Critical Reflection to Identify Gaps between
Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use
Riki Savaya and Fiona Gardner
Cridcal reflecdon (CR) is a process by which one may idendfy the assumpdons goveming
one's actions, question them, and develop alternative behaviors. This article presents two
cases that demonstrate the use of CR to raise social worken' awareness of gaps between
what Schon and Argryis term social workers' "espoused theories" and the "theories-inuse" that actuaUy guide social workers' practice and to help them to develop more effective models of practice based on the understanding they gain. With this, the cases also
show that C R can be a painful, even wrenching, process, in which practidoners con&ont
previously unacknowledged qualities or tendencies in themselves that can evoke strong
feelings.
KEY WORDS; critical reflection; decision making; dilemmas; practitioners
S
ocial work is a profession strongly anchored
in Western humanistic values. These values
emphasize the worth, autonomy, and right
to self-determination of the cUents (Banks, 1995,
2004; Clark, 2006; Pierson, 2002; Reamer, 2006).
Social work education devotes considerable
energy to socializing professionals in these values.
National and intemational codes of ethics articulate and reinforce them (Hugnian, 2008). Yet it is
widely recognized that personal values, preferences, attitudes, and beliefs, which may or may not
differ from the professional values, affect social
workers' practice and decisions (Higgs & Titchen,
2001; Park, 2005; Yan, 2008). Scholars have repeatedly expressed concern that the intrusion of
these personal elements into social work practice
may lead to bias and errors in judgment and decisions that impair the effectiveness of interventions
(Arad-Davidzon & Benbenishty, 2008; Gambrill,
2005). In consequence, writen have emphasized
the need for social workers to be aware of the
values they bring to their work and the ways these
values influence it (Baldwin, 2004; Yan & Wong,
2005).
The call for awareness rests in the understanding that people are often unaware of the values
that underlie and guide their behavion. This understanding was elaborated by Argyris and Schon
(1974) in their concept of two theories. The
authors maintained that people's deliberated
actions are not happenstance, but guided by the
doi: 10.1093/SW/SWS037
O 2012 National Association of Social Workers
theories of action they hold. The authors named
and discussed two types of theory: espoused
theory and theory-in-use. Espoused theory refen to
the worldview and values that people believe
guide their behaviors. Theory-in-use refers to the
worldview and values reflected in the behaviors
that actuaUy drive their actions. As the authors
pointed out, few people are aware of their
theories-in-use or that these are not always the
same as the theories they espouse. One example
they gave is of a business consultant whose espoused theory was cooperative problem solving
with his clients. A recording of an encounter with
a client, however, revealed him promoting his
own point of view and dismissing the client's,
suggesting that his theory-in-use was promoting
his own ideas. Argyris and Schon (1974) further
pointed out that if people are unaware of the
theories-in-use that drive their acdons, they
cannot effectively manage their behavioR, which
may, as a result, have unintended—and undesired
—consequences.
Social worken who find that their strategies are
ineffective or result in undesirable outcomes often
change their strategies; Argyris (1974) pointed out
that most people do the same but argued that
changes that are restricted to strategies and do not
include the values that drive them are rarely effective. According to Argyris (1974), the most effective way of making infonned decisions is to
examine and change one's goveming values.
145
To this end, learning is required. One must
learn what values and behefs actually guide one's
actions (theories-in-use) and how they differ fi'om
the values one espouses (espoused theories). Such
learning may be accomphshed in various ways.
Among them are professional supervision and detailed self-documentation and analysis of one's
actions. Another way is through critical reflection
(CR) (Fook & Gardner, 2007). This article demonstrates, through the presentation of two cases,
the use of CR to raise social workers' awareness
of their theories-in-use and to help them to formulate more effective intervention strategies based
on what they learned from their reflection.
CR AND CRITICAL INCIDENTS
CR is a process by which one may identify the
assumptions governing one's actions, question
them, and develop alternative ways of acting
(Cranton, 1996). It creates new undentandings by
making conscious the values and assumptions
behind one's actions (Brookfidd, 1995; Ecclestone, 1996; Mackintosh, 1998X As discussed in
this article, it can be used as a v^ay of identifying
the
disparities between
a professional's
theories-in-use and espoused theories. Over the
past two decades, CR has been increasingly promoted across the helping professions as a way of
fostering active exploration of ptactice issues and
improved practice skills (Gould & Baldwin, 2004;
Redmond, 2004; White, Fook, & Gardner,
2006), particularly given the degiee of uncertainty
and complexity of social werk interventions
(Taylor & White, 2000). Fook and Askeland's
(2006) analysis of evaluation data: from CR workshops suggested that the process encourages
awareness of hidden assumptions; recognition of
how one's thinking may be restrictive and thus
limit one's options for practice and, in consequence, changed professional practice and
identity.
