This article was downloaded by: [Hebrew University]

On: 13 February 2012, At: 04:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work Education: The

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

A conceptual tool: Making social

workers' assumptions explicit
Rujla Osmo

Available online: 25 Aug 2010

To cite this article: Rujla Osmo (2001): A conceptual tool: Making social workers'
assumptions explicit, Social Work Education: The International Journal, 20:2, 209-217

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470120044301

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out
of the use of this material.
 SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, VOL. 20, NO. 2, 2001

A conceptual tool: making social workers’

assumptions explicit

RUJLA OSMO

Abstract This paper emphasizes the importance for social work practitioners of making their
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

assumptions about human nature explicit and of taking responsibility for the clinical consequences of
using these assumptions. More speci® cally, it proposes a conceptual tool to help practitioners examine
both the assumptions that guide their deliberations and the practical implications of these assump-
tions. This conceptual tool is based on nine fundamental assumptions about the human condition
pertaining to matters such as freedom± determination, subjectivity± objectivity, proactivity± reactivity,
and so forth. Each assumption is presented on a continuum along which practitioners can locate
themselves. By deliberately placing themselves on each of the nine continua, the practitioners are
encouraged to articulate their clinical concepts. This articulation enables them to maintain a critical
dialogue with themselves about the ideas they use to understand and help their clients and makes the
underlying concepts, and the decisions that stem from them, more amenable to the practitioner’ s
conscious evaluation and control.
The framework can also be used to compare the assumptions of practitioners to different theoretical
approaches and can thereby help practitioners to better understand their own theoretical predilections.
Finally, I propose that this framework be employed as an educational aid for the professional
development of students and practitioners in social work education.

When social workers approach a client who has asked for help, they bring with them world
views about human nature and about human cultural and social situations (Hjelle & Ziegler,
1992), an a-priori `personal baggage’ (Sheppard, 1995, p. 194) responsible for the particular
anticipatory stance taken in the interaction (Kelly, 1955). Personal world views encompass
how the social worker views clients, the nature of his/her interactions with clients, the nature
of social work practice, the nature of change, and the nature of measurement (Gilgun, 1990).
These personal world views or assumptions are constructed by our individual experiences,
our interpretations of them, our exposure to other people’ s ideas and experiences, as well as
by our understanding of theoretical approaches (Hjelle & Ziegler, 1992; Schriver, 1995).
Without doubt, these personal constructs in¯ uence, for better or for worse, the relationship
and interaction with our clients, for they shape our understanding of them and our practice
decisions and actions toward them (Hardiker & Barker, 1981). These constructs alert us to
some events and blind us to others (Kelly, 1955).
Yet, social work is carried out on the basis of assumptions that are seldom openly
articulated (Olsson & Ljunghill, 1997). This paper therefore emphasizes the importance for

Correspondence to: Dr Rujla Osmo, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem,
Israel, 91905. Email: msrujla@mscc.huji.ac.il

ISSN 0261-5479 print; 1470-1227 online/01/020209± 09 Ó 2001 The Board of Social Work Education
DOI: 10.1080/02615470120044301
 210 RUJLA OSMO

social work practitioners of making explicit their assumptions, speci® cally those on human
nature, and of taking responsibility for the clinical consequences of these assumptions when
applied in practice. Focusing our attention on the ideas and assumptions about human nature
which guide us as professionals makes us aware of them and this, in turn, allows us to
maintain a dialogue with ourselves and with others (Gilgun, 1990). Moreover, it is this
explicit knowledge that allows us to examine ourselves critically, to evaluate our professional
actions and to change them accordingly (Gambrill, 1990). Such critical examinations and
awareness are referred to in the professional literature as `mindfulness’ in practice (Wedemoja
et al., 1988), `critical thinking’ in clinical practice (Gambrill, 1990) or as `paradigm analysis’
(Schriver, 1995).
This paper proposes a conceptual framework as a useful tool to help practitioners achieve
mindfulness in practice and to critically examine the assumptions that guide their delibera-
tions and the practical implications of these concepts. I report on the results of using this
conceptual framework to teach BA undergraduate social work students and MA students
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

(experienced social workers), and present an illustration of its use by MA students.

