Threshold Decisions in Social Work: Using Theory to Support Practice

Author:

Turney Danielle1,Alfandari Ravit2ORCID,Taylor Brian J3ORCID,Ghanem Christian4,Helm Duncan5,Killick Campbell3ORCID,Lyons Olive6,O’Leary Donna7,Ebsen Frank8,Bertotti Teresa9

Affiliation:

1. School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast , Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland

2. School of Social Work, University of Haifa , Haifa 3103301, Israel

3. School of Applied Social and Policy Studies, Ulster University , Londonderry BT48 7JL, Northern Ireland

4. Nuremberg Institute of Technology , Nuremberg 90489, Germany

5. Department of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling , Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland

6. Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto , Toronto, ON M5S 1V4, Canada

7. Tusla Child and Family Agency , Dublin, Ireland

8. Institute of Social work, University College Copenhagen , 1799 Copenhagen V, Denmark

9. Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento , Trento, TN 38122, Italy

Abstract

Abstract Decision making is an intrinsic and complex aspect of social work practice, requiring consideration of diverse but connected aspects. Decisions are often required as to whether a situation requires protective state intervention or whether it reaches the criteria for public or charitable services. Such instances of deciding whether or not a situation is ‘on one side of the line or the other’ are referred to in this article as ‘threshold judgements’. This article draws on experiences and material from a range of social work contexts to explore generalisable theory-informed understandings of ‘threshold judgements’ and ‘threshold decisions’ to develop knowledge and skills on this topic. The article outlines signal detection theory and evidence accumulation (‘tipping point’) theory and discusses these as ways to understand the key concepts underpinning threshold decisions in social work. We then argue that although these threshold concepts are a necessary part of decision making in social work, as in many other aspects of life, they are not sufficient. Operationalising such decisions requires some form of sense-making. Naturalistic decision making and heuristic models of judgement are discussed as frameworks for practice which seem to be useful in this context.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference74 articles.

1. Making sense of risk: Social work at the boundary between care and control;Alfandari;Health, Risk & Society [Special Issue on Social Work at Boundaries,2022

2. Group decision-making theories for child and family social work;Alfandari;European Journal of Social Work,2023

3. The preoccupation with thresholds in cases of child death or serious injury through abuse and neglect;Brandon;Child Abuse Review,2008

4. The “good enough” parent: Implications for child protection;Choate;Child Care in Practice,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3