015; Randall &
DeAngelis, 2008) For simplicity, we use licensing as a general
term, in this article.
Hardcastle (1977) declared regulation or licensing “a major
contemporary movement in social
work’s efforts to attain recognition as a full profession” (p. 14).
However, this licensing as something
more has been a dynamic tension in social work (e.g., Bibus,
2007; Boutté-Queen, 2003). Members of
many professions, such as medicine or law, seem to largely
accept licensing as an unquestioned
aspect of their professional identity and practice reality (e.g.,
Goldsmith, 1931; Thyer, 2011). In
contrast, social work tends to debate the efficacy and effects of
licensing (e.g., Hardcastle, 1977; Liles,
2007; Marson, 2006; Miller, Deck, Grise-Owens, & Borders,
2015; Miller, Grise-Owens, & Escobar-
Ratliff, 2015; Seidl, 2000; Thyer, 2000). Bibus (2007) described
licensing in social work as a topic of
“discourse, debate, and some controversy for at least 75 years”
(p. 2).
This article briefly considers where social work has been and
analyzes where it stands today in
terms of professional licensing. The article synthesizes three

prominent themes in the present
discourse on licensing in social work: advocacy and rationale
for licensing, scrutiny and critique
of licensing, and the disconnect and dissonance between
professional licensure and professional
CONTACT Larry W. Owens [email protected] Western
Kentucky University, Department of Social Work, 1906 College
Heights Blvd., #11039, Bowling Green, KY 42101-1039.
© 2016 Council on Social Work Education
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
2016, VOL. 52, NO. S1, S126–S133
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174641
preparation, that is, social work education. Then the article
critically considers implications and
directions for licensing as social work moves into the future.
We suggest recasting social work’s
professional paradigm to more fully use the common framework
of competency.
Themes in the discourse regarding social work licensing
This article does not replicate other articles that document the
history of social work licensing and describe
the details of licensing levels and criteria (e.g., Bibus & Boutté -
Queen, 2011; Boutté-Queen, 2003; Dyeson,
2004; Hardcastle, 1977; Iverson, 1987; Miller, Deck, Grise-
Owens, & Borders, 2015;Miller, Grise-Owens, &
Escobar-Ratliff, 2015; Randall & DeAngelis, 2008). Rather, this
article synthesizes major themes in the
discourse on licensing to provide a context for moving forward
critically and constructively.

Some early discussion about licensing debated its value (e.g.,
Gandy & Raymond, 1979). However,
early proponents, such as Goldsmith (1931) strongly described
licensing as “important and desir-
able” (p. 560). Goldsmith noted that social work could learn
from the evolution of other professions
(such as teaching and nursing) and their adopting regulation on
their path to professionalism. In the
early 1970s, the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW, 1974) issued a policy statement
promoting regulation of social work, that is, licensing.
In social work today, licensing has become a “fixture” (Boutté-
Queen, 2003, p. 166). Currently in
the United States, every state has professional social work
licensing in place, and countries such as
Great Britain, Australia, and Canada also regulate the practice
of social work (Association of Social
Work Boards [ASWB], 2014; Randall & DeAngelis, 2008).
Licensing is administered at the state level
in the United States. The vast majority of the states work with
the ASWB, which develops and
administers licensing examinations.
Even with the ubiquity of licensing, the literature on licensing
and social work remains relatively sparse.
Bibus and Boutté-Queen (2011) concluded, “there are fewer
published articles than expected” (p. 11).
Likewise, these authors and others (e.g., Black & Whelley,
1999; Donaldson, Hill, Ferguson, Fogel, &
Erickson, 2014) specifically noted a paucity of research on
licensing related to social work education. In this
article, we consider what has been written (and not) along with
discussions in professional forums,
conferences for example (Escobar-Ratliff, Miller, & Grise-

