Context-constraints

The issue o f context has received attention by a number o f writers, both within and outside the field o f educational psychology. Schon (1983), for example, has critiqued the "technical rationality" view o f applied practice. This "consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique" (ibid, p.21). While acknowledging the existence o f some "high, hard ground where practitioners can make effective use o f research-based theory and technique" (ibid, p.42), he argues that practitioners are more likely to find themselves in a swamp where many of the problems o f greatest human concern exist as confusing real-life messes, "incapable o f technical solution," (ibid, p.42). Schon (1983) maintains that real-world problem solving should be seen as a "craft" or, as Wright (1998) refers to it, as "professional artistry", not open to analysis but involving structured reflection both during and after the actual process of doing. Here the influence o f Deweyian thinking is most evident.

Checkland and Scholes (1990) argue that problem solving can be analysed and translated into a methodology which includes an element of structured reflection. While they call into question the usefulness and relevance of scientific problem solving to the "soft" social science problems, they nevertheless support the use of approaches which “introduce some o f the kind o f rigour normal in natural science into this more difficult field o f applied social science” (ibid, p.290).

In discussing the uses of both Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and o f Cameron and Stratford's (1987) problem-centred approach, Frederickson (1990) argued that in educational psychologist practice straightforward human problems are rare (i.e. well- structured problems about which there is general consensus and an obvious solution). While it may be possible to identify a well-defined area of concern and apply a problem­ solving approach, most situations encountered by educational psychologists seem much closer to the SSM description o f "real-life messes".

Ill-defined problems can be interpreted in different ways by different people. From their experience in training educational psychologists, in England, Miller et al (1992) reported a growing realisation about the inherent limitations o f many problem­ solving models, "for dealing with the complex interpersonal perceptions, motives and behaviour that are encountered" in real-life work contexts (p.31). They argued that

attention must be given to the more interpersonal and systemic aspects o f problem solving within applied contexts, very much as Argyris (1982) had suggested earlier.

23.2,2, User-constraints

In comparison to context-constraints, issues concerning user-constraints have been given little attention within the literature. The assumption appears to be that training psychologists in problem-solving approaches should proceed by teaching a set of well- researched principles (not actionable skills), selected to maximise the probability of high quality solutions being generated. Indeed D'Zurilla and Goldjfried (1971) drew attention to the fact that there was a remarkable degree of agreement as to the general kinds of operations involved in effective problem solving, although the precise terminology and the steps involved vary greatly between vmters. These observations are hardly surprising given that the vast majority o f contemporary problem-solving frameworks can be traced back, conceptually at least, to the pioneering work of Dewey.

Even i f those being trained attempted to faithfully apply the problem-solving approach (es) they are taught, it is likely that differences will be apparent between what Argyris and Schon (1974, 1996) refer to as their "espoused theories" (what people say they are doing) and what they actually do, (or the "theories-in-use") apparent from their practice. It was hypothesised that the primary focus of much training would be at this espoused level. As a consequence many EPITs (and similar trainees) are probably being educated in ways which fail to assist them in identifying the incongruities between their espoused theories and theories-in-use.

De Mesquita (1992) observed that practising school psychologists do not always adhere to the systematic assessment approaches which they claim to be applying. In his study, experienced practitioners did not differ significantly from trainee school psychologists in their problem solutions or strategies. The only difference found was in the relative "efficiency" o f the experienced practitioners who spent less time on information processing and problem solving.

Lichtenberg (1997) undertook a review of expertise within counselling psychology. He focused upon clinical decision making as an area to investigate differences between experts and novices. Overall he found that the counselling process

was seen as effective. However, in terms of the accuracy of their clinical judgements, the amount of training and experience did not appear to be significantly related to differences between novices and experienced counsellors. The characteristics o f expert and novice problem solvers will be outlined in more detail in a later section. The research reviewed in this upcoming section would tend to imply that attempting to measure interviewer behaviours which correspond to steps in a given problem-solving process would not be likely to help in discovering what behaviours actually lead to successful problem understanding during an initial teacher interview.