The conceptual framework

Theoretical approaches to human nature and the human environment are effectively hypoth-
eses (Dewey, 1930) or constructs (Kelly, 1955) about human behavior and motivation. Their
impressive variety expresses the dif® culty in articulating only one good idea which reliably
and validly re¯ ects the rich complexity of an individual (Corey, 1996). There is undoubtedly
only a limited possibility of explaining the complexity of the human condition, yet a
theoretical approach may provide a context or framework allowing a more or less consistent
description and interpretation of behavior and may sometimes even allow the prediction of
future behavior (Hjelle & Ziegler, 1992). A theoretical approach provides a structure for
analyzing complex human problems and situations and for organizing information, beliefs,
and assumptions into a meaningful whole. It provides a rationale for action and decision-
making, promotes a systematic and predictable approach to working with people, and
facilitates communication among professionals (Gilgun, 1990; Sheafor et al., 1997).
Sibeon (1989) posited that different approaches may have `many different forms in terms
of their frequently divergent, epistemological assumptions, substantive worldviews and onto-
logical presuppositions’ (p. 31). Hjelle and Ziegler (1992) suggested nine fundamental
assumptions for the examination and comparison of the basic ideas underpinning different
formalized theoretical approaches to human nature and of their implications in practice.

1. The freedom± determinism continuum deals with the degree of internal freedom that people
have when directing and/or deciding everyday behavior. The central question is if this
experience of freedom is valid or if there are unconscious and/or external factors that
dominate and direct people’ s behavior.
2. The second continuum is the rationality± irrationality continuum, which deals with whether
we believe people conduct their lives by rational inference and decision-making, or
whether they are directed by irrational forces.
3. The holism± elementalism continuum questions whether the understanding of human beings
is possible only as a whole, or whether it is possible to understand human behavior only
by looking speci® cally at individual elements of action and state.
4. The constitutionalism± environmentalism continuum questions the degree of in¯ uence of
biological or environmental factors on human behavior.
 A CONCEPTUAL TOOL 211

5. The changeability± unchangeability continuum focuses on the degree of change of the

human condition. Is it possible to change basic characteristics of personality and behavior?
6. The objectivity± subjectivity continuum examines the effect of subjective experience and
interpretation on human behavior and the degree to which it is in¯ uenced by external,
objective events.
7. The proactivity± reactivity continuum questions whether human behavior is mostly a
reaction to external or internal stimuli, or more a consequence of one’ s own active
initiative.
8. The homeostasis± heterostasis continuum deals with the motivational aspect of human
behavior. Is human behavior in¯ uenced by the wish to minimize tension in one’ s life or
is it in¯ uenced by the will to growth and the search for new challenges?
9. The last assumption deals with an epistemological question, the knowability± unknowability
continuum. At one end of the continuum is the approach positing that there is no way to
study or explore human nature because of its complexity. At the other end lies the
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

approach positing that the study of human nature is possible and that we can infer and
generalize about it using scienti® c methods.

These nine assumption-continua as outlined by Hjelle and Ziegler, are used in this paper
as an analytical framework for categorizing and comparing beliefs and assumptions. One way
of dealing with personal preferences of theoretical approaches is to start from the social
workers’ personal frame of reference, that is, to make their personal assumptions explicit and
then to acknowledge the similarities or differences between these assumptions and those
proposed by others. The above nine assumption-continua have heuristic value for analyzing
the assumptions, which underpin social workers personal beliefs and preferences. I propose
that they are a useful tool for helping social work practitioners expressly to understand and examine
their own personal assumptions about human nature and their implications in practice. This tool
also allows comparison of these personal assumptions with those included in the different
theoretical approaches to social work practice.
Each of the nine assumptions is presented as a continuum on which practitioners can place
themselves and thus explicate their assumptions about human nature.

