This research paper explores how academics construct and teach intuitive reasoning to undergraduate and post graduate students studying to enter Social Work.

As a qualified and experienced Child Protection Social Worker, now working as an academic, I have developed a keen interest in how the habitus and fundamentals of knowledge of Social Work are taught to aspiring students. This paper specifically examines how academics construct and teach intuitive reasoning to their students. According to numerous scholars, intuition is regarded as a “below awareness” method of reasoning information which is then brought to the consciousness, allowing for rapid judgements (Cook, 2014 and Fook, 2012). It is viewed as a pillar of human thought and action, and is a profound aspect of decision making across a range of professional boundaries. Social Workers are uniquely situated at the forefront of working with children, young people and families where there can often be high levels of stress, high risk and profound vulnerabilities. As such, accessing and being taught a broad range of knowledge is critical. Whilst the literature presents convincing theories on methods, approaches, and evidence-based theories for working with individuals, little has been written on how aspiring students are taught to employ System 1 thinking (Kahneman, 2012), ergo intuitive reasoning.

According to literature the work of Social Workers has attracted a significant amount of attention, emphasised by tragic high-profile child death cases, observed across counties and countries. Indeed structural, sociological, and economical changes have resulted in many aspects of Social Work being based on objective, observable facts as “evidence” (Samson, 2015). Furthermore, Social Workers present with a greater level of confidence when they have concrete objective evidence, with many dismissing intuitive cues as improper to “evidence based Social Work” (Sicora, 2010., Sicora et al, 2021 and Ferguson, 2021). This notion has permeated into the teaching on Social Work programmes.  This often brings into question how and what students are taught on their courses and how well they are taught about utilising  intuition. Whilst this may be the case it would be erroneous to suggest that the answer to enhancing the rigor of Social Work decision making lies simply in the teaching of intuition.   

Evidence suggests that Social Workers often feel uneasy about drawing on and listening to intuitive reasoning (Sicora, 2010; Sicora et al, 2021), opting for more analytical reasoning, particularly noticed within Social Work practice (Ferguson, 2021). And yet, access to “more and better information about the problem situation… meaning social workers are more easily able to recognise crucial patterns and critical situations” de Groot (1992). Indeed, Lannello et al. (2011) argue that intuition can enable individuals to overcome the limitations of the simplicity of analytical thinking. Nevertheless key themes emerging from historical Serious Case Reviews and the more recent Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews have continue to demonstrate missed opportunities for professionals to think and act in different ways that may have identified risks earlier on, thus potentially preventing the harm incurred by children (Rawlings et al, 2014). This has brought into question how Social Workers are taught to develop intuition and draw on a range of sources of knowledge from the moment they enrol on their courses.

I report on the findings from phase 2 of the study

There were 2 phases to the collection, with Phase 2 of the study specifically focused on n=18 Social Work academics from 3 different UK Based Universities. Data collection stages of the study consisted of 3 focus groups and 5 interviews. Focus groups (McLaughlin, 2012), provide a unique opportunity to gather large amounts of data, with very little time or financial outlay. They offer the facilitator and participants space to discuss a “specific set of issues” and “encourage theorisation” of ideas and constructs organically. Such an approach enables the construction of concepts based on an individual’s reality (Crotty, 2014). Focus groups,howver can lack the generalisability that one would typically hope to be able to demonstrate (Mclaughlin, 2012). Furthermore, they can often fall prisoner to the insider/outsider dilemma in which roles can be indistinct and cause issue with the reliability and authenticity of the research (Kanuha, 2000). Such a positionality is supported by longstanding views presented by Rose (1985), who asserted that there is no such thing as neutrality. The interviews conducted for this research project were deemed to be unstructured by nature in that they are keen to explore an individual’s perspective, are free flowing and involve a large degree of flexibility (Bryman and Bell, 2016). In contrast structured interviews are much more concerned with measuring and the quantification of the data produced, where the structure is relatively rigid, will follow a prescribed format and are preoccupied with demonstrating reliability. This research project was not concerned with the rigidity often found within quantitative research methods. Therefore, it seemed logical to use unstructured interviews given their free flowing nature and emphasis on being driven by the interests and experiences of the interviewee (Bryman and Bell, 2016). Data from 3 focus groups and 5 interviews were transcribed by the author, verbatim, and then uploaded to Nvivo. Fairclough's model of Critical Discourse Analysis was employed due to its an analysis of power relations and “dialectical relations between discourses and other objects, elements or moments” (p.1) . Indeed Fairclough (2010) argues that CDA is an essential element of any “crucial social analysis” and it offers indications as to which discourses are ideological. All academics were known to the principal researcher and recruited through convenience sampling. Ethical approval was obtained through the University Research Ethics Committee. There are no conflicts of interest noted.