CR training for students and professionals is
often based on analysis of a ":ritical incident"
(Fook ÔC Gardner, 2007; Francis, 1997). The critical incident (CI) technique was first introduced as
a research tool by Flanagan (1954), who valued it
as a systematic way of collecting and codifying
human activity. In the process cf CR used here,
people are asked to bring an experience that they
view as significant to them. In the first stage of
the process, the assumptions and values that drive
146
a person's actions, feeHngs, and thinking are identified. Often at this stage, the gaps between the
person's espoused theory and theory-in-use
emerge. The second stage is devoted to reconstruction—that is, the exploration of alternative
behaviors that are congruent with the person's
preferred values and assumptions. This might
entail changing the espoused theory to fit the
theory-in-use, or vice versa.
Although CR can be done alone or in pairs
(for example, in supervision), it is recommended
as a group process. A group has the advantages of
creating a sense of shared experiences and learning, providing a variety of inputs and perspectives,
and allowing people to learn from their similar
and different experiences and reactions. The one
caveat is that it is essential that the group provide a
supportive environment in which participants feel
able to be honest about feelings, beliefs, assumptions, and actions they may find embarrassing or
regret.
THE COURSE AND ASSIGNMENT
The cases described here derive from a classroom
assignment in CR for social workers enrolled in
the MSW program at a social work school in
Israel. In keeping with the program's admission
requirements, all the students were hcensed social
workers with at least two years of field
experience.
The course in CR was mandatory in the first
year of the two-year MSW program. It was designed to enable the participants to do their jobs
more effectively under the difficult conditions that
characterize social work practice by helping them
to better understand how they operate and the assumptions, values, and beliefs that guide their professional conduct.
CIS from Practice
At the beginning of the course, the students were
asked to describe in writing a CI (Fook &
Gardner, 2007), defined as any incident or event
in their practice that was meaningful to them.
The students were told that the incident need not
be an emergency or crisis, but could be an ordinary, everyday event that was meaningful to them
and that they would like to better understand.
The incident, they were told, could be meaningful for any number of reasons—for example, that
it was a turning point in their practice, helped
Social Work
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2
APRIL Z O U
them understand something new, frustrated or
upset them, and so on. The only limitations were
that the incident be one that the students beUeved
they could learn from and that they felt comfortable sharing with the class.
The instructions on writing up the incident
were that the account should include the foUowing: a brief, focused, and factual account of the
event itself; a brief description of the context and
background of the event; an account of the
writer's own behaviors, feeUngs, and thoughts;
and an explanation of why the event was meaningful to the writer. Each student submitted one
CI. Of the approximately 200 events that were
submitted, about two-thirds involved conflicts
•with cUents or their famiUes; the other third involved conflicts •with coUeagues or the agency.
Almost all of them were highly upsetting to the
writer.
The first four sessions of the course were
devoted to the presentation of the theory and
practice of CR, including reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical social theory as weU as the
concepts espoused theory and theory-in-use. The
students •were then divided into small groups, and
each group selected for analysis a CI written by
one of its members.
Over the semester, the selected events were analyzed in both the small-group format and by the
class as a whole. In addition to being encouraged
to explore the events from multiple perspectives
(for example, power, gender, latent motives), the
participants were instructed to identify the values
and assumptions underlying their actions
(theory-in-use) and how weU these accorded with
their espoused theories.
Toward the end of the course, each smaU
group was required to present a paper demonstrating the understandings group members' had
gained. The instructions •were as foUows:
• Identify the assumptions, values, and beUefs
(for example, espoused theory) that guided
the actions of the writer of the incident analyzed, in comparison with the theory that is
reflected in the writer's behavior in the event
(for example, theory-in-use).
• Identify the action strategies the writer used
in the incident.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies in
attaining the desired aims.
Based on the understanding obtained from
the analysis, propose a new model of practice
that uses more effective action strategies.
THE CASES
The two cases presented here are based on the
earUer described assignment. They were chosen
out of 60 CRs obtained from six classes over a
three-year period. They were chosen for their
fuUness, clarity, and depth of analysis and for the
difference in the central problem that emerged in
each. The wide gap found between espoused
theory and theory-in-use in both cases, however,
is typical of all the analyzed incidents.
Before preparing the cases for this article, Riki
Savaya obtained the two students' permission to
use their CIs and the written analyses for the
article. The first draft of the manuscript •was given
to the students for feedback. Both reported that
the processes described accurately reflected their
experience. Neither offered any objections.
