000 02237nab a22002777a 4500
999 _c5790
_d5790
005 20250625151447.0
008 180327s2011 -nz||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aAFVC
100 _aKeddell, Emily
_94218
245 _aReasoning processes in child protection decision making :
_bNegotiating moral minefields and risky relationships
_cEmily Keddell
260 _bOxford Academic,
_c2011
500 _aBritish Journal of Social Work, 2011, 41(7): 1251-1270
520 _aThis paper investigates the reasoning processes of social workers in child protection social work as they make decisions. Within this interpretive process, they assign meaning to clients' behaviours in a context containing a multitude of competing discourses relating to the nature and cause of clients' problems. The study used a qualitative approach, specifically a critical incident framework. It asked workers to describe cases they felt ‘pleased with’ and explain the reasoning processes they used in those cases. It also asked clients their views of decisions made about them. This article draws on social constructionist theorising to describe and analyse the discourses used to frame the aims of practice and the causes of clients' problems. It found that workers valued family maintenance and sought to bolster this while managing potential risk. In the cases selected by workers, they constructed the causes of clients' problems in non-blaming but individualised ways, viewed clients as being capable of change and honest in their dealings with workers. It is proposed that these ways of viewing contributed to maintaining relationships with clients despite the challenges of balancing risk, care, control and power. (Author's abstract). Record #5790
650 _aCHILD PROTECTION
_9118
650 _aCHILD WELFARE
_9124
650 _aFAMILIES
_9238
650 _aINTERVENTION
_9326
650 4 _aRISK MANAGEMENT
_9506
650 4 _aSOCIAL SERVICES
_9555
650 _aSOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
_9562
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
773 0 _tBritish Journal of Social Work, 2011, 41(7): 1251-1270
830 _95239
_aBritish Journal of Social Work
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr012
_zRead abstract
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE