Rebekah Howes, Lauren James, Sarah Leon, Jodie Pritchard and Nigel Tubbs

CareKnowledge, 2025

 

Introduction

This paper describes the motivation, philosophy, design, pedagogy, and evaluation of a small-scale pilot project to offer courses in philosophical learning to staff in Barnardo’s Children’s Services. Arising from the convergence of sector concerns about professional curiosity and challenge, critical insights from safeguarding review literature, and academic insights into philosophical education, the project trialled a different kind of learning experience for wider professional development in the social care and social welfare sectors.

The paper argues that the ‘Socratic moment’ – the activity of questioning, doubting, understanding and re-cognising what we think we know – is often the missing step between acquiring knowledge and applying it in, and for, more meaningful practice. The philosophical experience of what we know transforms how practitioners think, decide, and act in their professional relationships.

It is our contention that philosophical thinking is an under-recognised but necessary element of learning and development. Recognising and nurturing thinking practices within L&D provision, we argue, encourages curiosity, deepened understanding, reasoned argument and self-awareness, all capacities that help to strengthen principled decision-making, and develop well-being by sustaining connection to the human and humane purposes of their work.

 

Beginnings

Four elements converged in shaping the idea for offering philosophical learning experiences within the remit of professional development in the care sector. The first was a conversation between Sarah Leon of CareKnowledge1, and Kasey Senior, Service Manager- Practice Standards and Principal Social Worker in Surrey County Council's School and Families Directorate. The second was a paper examining how ‘professional curiosity’ and ‘challenge’ are discussed in reviews of serious child safeguarding cases in England by Dickens et al.2 The third element was a further conversation between Sarah and Jodie Pritchard, the Director of Learning and Development at Barnardo’s, about the idea of running pilot studies that would try to offer a distinctive kind of reflective or philosophical Learning and Development. The fourth and final element was Sarah contacting Nigel Tubbs and Rebekah Howes of Think Learning to see if the kinds of philosophical educational courses they ran would be suitable. 

The conversation between Sarah Leon and Kasey Senior can be summarised as follows:

 

Across health and social care, there has been a longstanding and repeated call for practitioners to be more professionally curious and capable critical thinkers. Reviews of serious incidents—such as child deaths —often cite an absence of these qualities as a contributing factor, pointing to missed opportunities to question assumptions, notice warning signs, or reflect critically on unfolding concerns. This all felt incongruent with our own experience — we see thousands of practitioners demonstrating these qualities in their thoughtful engagement with the complex ideas and contradictions surfaced through the challenging conversations hosted in CareKnowledge Live events.

 

This led us to wonder: is the problem less about an absence of these skills, and more about how they are valued, supported, and sustained? Might the difficulty lie partly in the conditions practitioners work within—conditions shaped by risk, time pressure, emotional complexity, and conflicting expectations? If it is harder to lead with curiosity, to pause and reflect, or to act with confidence in their own professional judgment in times of stress, do we need more emphasis on practising and developing these skills so that they are capable of being sustained?

 

At the same time, we've also heard growing concern about burnout, moral distress, and disconnection—even as the language of relational practice becomes more prevalent and training opportunities continue to expand. This raised a further question: could these issues be linked? That is, are professional curiosity, critical thinking, and reflective, values-led practice not only interdependent, but also under strain from the same pressures? Is it possible that the structures and cultures around learning and practice are pulling people away from the relationships, values, and reflective spaces that have the ability to sustain them.

 

Perhaps, over time, practitioners are not just stretched too thin—but are also distanced from the ethical foundations of their work, and from trust in their own judgment. And might conventional models of learning—often shaped by compliance, prescription, and mechanical knowledge transfer—be a key part of the problem? Could it be that these approaches compromise the very instincts they aim to strengthen, by encouraging reliance on models over reflection, relationship, and professional judgment?

 

The second element, the paper on Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (LCSPRs) complemented the conversation in many important ways. It showed that while curiosity and challenge are frequently cited as missing, reviews rarely ask why they are absent. The reasons are complex: fear of damaging relationships, unmanageable workloads, professional hierarchies, organisational cultures that discourage dissent, and the emotional cost of facing distressing truths. In other words, the issue is not simply an individual deficit, but the interplay between personal capability and the conditions in which it is practised – conditions shaped by organisational priorities, cultures, and the value placed on ‘learning.’

In response, the authors proposed reframing professional curiosity and challenge within two broader categories: communication – listening well, asking questions that enable people to respond, translating between professional ‘languages,’ being open to receiving challenge as well as giving it – and courage – always mindful of their physical safety yet having the emotional bravery to face distress and at times threat, and also to challenge senior colleagues, take proportionate risks in trusting families, and hear children’s painful accounts. Overall, the authors recommended that reviews, and also organisations and individuals, stop treating ‘lack of curiosity/challenge’ as sufficient explanations and address the underlying barriers; strengthen supervision, training, and organisational cultures that support reflective, courageous communication; and seek national investment so that practitioners have the time and resources to build effective, trusting relationships.