Rather, they emphasized what they had learned
through the CR and the professional growth that
ensued from it. To maintain their privacy, pseudonyms were used and identifying information
omitted or changed.
Each case consists of a brief description of the
CI, an account of the espoused theory and
theory-in-use identified through the CR on the
CI, and the alternative model of intervention the
students developed. Each also includes what the
student •whose CI was analyzed said she learned
from the process.
Case1
The Event. Maya was employed as a social worker
at a residential facüity for children at risk. As part
of her duties, she participated in discussions on
parents' requests to take their children home. Her
described incident concerned a mother whose
four children—ages seven, nine, 11, and 12—
were in the facüity for the third year. Maya was
the case manager. The mother had been twice divorced from the children's father. Over the years,
she had frequendy changed her partners, place of
residence, and employment. At the time of the
incident, she was U^ving with both the children's
father and her new husband. Her request was to
take her two youngest children—who, she felt,
needed her most—home.
SAVAYA AND GARDNER / Critical Reflection to Identify Gaps between Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use
147
Seven professionals participated in the formal
discussion on the request, five -employees of the
residential facility and the other rwo from the municipal social welfare bureau. E'uting the discussion, the mother ctied bitterly and begged the
social workers to return at least .her youngest son.
She promised to take good care of him and to
compensate him for all the yean, she was not with
him. Although the professionals had tears in their
eyes, they informed her that they would not recommend returning her children' and that they expected her to understand their decision and to
relay it to her children.
Although Maya believed there were good
grounds for returning the youngest child home,
she ttied to persuade the mother that the boy's
best interests would be served by his remaining in
the facility. She left the meetir^ highly upset by
her behavior. She believed thai: the decision had
actually been made before the meeting; that she
had joined the others in imposing their views on
the mother; and that they hac all behaved in a
patronizing, elitist manner. Especially upsetting
was that this was not the first time she had found
herself torn between a parent and her colleagues.
The discussion made her feel that even though
social work is a profession that holds understanding, empathy, and tolerance as core values, it
treats its chents in a dismissive, patronizing, and
arrogant way.
CR on the Incident. Espoused theory: Beginning the CR, Maya presented a Hst of her espoused values. These values pertained to the
chent, the agency, the decision-making process,
and the social worker's role in society. With
respect to the client, her espoused values were
client centeredness, advocacy, and nonjudgmental
partnership. As she put it:
• The needs of the client should be placed
above the needs of the worker and the
agency.
• The social worker's task is to protect the interests of the client, to help clients obtain
their tights, and to ensurs their voices are
heard.
• Belief in the clients' abilities and respect for
the chent as she or he is.
• Partnership and avoidance of paternalism and
judgmentalism.
148
Vis-à-vis the agency, the espoused values she
named were "nonconformist thinking and adherence to penonal and professional values" and
"standing up for one's ptinciples and expressing
one's views to one's colleagues and agency."
Regarding the decision-making process, Maya
stated that she believed that she should "adopt a
systemic approach, viewing the clients within the
entire context in which they live," "use evidencebased knowledge rather than intuition," and
"treat mothers and fathers equally." She saw
herself as a social worker who would make her
decisions professionally, on the basis of her professional judgment.
With respect to the social worker's role in
society, Maya wrote that she beheved that the
social worker should be "an agent of change."
Theory-in-use: Analyzing the incident, Maya
and her group identified a theory-in-use that was
the opposite in every respect of her espoused
theory. Its basic components were conformity and
self-protection. As the group came to understand,
Maya's otientation and loyalty were to the organization, not the client, and her behavior conformist. She refrained from expressing her opinion
where it was contrary to that of her colleagues
and exhibited none of the assertiveness that she
espoused as a value.
They realized that by keeping silent, Maya
failed to protect her client's interests, did not help
her client to make her voice heard, and did not
partner with her chent. Through her suence and
passivity, Maya took part in the organizational
process that deptived the mother of a genuine
forum for her request, that sidelined the mother's
emotions, and that treated the mother judgmentaUy and patemalistically. Through the same
silence and passivity, Maya brought neither a systemic perspective nor evidence-based knowledge
to bear on the case. She, in fact, forfeited any
input into the decision-making process and any
possibility of being an agent of change.
In addition to observing the aforementioned
dispatities between Maya's espoused values and
theory-in-use, the group identified the unequal
power relations between the mother and the
social workers. They highlighted the fact that the
decision had already been taken before the
meeting with the mother and suggested that the
ease with which it was taken against the mother's
wOl reflected the prevailing, albeit unstated.
