Sosyal hizmet uygulamasında sezgisel karar verme üzerine bir değerlendirme

Year 2025, Volume: 36 Issue: 3, 571 - 590, 29.07.2025

Gizem Nur Sağlık Tuğrul , Mehmet Kırlıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.33417/tsh.1628497

Abstract

Sosyal hizmet uygulamalarında sezgisel karar verme, karmaşık ve belirsizlik içeren durumlarda hızlı ve etkili çözümler sunan bir süreçtir. Sezgisel karar verme modeli geçmiş deneyimler, bilişsel şemalar, bireysel sezgiler ve farkındalık şekillenerek karar alma sürecini kolaylaştırmaktadır. Sezgisel karar verme sürecinde temsiliyet, ulaşılabilirlik ve uyum gibi teknikler bilinçdışı şekilde kullanılabilir ve bu teknikler karar alma süreçlerinde önemli işlevler üstlenir. Sezgisel karar vermenin avantajları arasında hızlı problem çözme, bilişsel yükü azaltma ve belirsizliği yönetme yeteneği yer almaktadır. Bununla birlikte sezgisel karar verme bireysel önyargılar, geri bildirim eksikliği ve profesyonel uygulamalardaki hesap verilebilirlik gerekliliği gibi konularda zorluklar barındırabilir. Bu nedenle sezgilerin analitik karar verme ile dengelenmesi, yansıtıcı uygulama ve geri bildirim süreçlerinin güçlendirilmesi önerilmektedir. Bu derleme makalede, sezgisel karar verme modelinin temel özellikleri ve sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının karar süreçlerindeki rolü ele alınmıştır. Sezginin, sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının profesyonel kararlarında kritik bir rol oynayabileceği, müracaatçılara yönelik etkili müdahaleler geliştirmede önemli bir araç olarak kullanılabileceğine dikkat çekilmiştir. Sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının sezgisel karar verme sürecini tamamlayıcı nitelikte ve etik standartlarla uyumlu bir şekilde yürütülmesi gerektiği belirtilirken konuyla ilgili literatürde yer alan bazı ikilemlerden de bahsedilmiştir. Bu çalışma ile sosyal hizmet literatürüne ve uygulamalarına katkı sağlamak hedeflenmiş, sezgiyi daha iyi anlamak ve sosyal hizmet uygulamalarına dahil etmek için daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Karar Verme, Sosyal Hizmet, Sezgi, Sezgisel Karar Verme, Deneyim

An Evaluation of Intuitive Decision Making in Social Work Practice

Abstract

Intuitive decision-making in social work practice is a process that provides quick and effective solutions in complex and uncertain situations. The intuitive decision-making model facilitates decision-making by shaping past experiences, cognitive schemas, individual intuitions, and awareness. In intuitive decision-making, techniques such as representativeness, accessibility, and adaptability can be used unconsciously, and these techniques play an important role in decision-making processes. The benefits of intuitive decision-making include rapid problem-solving, reduced cognitive load, and the ability to deal with uncertainty. However, intuitive decision-making can be challenged by individual biases, lack of feedback, and the need for accountability in professional practice. Therefore, balancing intuition with analytical decision-making and strengthening reflective practice and feedback processes are recommended. This review article discusses the main features of the intuitive decision-making model and its role in social workers' decision-making processes. It is suggested that intuition can play a critical role in social workers' professional decisions and can be an important tool in developing effective interventions for clients. While it is stated that the intuitive decision-making process of social workers should be carried out in a complementary manner and in accordance with ethical standards, some dilemmas in the literature on the subject are also mentioned. This study aims to contribute to social work literature and practice and concludes that more research is needed to understand intuition better and incorporate it into social work practice.