determinism strong moderate light midrange slight moderate strong freedom

For example, when relating to the extent to which human actions are considered as
voluntary or caused (the freedom± determinism continuum), Sheppard (1995) posits `that the
of® cial positions of social workers as care managers, evident both from their responsibilities
and of® cial care management literature is one of ª limited voluntarismº : a view of human
action that is voluntary except where circumstances indicate some ª externalº cause’
(pp. 194± 195). Sheppard’ s argument can be located on the freedom side of the continuum
but at the `slight’ position.
The nine assumption-continua are interrelated in several cases. For example, the concept
that a person is capable of choosing and directing their life (the freedom side of the
freedom± determinism continuum) is related to the concept that a person is capable of
initiating behavior in an active way (the proactive side of the proactive± reactive continuum).
The rationale that biological or environmental factors direct a person’ s behavior is interwoven
with a deterministic attitude toward human nature. For example, Sheppard (1995) posits
that `the practice paradigm characterizing social work as care management is that involving
a core of objectivism, limited voluntarism ¼ a subjective research on child abuse practices,
about different perceptions of parenting behavior which have been considered to be abusive
by social service authorities, can inform us that different perspectives exist ¼ however, if we
 212 RUJLA OSMO

then go on to take a phenomenological perspective that child abuse is no more than a social
construct, this does violence to the objectivistic core of social work’ (pp. 196± 197). We can
evaluate these arguments as placing Sheppard at a more dominant objective position, in line
with limited voluntarism, and with the more knowable side of the knowability± unknowability
continuum (i.e. using possibly more objective tools to evaluate child abuse).
Consideration of the nine continua as a whole allows precise characterization of a
theoretical approach. It therefore seems reasonable that we can use this conceptual tool to
place our personal concepts on the issues dealt with in each assumption. The actual
positioning of a concept will probably be followed by explanations and arguments, for
ourselves and for others, on why we locate ourselves in this way on each of the continua. This
location process is not easy at all because our personal positions on the nine continua may
change over time, depending on personal development and exposure to different people and
ideas. In other words, locating ourselves along the continua is a dynamic process which
sharpens our awareness of various positions and makes them more explicit.
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

The location process also makes our underlying ideas and the decisions that stem from
them more amenable to examination and evaluation of their in¯ uence on our professional
deliberations. For example, if our position towards human life tends toward the determinis-
tic, we will most likely focus more on the environmental and/or constitutional in¯ uences on
the client and less on the client’ s personal responsibility. A practitioner, who emphasizes the
subjective perspective in understanding human behavior, will focus on the client’ s personal
narrative and interpretations and less on factual life events related to the client’ s story. In
contrast, a practitioner focusing on the objective side will attempt to understand how the
events in¯ uenced the client and will act accordingly. A practitioner, who considers it possible
to learn about the human condition using scienti® c methods, will probably rely more on
empirical knowledge in making his/her practice decision than other practitioners.
The practitioners’ decisions where to place themselves on each of the continua and the
rationale they give for doing so will clarify their positions and beliefs about human nature and
will also allow them to compare their own ideas to different theoretical approaches. This will
help them achieve a better understanding of their own theoretical predilections. Moreover, it
also allows for challenging false and discriminatory beliefs. I regard this conceptual tool as a
means for monitoring the biases that may be built into our taken-for-granted assumption
systems (Whittington, 1989).

Application of the conceptual framework

I used Hjelle and Ziegler’ s (1992) nine assumption-continua in two forms. One form was
given to BA social work students, and the nine assumption-continua were used as a
framework for understanding and comparing different theoretical approaches to social work
practice. These approaches were analyzed by positioning them on each of the nine continua,
allowing a critical comparison of the different positions and their consequences for their
clients in the training ® eld.
However, when teaching MA students (who are experienced social work practitioners) on
being explicit about the ideas guiding them in practice, I used the nine assumption-continua
adaptively to locate their personal positions about human nature, and secondly, as practi-
tioners, their position towards their clients. The students were also required to explicate why
they located themselves in these positions. The students were invited to use introspective
views to discover their personal positions: they self-re¯ ect on their assumptions and write
down their personal arguments for each continuum. We then openly discussed the conse-
quences of the students’ different positions on practice decisions and the possible effects of
 A CONCEPTUAL TOOL 213

their positions on speci® c client populations and agencies. This experience showed that using
this conceptual tool for personal critical elucidation and articulation contributed greatly to
making explicit our `unwritten practice theory’ (Curnock & Hardiker, 1979), what and why
we work as we do with our clients. The students changed the perspective of locating their
work `from formalized theories’ to a more critical position about `my position with respect to’
different formalized theories. If they preferred a speci® c theory and applied it as prescribed,
they began to ask why they thought this theory or concepts were relevant to their work, that
is, they adopted a more responsible attitude towards their actions.
Examples from the work of two of the MA students in Social Work illustrate the heuristic
value of using this conceptual framework as a teaching tool. Both students were experienced
social workers who participated in a course by the author. Only three of the nine assumption-
continua are presented in the following examples; the determinism± freedom, the subjectivity±
objectivity and the knowability± unknowability continua.
These students took different positions on the determinism± freedom continuum. One of the
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