Social Work
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2
APRIL 2012
conception that out-of-home placement is the
best solution for children at risk. They pointed
out that the mother arrived at the meeting as a
lone woman, without the father, and had to face
a group of women, mothers like herself, who
were presumably successful, where she could be
viewed as having failed. Both factors, they
pointed out, disempowered the mother.
Maya came to understand not only the disparities in her two theories, but also that the conformity that was at the heart of her theory-in-use
stemmed from the great difficulty she experienced
in expressing her opinions when they differed
from those ofthe majority of her colleagues.
Alternative Model of Practice. The alternative
model of practice that Maya and the group developed was created to help social workers who, like
Maya, find it difficult to voice and stand up for
their views when they are in a minority. Its aim
was to enable such social workers to make an
impact on the decisions taken in their places of
work despite their apprehensions. Because the difficulty these social workers' experience is most
acute during formal discussion of a decision, the
model concentrates on the phases that precede
and follow such discussion.
The prediscussion phase consists of preparation
within the service and preparation with the client.
Preparation within the service entails four
activities:
1. Initiating a brainstorming session among the
service staff, without external participants, to
discuss their views and propose a variety of
possible responses. Such a session may allow
free expression of ideas, as no outsiders are
present to inhibit discussion, no decision
must be made, and brainstorming encourages uninhibited thinking.
2. Consulting with the service head or supervisor to reduce the unknowns that crop up
at the formal discussion and, if possible, to
coordinate positions.
3. Forming a coalition, by identifying potential
supporters and opponents and trying to mobUize the supporters to persuade the
opponents.
4. Writing a memo to colleagues presenting
service staffs own position before the formal
discussion.
Preparation
activities:
with
the
client
entails
two
1. Preparing the cUent for the upcoming discussion by sketching the possible scenarios
and by having him or her role-play his or
her responses to undesired scenarios.
2. Helping the client to write a letter to the
discussants presenting his or her position.
Such a letter enables a client to articulate his
or her position before the formal discussion
in a calm, unthreatening atmosphere. It may
also prepare the client to voice and support
his or her position during the discussion.
This is especially recommended for clients
who may be intimidated and lose their
voice in a formal forum or who may be so
overcome by their feelings they have an
outbunt of anger that makes them seem out
of control and alienates the discussants.
The prediscussion preparations have a number
of benefits for the social worker. They may reduce
the uncertainty that awaits the social worker who
comes into the formal meeting without knowing
his or her colleagues' positions. They may enable
the social worker to better meet their objections
and to present his or her own views in an organized, controlled way. The preparations may
reduce the social worker's anxiety about expressing
a minority view and better enable him or her to
suggest temporary solutions that wiU satisfy both
parties. For example, in this case, the group suggested that the children could be aUov/ed home
one night a week, which would meet the
mother's request in part while enabling the professional staff to observe the mother's parental competence and consider a longer tenn return.
The postdiscussion phase consists of three
activities:
1. Debriefing the client, especially where a decision is unfavorable, to help him or her to
take in the decision and to express his or her
thoughts and feelings about the process and
outcomes.
2. Bringing the client's thoughts and feelings
to the staff.
3. If the social worker disagrees with the decision, writing a memo to the discussants
summarizing the discussion and stating his
SAVAYA AND GARDNER / Critical Reflection to Identify Gaps between Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use
149
or her own and the client's thoughts and
feelings on the matter. Such a memo can be
used as background material for a staff discussion, and may also influence the next decision on the client.
Case 2
The Event. Irit was employed as a social worker
in a school for students with serious cognitive impairment. The event concemed a former student
with whom Irit had had an exceUent relationship
for five years and who was stil under her care
after she graduated. When the girl, at age 18,
found herself pregnant and uncertain who the
father was, she asked Irit for help with terminating
the pregnancy.
Irit was eager to assist. As Iri; presented it, the
girl came from a dysfunctional kome, which provided no model of good paren:ing or any likelihood of help inraisingthe child. The girl's father
had been an alcohoHc and violent and died when
she was five. Her mother was preoccupied and
barely took care of her own children. Her older
brother was a criminal, and her younger brother
had severe emotional and behavioral problems.
The girl herself suffered from emotional and functioning problems. As Irit saw it, she was not
capable ofraisinga child. Irit's v:ew was supported
by the agency, which similarly regarded the termination of the pregnancy as th: desired outcome
of the intervention.
On the day of the incident, Irit was supposed
to accompany the girl to the local hospital to
discuss the abortion with the conimittee in charge
of authorizing it. The girl came to her office and
informed her that she didn't fed like meedng the
committee and had made plar:s to go shopping
with a friend instead. She had already missed two
previous appointments. If she ndssed this one, her
pregnancy would be too advanced to terminate.