Owens, 2014). In the following sections we
consider three overarching themes in the past and present
discourse about licensing.
Advocacy and rationale for licensing
Regulating the profession is viewed by some in social work as a
basic professional obligation for all
social workers. Thus, proponents usually frame licensing as a
necessary commitment and indicator
of professionalism (Colby & Dziegielewski, 2004). Defining
professional parameters and practices,
protecting the general public and providing accountability for
consumers, developing and enhancing
the profession, and gatekeeping for the profession are common
reasons given for the need for and
purpose of licensing (e.g., Deitz & Thompson, 2004; NASW,
1975; Randall & DeAngelis, 2008) As
noted previously, professional bodies such as the NASW (2005)
promote professional licensing as a
means of ensuring professional standards.
Some studies examined the impact of licensing on practice,
including protecting the public.
For example, Boland-Prom (2009) examined sanctions levied by
licensing boards and found that
licensees were most often cited for substandard practice, dual
relationships, and crimes. Boland-
Prom found that licensing boards responded with letters of
reprimand or revocation of the
licenses. Bern-Klug and Sabri (2012) found that social service
directors in their study reported
that licensed social workers needed less on-the-job training
about elder abuse than their non-
licensed counterparts.

Others documented the positive impact of licensing on the
status of practitioners. For example,
Baines (2004) noted that licensing “restored some of the
worker’s sense that their knowledge and skills
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION S127
were valuable” (p. 17) Baines further reported that licensing
“improved social respect [which con-
tributed to] an increased sense of control over their work and
stature in the larger community” (p. 17).
Boutté-Queen (2003) explored barriers to obtaining social work
licensing in Texas, such as the
perceived cost. Other studies have identified cost as a barrier
(Cavazos, 2001; Floyd & Rhodes, 2011).
This perceived cost may be related to perceived benefit
(Escobar-Ratliff, Miller, & Grise-Owens,
2014). As Boutté-Queen (2003) asserted, “If the profession is to
decrease the perception of barriers to
licensure attainment, efforts to educate the general public, those
who oversee social service agencies,
and those seeking a social work education about the benefits of
licensure must continue.” (p. 148)
Boutté-Queen emphasized the need to educate prospective
employers on the value of social work
licensing. And she advocated for social work education to lead
in this educational endeavor.
Scrutiny and critique of licensing
Although some tout the benefits of licensing as an obligation
and essential element of professional social
work, others critique and scrutinize licensing. For example,

some authors have drawn attention to possible
biases (e.g., race, gender) in the licensing examination content
and licensing credentialing expectations
(Boutté-Queen, 2003; Garcia, 1990; Iverson, 1987). Significant
scrutiny is related to the efficacy of licensing.
For example, Hardcastle (1977) harshly criticized licensing,
primarily because of vague standards and
rampant exemptions. Hardcastle declared that “weak legal
regulations” make it worse, rather than
better (p. 19).
Others report preliminary findings that question the impact and
efficacy of licensing. For example, in a
study of BSW-level social workers in Texas, Cavazos (2001)
found no correlation between being licensed
and higher salary or greater employment. Swagler and Harris
(1977) reported similar findings in an
economic analysis of the benefits of licensing.
A few studies look at factors affecting exam scores and related
effectiveness of the exam. Albright
and Thyer (2010) highlighted flaws in the licensing preparation
examinations. Johnson and Huff
(1987) further questioned the effectiveness of the exam. Thyer
(2011) looked at the licensed clinical
social worker pass rates in Florida and considered the
relationship between the Council on Social
Work Education’s (CSWE) accreditation standards and the
ASWB’s task analysis. Thyer noted the
lack of “formal investigations on the extent to which these two
driving forces governing the
profession overlap, supplement, or contradict each other. Such
analyses are long overdue” (p. 300).
Some research further critiqued the licensing exam and ASWB.
For example, Albright and