Where the conversation and the article met most powerfully was in their implicit critique of models of learning that were taken for granted in the continuous education of social care practitioners and managers. Sarah and Kasey agreed that telling practitioners to ‘be more curious’ or ‘think more critically’ is not enough. These qualities require space to grow. They depend on trust, time, and emotionally grounded learning environments where thinking differently is both possible and encouraged. The team at CareKnowledge instinctively felt all these threads were connected and that if we wanted to see a different result, we had to offer a different kind of learning – content and experience.

Similarly, Dickens et al. at several points in their paper pointed to the need for a different kind of professional development in order to re-appraise the common-sense assumptions about what curiosity and challenge mean and how they get used in practice and in reviews of practice. In particular, they referred to the need for ‘creative training and a local culture that is open-minded and curious about itself as well’3; the need to ‘open up more complex and nuanced dimensions, about the organisational context, workloads, training and supervision, the emotional demands of the work and the wider socio-legal and political ambiguities of state intervention in family life’4; and the need to place the ideas of curiosity and challenge within the contradictory and often apparently self-defeating paradoxes that characterise their application.

In short, both contributions supported deeper and more nuanced thinking about both training in and understanding of curiosity and courage, and perhaps even more importantly that training and education face up to the profound difficulties of carrying the understanding of these qualities into practice.  

The third element saw the involvement of Barnardo’s through its Director of Learning and development, Jodie Pritchard5. Barnardo’s was a natural partner for exploring the integration of philosophical thinking into learning and development. As an organisation founded on the principle of care as a universal right, its history and values align closely with the ethos of reflective and ethical practice. Jodie agreed to commission two courses between Oct 2024 and April 2025. In Jodie’s own words:

 

Since joining Barnardo’s, I’ve spent significant time listening to and learning from colleagues across the organisation. What has become increasingly clear is the intensity and complexity of the environments in which many of our teams—especially within Children’s Services—are working. The pace and pressure of frontline practice often leave little room for reflective thinking or deeper personal development.

 

This led me to explore alternative approaches to professional growth—ones that go beyond traditional training models and instead create space for thoughtful reflection, ethical dialogue, and emotional resilience. I was particularly drawn to the potential of philosophical thinking as a way to support colleagues in navigating complexity while reconnecting with the core values and purpose that underpin our work.

 

Piloting the Philosophical Thinking learning programme offered a valuable opportunity to test this idea in practice. We asked: Could structured time for reflection and conversation help colleagues think more clearly, act with greater integrity, and work with deeper compassion and conviction? This question was central to our decision to participate in the pilot and to how we evaluated its impact.

 

It’s been affirming to see how colleagues have engaged with the programme—reconnecting with their values, sharing openly, and thinking deeply about their practice. The early impact has reinforced our belief in the importance of creating space for this kind of learning.

 

Finally, conversations with Rebekah Howes and Nigel Tubbs from Think Learning brought a fourth strand to the project6. The first two strands – the insight from the CareKnowledge discussion and the safeguarding review analysis, had acknowledged the problem; Barnardo’s offered organisational support; now Think Learning’s work in philosophical education suggested a practical way to respond. Grounded in structured dialogue, critical questioning, and the exploration of philosophical ideas in the company of others, their approach offered the possibility of nurturing and practising curiosity and challenge as philosophical thinking skills. The vision that emerged was to help organisations create spaces where such thinking practices are nurtured, and to work with leaders to examine the kinds of thinking their culture promotes and rewards, so that curiosity and critical engagement become not just personal virtues but organisational norms.

This paper now describes the pilot studies that were made available to colleagues in Barnardo’s. It outlines what it takes ‘philosophical education’ to mean and then briefly describes the general framing of the content and the pedagogy of the courses and the feedback and evaluation of them. The paper ends by reflecting on the wider implications that the courses may have.

 

 

Philosophical education

If the challenge outlined above is not a lack of thinking skills as such, it may lie more in how such thinking skills are noticed, understood, nurtured, and given space to develop, and also in the meaning that gets attached to them. Thinking is obviously already part of what we all do in practice, in every conversation, every decision, every act of care. But it may also be the most under-used and under-valued human resource available to people and to workplaces. Not only is it free and easily accessible, it is also sustainable and renewable, creates change, prevents disasters, nurtures care, spurs motivation, discovers meaning, resists cynicism, and above all, perhaps, oils the wheels of communication and connection.

