Book Review: “Against Critical Thinking in Health, Social Care and Social Work: Reframing Philosophy for Professional Practice” by Professor Tom Grimwood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a review of Dr. Tom Grimwood’s recent book, Against Critical Thinking in Health, Social Care and Social Work: Reframing Philosophy for Professional Practice, published by Routledge (2024). In this book, Grimwood takes the reader through a series of encounters between philosophy and practice, attempting to disrupt the well-established assumptions of critical thinking so that we may better understand criticality for its utility among care practice professionals, and as a mode of understanding. Grimwood’s work is a necessary antidote to the well-established prescriptive and methodological application of how critical thinking has historically been "used" in the caring practice professions, or how it has been persuasive in the kind of understandings it produces. At a time when the contemporary social welfare landscape is becoming increasingly politicized and economized in ways that create societal divisiveness, as was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, current conceptualizations of criticality have left care professionals without a way to bridge misinformation and misunderstanding in their practice. Thus, Grimwood considered his project to be inherently hermeneutical, wanting to remedy the all too familiar divide between theory and practice of critical thinking for practice professionals and in new and reimagined ways for applied hermeneutics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".