Thyer’s (2010) study concluded that the ASWB clinical
examination did not offer a valid assessment
of practice. Other works have noted similar concerns (Randall &
Thyer, 1994; Thyer, 2011). In
contrast, Marson, DeAngelis, and Mittal’s (2010) research
found that the social work licensing
examinations (at all levels) were “valid, reliable, and
defensible” (p. 98).
Licensing has been scrutinized by some formicro bias. For
example,Donaldson et al. (2014) critiqued the
“hegemony of clinical social work” (p. 59) and argued for a
social work licensing level related to macro
practice. Donaldson et al. noted that Michigan, Missouri, and
Oklahoma are the only states with such a
designation. They asserted that social work needs to revisit the
issue ofmacro-practice licensing and, indeed,
the idea of inclusive licensing. Citing the deleterious effects of
this lack of an encompassing professional
licensure structure, Donaldson et al. concluded, “Not having
this conversation is no longer an option”
(2014, p. 60).
Disconnect and dissonance between licensing and social work
education
Another key theme in the discourse is the disconnect and
dissonance between licensing as a
professional credential and social work education as the
preparatory process for the profession.
This dissonance is seen most prominently in the debate in social
work education on whether faculty
should be licensed. Similarly, a disconnect is seen in the
relative lack of attention developers of social
work education curricula give to licensing requirements.

S128 E. GRISE-OWENS ET AL.
Whether social work faculty should be licensed is a key topic in
the discourse (e.g., Liles, 2007; Marks &
Knox, 2009; Marson, 2006; Seidl, 2000). The CSWE (2001)
issued an opinion statement that social work
faculty do not need to be licensed. The ASWB (2010) conducted
a comprehensive study of licensing; the
demographic report noted a significantly low number of
licensed individuals whose primary setting is in
academia. Boutté-Queen (2003) noted that many faculty “work
actively to see that licensure does not
become an additional requirement of faculty for a number of
reasons” (p. 148), which include (a) direct
practice services are not part of the job function; (b) burden of
the faculty role in scholarship, teaching, and
service precludes licensing requirements; (c) barriers regarding
eligibility for licensing from state to state;
and (d) accountability to the university and accreditation bodies
supersedes licensing accountability.
However, proponents argue that these reasons fall short,
particularly in the context of broader practice
expectations. These proponents believe that social work
educators should possess this practice credential
(e.g., ASWB, 2012; Marson, 2006; Thyer, 2000). Reasons for
licensing include (a) an ethical obligation to
practice in an area of competence, (b) credibility in the social
work profession at large and in interprofes-
sional contexts, and (c) adequate practice preparation for
instructional roles. Modeling professionalism for
students is another argument for social work educators to be
licensed (e.g., Thyer, 2000). This discrepancy
of faculty promoting licensing while being unlicensed creates

dissonance.
Research findings indicate that students value licensing as a
professional credential and see
licensing as a means for professional advancement, marketing,
credibility, and competence (e.g.,
Bibus & Boutté-Queen, 2011; Miller, Deck, Grise-Owens, &
Borders, 2015; Miller, Grise-Owens, &
Escobar-Ratliff, 2015). Cherry, Rothman, and Skolnik (1989)
reported that students perceive the
licensing exam as “important to the profession and significant
to their future” (p. 268). However,
Cherry et al. found that faculty are unfamiliar with the licensing
examination content and do not
take the examination into account in curriculum development or
classroom teaching. Cherry et al.
concluded that “although recognized as a growing phenomenon
… it [licensing] has had only
minimal impact on schools of teaching” (p. 273). More recent
surveys of students have echoed
similar findings (Miller, Deck, Grise-Owens, & Borders, 2015;
Miller, Grise-Owens, & Escobar-
Ratliff, 2015).
Social work education has largely neglected licensing as a
matter of concern (Bibus & Boutté-
Queen, 2011; Black & Whelley, 1999; Donaldson et al., 2014;
Miller, Deck, Grise-Owens, & Borders,
2015; Miller, Grise-Owens, & Escobar-Ratliff, 2015). Thyer
(2011) characterized social work educa-
tion’s attitude toward licensing as “ambivalence” (p. 297). This
ambivalence contributes to a relative
lack of attention to licensing, which in turn creates a disconnect
between social work education and
professional practice.