Yet we rarely pause to think about the nature of that thinking, how it works, and so, thereby, the kinds of thinking that lead to more impactful learning and change, both in persons and practice. The question then is what kind of educational experience helps us to explore our own thinking, and to bring it more self-consciously into our work? Our response to this question is what we call philosophical education7. We will briefly explain what we mean by this.

 

The Socratic moment

The knowledge-to-practice approach in much social work education aims to integrate more impactful professional development through the expectation that new knowledge changes behaviour and improves practice8. But it is our argument that there is a missing educational piece in this picture, one that can be called the ‘Socratic moment.’ The Greek philosopher Socrates introduced to the Western world the idea that knowledge – new and old – is not something lying about that can simply be picked up and used like a tool. Knowledge is something that has to be worked on, and this work is no less than the work of understanding.

In the agora of ancient Athens, Socrates would use dialogue to question those who claimed knowledge, until, after only a few questions, they realised that what they believed to be true was far less certain than they had assumed. What he exposed, in other words, was their lack of understanding, or, rather, the naivety of their claims to ‘know’ anything for certain. It was this shift from naive certainty to educated uncertainty that acknowledged the limitations of knowledge. This in turn elicited a more truthful understanding and acceptance of what we know and do not know.

An advance on this theory of Socratic questioning is informed by the work of two other philosophers. Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel argued that questioning the understanding of things has its own kind of truth in the consciousness and subjectivity of the thinker. In other words, critical thinking is inseparable from meaning, and by meaning here we mean two things: not just making sense of something, for example, Plato’s allegory of the cave9, but its wider import beyond its specific context. This extension of meaning is how new understanding comes to have impact in our own lives and crucially in our professional practice. Educated uncertainty opens the path, then, both to re-forming the meaning that our knowledge carries for us and to the ways in which it can applied in the world10. It is this experience of understanding and meaning that we are calling philosophical. By this term we do not mean the dry, rationalistic, abstract kind of academic philosophy. We mean the structured, careful, and often dialogical work of exploring our understanding and experiences of fundamental questions and ideas as they pertain to the complex, often equivocal and ambiguous nature of knowledge and practice. It is our belief that this updated Socratic experience is often the missing link in professional development between acquiring new knowledge and using it ‘impactfully’ and meaningfully in the world.

In relation to the questions regarding professional curiosity and challenge raised earlier, it might be the case that the introduction, employment and evaluation of critical skills unintentionally remains disconnected from practice because both understanding and meaning remain disconnected from the learner. It is our argument, that for knowledge to have a sustainable impact in the world, it must first have an impact on the understanding of the individual. Socrates understood that while new knowledge can move us from one position to another, the experience of thinking more deeply about that knowledge can move us from one disposition to another. Professional practice, after all, asks for more than compliance, prescription, and mechanical knowledge transfer. It requires the application of thinking, understanding and meaning into the lives of others11. The pilot courses were designed to bring this missing Socratic or philosophical element into L&D for frontline practitioners and managers.

 

Wellbeing

But there is an additional aspect to this notion of philosophical education that speaks to our modern lives. It concerns the extension of understanding and meaning beyond critical skills and professional curiosity to the even more fundamental issue of wellbeing, or human mental health.

Philosophical thinking began as a practice concerned with health12. In Ancient Greece, two and a half thousand years ago, philosophy took inspiration from the art of medicine. Medicine viewed health or wellbeing as a matter of balance between the physical and the mental, or between body and soul. Illness implied imbalance and the role of the doctor was to restore harmony. Philosophy modelled itself on this. Lack of understanding made for an imbalance between body and soul. Philosophers treated this with learning and education. For them, the art of wellbeing or living well required thinking well13.

Our own version of philosophical education embodies this ancient ambition, incorporating its humanistic roots. Achieving a healthy balance depends almost entirely on achieving a healthy perspective, which requires in turn that we have that time and space for thinking things through and for seeing through illusions that compromise our hopes for living well, especially those illusions that are engrained and taken for granted. This includes being able to get a healthy perspective on the ways in which we understand and negotiate the mismatches between our aims and their outcomes, between our beliefs and practices, and our hopes and realities – the kinds of oppositions and contradictions that are often examined as moral injury.  So much of wellbeing, speaking philosophically, is shaped by the perspectives we can achieve through more critical understanding of how we think we know the world, and of the meanings that we find therein. As the feedback to the courses will show, our pilot courses, while introducing the critical thinking skills that would enable the work and the practice of understanding, also encouraged people to comment on various aspects of how they felt their wellbeing was being attended to.

