Professional education and personal epistemology: a post qualifying social work case study.

441 Pages·2012·1.99 MB·English

Bournemouth University

Professional Education and Personal
Epistemology:
A Post Qualifying Social Work Case
Study

Lynne Rutter
Doctor of Professional Practice
2011
Professional Education and Personal Epistemology:
A Post Qualifying Social Work Case Study

Lynne Rutter

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Bournemouth
University for the degree of Doctor of Professional Practice (D.Prof)

October 2011

Bournemouth University
A copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is
understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and due
acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any material contained in or
derived from, this thesis.
Professional Education and Personal Epistemology: A
Post Qualifying Social Work Case Study. Lynne Rutter

Abstract

The overall aim of this professional doctorate is to inform improved methods of
educational practice for preparing and developing learners to deal with the
complex and constructed nature of professional learning and knowledge. The
primary concern is to understand notions of knowledge and knowing for
professional education and the nature of personal epistemology for post qualifying
(PQ) social work students. The main purpose is to facilitate these students’
awareness of personal epistemology and enable them to validly articulate their
own knowledge in this context.

The thesis adopts an overall pragmatic perspective, undertaking an empirical case
study which encompasses a documentary analysis, questionnaires and interviews
within a qualitative and interpretive methodology. The findings from the case
study provide an understanding of a PQ social work programme’s epistemology
and the nature of the students’ experiences, views and assumptions concerning
professional knowledge and knowing. Overall, it can be seen that the hegemonic
privileging of academic knowledge over practice-based knowledge creates
particular epistemological tensions and misalignments in respect of post-
technocratic reflective models. Such privileging impacts negatively on the
authority and articulation of PQ students’ professional knowledge, and highlights
the necessity to more fully acknowledge a professional perspective within a
reflective epistemology.

The findings are used to inform a series of practice development initiatives with
PQ social work students. The initiatives help develop epistemological awareness
and enable a re-alignment to post-technocratic reflective models with the
development of a Practical Reasoning Framework. The Framework acknowledges
the types of knowledge and ways of knowing associated with professional
reasoning and judgment, and helps establish the validity, justification and
authority of a professional perspective within a reflective epistemology.
The recognition of the need to more fully acknowledge a professional perspective
within a reflective epistemology, and the development of the Framework to
address this need can be identified as the thesis’ contribution to knowledge. With
recent national reports emphasising reasoning and judgment as necessary
components of professional development, their authentic and legitimate inclusion
within an academic context is now more important than ever.
List of Contents

List of Tables
Acknowledgements

Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Narrative 1 ......................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Research Approach and Methodology .............................. 19
Chapter 3: Literature Review .............................................................. 26
3a) Literature review methodology .................................. 26
3b) Literature review ........................................................ 29
Chapter 4: Case Study ......................................................................... 77
4a) Case study methodology ............................................. 77
i. Research strategy ...................................................... 77
ii. Research process and rational .................................. 81
iii. Ethics ....................................................................... 91
iv. Analysis .............................................................. 97
v. Quality .................................................................. 103
4b) Documentary analysis ................................................. 106
4c) Questionnaire ............................................................... 116
4 d) Interviews ...................................................................... 146
i) Interviews – process .................................................. 146
ii) Interviews – findings ................................................ 161
4 e) Case study discussion .................................................. 185
4 f) Case study recommendations ....................................... 206
Chapter 5: Narrative 2 ............................................................................ 214
Chapter 6: Practice Development ........................................................... 219
Chapter 7: Final Analysis and Recommendations for Future Research ... 260
Chapter 8: Narrative 3 .............................................................................. 267

References ............................................................................................... 272
Appendices
App A. Summary of publications ............................................................ 331
App B. Literature review - initial search strategy .................................. 336
App C. Information sheet - CPSP packs ................................................ 341
App D. Interview information sheet ....................................................... 346
App E. Consent form interviews ............................................................ 351
App F. Content analysis framework ....................................................... 354
App G. Draft questionnaire - test comments .......................................... 367
App H. Draft questionnaire - pilot comments ........................................ 372
App I. Questionnaire – final version ...................................................... 376
App J. CPSP programme assessment .................................................... 380
App K. Interview topic guide ................................................................. 384
App L. Transcript and first stage analysis –Jane .................................... 387
App M. Interview analysis framework –Jane ......................................... 395
App N. Unit specification EWBL ........................................................... 400
App O. Practical reasoning literature analysis ........................................ 407
App P. Unit specification IPOP .............................................................. 414
App Q. Draft proposal for assessment guidance IPOP ........................... 419
App R. Assignment guidance IPOP ........................................................ 424
App S. Assessment criteria IPOP ............................................................ 432
App T. Jane Holroyd's feedback .............................................................. 436

Glossary of terms ...................................................................................... 441
List of tables

Table Title Chapter
no.
1 Conceptual framework and research questions 4a
2 Conceptual framework and RQ2 sub questions 4a
3 Conceptual framework and RQ3 sub questions 4a
4 Conceptual framework and RQ4 sub questions 4a
5 RQ2 sub questions and documentary content analysis 4b
terms
6 RQ 3 sub questions and questionnaire questions 4c
7 Categories for the types and sources of professional 4c
knowledge listed by students
8 Q1. % of participants listing formal/informal types and 4c
external/internal sources of knowledge
9 Q2. % of participants who think the sources and types 4c
of knowledge they listed will be/will not be considered
equally valid on the programme
10 Q.3a. % of participants listing the most valid types/ 4c
sources of knowledge
11 Q3b. % of participants listing the least valid types/ 4c
sources of knowledge
12 Q4. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
reflecting on their practice in previous academic work
13 Q5. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
applying theory to practice in previous academic work
14 Q6a. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
critically analysing their practice in previous academic
work
15 Q6b. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
critically analysing their practice in previous academic
work using formal types of knowledge
16 Q7. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
constructing their own ‘practice theories’ in previous
academic work
17 Q8a. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
critically analysing formal types of knowledge in
previous academic work
18 Q8b. % of participants with/without experience of 4c
critically analysing formal types of knowledge using
their practice knowledge or values
19 Q9. % of participants who tackle academic work by 4c
considering theory first and who consider their own
ideas first
20 RQ 4 sub questions and interview topic areas 4di
21 Interview analysis framework 4di
22 Case study recommendations 4f
23 Recommendations and practice development aims 6
24 Practical Reasoning Framework 6
25 Assignment guidance – extract 6
26 Assessment criteria – extracts 6
27 Cohort 1 evaluation 6
28 Cohort 2 evaluation 6
Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to my supervisors Dr Steve Keen and Dr Maggie Hutchings for
their continued encouragement and helpful advice throughout my study. Special
thanks also extend to my friend and colleague, Christine Keenan, as our
conversations have been instrumental in helping my thinking progress.
Recognition also goes to Professor Keith Brown and Professor Jonathan Parker
for their professional assistance, and to Dr Jerry Warr for his support. I am
indebted to the students and staff of the Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work,
especially Sarah Williams for her professional guidance, and the CPSP 2010
cohort and their tutor, Melanie Forsyth–Smith, for their time and co-operation
with this study. Finally, very grateful thanks go to Steve and my mum for their
ongoing support, patience and continued belief in me and my work; and also to
my dad, sadly no longer with us, but whose love and guidance remain.