This disconnect is even more evident as evolving accreditation
standards call for more accountability.
Increasingly, administrators of schools of social work are
expected to consider licensing factors (e.g.,
number of test takers, pass rates, and so forth) as gauges of
programmatic outcomes and effectiveness
(Thyer, 2011). For example, as part of a volunteer
benchmarking service, the CSWE asks schools to
provide data related to licensing pass rates (deGuzman, 2009).
The growing tendency to use licensing
factors in assessing social work educational programs is
consistent with other professional disciplines
(e.g., nursing, law). Universities and their related constituents
expect this consistent programmatic
evaluation from professional programs (Miller, Deck, Grise-
Owens, & Borders, 2015; Miller, Grise-
Owens, & Ratliff, 2015; Thyer, 2011).
Given the increasing reality of licensing in professional social
work, educational program adminis-
trators need to consider more preparatory initiatives to support
successful licensing (Escobar-Ratliff,
Miller, & Grise-Owens, 2014). The ASWB (2013) has created a
Path to Licensure Initiative to form
partnerships with CSWE-accredited schools of social work to
customize initiatives to “meet their own
teaching needs,” (para. 5) as applied to professional regulation
or licensing. According to the ASWB, the
primary aim of this initiative is to help students make the
transition to professional practice. Preparing
students for professional licensing as part of a social work
curriculum could contribute to addressing the
disconnect between their studies and their professional pr actice
realities (Escobar-Ratliff, Miller, &
Grise-Owens, 2014; Thyer, 2011).

Recommendations and future directions
Having considered three primary themes in the current social
work discourse regarding licensing, where do
we go from here? The following section offers three
recommendations for social work licensing: continued
critical attention and balanced research, engaged
interprofessional interchanges, and improved linkages
between social work education and licensing. These
recommendations promote a recasting of social work
professionalization, using the congruent framework of
competency throughout educational preparation
and ongoing regulation.
Continued critical attention and balanced research priorities
Licensing is a normative aspect of social work practice. The
current challenge and opportunity is to
ensure improved quality and effectiveness of this normative
element. Certainly, continued critique is
needed to achieve this aim. For example, continued scruti ny of
and research regarding the licensing
examination content, process, and parameters are necessary
(e.g., Albright & Thyer, 2010;
Biggerstaff, 1994). Furthermore, continual assessment of biases
in the licensing process and exam-
ination needs to be pursued (e.g., Boutté-Queen, 2003; Garcia,
1990; Iverson, 1987).
Likewise, as the discourse has revealed, continued critique is
needed about which social work roles
should require licensing and what (if any) exemptions should

apply (Boutté-Queen, 2003; Hardcastle, 1977;
Marson, 2006; Seidl, 2000; Thyer, 2000). Similarly, more
research is needed on the impact of licensing on
professional status, performance, andmarketability in all arenas
of social work (e.g., Donaldson et al., 2014).
And, most notably, sustained research should examine the
effectiveness of licensing in meeting its basic
aims, such as protecting the public and ensuring there are
competent professionals in the field (Bibus &
Boutté-Queen, 2011; Thyer, 2011).
Social work education must lead the way in contributing
research on licensing. In particular,
social work education needs to implement licensing preparation
initiatives and evaluate their
effectiveness. This area of research complements the growing
need for accountability measures
that mirror other disciplines and document ongoing
professionalization (Escobar-Ratliff, Miller, &
Grise-Owens, 2014; Marson, 2006; Thyer, 2000)
Engaged interprofessional interchanges
As noted at the beginning of this article, many other disciplines
accept licensing more as a reality of
professional practice. Markedly, other disciplines seem to give
more attention to preparing students
for passing their professional examinations. Social work
education programs may benefit from these
interprofessional comparisons.
For example, Chambers (2004) promoted a portfolio approach to
preparing for dental licensing.
Trujillos (2007) discussed methods for updating the attorney
licensing process, highlighted strategies to
improve bar passage, and delineated steps for law school