students justi® ed her position on this assumption-continuum as follows: `I believe that people
direct their life and choose the adequate behaviors for themselves, and that they do so with
the intention of reaching a situation that they evaluate as good. The selection of behavior is
made according to their perception of what are seen as available alternatives. The variety of
options that a person can perceive depends on a number of factors which may minimize or
maximize the range; e.g. the process of socialization, anticipated events, cultural in¯ uences,
etc. These factors may be transformed into ª deterministicº factors in a person’ s experience
but this need not be so. The act of choosing is expressed by the person’ s ª interpretationº of
the events and by the kind of reaction made, if at all’ .
The other student justi® ed her position on the same continuum as follows: `The location
on the continuum depends, in my opinion, in part on age and life experience. Today we
interpret decisions, which we saw in the past as free choice, as consequences of the ª internal
dispositionsº seemingly encoded within us by our parents, childhood, and ® rst life experi-
ence. Personality components, which I once thought of as ª mineº , now appear to me as a
personal interpretation that con® rms or discon® rms dominant traits of signi® cant people in
my childhood. These metaphorical ® gures gave me the raw material, and my personality is
the elaboration and individual mixture of this material, which is not ª mineº but was
converted into ª meº . This internal logic can be seen in the familiar patterns, professional
preferences, domains of study, social tendencies, and the way we observe life. Experiencing
this involves antecedent experiences and consequent re¯ ective insights and lead to the basic
assumptions, a special ª loadº that we are ª condemnedº to live with but did not choose. Our
freedom is de® ned by our ability to give meaning to these parts’ .
In contrast, the two students are quite close in their positions on the continuum subjec-
tivity± objectivity. The ® rst student explained: `I locate myself on the subjective side, whereby
the personal concepts of the ª externalº events are the most in¯ uential on a person’ s behavior.
People ª chooseº the external events they are exposed to and attribute meaning to them. They
can attribute a strong ª objectiveº meaning to an external event but, in the long run, this is
their choice. I think that the most notable example of the in¯ uence of subjective experience
on human conduct is by seeing the different ways people cope with death. Death is an
extreme event and we could assume that the impact on human beings would be uniform. But
this is not the case. There are variations in coping strategies and the variability in the
strengths of people’ s reactions is so large that I must infer that it is not the event itself which
determines the reaction, but the different meaning each person attributes to the event
according to his/her subjective perception of it’ .
The second student explained: `The subjective side is much closer to my position because
 214 RUJLA OSMO

most of the events in a person’ s life are functions of the meaning they attribute to them. This
meaning is personal and their coping with life events derives from this alone. Of course, for
social life to be possible shared and agreed meanings are also necessary and these are created
during reciprocal interactions. These meanings are in some form ª objectiveº , in the sense of
shared agreements, but they also differ from group to group and from culture to culture’ .
The students’ positions on the knowability± unknowability continuum, are different. The ® rst
student said: `Although my belief is that each person is different, unique and special, I really
think that there are ways to study human behavior and to articulate rules and principles, which
help acquire a better understanding of motivation and actions. I am forced to emphasize the
existence of exceptions when we discuss every rule but, still, I ® nd myself well within the
knowability side of the continuum. I think that the studies and specialization of every social
worker express this side of the assumption. We could not develop any methods without the
possibility of studying and making inferences about human conditions’ .
The second student said: `¼ my basic assumption is that the internal motives are those
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