 

From the Socratic Moment to Four Philosophical Qualities

Working with this idea of philosophical experience we designed the sessions around four enduring philosophical qualities or characteristics often associated with the skills of critical thinking, professional curiosity, good judgement and integrity. These are:

  1. Curiosity and questioning: a sense of wonder and a desire to understand in order to relate more meaningfully to people and situations.
  2. Looking beyond appearances: a willingness to explore deeper perspectives and hidden truths, both in regard to the world at large and to knowing the self.
  3. Openness: the capacity to be open and surprised, to live without absolute certainties, to embrace life’s unpredictability, and to seek a healthy perspective on, and balance between, what can and what cannot be controlled.
  4. Principle-to-practice awareness: the ability to relate bigger principles to smaller actions, and to negotiate the gaps or contradictions between principles and practice, without being cowed into resignation and defeat by uncertainty or disappointment.

These qualities or ‘skills,’ durable over centuries, are still associated with a good or ‘virtuous’ character, or with someone who has integrity. We made them the four pillars of our courses but did not teach them directly. Instead, we let them emerge through the understanding of ideas and in the shared practice of uncovering their meaning. In this way, wonder, curiosity and openness became part of a wide-ranging relational notion of ‘recognition,’ while principles were embodied in the exploration of perspective.

 

Recognition

Wonder, curiosity and openness are cornerstones of philosophical experience, but they are not solipsistic or merely individual activities. As Socrates demonstrated, wonder, curiosity and openness already constitute our philosophical character. Indeed, for Kant they are innate in human beings, even if suppressed most of the time. But these elements are not ends in themselves. They are the catalyst to thinking, which again as Socrates illustrated, is not a solitary activity. Thinking takes wonder, curiosity and openness to the work required for understanding and meaning, and in Socrates these latter are always formed in dialogue with or in relation to others.

This is supported by others in the philosophical tradition who hold to the idea of thinking as fundamentally relational. Hegel, for example, argued that thinking is both an individual act and a social act: I think for myself, but the thinker I am is continually reshaped by the histories and experiences of my encounters with others. In fact, he says, we become aware of ourselves as individuals, or we become self-conscious, only because we are already in relation. It’s from the experience of being in relation, says Hegel, that we get the idea of ‘recognition,’ the notion that we each recognise ourselves as independent beings through the fact that we also recognise one another as such. This ‘mutual’ recognition is often seen as the basis for running a society.

But recognition here – of our being both independent and in relation – contains within it an important educational experience. Separating the ‘re’ and ‘cognition’ gives us the term re-cognition, reminding us that the ‘re’ here is the element of something ‘known again’, something having been (re-) experienced and now known differently. In other words, it tells us that we have learned something. This is where the difference that education makes is registered14.

It has significance for all relation-centred practices because the relation between practitioner and service user is carried as the work of re-cognition; the work that we do as individuals which is then part of the re-cognition we have of ourselves and of others. This is what we argue was one of the distinctive elements in the courses, thinking as the dialogical practice of re-cognition. In short, if thinking is not this practice, then it is without the significance of renewed understanding and meaning that can then be taken back into the professional work with clients and service users beyond the sessions.

 

Principled thinking requires perspective

One of the sessions on the course focused on the fourth quality of philosophical thinking: how to keep perspective in the ambiguities of principled thinking.

We began with the definition of a principle as something that should be applied universally in all situations. This can be a value or belief about the world, such as the principle of human equality or equal rights. It could be that treating all human beings with ‘humanity’ is a principle. We explored how organisations that operate without principles risk working arbitrarily, without guarantees that people will be treated fairly or consistently, and why experiences of such injustice can have a very powerful and often disruptive effect on individuals and on organisations more generally.

From there, we raised the issue of the difficulty of putting principles into practice. Here philosophical thinking makes a telling contribution for it helps us to see that there is something a bit odd about a principle. As previously mentioned, a principle states a universal truth that applies to everyone and therefore has to apply to each and every individual. But it is so often the case that, because people’s individual circumstances differ so radically, when we treat people equally, we also treat them unfairly. We used the following example: a loaf of bread is the same price in the shops for everyone. There is equality here. Yet due to circumstances different people’s ability to pay for the loaf is not equal. In this and all such situations, how do we treat people equally and fairly at the same time?

Participants immediately recognised the kinds of dilemmas that emerge in such contradictions, and the consequent frustrations that are experienced when there is a mismatch between intended outcomes and the real results, or when a principle gets distorted or undermined by the actions that try to deliver on them. But deeper understanding of such contradictions and frustrations is crucial if a slow erosion of trust in such principles, with its path to cynicism and resignation, and consequent performance and retention issues, is to be avoided. 