administrators to take in their curricula to better
prepare students for the bar examination. Similarly, Lauchner,
Newman, and Britt (2008) described the use
of computerized programs to prepare nursing students for the
licensing examination. Jeffreys (2007)
tracked the progress of nursing students toward licensing;
factors that correlated with success in passing
the examination included a higher grade point average and
fewer course withdrawals.
Another area for increased interchange is interprofessional and
interdisciplinary practice models
for education (Interprofessional Education Collaborative, 2014).
Developments in interprofessional
education inform social work education’s emphasis on
competencies. The Interprofessional
Education Collaborative Expert Panel (2011) developed a set of
core interprofessional competencies.
A congruent focus on competencies translates across
disciplines. These interprofessional compar-
isons have an impact on social work education; likewise, social
work needs more research that
includes a social work perspective in these collaboratives
(Kilgore-Bowing, 2014). Notably, a
competency framework is congruent with professional
regulation and licensing.
Improved linkages between social work education and licensing
Although the scholarship on licensing and social work is
relatively limited, the literature (and gaps
therein) consistently identifies the need for more attention to

the relationship between social work
education and licensing (Bibus & Boutté-Queen, 2011; Black &
Whelley, 1999; Boutté-Queen, 2003;
Cherry et al., 1989; Donaldson et al., 2014; Miller, Deck, Grise-
Owens, & Borders, 2015; Miller,
Grise-Owens, & Escobar-Ratliff, 2015). Flexner’s (1915/2001)
key criticism of social work was the
“lack of specificity” (p. 162) in social work training and
practice. This criticism has continued to
challenge social work, such as the consistent development of
curricula and the efficacy of licensing.
Boutté-Queen (2003) noted social work’s “lack of vision” (p.
148) in clearly defining social work
practice as a deterrent in valuing and promulgating licensing as
a professional credential. Likewise,
Hardcastle (1977) critiqued licensing and social work
education, lamenting, “If those associated with
social work are unable or unwilling to define more precisely the
basic competence, knowledge, and
skills of the profession, the assumption that they can test and
differentiate these appears
dubious” (p. 19).
As Flexner (1915/2001) noted, the definitions of professions
will require “recasting from time to
time” (p. 153). Social work education has recast the
professional training framework. The CSWE
(2015) moved toward a competency-based approach to
curricula, a new approach that provided a
particular opportunity to cast regulation and licensing of the
profession in a new, expansive light.
This competency framework recasts social work’s vision as a
profession with more specifics, that is,
competencies. This recasting means that social work programs
are revamping curricula to reframe
outcomes as evidence of professional competence rather than

measurements of content delivered.
This competency approach is congruent with interprofessional
practice as well as professional
practice regulation’s emphasis on competence. Social work
education’s primary function is to
strengthen the profession of social work (CSWE, 2015).
Therefore, social work education programs
and curricula play a pivotal role in determining the
conceptualization and construction of our
profession. Part of that role could include conceptualizing and
constructing curricula and programs
that prepare graduates for professional licensing. This
preparation should not involve a stunted
approach of teaching to the test. Rather this preparation should
underscore congruency between
social work education and practice expectations. For example,
as noted earlier, programs could
integrate licensing preparation initiatives. Likewise, social work
education could promote improved
efficacy of the licensing examination and ongoing continuing
education requirements.
In this article, we implicitly ask the following questions: What
is lost in the historical
conceptualization of licensing? What can be gained by a more
comprehensive construction of
licensing as the something more for social work? With
increased attention to relevance, account-
ability, and competency in the context of globalization and
interprofessionalism, those of us in
social work must fully claim our professional identity. Social
work education must recast licen-
sing as part of the continuum of professionalization. Social
work education can lead in the
development of a constructive paradigm for promoting

congruence between professional pre-
paration and ongoing professional competency.
Notes on contributors
Erlene Grise-Owens is Professor at Spalding University. Larry
W. Owens is Associate Professor at Western Kentucky
University. Justin Jay Miller is Assistant Professor at
University of Kentucky.
References
Albright, D. L., & Thyer, B. A. (2010). A test of the validity of
the LCSW examination: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Social Work Research, 34, 229–234. doi:10.1093/swr/34.4.229
Association of Social Work Boards. (2012). Model social work
practice act. Retrieved from http://www.aswb.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/Model_law.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/swr/34.4.229
http://www.aswb.org/wp-
http://www.aswb.org/wp-
Association of Social Work Boards. (2013). Path to licensure.
Retrieved from https://www.aswb.org/educators/path/
Association of Social Work Boards. (2014). Social work and
regulation. Retrieved from https://www.aswb.org/public/
social-work-and-regulation/
Baines, D. (2004). Pro-market, non-market: The dual nature of