which in¯ uence our lives, whether we are conscious of it or not. This leads to the conclusion
that there is no person who knows him/herself well enough, and if this is the case within an
individual, how much stronger this must be between oneself and others. The assumption that
we cannot totally know human nature, because we have not yet found the appropriate tools,
is not acceptable to me, because I think that this is an illusion based on the wish for personal
and professional security. Not knowing is the state which pushes a person towards heterostasis,
to proactivity, to change, to curiosity ¼ ’
I have presented only the students’ personal position on human nature, and not the complete
and lengthy discussion of each student with respect to the second task, the location and explicit
justi® cation of their practice position and detailed interventions. The students’ personal
positions were, however, expressed in the practice direction they proposed in their papers.
Where their positions on the continua were close, they proposed a similar practice direction.
For example, both of them preferred the subjective side of the subjective± objective continuum
and proposed to base their understanding of their clients on the clients’ personal interpretations
of their situation. In contrast, there were differences in the initiative and responsibility given
to the clients, which correspond to their different positions on the freedom± determinism
continuum. There was also a difference in the use of empirical and theoretical knowledge that
® tted their different positions on the epistemological assumptionÐ the knowability± un-
knowability continuum.
The act of locating ourselves on the assumption continua may surprise us as we may realize
that the position we prefer on these assumptions is not related to those we adopt as a conceptual
framework in our professional work. For example, one of the students wrote: `If I were asked
a year ago about my theoretical practice orientation, I would have automatically answered with
great con® dence, ª psychodynamic mainlyº , and would have automatically rejected ª cognitiveº
de® nitions as I assumed that these de® nitions are reductionist with respect to thinking and
conscious processes and that they neutralize emotions and remove from them any experience
which does not ® t rational and logical explanations and the empirical results. To my surprise,
I have discovered that the concepts I created for myself about the cognitive paradigm are based
on narrow understanding and ignorance, and that I am using ª rationalº arguments to reject
the ideas which are closest and most signi® cant for me’ .

Implications of the elucidation of personal theoretical positions in professional

education
If we assume that the `state of the art’ today is that general theoretical approaches are
 A CONCEPTUAL TOOL 215

organized experiences and explanations for understanding human nature, and that there is no
agreement on which speci® c approach is preferable, professional practitioners need to
develop ways of evaluating and controlling both their personal understanding of human
nature and the practice implications of this understanding. `What are my theoretical prefer-
ences and why?’ `What do I choose and why?’ `What are the implications of these preferences
for my clients?’ `Is it helpful for my clients?’ This form of critical thinking develops the ability
to examine events from different perspectives rather than from a single narrow perspective
(Gambrill, 1990; Paul, 1992). It aids understanding of each perspective and allows taking
more responsibility for the choice of a speci® c approach to the human condition and the
consequences of taking this approach.
Use of the conceptual tool presented here may help practitioners make their guiding ideas
and concepts more explicit and, thus, may make their work more responsible. This is a
process of continuously asking ourselves questions, an examination which is not at all easy.
But these dif® culties in articulating and justifying our positions on the different assumptions
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

provide important information for each of us. They have the bene® t of forcing us into a
continuous dialogue about our responsibility toward our clients regardless of at which stage
of professional development we are. Schriver (1995) refers to a similar processÐ the paradigm
analysisÐ which requires a continuous and critical evaluation of the many perspectives that
need to be explored for their consistency with the core concerns, purposes and values of
social work. This need for self-examination has also been stressed by Payne (1991) who is
concerned not only about practitioners adopting or rejecting different theories without
understanding their basic assumptions, differences and connections, but also about students
who do not learn to be critical in their learning.
I think that the usefulness of this conceptual tool extends from the realm of practice
responsibility to the educational realm. Students may use it as detailed here, so that the nine
assumption-continua become an educational tool applicable to different phases of their
professional development. It offers an ef® cient way of examining their ideas and the perspec-
tives offered by different teachers. This may help students develop a more conscious attitude
to and explicit knowledge about their preferences in an early phase of their training, and thus
these may become more amenable to evaluation and change. Consequently, the students may
learn to take more responsibility for their choices and the implications of these choices. They
will thus enter the profession better equipped to help clients in a professional and responsible
manner.
Social work educators can incorporate the conceptual tool in a packed curriculum as
follows. At the BA level:
1. the nine assumption-continua are presented and their implications for understanding
human nature are discussed;
2. the students are requested to locate themselves on the nine continua and explain their
positions explicitly, discussing possible consequences of holding them when encountering
a client/clients;
3. students are encouraged to openly discuss and engage in dialogues with students holding
alternative positions on the nine continua and critically compare different practice impli-
cations that arise. Students then discuss and compare their position with different
theoretical approaches to social work practice;
4. during the course, students are encouraged to locate themselves at least twice in order to
critically revise their positions as they are exposed to different people and ideas and grow
personally and professionally.
At the MA level, students, who are experienced practitioners, can add a ® fth point, the
 216 RUJLA OSMO

