五十年的“协议化”。英国的儿童保护社会工作者是如何克服程序上的差距并促进以儿童为中心的实践的?

Ciarán Murphy , Michael Murphy
{"title":"五十年的“协议化”。英国的儿童保护社会工作者是如何克服程序上的差距并促进以儿童为中心的实践的?","authors":"Ciarán Murphy ,&nbsp;Michael Murphy","doi":"10.1016/j.chipro.2025.100189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Fifty years after the establishment of England’s modern child protection system, the country continues to experience new instances of high-profile child death tragedies where children have been harmed <em>despite</em> practitioners complying with the processes and procedures designed to protect them. This practice perspective article draws from the testimonies of 30 current child protection social workers to identify what they consider to be the continued challenges to achieving child-centred child protection practice in England. It reports on the social workers’ frustration with a system that they see as ‘totally reliant’ on evidencing compliance with procedures, but also highlights several ‘strategies’ that practitioners employ to ‘navigate’ procedural ‘gaps’ and overcome practice challenges, to better promote the individual needs of children. This includes the use of discretion via ‘professional disobedience’; ensuring that decisions are ‘defensible’; ‘Seeing Triple’; adopting a common language for, and understanding of, risk; and identifying a ‘shared goal’ as a means of overcoming resistance. The article considers several implications that emerge from the social workers’ testimonies, including that there is perhaps ‘more to do’ to address underlying factors thought to be impeding individualised child-centred child protection practice; that there should be a targeted emphasis on challenging local cultures preoccupied with evidencing compliance with quantifiable ‘output’ indicators over time spent with children; and that further reviews of the system should focus on the strategies used by social workers to promote child-centred practice and on how these ideas can be better disseminated to enhance the learning and practice of other practitioners.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100237,"journal":{"name":"Child Protection and Practice","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fifty years of ‘protocolization’. How are England’s child protection social workers navigating procedural gaps and promoting child-centred practice?\",\"authors\":\"Ciarán Murphy ,&nbsp;Michael Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chipro.2025.100189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Fifty years after the establishment of England’s modern child protection system, the country continues to experience new instances of high-profile child death tragedies where children have been harmed <em>despite</em> practitioners complying with the processes and procedures designed to protect them. This practice perspective article draws from the testimonies of 30 current child protection social workers to identify what they consider to be the continued challenges to achieving child-centred child protection practice in England. It reports on the social workers’ frustration with a system that they see as ‘totally reliant’ on evidencing compliance with procedures, but also highlights several ‘strategies’ that practitioners employ to ‘navigate’ procedural ‘gaps’ and overcome practice challenges, to better promote the individual needs of children. This includes the use of discretion via ‘professional disobedience’; ensuring that decisions are ‘defensible’; ‘Seeing Triple’; adopting a common language for, and understanding of, risk; and identifying a ‘shared goal’ as a means of overcoming resistance. The article considers several implications that emerge from the social workers’ testimonies, including that there is perhaps ‘more to do’ to address underlying factors thought to be impeding individualised child-centred child protection practice; that there should be a targeted emphasis on challenging local cultures preoccupied with evidencing compliance with quantifiable ‘output’ indicators over time spent with children; and that further reviews of the system should focus on the strategies used by social workers to promote child-centred practice and on how these ideas can be better disseminated to enhance the learning and practice of other practitioners.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child Protection and Practice\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child Protection and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193825000968\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Protection and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193825000968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在英国建立现代儿童保护制度五十年后,该国继续经历新的引人注目的儿童死亡悲剧,尽管从业人员遵守了旨在保护儿童的程序和程序,但儿童仍然受到伤害。这篇实践视角的文章借鉴了30位当前儿童保护社会工作者的证词,以确定他们认为在英国实现以儿童为中心的儿童保护实践的持续挑战。它报告了社会工作者对他们认为“完全依赖”符合程序的证据的系统的挫败感,但也强调了从业者使用的几个“策略”,以“导航”程序“差距”和克服实践挑战,以更好地促进儿童的个人需求。这包括通过“职业不服从”使用自由裁量权;确保决策“站得住脚”;“看到三”;采用共同的语言来描述和理解风险;并确定一个“共同目标”作为克服阻力的手段。文章考虑了社会工作者证词中出现的几个含义,包括可能有“更多的工作要做”来解决被认为阻碍以儿童为中心的个性化儿童保护实践的潜在因素;应该有针对性地强调挑战当地文化,这些文化专注于证明与儿童在一起的时间是否符合可量化的“产出”指标;对该制度的进一步审查应侧重于社会工作者为促进以儿童为中心的做法所采用的策略,以及如何更好地传播这些想法,以加强其他从业人员的学习和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fifty years of ‘protocolization’. How are England’s child protection social workers navigating procedural gaps and promoting child-centred practice?
Fifty years after the establishment of England’s modern child protection system, the country continues to experience new instances of high-profile child death tragedies where children have been harmed despite practitioners complying with the processes and procedures designed to protect them. This practice perspective article draws from the testimonies of 30 current child protection social workers to identify what they consider to be the continued challenges to achieving child-centred child protection practice in England. It reports on the social workers’ frustration with a system that they see as ‘totally reliant’ on evidencing compliance with procedures, but also highlights several ‘strategies’ that practitioners employ to ‘navigate’ procedural ‘gaps’ and overcome practice challenges, to better promote the individual needs of children. This includes the use of discretion via ‘professional disobedience’; ensuring that decisions are ‘defensible’; ‘Seeing Triple’; adopting a common language for, and understanding of, risk; and identifying a ‘shared goal’ as a means of overcoming resistance. The article considers several implications that emerge from the social workers’ testimonies, including that there is perhaps ‘more to do’ to address underlying factors thought to be impeding individualised child-centred child protection practice; that there should be a targeted emphasis on challenging local cultures preoccupied with evidencing compliance with quantifiable ‘output’ indicators over time spent with children; and that further reviews of the system should focus on the strategies used by social workers to promote child-centred practice and on how these ideas can be better disseminated to enhance the learning and practice of other practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信