Keywords

Decision Making, Social Work, Intuition, Intuitive Decision Making, Experience

References

• Adams, K. B., Matto, H. C., & LeCroy, C. W. (2009). Limitations of evidence-based practice for social work education: Unpacking the complexity. Journal of social work Education, 45(2), 165-186.
• Altındağ, Ö. (2020). Vaka yönetimi ve sosyal hizmette kullanımı. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 31(2), 618-646.
• Banks, S. (2020). Ethics and values in social work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. İçinde Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (ss. 19–36), D. J. Koehler, N. Harvey (Ed.) London: Blackwell.
• Baron, J. (2012). The point of normative models in judgment and decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(577), 1-3.
• Baumeister R. F., & Leary M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320.
• Bertotti, T. (2016). Decidere del servizio sociale. Metodo e riflessioni etiche [Decide on social work. Method and ethical reflections]. Carocci.
• Carew, R. (1987). The place of intuition in social work activity. Australian Social Work, 40, 5-10.
• Cheung, J. (2017). Practice wisdom in social work: An uncommon sense in the intersubjective encounter. European Journal of Social Work, 20(5), 619-629.
• Cook, L. (2017). Making sense of the initial home visit: The role of intuition in child and family social workers’ assessments of risk. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31, 431- 444.
• Devaney, J., Hayes, D., & Spratt, T. (2017). The influences of training and experience in removal and reunification decisions involving children at risk of maltreatment: Detecting a ‘beginner dip’. British Journal of Social Work, 47(8), 2364–2383.
• Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986) Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the age of the computer, New York, Free Press.
• Duffy, J., Taylor, B. J., & McCall, S. (2006). Human rights and decision making in child protection through explicit argumentation. Child Care in Practice, 12(2), 81–95.
• Effken, J. A. (2001). Informational basis for expert intuition. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(2), 246.
• Epstein, S. (2010). Demystifying intuition: What it is, what it does, and how it does it. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 295–312.
• Ferguson, H. (2016). Researching social work practice close up: Using ethnographic and mobile methods to understand encounters between social workers, children and families. British Journal of Social Work, 46(1), 153–168.
• Ferguson, H. (2018). How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don’t: The possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work. Social Work Education, 37(4), 415-427.
• Finucane, M., & Holup, J. (2006). Risk as value: Combining affect and analysis in risk judgments. Journal of Risk Research, 9(2), 141–164.
• Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
• Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1996). The life model of social work practice: Advances in theory and practice. Columbia University Press.
• Gibbons, J., Conroy, S., & Bell, C. (1995). Operating the child protection system: A study of child protection practices in English local authorities. London, HMSO.
• Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. Penguin.
• Gilboa, A., & Marlatte, H. (2017). Neurobiology of schemas and schema-mediated memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 618-631.
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. (2006) Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117.
• Gunnarsson, N. V., & Hedman, K. (2024). Navigating suicidality: Swedish social workers’ approaches to identifying and supporting suicidal clients. Nordic Social Work Research, 1–14.
• Hall, S., Slembrouck, S., Sarangi, S. (2006). Language practices in social work. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable ınjustice. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Harris, R., Fletcher, S., Sims, S., Ross, F., Brearley, S., & Manthorpe, J. (2020). Understanding key mechanisms of successfully leading integrated team-based services in health and social care: Protocol for a realist synthesis. BMJ Open, 10(7), e038591.
• Hogarth, R. M. (2010). Intuition: A challenge for psychological research on decision making. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 338–353
• Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.
• Kahneman, D., Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. The American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526.
• Kirkman, E., & Melrose, K. (2014). Clinical judgement and decision-making in children’s social work: An analysis of the ‘frontdoor’ system (Research Report DFE 323). London: Behavioural Insights Team, Department for Education.
• Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How people make decisions, London, MIT Press.
• Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. London, MIT Press.
• Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision making perspective on studying intuitive decision-making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 164–168.
• Klein, W. C., & Bloom, M. (1995). Practice wisdom. Social Work, 40(6),779-807.
• Krill, D. (1990). Practice wisdom: A guide for helping professionals. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (2010). It’s not what you think. İçinde Handbook of decision making, 73-81.
• Morçöl, G. (2006). Decision making: An overview of theories, contexts, and methods. Handbook of Decision Making. (Ed. Göktuğ Morçöl), Taylor and Francis Group, New York.
• Morrison, T. (2007). Emotional intelligence, emotion and social work: Contexts, characteristics, complications and contribution. British Journal of Social Work, 37(2), 245–263.
• Mullineux, J. C., Taylor, B. J., & Giles, M. L. (2019). Probation officers’ judgements: A study using personal construct theory. Journal of Social Work, 19(1), 41-59.
• Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(8), 745–758.
• Myers, D. G. (2010). Intuition’s powers and perils. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 371–377.
• NASW. (2021a). Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Clients, https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English/Social-Workers-Ethical-Responsibilities-to-Clients
• NASW. (2021b). Read the Code of Ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
• NASW. (2021c). Ethical principles. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