Faced with the girl's refusal, Irit felt enormous
emotional pressure: "I felt thit everything was
falling apart. It was clear to me that the girl was
incapable of being a mother at this point in her
Ufe, if ever. I felt a strong moral obligation to
prevent the birth of a baby that -would be bom to
a terrible Ufe, Uke she and her brothen had."
Thus driven, Irit made repea-ed efforts to convince the girl to keep the ippointment. She
pointed out the tremendous responsibiUty of
150
raising a child and told her that she would not be
able to continue sleeping tiU noon, as she did, or
hanging out with her friends aU hours of the
night. She told the girl that she would have to
work to support the chud; asked her where she
and the child would live; and emphasized that she
did not know who the father was, that she would
have no one to help her, and that she would min
her life. As the girl rejected one argument after
the other with the simple statement that she did
not feel Uke appearing before the committee, Irit
became increasingly angry. FinaUy, she threatened
to report the girl to the welfare services so that
they could monitor her behavior and even take
the baby firom her. The girl became enraged;
caUed Irit and aU other social workers "whores"
who pretended to help but did not; and stormed
out of the room, slamming the door.
CR on the Incident. Espoused values: Irit's espoused values, as she related them to the group,
were highly ideaUstic. She said that she had
chosen to be a social worker for ideological
reasons connected with her humanistic worldview
and out of a desire to contribute to reducing
social gaps and helping everyone, whoever they
were, to actuaUze their rights, which, for her, included the rights to respect and to equal opportunity, and the rights of every woman to be a
mother and of every child to unconditional love.
She said that, moved by the social consciousness
and activism on which she had been raised, she
worked tirelessly to help her clients attain those
rights.
At the same time, Irit also declared an additional espoused value: excellence in motherhood. To
be a mother, Irit beUeved, one had to have maturity, responsibiUty, and unconditional giving as
weU as a measure of emodonal support and financial security. When these were absent, she beUeved, there was no parental competence, and an
abortion was a legitimate and proper act.
Theory-in-use: The group identified a
theory-in-use featuring three values. Thefirstwas
the same exceUence in motherhood that Irit
openly espoused. Irit recognized her emphasis on
exceUence as a penonal value on which she had
been raised. But her beUefs about who was and
who wasn't competent to be a mother, and her
conviction that her troubled adolescent cUent was
not, were essentially shared by the agency, which
encouraged her to pursue the abortion. The
Social Work
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2
APRIL 2012
second value was success, another personal value
that Irit attributed to her upbringing. Idt was
driven by the need to succeed, which, in this
case, she defined as helping her chent to terminate
her pregnancy. She directed all her efforts to that
end, and when it became clear that the client
would not have an abortion, she felt that she had
failed. The third value was paternalism. Idt was
convinced that she knew what was best for the
girl and how to lead her to improve her life. She
was so intent on "success" and so convinced that
an abortion was right for her chent that she
allowed the chent no space to express the ambivalence and anxieties that the prospect of an abortion could have been expected to evoke.
In the course of the reflection, Irit came to
realize both the contradiction within her espoused
values and the disparities between her espoused
values and those that actually guided her actions.
She realized that her strongly held conviction that
only those who met certain standards were competent to be mothers conflicted with her declared
behef that every woman had the right to be a
mother. She realized that her paternalism did not
accord with her declared belief that clients were
able and entitled to make their own decisions and
lead their own Uves. She realized that she did not
act with humanism toward her young client, but
was judgmental and unempathic.
She also came to realize two other outcomes of
her theory-in-use. One was that, with her behefs
about excellence in motherhood, she saw in her
mind's eye only the presumed fate of the unborn
chud and not the ambivalence and fear of the
pregnant girl. In effect, she related to the child,
rather than the girl, as her chent. The other was
that her need for success was such that when the
girl would not have an abortion, she felt utterly
helpless and enraged.
Irit described the CR as a difficult experience
that shed hght on dark comers within henelf—
her driving need for success, her judgmentalness,
and her patemahsm and lack of empathy—which
she had chosen not to look at until then. In particular, she emphasized that the process made her
aware of how much her behavior, in many areas
of her hfe, was driven by the need to succeed and
how enraged she became when success eluded
her.
It was much more difficult for this group than
the previous one to devise an alternative model of
practice. They expressed skepticism that social
workers on their own can be aware of the values
and emotions that drive them. The enormous
emotional demands of the work, the burnout that
many of them experience, and the absence of organizational support and adequate supervision to
help them cope with the heavy emotional burden
attendant on the difficult work leave httle room
for social workers to look into themselves and
monitor their conduct. They also pointed out that
the patemahsm that characterized Irit's approach is
endemic in the profession.