organizational change in social services delivery.
Critical Social Policy, 24, 5–29.
doi:10.1177/0261018304039679
Baylis, P. J. (2004). Social work’s protracted identity crisis: A
Lacanian perspective. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 11,
55–69. doi:10.1300/J032v11n01_05
Bern-Klug, M., & Sabri, B. (2012). Nursing home social
services directors and elder abuse staff training. Journal of
Gerontological Social Work, 55, 5–20.
doi:10.1080/01634372.2011.626016
Bibus, A. A. (2007). Destination deferred: A report to the
Minnesota Board of Social Work on the exemption from
mandatory licensing for social workers in Minnesota County
Social Services. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/health-
licensing-boards/social-work/resources/bordreports.jsp
Bibus, A. A., & Boutté-Queen, N. M. (2011). Regulating social
work: A primer on licensing practice. Chicago, IL:
Lyceum.
Biggerstaff, M. A. (1994). Evaluating the reliability of oral
examinations for licensure of clinical social workers in
Virginia. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 481–496.
doi:10.1177/104973159400400405
Black, P. N., & Whelley, J. (1999). The social work licensure
exam: Examining the exam through the lens of CSWE
curriculum policy. Arete, 23, 66–76.
Boland-Prom, K. (2009). Results from a national study of social
workers sanctioned by state licensing boards. Social
Work, 54, 351–360. doi:10.1093/sw/54.4.351

Boutté-Queen, N. M. (2003). Identifying barriers to obtaining
social work licensure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Cavazos, A. (2001). Baccalaureate social work licensure: Its
effect on salary and use of job titles. Journal of
Baccalaureate Social Work, 6(2), 69–80.
Chambers, D. W. (2004). Portfolios for determining initial
licensure competency. Journal of the American Dental
Association, 135, 173–184.
doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0149
Cherry, A., Rothman, B., & Skolnik, L. (1989). Licensure as a
dilemma for social work education: Findings of a
national study. Journal of Social Work Education, 25, 268–275.
Colby, I., & Dziegielewski, S. (2004). Introduction to social
work: The people’s profession (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Lyceum.
Council on Social Work Education. (2001). Position statement
on the licensing of social work educators. Washington,
DC: Author.
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy
and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.
cswe.org/File.aspx?id=81660.
Crane, D., Shaw, A., Christenson, J., Larson, J., Harper, J., &
Feinauer, L. (2010). Comparison of the family therapy
educational and experience requirements for licensure or
certification in six mental health disciplines. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 357–373.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.513895

deGuzman, C. M. (2009, October 22). CSWE benchmarking
initiative becomes the first to offer social work education
individualized reports [Press release]. Alexandria, VA: Council
on Social Work Education.
Deitz, C., & Thompson, J. (2004). Rethinking boundaries:
Ethical dilemmas in the social worker-client relationship.
Journal of Progressive Human Services, 15(2), 1–24.
Donaldson, L. P., Hill, K., Ferguson, S., Fogel, S., & Erickson,
C. (2014). Contemporary social work licensure:
Implications for macro social work practice and education.
Social Work, 59, 52–61. doi:10.1093/sw/swt045
Dyeson, T. B. (2004). Social work licensure: A brief history and
description. Home Health Care Management &
Practice, 16, 408–411. doi:10.1177/1084822304264657
Escobar-Ratliff, L., Miller, J., & Grise-Owens, E. (2014,
October). Advancing social work education: Preparing students
for social work licensure. Poster presentation at the Council on
Social Work Education (CSWE) Annual Program
Meeting, Tampa, FL.
Flexner, A. (2001). Is social work a profession? Research on
Social Work Practice, 11(2), 152–165. doi:10.1177/
104973150101100202 (Original work published 1915).
Floyd, M., & Rhodes, D. (2011). Unforeseen implications of
regulation to authenticity in clinical practice. Clinical
Social Work Journal, 39, 308–314. doi:10.1007/s10615-011-
0314-9
Gandy, J., & Raymond, F. (1979). A study of strategies used in
the pursuit of legal regulation of social work. Journal of

