Knowledge and Reasoning in Social Work: Educating for Humane Judgement

Organizational and Individual Determinants of Evidence Use by Managers in Public Human Service Organizations

“…Finally, the individual-level factors associated with evidence use-innovation-mindedness and responsiveness to organizational change-highlight the motivational and attitudinal foundations of evidence-informed management practice. These findings also support prior research that suggests that evidence-informed practitioners are able to manage practice-based ambiguity and uncertainty to search for novel alternatives to current frontline and agency practices (Shaw & Faulkner, 2006;Taylor & White, 2006). Our findings suggest the importance of a sense of personal and professional agency as a potential spur for evidence use.…”

“…The complexity of service programming is often compounded by the following factors: (a) incomplete understanding of client needs; (b) lack of clarity regarding best practices to respond to needs and achieve desired outcomes; (c) uncertainty regarding how services are to be implemented to achieve effectiveness; (d) incomplete knowledge of past and current organizational practices and their success or failure; and (e) significant practitioner discretion (Hasenfeld, 2010;Sosin, 2010;Taylor & White, 2006). The portrait that emerges is one of managers using different types of evidence to resolve practice dilemmas and to support frontline and programmatic improvements in service delivery (Shaw & Faulkner, 2006).…”

“…The ability to adapt to changing organizational circumstances is a central aspect of evidence-informed practice in complex human service contexts. Individuals who show a willingness to respond to changing practice settings may be more likely to demonstrate reflexivity, which Taylor and White (2006) defined as the ability to engage in critical self-analysis and which they and others have deemed essential for managerial excellence (Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2008;Schon, 1983). Practitioners who are responsive to change may also have the agency and autonomy to act strategically (Patterson et al, 2009;Sosin, 2010).…”

“…While it is not clear how deeply involved managers were in collaborating with other agency colleagues, most did not seem to be engaged in organized, research-intensive projects. Other research has suggested that practitioners may struggle to collaborate with external researchers due to practitioners viewing academic research as distant from frontline concerns (Shaw & Faulkner, 2006;Taylor & White, 2006).…”

Causal accounts as a consequential device in categorizing mental health and substance abuse problems

“…After Bull and Shaw (1992), professional talk and causal accounts have been explored, for example in relation to risk talk (Keddell 2011), evaluation (Shaw and Shaw 1997), decision making (Taylor and White 2006;Messmer and Hitzler 2011) and client and problem 5 construction Keddell 2011). There is also a wide range of studies concerning people's beliefs and explanations about the causes of illnesses and illness management (Kleinman et al 1978;Furnham and Malik 1994;Gill 1998;Kendall 2003 et al;Gill and Maynard 2006;Lawton et al 2007;Webb 2009;Saunders 2011).…”