In the end, to meet the requirements of the exercise, they offered two suggestions aimed at facilitating more empathie, more containing, and less
one-sided and coercive intervention. The first was
regular supervision that would enable social
workers to express and examine their values and
emotions and to deal with the many dimensions
of complex cases. The second was an "intersubjective model" of practice, characterized by reciprocity and partnenhip between worker and
chent and by the worker's hstening to what the
client is saying at a deeper level. By definition,
this model would emphasize not only the exploration of a range of possible outcomes, but also
the process by which an outcome is decided.
However, both alternatives would have been
challenging to achieve in the current context in
Israel. Quality supervision may not be available: It
is not in a worker's power to bring it into an
agency, and social worken' low salaries cannot be
expected to cover private supervision. However,
the experience in the group might have encouraged the development of peer supervision or
workers meeting in pain for mutual CR (Fook &
Gardner, 2007). The intersubjective model
implies the group's recognition of the importance
of affirming the values of the profession and the
desire to move toward them. However, it embodies the same espoused values that Irit, like many
worken, have trouble acting on in the first place.
It may be that work needs to be done at an
agency level to achieve such change.
DISCUSSION
The cases presented in this article demonstrate the
potential of CR to raise workers' awareness of the
gap between their espoused theories and their
theories-in-use and, on the basis of their newly
gained awareness, to develop alternative strategies
SAVAYA AND GARDNER / Critical Reflection to Identify Gaps between Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use
151
judgmental or a group's lack of sympathy brings
and approaches. As Argyris aad Schon (1974)
out the practitioner's defensiveness, and each can
pointed out, this awareness is important because
then reinforce and intensify the other's unproducof the undesired consequence: that may ensue
tive behavior. This suggests the need for careful
from acting on a theory-in-use of which one is
modeling of the process; ideaUy, there would be
unaware. The strong feeUngs of failure, helplesssufficient staffing to be able to provide skilled and
ness, and frustration that the social worken in
experienced facilitation for groups learning the
both cases experienced as a result of their actions,
process.
driven by their underlying tbeories-in-use, are
Even when the necessary concUtions do prevail
testimony to the validity of Atgyris and Schon's
and enable identification of the gaps between the
claims, as are the distress, anger, and helplessness
two theories, it may stul be extremely difficult to
of their cUents. The ability of CR to foster the
develop a workable alternative. Although in both
recognition of these underlying tensions and the
groups presented earUer, the CR raised awareness
development of alternative strategies is obviously
of the gaps, only one group was able to formulate
important to the promotion DÍ more effective
a workable alternative model of practice. It
practice.
cannot be ruled out that this difference stemmed
That said, neither of these aims of CR is easy
from a difference in the inteUectual capacity and
to attain. The present cases show that CR can be
creative thinking of the two groups. The more
a painful, wrenching process in which practitionUkely reason, we suggest, is the problem the alterers confront pre^viously unacknowledged qualities
native model had to address.
or tendencies in themselves (fon example, conforCoincidentaUy, the two CIs both involved a
mity, patemaUsm) that they regard as undesirable
similar issue: the complex, emotionaUy charged,
and that can evoke strong feeUngs of guut, shame,
and extremely high-stakes dUemnia in social work
and inadequacy. Not all peopJe who engage in
practice of the good of the parent versus the good
CR are capable of coping with the process. Not
of the chud. The cases differed, however, in how
aU are open to looking into themselves, ready to
the practitioners experienced this dilemma and,
hear what others observe about their behavior, or
thus, in what was required of the alternative
•wilUng and able to acknowledge and confront
model of practice.
what they view as undesirable qualities in themIn the first case, the worker beUeved in the
selves. These obstacles are especially likely to arise
mother's parental capacity, whereas her colleagues
in a class setting, where participationis mandatory,
but they can arise in voluntary settings as weU. In did not. There was thus no conflict in her mind
between the good of the mother and the good of
both cases presented here, the rocial workers had
the chud. Her problem was that her theory-in-use
the maturity and emotional se;urity to confront
—which prioritized the value of conformity—had
their theories-in-use and the gap between those
and their espoused theories. They also had the kept her from adequately coping with her colleagues' opposing views. The altemative model the
benefit of sympathetic and supportive groups.
group developed was designed to enable her to act
Both these conditions—emotional maturity and
security on the part of the person doing the re- on her espoused theory, on the basis of the values
of the profession, despite her tendency to conforflection and supportiveness of the group—are esmity. It did this by providing strategies to help her
sential to the process.
