Knowledge Strategies for making Safeguarding decisions in Social Work

Conference: Bournemouth University, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences

Abstract:

Decision-making within social work remains a contested and complex realm, filled with challenges and intricacies. Although extensively researched, many ambiguities remain, especially surrounding factors influencing individual decision-making processes. The uncertainty that underscores social work decisions reflects the unpredictable nature of human behaviour. Nevertheless, criticisms persist about the inconsistency and occasional bias in social workers' judgments, often overshadowing their many right decisions. In this study, the central focus is to explore the internal reasoning strategies utilised by social workers, particularly when identifying children at risk of immediate harm. The research employed a Decision-Making Exercise and the Thinking Aloud method, administered alongside the Human Value Questionnaire, to capture these strategies. The sample consisted of 24 social workers with experience in safeguarding children, offering diverse insights into their decision-making processes. Understanding the internalised logic of practice behind these decisions holds promise for refining educational training and enhancing decision- support systems through advanced technologies such as machine learning. The research found that the accumulation of information often heightened risk assessments, with key themes present in a case including "parental capacity," "domestic violence," and "mental health" strongly affecting reasoning strategies. Specific case characteristics like drug use, antenatal care, and domestic violence significantly influenced decision-making. Distinct variations were observed between novices, competent practitioners, and experts, especially in their risk evaluations and intervention choices. The research revealed two overarching value dimensions: self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and openness to change vs. conservation, affecting participants' decisions. The participants relied on set protocols and crucial case factors during their decision-making. They prioritised information categorisation and adherence to established procedures, demonstrating a strong inclination towards adhering to the default "child protection" threshold. A closer analysis of participants' argumentative structures emphasised primary blocks like evidence and claims, suggesting room for improvement in argumentative depth. While competent practitioners and experts tended to prioritise evidence from the given data, novices leaned towards warrants to substantiate their claims. A differentiation in focus areas was noted based on participants' value patterns. Those inclined towards conservation prioritised understanding family dynamics, whereas those open to change focused more on factors like abuse. Claims played a pivotal role, often serving as interim judgments that could change with the influx of new information. Although more frequently utilised by novices, Warrants underscored the decision-making complexity, illuminating the thought process behind specific decisions. The limited use of backups, including references to personal experiences and theoretical frameworks, suggests the innate challenges in decision-making. Qualifiers, expressing levels of certainty or the need for additional information, differed significantly among novices, competent practitioners, and experts. In conclusion, even when seemingly straightforward, social work decision-making is complex and affected by different case and decision-maker characteristics. The relative lack of rebuttals across expertise levels underscores contrasting reasoning patterns' challenges. The central takeaway emphasises the necessity of viewing information from varied perspectives to craft informed decisions, underscoring the complexity inherent in social work decision-making processes.

https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/40452/

Source: Manual