By looking at the problem philosophically we saw that, faced with the apparent contradictions at the heart of principles, a slightly different approach to dealing with them can be found. Instead of offering a simple black and white response or letting ourselves think the solution was either one thing or another, philosophical learning lets the difficulty have its own voice. It allows the dilemma to be spoken and understood, so that it is not simply suppressed by demands that things be quickly and efficiently resolved.  Philosophical thinking can do justice to the difficulty that presents itself. Not to hide from it, not to ignore it, but to speak it and to learn in it. And it is noticeable that when the difficulty is allowed its own voice, our relation to the problem changes. It becomes a partner in the conversation. And it mediates the pressure on us for immediate solutions. It helps us to do justice to the realities of the situations we find, rather than to what we hope or wish to find.

This challenge of principled thinking, along with the three philosophical ‘relational’ qualities of wonder, curiosity, and openness, were the core skills and qualities of the courses that we designed for care professionals to practice their thinking.

 

Pedagogy

The aim of most education or training is to lead the student or practitioner towards new knowledge or new paths. In our courses, each session introduced new philosophical material to read, followed by thinking about and discussing what had been read, challenging our own understandings of it, and listening carefully as others did the same. Feedback showed that this new material was received in different ways. For some, its relevance to their work was immediate, for others, it was not at first obvious. To borrow the old proverb for a moment: training can take the horse to water, and good training can even lead it to watering holes that were unknown and in unexpected places. But when the watering hole is reached, you cannot make the horse drink, and you cannot drink for it. As Hegel put it, ‘no one can think for another, any more than they can eat or drink for them.’15 Each individual needs the time and space to think for themselves.

And so, as Socrates also showed, understanding happens not simply by receiving knowledge from someone else. It happens in the experience or re-cognition of making that knowledge one’s own. This is the work of the Socratic moment: taking the experience of knowledge into the practice of understanding it, and finding meaning from it, by making it the content of relational work with others. Within this work, philosophical education does not separate understanding from meaning. It asks the learner to recognise the difference that both the journey to the watering hole and the act of drinking from it have made to them. To know this difference is to know how one has learned, and to know that one has learned is to have made the learning, the change, their own.

By the end of these sessions, some people who had initially doubted the value of the readings often reported that they could now see their relevance to practice. As noted above, some content concerned principles that, in their philosophical context, looked far removed from practice, but which, during discussion, were found to be at the root of many of the assumptions and values that underpinned policy and practice.

 

The Pilot Study

Barnardo’s was a natural partner for the pilot studies. From its earliest days, Barnardo’s has championed the belief that no child should be turned away. In 1870, when Dr. Barnardo opened his first home for boys, it offered not only shelter but also opportunities to learn trades and secure apprenticeships. The tragic death of an 11-year-old boy—turned away due to lack of space—led to a vow that ‘No child should be turned away.’16

This commitment to unconditional care was radical at the time, challenging Victorian norms that viewed poverty as a moral failing. Barnardo’s inclusive approach, accepting all children regardless of race, disability, or circumstance, laid the foundation for the organisation’s enduring philosophy: every child deserves the best possible start in life.

Today, that philosophy continues to guide Barnardo’s work with children, young people, and families—particularly in the face of structural inequalities and societal discrimination. The organisation’s strategy recognises that some communities face compounded challenges, and it seeks to address these injustices through compassionate, equitable support, with a clear focus on helping children and young people to be safe, happy, healthy, and hopeful17.

With this history and these values in mind, the course developed was called Care in Conversation. It’s aims were to

  • explore whether philosophical learning could help reconnect practitioners and leaders with their own thinking and reflective capacities and with each other.
  • support motivation, confidence, and a renewed sense of purpose.
  • offer a distinctive approach to learning by creating space for structured thinking and dialogue.

We piloted the course to two groups of between 12-15 people between November 2024 – March 2025, each consisting of four x 90-minute sessions run fortnightly. Each cohort was also invited to attend a 1.5-hour feedback session approximately one month after their course ended. The first part of each session introduced an idea through the reading of a short text from a philosophical thinker. This provided the stimulus for discussion. Further short extracts were shared to move conversations forward. The approach was deliberately non-transactional and there were no predefined learning outcomes. The style was conversational with some light touch teaching. There was no coursework and no homework.

 

The 4 weeks

Week 1 - Plato’s allegory of the cave

Week 2 - ‘It’s just human nature’

Week 3 - Careful power

Week 4 - Careful principles

 

Feedback on the courses

Feedback was gathered using a combination of online text-based questionnaire and a separate live video conference for each cohort.

 

Feedback form

The online form consisted of 20 questions. Eight multiple choice and rating-style questions sought to establish whether participants valued the course in the ways we had anticipated, their preferences for meeting frequency and duration, and whether participation had sparked interest in continuing philosophical learning. The remaining open-ended questions were devised as prompts to elicit feedback on their expectations of the course and evidence of impact on the participants as practitioners and as individuals. Themes of these open-ended questions focused on participants’ thinking about and feeling towards their practice, examples of positive change to practice outcomes, and their views on whether their time – and Barnardo’s training budget – had been well spent.