Sociology and Social Welfare, 6, 464–476.
Garcia, A. (1990). An examination of the social work
profession’s efforts to achieve legal regulation. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 68, 491–497. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1990.tb01396.x
Glaser, G. (2001). Reflections of a social work practitioner:
Bridging the 19th and 21st centuries. Research on Social
Work Practice, 11, 190–200. doi:10.1177/104973150101100205
Goldsmith, S. A. (1931). Registration of social workers. In
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work
(pp. 551–562). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hardcastle, D. A. (1977). Public regulation of social work.
https://www.aswb.org/educators/path/
https://www.aswb.org/public/social-work-and-regulation/
https://www.aswb.org/public/social-work-and-regulation/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018304039679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J032v11n01%5F05
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.626016
http://mn.gov/health-licensing-boards/social-
work/resources/bordreports.jsp
http://mn.gov/health-licensing-boards/social-
work/resources/bordreports.jsp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973159400400405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/54.4.351
http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2 010.513895

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/swt045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084822304264657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973150101100202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973150101100202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-011-0314-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01396.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973150101100205
Holosko, M., & Leslie, D. R. (2001). Is social work a
profession? The Canadian response. Research on Social Work
Practice, 11, 201–209. doi:10.1177/104973150101100206
Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2014).
Interprofessional education collaborative: Connecting health
profes-
sions for better care. Retrieved from
https://ipecollaborative.org/
Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011).
Core competencies for interpersonal collaborative
practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, DC:
Interprofessional Education Collaborative.
Iverson, R. R. (1987). Licensure: Help or hindrance to women
social workers. Social Casework, 68, 229–233.
Jeffreys, M. R. (2007). Tracking students through program
entry, progression, graduation, and licensure: Assessing
undergraduate nursing student retention and success. Nurse
Education Today, 27, 406–419. doi:10.1016/j.
nedt.2006.07.003
Johnson, D., & Huff, D. (1987). Licensing exams: How valid
are they? Social Work, 32, 159–161.
Johnson, Y. M. (1999). Indirect work: Social work’s

uncelebrated strength. Social Work, 44, 323–334.
doi:10.1093/sw/
44.4.323
Johnson, Y. M. (2008). In response to Patricia McGrath
Morris’s “Reinterpreti ng Abraham Flexner’s speech, ‘Is Social
Work a Profession?’: Its meaning and influence on the field’s
early professional development. Social Service Review,
82, 731–737. doi:10.1086/596564
Kilgore-Bowing (2014, October). Interprofessional education:
Working with the three “E”s—Expectations, egos, and
experiences. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of
the Council on Social Work Education, Tampa, FL.
Lauchner, K. A., Newman, M., & Britt, R. B. (2008). Predicting
licensure success with a computerized comprehensive
nursing exam: The HESI exit exam. Computers in Nursing,
17(3), 120–125.
Liles, R. E. (2007). Response to Licensing social work faculty:
An issue of ethics? Journal of Social Work Values and
Ethics, 4(1), 1–2.
Marks, A., & Knox, K. (2009). Social work regulation and
licensing. In A. Roberts (Ed.), Social workers’ desk reference
(pp. 148–155). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marson, S., DeAngelis, D., & Mittal, N. (2010). The
Association of Social Work Boards’ licensure examinatio ns: A
review of reliability and validity processes. Research on Social
Work Practice, 20, 87–99. doi:10.1177/
1049731509347858
Marson, S. M. (2006). Editorial comment: Licensing of social

Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti

Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti

Similar to Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti (20)

More from GrazynaBroyles24

More from GrazynaBroyles24 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Thinking Like a Social Worker Examining the Meaningof Criti