• Newman, C., & Littlechild, B. (2022). The development of professional decision-making: A small-scale study exploring the ımpact of practice experience on decision-making during home visits. Practice, 34, 370-385.
• Noorani, H. (2010). Rational decision-making. Xlibris Corporation.
• Nutt, P. C., Wilson, D. C. (2010). Crucial trends and issues in strategic decision making. İçinde Handbook of decision making, 3-29.
• Nyathi, N. (2018). Child protection decision-making: social workers’ perceptions. Journal of Social Work Practice, 32, 189-203.
• O’Sullivan, T. (2011). Decision-making in social work (2. Baskı). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Orasanu, J., & Connolly, T. (1993) ‘The reinvention of decision making’, in G.A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood and C.E. Zsambok (eds), Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• O'Sullivan, T. (1999). Decision making in social work. New York, Palgrave
• Özkan, Y., & Gökçearslan Çifci, E. (2012). Sosyal hizmette kanıta dayalı uygulamalar: Sosyal hizmet eğitimi açısından irdelenmesi. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 23(1), 187-199.
• Reamer, F. G. (1983). Ethical dilemmas in social work practice. Social Work, 28(1), 31-35.
• Reamer, F. G. (2015). Risk management in social work: Preventing professional malpractice, liability and disciplinary action. Columbia University Press.
• Regehr, C. (2018). Stress, trauma, and decision-making for social workers. Columbia University Press.
• Regehr, C., Paterson, J., Sewell, K., Birze, A., Bogo, M., Fallon, B., & Regehr, G. (2022). Tolerating risk: Professional judgment in suicide risk assessment. The Social Service Review 96(1), 4-33.
• Ruch, G. (2002). From triangle to spiral: Refective practice in social work education, practice and research. Social Work Education, 21(2), 199–216.
• Saltiel, D., & Lakey, R. (2020). Analysing invisibility: The decision‐making ecology and home visits. Child and family social work, 25(1), 37-44.
• Sauter, V. L. (1999). Intuitive decision-making. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 109-115.
• Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts plans goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures, New Jersey: LEA Publishers.
• Shaban, R. (2005). Theories of clinical judgment and decision-making: A review of the theoretical literature. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 3(1-2).
• Sheppard, M. (1995). Social work, science and practice wisdom. British Journal of Social Work, 25, 265–93.
• Sicora, A. (2010). Errore e apprendimento nelle professioni di aiuto. Fare più errori per fare meno danni? [Mistake and learning in the helping professions. Making more mistakes to do less damage?]. Maggioli.
• Sicora, A. (2017). Reflective practice and learning from mistakes in social work. Policy Press.
• Sicora, A., Lu, W., & Lei, J. (2020). Exploring mistakes and errors of professional judgement in social work in China and Italy: The impact of culture, organization and education. Journal of Social Work, 21(5), 1065-1083.
• Sicora, A., Taylor, B. J., Alfandari, R., Enosh, G., Helm, D., Killick, C., Lyons, O., Mullineux, J., Przeperski, J., Rölver, M., & Whittaker, A. (2021). Using intuition in social work decision making. European Journal of Social Work, 24(5), 772–787.
• Sinclair, M. (2010). Misconceptions about intuition. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 378–386.
• Sletten, M. S. (2022). Proceduralisation of decision-making processes: a case study of child welfare practice. Nordic Social Work Research, 14(1), 149-161.
• Stevenson, M., & Taylor, B. J. (2017). Risk communication in dementia care: Professional perspectives on consequences, likelihood, words and numbers. British Journal of Social Work, 47(7), 1940–1958.
• Stolper, E., Van de Wiel, M., Van Royen, P., Van Bokhoven, M., Van der Weijden, T., & Dinant, G. J. (2011). Gut feelings as a third track in general practitioners’ diagnostic reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(2), 197–203.
• Sutcliffe, K., & Weick, K. (2008). Information overload revisited. İçinde G. Hodgkinson ve W. Starbuck (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organisational decision making (ss. 56–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sylvester A., Tate M., & Johnstone D. (2013). Beyond synthesis: Re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(12),1199-1215.
• Taylor, B. (2017b). Heuristics in professional judgement: A psych-rationality model. British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), 1043–1060.
• Taylor, B. J. (2006). Risk management paradigms in health and social services for professional decision making on the long-term care of older people. British Journal of Social Work, 36(8), 1411–1429.
• Taylor, B. J. (2010). Professional decision making in social work. Learning Matters.
• Taylor, B. J. (2017a). Decision making, assessment and risk in social work (3. Baskı). London: Sage.
• Taylor, B. J., & Devine, T. (1993) Assessing Needs and Planning Care in Social Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Taylor, B. J., & Donnelly, M. (2006). Professional perspectives on decision making about the long-term care of older people. British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), 807–826.
• Taylor, B. J., & Whittaker, A. (2018). Professional judgement and decision-making in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 32(2), 105–109.
• Thiele, L. P. (2006). The heart of judgment: Practice wisdom, neuroscience, and narrative. Cambridge University Press
• Topolinsky, S. (2011). A process model of intuition. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 274–315. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10463283.2011.640078
• Tversky, A., & D. Kahneman. (1982). Judgement under uncertainity: Heuristics and biases. İçinde Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. ve Tyversky, A. (Ed.), Judgement under Uncertainity (ss. 3-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Welsh, I., & Lyons, C. M. (2001). Evidence-based care and the case for intuition and tacit knowledge in clinical assessment and decision making in mental health nursing practice: An empirical contribution to the debate. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 8(4), 299–305.
• Whittaker, A. (2018). How do child protection practitioners make decisions in real life situations? Lessons from the psychology of decision making. British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 1967-1987.
• Witteman, C. L. M., Spaanjaars, N. L., & Aarts, A. A. (2012). Clinical intuition in mental health care: A discussion and focus groups. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 19–29.