 

Live feedback sessions

In keeping with the spirit of the course, the post-course feedback sessions were designed as open, reflective conversations. Each began with a brief recap of the aims of the pilot and a reminder of the themes explored across the four weeks. From there, the space was opened up for participants to offer initial thoughts on what they made of the approach, and whether, or how, it had made a difference in their personal or professional lives. These reflections led organically to deeper discussion about the course’s distinctive style, particularly its non-directive, conversational format. To replicate the course conditions as closely as possible, these sessions were not recorded in video or audio format, but participants’ contributions were recorded in writing by facilitators.

 

Interpretation of feedback

Following the live feedback sessions, participants’ verbal contributions were collated and thematised alongside written survey responses. The following section quotes participant feedback from both sources.

 

Theme one: enjoyment and value

Responses to the survey questions rated the course at 4.4 stars out of five.

When asked about their feelings going into the course, the groups reported uncertainty and curiosity at similar levels. Some acknowledged feelings of apprehension prior to starting the course, both about the content – ‘I had some doubt whether people would fully engage in discussions’ – and taking time out from busy schedules.

Reflecting on how they went on to experience the course, participants indicated that they appreciated the ‘safe space’ of the format, and the relative freedom this then allowed in conversation.

 

The exchange of ideas in the conversation was an ‘exploration’ rather than everyone having to give their fixed opinions. It’s more a way to work things out without risk of saying the wrong thing. Useful to open people to thinking and communicating differently.

 

The course was also a safe way to think and talk about things. By using the readings to initiate conversation, without asking me for personal or professional stories, the session was ‘depersonalised’, ‘neutral’, which helped to open up the conversation more carefully.

 

Very different to other sorts of training which always want to bring you back ‘on track’. This course helped us to see where conversations might go. It let the conversation flow and go off in different directions.

 

93% of respondents to the survey said they would recommend the course to a colleague. While one participant noted that ‘it requires participation and to deeply think about topics. If someone is not prepared to do that I wouldn't encourage them to attend as it can impact the dynamics of the group’, others indicated that they’d encourage colleagues to ‘leave your doubts at the door’, ‘be open’, and emphasise to them the potential rewards.

 

I think some of the areas... were quite familiar subject matters [that] we talk about in our small therapeutic team, monthly clinical supervision and fortnightly peer supervision. But very helpful to have a new way into it. There is a real value to this course.

 

I took something away from each session. It was about growing and developing as a person, and this is something I think everyone should be able to do. It should be rolled out to all staff.

 

Theme two: general approach to practice

Participants expressed a new appreciation for the importance of proactively thinking and reflecting within their practice. For example:

 

It’s made me realise that I need to take time to think decisions through more and not manage in a reactive way.

 

A similar sentiment from a colleague:

 

I generally think in quite black and white terms... this has pushed me to think differently. I'm very reactive. Whereas over the past few weeks we've looked around things. I've realised I do need to take time to stop and reflect to be able to make the right decisions.

 

Notably, both of these participants credit these changes or insights to their experiences on the course.  Another participant echoed this in terms of their time-management and their response to certain situations:

 

It has made me think – to give myself permission to think and to allow myself the time. It has made me consider the impact other things such as commissioners and outputs have on our role and what we can do to overcome some of these challenges in the best interest of the children/young people we work with.

 

Another reflected on the new insight the course had given them into their own power dynamic with the families they work with:

 

I enjoyed the session on power in particular because when you’ve been in a role for a long time, you can take it for granted. You can stop thinking about it when it’s important to remember what impact my power has in the work I do with families. Especially because for some of the people it will be their first experience of us.

 

Theme three: reconnection with purpose

A recurring theme was participants’ relationship to Barnardo’s as an organisation, and their place within it. One participant described the course as ‘an opportunity to reflect on practice, and gain perspective around why and what we do under the umbrella of Barnardo's.’ Feedback from another suggested that a renewed sense of their own value was closely related to this:

 

It’s reminded me that I need to have that time to sit back and reflect on my ways of work and that what I do is important. Reminded me of why I came to work for the organisation.

 

From another participant:

 

I very much enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on my practice, it has given me a better understanding of myself and my purpose and role in Barnardo's. It's enabled me to see my worth as a person and practitioner.

 

Theme four: positive impact on practice and outcomes

Many participants noted that they were now conscious of thinking and reflecting more in their practice. One practitioner referred to a specific instance in which this new approach impacted an outcome:

 

It also had a knock-on effect. Before Christmas, there was a very stressful situation at work. But I didn’t react in the way I normally do. I stopped and took time to think about what to do. The result was different when I came back because I dealt with it better than what I would have done.