This research concludes that there are several factors that influence and shape the way academics construct and teach intuitive reasoning. There are 4 dominant themes indicating there to be multiple inter-connected factors influencing how academics construct and teach intuition. These are the four distinct discourses to arise from the research: Discourses of the individual Discourses of bias Discourses of system control and measurement Discourses of teaching. This paper concludes that the process by which academics construct and teach their students the concept of intuitive reasoning is a complex and contested one. This paper has implications for those teaching students entering Social Work. Education Institutions should prioritise the teaching of system 1 thinking , intuitive thinking, as much as they do for evidence-based teaching. Reflexivity should be critically important for students and academics. Social Work, specifically, should consider focusing more attention on the co-creation of developing diverse practice and research methods. It is noteworthy, however, that academics must be cautious in employing the teaching of intuitive reasoning for several reasons. Firstly, Intuition is located in the same place as our prejudgments of others, that is within the subconscious mind – so it is automatic (Fook, 2012). Secondly, environment and culture can inhibit intuitive reasoning Bernard et al, (2014). This has certainly emerged from the data sets. Thirdly Kahneman et al, (1982) suggested that intuitive reasoning, unchecked, can result in “large and persistent biases with serious implications for decision-making” (pp.464). Further limitations to this study are concerned with potentially reductionist nature of the study, in so much that the target audience is entirely a UK cultural demographic. Secondly there cannot and must not be a tendency to reduce the issue with developing intuitive reasoning to simply a lack of high-quality training. There may well be other explanations not yet fully appreciated.

De Groot, A. D. (1992). Intuition as a dispositional concept. Heymans Bulletins Psychologish Instituut R. U. Groningen, HB-92-1055-EX. Fairclough, N. (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of Language. London: Routledge Ferguson, H.(2018)How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don’t: the possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work,Social Work Education, 37, 4,415-427. Ferguson, H. (2021). The death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes raises hard questions – we must address them all . Accessed 25 June 2022 at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/03/the-death-of-arthur-labinjo-hughes-raises-difficult-questions-we-must-address-them-all] Fook, J. (2010). Social Work: A Critical Approach To Practice. SAGE: New York Isenman, L. (2018) Understanding Intuition: A Journey in and Out of Science Academic Press: London Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lannello, P. Colombo, B., Germagnoli, S. and Antoniettei, A. (2011). Enhancing intuition in problem solving through problem finding. Edward Elgar : New York Samson, P. (2015) Practice wisdom: the art and science of social work, Journal of Social Work Practice, 29:2, 119-131, DOI: 10.1080/02650533.2014.922058 Rawlings, A. Paliokosta, P. Maiesy, D. Johnson J. Capstick, J and Jones, R. (2014). A study to investigate the barriers to learning from Serious Case Reviews and Identify ways of overcoming these barriers. Department for Education : London Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith. Sicora (2010). Self-evaluation of social work practice through reflection on professional mistakes. Practice makes “perfect”?. Revista de Asistenta Sociala, 4,4,153-164 Sicora, A., Taylor, B., Alfandari, R., Enosh, G., Helm, D., Killick, C., Lyons, O., Mullineux, J., Przeperski, J., Rölver, M., & Whittaker, A. (2021).Using intuition in social work decision making.European Journal of Social Work,24 5, 772-787 Thompson, N. (2017). Theorising practice. 2nd Ed. Palgrave Macmillan.