Miller et al (1992) argued that "problem solving is not a mechanical operation, and the potential problem solver brings to the situation, and must be aware of, his or her own personal assumptions, values and prejudices" (p.37). When the problem solvers are educational psychologists they will also bring to the situation different psychological theory and research. Reynolds et al (1984) describe a vision of school psychologists as problem solvers whose actions originate fi*om sound psychological theories and research, and recommends problem solving as a process by which different theories and content can be accommodated.

The practice of problem solving cannot be content or value firee. In carrying out a step such as "collect data relevant to the problem" (Cameron & Stratford, 1987), the theoretical bases which inform the educational psychologist's work are likely to influence the type of information he or she will collect. The use of behavioural firameworks would lead to the collection of information on antecedents and consequences, while cognitive approaches would place more emphasis upon the sense the teacher (and child) was making of the child's challenging behaviour, whilst those employing a situative approach would try to combine aspects o f both behavioural and cognitive orientations (Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996).

Theoretical considerations will also influence whether one problem is identified as being the priority (and if so which one), the relative weight given to collecting data on the presenting problem itself (as opposed to factors which may be influencing its occurrence), the type and range o f alternative interventions considered, the information regarded as relevant in selecting between possible interventions and, in later stages, in evaluating their effectiveness.

Frederickson et al (1991), have argued that educational psychologists have paid insufficient attention to the theoretical bases which have informed their problem-solving practice. This may be due to an implicit over-reliance upon behaviourally-based approaches to problem solving (Sigston et al, 1996). Frederickson et al (1991) emphasise the need to focus upon the "why" questions in the formulation of hypotheses about the problems being experienced. Monsen et al (1998) build upon this position by stressing the need for such hypotheses to be made explicit, arguing that they would be more open to challenge, and feedback within Argyris' use of the word. Frederickson et al (1991) also put forward the view that the unique contribution o f educational psychologists lies in the broad range o f hypotheses they are able to draw upon in understanding a client's problem. Unfortunately the authors do not address the central question of how such an approach helps the practitioner and client gain an accurate understanding of the problem.

Frederickson et al (1991) also expressed concern that educational psychologists tended to consider too narrow a range of possible hypotheses. Support for this concern was found in a study which looked at the use of problem solving within a group of American school psychologists (de Mesquita, 1992). De Mesquita reported that most psychologists used a solution by elimination ("rule out") strategy. This involves testing out a small number and range of hypotheses which are perceived to be most probable and eliminating any when disconfirming evidence is found.

Accountable practice would require more than this. It would require that educational psychologists make explicit their thinking and reasoning about a client's problem, the evidence base and their rationale for the decisions made and actions taken. Using an explicit.framework to guide problem solving confers important advantages on both the practitioner and client. Such an approach could assist everyone concerned to see the appropriateness o f fit between the process and outcome of problem management. It also provides a medium for inducting new educational psychologists into the complex activities demanded o f them in everyday work and enables experienced practitioners to share and develop good practice.

2.3.3. Conclusions

The discussion so far, indicates that there is little research evidence that experienced practitioners follow the problem-solving steps they were taught when trained. To the extent that they do conform, their behaviour is characterised by the flexibility and adaptation suggested by Dewey. Several writers acknowledge that a progression-by- steps approach to problem solving is helpful for the purposes o f training and study rather than as a description of a naturally occurring process (D'Zurilla & Goldfield, 1971; de Mesquita, 1992). For the purposes of this thesis any research attempting to measure interviewer behaviours which correspond with the various steps in a given problem­ solving sequence is unlikely to be helpful. This thesis will focus instead upon the task o f identifying what interviewer behaviours are associated with the formulation of a "high quality" understanding of a teacher's problem.

The problem-solving frameworks referred to in this chapter provide little guidance as to the skills involved in this critical task o f understanding the teacher's presenting problem. It is assumed in all of the progression-by-steps frameworks that the educational psychologist has the component problem-solving skills. However, there is no evidence that this is in fact correct, especially when the skills have not been made explicit within the various frameworks.

2.4. INFORMATION-PROCESSING THEORY AND THE PROBLEM