critical examination of the relevance of their position and the implications of it for the real
situations they deal with in their practice.
However, although I see the assumption-continua as a valuable tool, it is important to be
aware of the limitations. Relying on a set of assumptions about human nature helps ensure
internal consistency, but it also tends to restrict our attention to the limited content
encapsulated by those assumptions. Social workers do not work context-free (Timms, 1997),
and personal experiences, education and in¯ uence of agencies (`diagnostic culture’ ) add to
the construction of the personal assumptions (Olsson & Ljunghill, 1997). Yet, paradoxically,
the tool presented here is deliberately `context-free’ . This is because the tool is not intended
to guide practitioner or student on what to consider when they locate themselves. Drawing
their attention to further possible issues, such as power, cultural± historical contexts, agency
roles and function, legislation, new technologies, etc; may add to their elucidation of the ideas
and practice theories. But, I assume that if advisors or educators guide students where and
how to look, they limit the students’ possibilities for choosing locations different from those
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012

proposed by advisors, teachers or formalized theories. That is, by setting a context, one may
limit understanding by the students and their critical evaluation of their own positions.
To counterbalance the omission of context in the assumption-continua, however, we
encourage an open discussion after the students have articulated their personal positions.
Here, the issues mentioned above form part of the discussion, and help develop more
balance. That is, students not only develop more responsibility towards their ideas, assump-
tions and their in¯ uence on their clients, but they also learn to see the in¯ uence of other
human, theoretical, practical and socio-cultural contexts on their ideas.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor Rami Benbenishty for his thoughtful comments.
The author also wishes to extend her gratitude to the students in her course.

References
COREY, G. (1996) Introduction and overview in: Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy, ® fth
edition, pp. 3± 13 (Paci® c Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole).
CURNO CK, K. & HARDIKER, P. (1979) Towards Practice Theory (London, Routledge and Kagan).
DEWEY, J. (1930) Human Nature and Conduct (New York, Holt).
GAMBRILL, E. (1990) Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers).
GILGUN, J. (1990) The epistemology of social work in: L. VIDEKA-SHERMAN & W. J. REID (Eds) Advances in
Clinical Social Work Research (Silver Spring, MD, NASW Press).
HARDIKER, P. & BARKER, M. (Eds) (1981) Theories of Practice in Social Work (London, Academic Press).
HJELLE, L. A. & ZIEGLER, D. J. (1992) Psychology of personality: an introduction to the discipline in:
Personality Theory, Basic Assumptions, Research and Applications, third edition, pp. 1± 34 (New York,
McGraw-Hill International).
KELLY, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs (New York, Norton).
OLSSON, E. & LJUNGHILL, J. (1997) The practitioner and `naive theory’ in social work intervention processes,
British Journal of Social Work, 27, pp. 803± 814.
PAUL, R. W. (1992) Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: getting behind worldviews in: R. A.
TALASKA (Ed.) Critical Reasoning in Contemporary Culture, pp. 135± 156 (Albany, State University of New
York Press).
PAYNE, M. (1991) Modern Social Work Theory: A Critical Introduction (London, Macmillan Press).
SCHRIVER, J. M. (1995) Human Behavior and the Social Environment: Shifting Paradigms in Essential Knowledge
for Social Work Practice (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).
SHEAFOR, B. W., HOREJSI, CH. R. & HOREJSI, G. A. (1997) Techniques and Guidelines for Social Work Practice,
fourth edition (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).
 A CONCEPTUAL TOOL 217

SHEPPARD, M. (1995) Care Management and the New Social Work: A Critical Analysis (London, Whiting and
Birch).
SIBEON, R. (1989) Comments on the structure and forms of social work knowledge, Social Work and Social
Sciences Review, 1, pp. 29± 44.
TIMMS, N. (1997) Taking social work seriously: the contribution of the functional school, British Journal of
Social Work, 27, pp. 723± 732.
WEDEMOJA, M., NURIUS, P. & TRIPODI, T. (1988) Enhancing mindfulness in practice prescriptive thinking,
Social Casework, 69, pp. 427± 433.
WH ITTINGTON, C. (1989) Abstracts (Social Work Education), British Journal of Social Work, 19, pp. 158± 163.
Downloaded by [Hebrew University] at 04:49 13 February 2012