 

Another practitioner noted the way in which the practice of reflection fostered by the course was positive for their wellbeing at work:

 

It taught me to reflect more, to take time to think about the visits to families I make. It made me get my own personal notebook so I can write reflections down after visits, on how I’m feeling after a visit, especially those which can be quite traumatic. It helps me to check in on myself and my emotions, to ‘offload’, then reflect. My notepad has become really important since I did this course.

 

Impact was not necessarily limited to those who had been a part of the pilot cohorts; several participants suggested a ripple effect on those they work closely with. For example:

 

We’re so busy managing more and more services. We often have to rush to make decisions. But rushing doesn’t have the desired effect. Doing the course gave me space to take time back. My team are doing that more too; not rushing to make a decision, to realise there are different options. The pressure’s been lifted slightly, and my team have seen a difference.

 

In the live feedback sessions it was also noted by a number of participants in management roles that their teams would benefit from the some of the course content, with the suggestion that resources or the course be made more widely available.

 

Evaluation of feedback

The Care in Conversation pilot was designed to see whether philosophical learning could strengthen critical thinking, professional curiosity, reflective capacity, and a values-led practice within the high-pressure environment of Barnardo’s Children’s Services.

Findings show that the aims listed above were met in meaningful ways: 

  • Reconnection with thinking and reflective capacities: Participants described a renewed ability to pause, think deeply, and work with uncertainty rather than act reactively. Some participants came to recognise themselves as thinkers (‘I’m a doer, not a thinker' became ‘I can be both’), while others came to see the importance of thinking and became proactive in supporting their own reflection and wellbeing, for example, starting personal notebooks to capture not only what had happened in their work but also how they were feeling, particularly after challenging visits. 
  • Motivation, confidence, and purpose: Feedback revealed increased clarity about personal values, strengthened ethical judgment, and a reinvigorated sense of professional worth. As one participant put it, ‘It’s reminded me of why I came to work for the organisation... it’s enabled me to see my worth as a person and practitioner.’
  • Distinctive approach to learning: The questioning, conversational style, anchored in the reading of shared philosophical texts, was valued for enabling exploration without fear of ‘wrong answers,’ encouraging dialogue between people with differing roles and responsibilities, and creating a safe space to discuss complex or emotionally charged topics. One participant said it was ‘very different to other sorts of training which always want to bring you back ‘on track’. This course helped us to see where conversations might go. It let the conversation flow and go off in different directions.’ 

In addition to these results, it became clear that there was broader organisational relevance. Participants reported ripple effects, bringing thinking practices back to their teams and influencing a more thoughtful, less pressured decision-making culture. In some cases, this led to tangible differences in outcomes, such as the handling of a stressful situation more calmly and effectively or encouraging colleagues to slow down and resist rushing to decisions.

Overall, the pilot demonstrated that philosophical learning can create the conditions for thoughtful, reflective, values-led practice to thrive, aligning with Barnardo’s aim to cultivate a culture where colleagues ‘think well in order to act well’ for the benefit of children, young people, and families. The success of the pilot has justified plans to expand access and embed this approach more widely across the organisation, with ongoing evaluation to track long-term cultural impact.

 

Wider significance

We think it is also worth considering the wider implications that the pilot course might have for education and training in social care more generally. We have collected them into four observations.

First, that philosophical thinking makes a learning experience (re-cognition) out of the contradictory demands that are placed upon practitioners. These are the kinds of contradictions that practitioners seek to understand better in order to find more effective responses to them, contradictions similar to those highlighted in Dickens et al., for example, that they trust families and challenge them; that they protect children and respect privacy; that they follow procedures and respond humanely to unique situations. Treating such difficulties philosophically equips practitioners to negotiate these tensions without falling into either uncritical certainty (i.e. we don’t need to think about this too much) or sceptical paralysis (i.e. there’s nothing we can do about it).

Second, philosophical learning reframes curiosity and challenge as relational capacities, grounded in the labour of recognition, good communication and courage. Third, philosophical ideas discussed in carefully curated sessions acted as a bridge that connected people from different areas of the institution, helping to articulate thinking and experiences across professional and institutional boundaries. Finally, philosophical thinking spaces gave practitioners the chance to slow down, understand their work more deeply, and connect the world of ideas to the so called ‘real’ world (a separation our work rejects). This is not therapy; it is disciplined reflection in company with others. And it is, in the best tradition of philosophical work, part of the art of wellbeing, of living well.

 

Conclusion

It is our contention that philosophical thinking is an under-recognised but necessary experience in the broader pedagogical and reflective practices that support learning in the social care and social welfare sectors. The key here is that this kind of thinking is not abstract or academic but fundamentally related to who we are, how we act, and the decisions we make. The individual who acts carefully and thoughtfully in the world to make the best decisions they can for others, is already in the practice of thinking. It is our argument that this needs to be recognised and nurtured in educational opportunities that contribute to current professional development practices.