assert herself in face of her colleagues' opposing
These conditions do not always prevail. In our
opinions, which her confomiity had made difficult.
experience of teaching this subject, we have had
In the second case, in which the worker did
students and professionals who clammed up, renot believe that her teenage cUent would be able
jected aU observations that they regarded as negato care for her chüd-to-be, two different types of
tive, fortified themselves in their espoused
gaps emerged. One was between the worker's
theories, and spent their energies defending their
espoused cUent centeredness (for example, the
conduct, even though it brought neither them
right of clients to respect, equal opportunity, and
nor their cUents satisfactory results. We have also
motherhood) and her implicit values of success
seen groups who were unsympathetic and judgand patemaUsm, which drove her to behave in a
mental. A vicious circle can develop in which a
practitioner's defensiveness spurs a group to be judgmental, unempathic manner. This is the type
152
Social Work
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2
APRIL 2012
of gap that CR was designed to uncover and
address. The other type was between two
espoused values: client centeredness and what the
worker termed "excellence in motherhood,"
which can also be conceptualized as the tights or
well-being of the child. The two types of gaps are
fundamentally different.
Without saying so explicitly, Argytis and Schon
(1974) strongly imphed that espoused values or
theoties are preferable to the imphcit values or
theoties of which we are often unaware—that the
espoused values are the tight values and the implicit values the wrong ones. The alternative
model of practice that is supposed to be developed from the CR is meant to replace, circumvent, or mitigate the influence of the infetior
implicit values. The clash of two espoused values,
in contrast, is a clash of equal goods. One cannot
honesdy assert that the tight of a troubled teenage
chent to actualize her desire for motherhood is to
be preferred to the tight of the chüd-to-be to unconditional love and competent parenting. Such a
clash poses a moral and ethical dilemma, which
may not be in the power of an alternative model
of practice to resolve.
The models of practice the group proposed in
the second case focused solely on enabUng the
practitioner to meet the client's needs by removing or controlling what they saw as the impediments to practice within the practitioner: her
belief in excellence, her need for success, and
her resulting paternalism. At a later date, after
she had been able to absorb and internalize
what she had learned about herself in the CR
process, the practitioner was able to apply the
understandings she had attained. As she informed
us when we asked her permission to publish her
case, she continued to work on henelf She
consciously chose to keep in check the value
she places on excellence and success and to carefully monitor her behavior toward her clients for
signs of patemahsm. At no point in the process,
however, did the group address the morality of
the issue. They ptiotitized the needs of the
client not only over the practitioner's personal
values, but also over the tights of the unborn
child and the obligation of social workers to
protect the weak and the helpless. The difficulty
that the group had in formulating an alternative
model of practice on the basis of CR suggests
that the inward-looking direction of CR needs
to be balanced or accompanied by an outwardlooking perspective as well.
In this connection, we would like to note the
observations of Clark (2006) that the social work
code sometimes places social worken in a position
where they feel compelled to act in ways at odds
not only with their personal values, but with "the
regular perceptions of reasonable people"
(Gibson, 2003, p. 23). Social work, Clark (2006)
argued,
is about helping people in particular personal
and social and cultural circumstance[s] ...not
an exercise in the articulation of tights and
duties in the abstract. Social workers and their
agencies cannot in practice escape setting standards of the good or adequate life, even if
they wished to do so. (p. 79)
Failure to fuHUl the proper moral expectations,
Clark (2006) added, "amounts to derehct or unethical practice" (p. 80).
The two cases presented earlier illustrate the
potential of CR along with some of the difficulties. How representative they are of the process
remains to be determined through further research. That said, they point to the ability and importance of CR in raising practitioners' awareness
of what in themselves may undermine the effectiveness of their work.
We thus strongly recommend that CR become
an ongoing part of the supervision and support
that agencies provide for their practitioners: with a
safe place for social workers to look into themselves, a skilled and sensitive group facilitator, and
emotional support duting and after the reflection
to help practitionen deal with the difficulty of the
process. In view of the lag that can occur between
the attainment of awareness and the development
of an alternative model of practice, time should be
allowed for worken to integrate their learning
before they implement it in their practice. It may
also help to space the two stages (Fook &
Gardner, 2007). Moreover, it should be noted
that the emphasis the practitioner in the second
case placed on excellence is what made the underlying moral conflict in the situation so strong
for her. Thus, any alternative model of practice
that is developed to deal with cases involving a
genuine moral dilemma—whose resolution has
SAVAYA AND GARDNER / Critical Reflection to Identify Gap! between Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use
153
fateful consequences for all concerned, not only
the client—must acknowledge ¡this dilemma and
not make it solely the practitioner's penonal
problem to solve. SHI
REFERENCES
Arad-Davidzon, B., & Benbenisbty, P.. (2008). Tbe role of
workers' attitudes and parent and child wishes in
child protection workets' assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification. Children
and Youth Services Review, 30, 1O''-121.
