Practitioners as Rule Using Analysts: A Further Development of Process Knowledge in Social Work

Correspondence to Professor Michael Sheppard, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK. E-mail M.Sheppard{at}plymouth.ac.uk Summary A new paradigm of ‘process knowledge’ has emergedin recent years, distinct from the dominant ‘product knowledge’paradigm in social work. While the latter refers to existentknowledge, which may be applied, the former refers to the developmentof knowledge about the ‘methodology of practice decisionmaking’, focusing on the processes by which judgementsare made. At its heart is the emerging idea of a reflexivityfor practice, but studies have been, until recently, theoretical.A very small number of empirical studies have begun to identifysome key elements of process knowledge. These have developeda range of concepts relating to critical appraisal, hypothesisdevelopment and hypothesis testing which characterize socialwork process knowledge. These include, for example, focusedattention, querying information, causal inferences, partialcase, procedural, and speculative hypotheses. A process of quasitriangulation is characteristic of social work practice methodology,together with a combination of inductive and deductive thinking.This paper seeks to develop our understanding by focusing onhow social workers develop and appraise hypotheses, and in particularhow the substantive content of hypotheses emerges (these enablesocial workers to make sense of, define, and respond to, situations).To understand this, the notion of rules is used, and socialworkers emerge as analysts employing three types of rules: substantive,application, and practice rules. A significant link betweenprocess knowledge and the content of product knowledge is identifiedin the form of technical language. The concept of ‘probabilisticcausation’ is identified as a key epistemological dimensionin the conduct of rigorous practice.