For those attending and participating in these learning experiences, it is not just about gaining new tools — it is about rediscovering their capacity to think clearly, act with integrity and in ways that are both effective and humane. For all participants, and in the long run for the organisation, it is the kind of thinking that is required for a living, learning culture. In the demands of working life, it is so easy to lose sight of the values and principles that call people to work in service provision. Our courses were a response to this, offering one path to rediscovering the meaning and vocation behind such work.

 

The Authors

Rebekah Howes, Director Think Learning, linkedin.com/in/rebekah-howes

Lauren James, Product Manager CareKnowledge, linkedin.com/in/lauren-james-uk

Sarah Leon, Digital Publishing Director CareKnowledge, linkedin.com/in/sarahjleon

Jodie Pritchard, Director of Learning and Development Barnardo’s, linkedin.com/in/jodiepritchard1

Nigel Tubbs, Director Think Learning, Emeritus Professor University of Winchester, nigel@thinklearning.org

 

References

1. CareKnowledge is a holistic professional development platform for social work and social care practice.  https://www.careknowledge.com/about-careknowledge

2. Dickens, J., Cook, L., Cossar, J,.Okpokiria, C,. Taylor, J,. Garstang, J,.‘Re-envisaging professional curiosity and challenge: Messages for child protection practice from reviews of serious cases in England,’ in Children and Youth Services Review, 152 (2023) 107081. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740923002761

3. Dickens et al. p. 7.

4. Dickens et al. p. 6.

5. We would also like to express our thanks to Mitzi Rampersad, Learning & Development advisor at Barnardo’s, in supporting and organising the pilot studies.

6. Think Learning is an educational platform offering philosophical and critical thinking courses to care sector organisations. https://thinklearning.org/

7. For a fuller account of this approach, see Nigel Tubbs’s work on the theory and practice of educational experience in Tubbs, N. & Grimes, J. (2001) ‘What is Education Studies?’ in Educational Studies, vol. 27, no. 1, and Tubbs, N. (2005) Philosophy of the Teacher, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

8. See, for example, Martin, R., & Hollows, A. (2016) ‘Practising for Social Work Practice: Integrating Knowledge and Skills for Social Work with Children and Families’ in Social Work Education, 35(5), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2016.1163330, and Brady, E. (2013) ‘Child Protection Social Workers Engagement in Continuing Professional Development: An Exploratory Study’ in Social Work Education, 33 (6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2013.869316

9. Found in Book VII of Plato’s Republic.

10. This re-forming is also what constitutes ‘re-cognition’ later in this paper. 

11. Additionally reflective practice, often seen as the antidote to mechanical thinking, does not always reflect on our understanding of the ideas that underpin the fundamental premises and principles of care work, ideas that can nurture slower and deeper kinds of reflective thinking that might contribute more substantially to the social care and welfare sectors, its practitioners and its service users.

12. Galen, for example, wrote a treatise called That the best Physician is also a Philosopher.

13. An example of this comes from Plato. In The Laws Plato gives an amusing description of the difference between the slave-doctor and the scientifically trained physician who treats free men. He says it consists in their attitude to their patients. The slave-doctor hurries from bed to bed, giving out prescriptions and orders without discussion – i.e. without explaining his treatment, simply working on routine and previous experience. He is an absolute tyrant. If he heard a free doctor talking to free patients in a manner very like scientific instruction, and defining the origins of the disease by going back to the nature of all bodies, he would laugh heartily and say what most so-called doctors retort in such cases: 'You fool, you are not curing your patient; you are educating him, as if you wanted not to make him healthy, but to make him into a doctor' (Plato, The Laws, 857c-d). ‘Plato believes that that same medical method which depends on a fundamental education of the patient is the ideal of scientific healing. He takes over that view from contemporary medical science’ (Jaeger, W. (1986) Paideia, The Ideals of Greek Culture, Volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 13). It is interesting that in our courses some participants raised this same issue of the extent to which education was a vital component in helping the children and families they worked with, especially when faced with the demands on their practice to be instrumental.

14. For more on this philosophical idea of recognition and re-cognition see Rose, G. (2009) Hegel Contra Sociology, London: Verso, pp. 76-77, and Howes, R. ‘Mis (re) cognition of God and Man, The Educational Philosophy and Politics of Gillian Rose’ in Davis, J. (2018) (ed) Misrecognitions, Oregon, Cascade Books, pp. 116-120.

15. Hegel, G.W.F. (1975) Hegel’s Logic, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p, 36.

16. https://www.barnardos.org.uk/who-we-are/our-history

17. Barnardo's Strategy 2024-2027