Argyris, C. (1974). Behind thefrontpa^. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C , & Schon, D. (1974). Thecry in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, M. (2004). Critical reflection: Opportunities and
tbreats to professional learning a«d service development in social work organizations. In N. Gould, &
M . Baldwin (Eds.), Social work, critical refiection and the
learning organization (pp. 41—56). Aldersbot, England:
Asbgate.
Banks, S. (1995). Ethics and values in social work. Basing-
stoke, England: Palgrave Macmiflan.
Banks, S. (2004). Ethics, accountability end the social profes-
sions. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, C. (2006). Moral cbaracter in social work. British
Journal of Social Work, 36, 7 5 - 8 9 .
Ctanton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative
learning: New perspectives for teaches of adults.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ecclestone, K. (1996). The reflective practitioner: Mantra
or model for emancipation. Stuäes in the Education of
Adults, 28, 146-161.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). Tbe critical incident tecbnique.
social work discourse. Jowma/ of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 32, 11-33.
Pierson,J. (2002). Tackling social exclusion. New York:
Roudedge.
Reamer, F. G. (2006). Social work values and ethics (3rd ed.).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Redmond, B. (2004). Reflection in action. Aldershot,
England: Asbgate.
Taylor, C. A., & Wbite, S. (2000). Practising reflexivity in
health and welfare: Making knowledge. Buckingbam,
England: Open University Press.
Wbite, S., Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2006). Critical reflection
in health and social care. Buckingbam, England: Open
University Press..
Yan, M. C. (2008). Exploring cultural tensions in crosscultural social work practice. Social Work, 53,
317-328.
Yan, M. C , & Wong, Y.L.R. (2005). Rethinking selfawareness in cultural competence: Towards a dialogic
self in cross-cultural social work. Families in Sodety,
86, 181-188.
Riki Savaya, PhD, ACSW, is head, Bob Shapell School of
Sodal Work, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Fiona
Gardner, MSW, is head and senior lecturer. School of Sodal
Work, La Trobe University, Bendigo Victoria, Australia.
Address all correspondence to Riki Savaya, Bob Shapell
School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv,
69978, Israel; e-mail: savaya@post.tau.ac.il.
Original manuscript received May 25, 2010
Final revision received August 19, 2010
Accepted September 22, 2010
Advance Access Publication August 8, 2012
Psychological Bulletin, 51, 3 2 7 - 3 5 3 .
Fook, J., & Askeland, G. (2006). Tbe "critical" in critical
reflection. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner (Eds.),
Critical reflection in health and sodd care (pp. 40—53).
Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practisng critical reflection: A
resource handbook. Maidenhead, England: Open
University Press.
Francis, D. (1997). Critical incident analysis: A strategy for
developing critical practice. Teaaers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 3, 1 6 9 - 1 8 8 .
Gambrill, E. D. (2005). Decision making in cbild welfare:
Errors and their context. Children and Youth Services
Review, 21, 347-452.
Gibson, K. (2003). Contrasting role morality and professional morality: Implications for practice, youma/ of
Applied Philosophy, 20, 17-29.
Gould, N., & Baldwin, M. (2004). (Eds.). The learning organization and reflective practice—77ie emergence of a concept.
Aldersbot, England: Ashgate.
Higgs, J., & Titcben, A. (2001). (Eds.). Professional practice
in health, education and the creative-arts. Oxford,
England: Blackwell Science.
Hugman, R. (2008). An etbical perspective on social
work. In M., Davies (Ed.), The 3lackwell companion to
social work (3rd ed, pp. 442-448>. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Mackintosb, C. (1998). Reflection: A flawed strategy for
tbe nursing profession. Nurse Ectication Today, 18,
553-557.
Park, Y. (2005). Culture as a deficit: A critical discourse
analysis of tbe concept of culture in contemporary
154
LETTERS
Readers: This space is for you!
e welcome brief comments on issues
covered in the journal and other
points of interest to the profession. Although
space constraints limit the number we can
publish, each letter is carefully read and
considered. Optimum length is one or two
double-spaced pages. Send your letter as a
Word document through the online portal
at http://swj.msubmit.net (initial, one-time
registration is required).
W
Social Work
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2
APRIL 2012
Copyright of Social Work is the property of National Association of Social Workers 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.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment