Conceptualising childhood in social work: an action research study in Iceland

Elizabeth Fern liz@unak.is

IntroductionResearchers have highlighted ways in which adult perceptions of childhood influence the nature of relationships between adults and children, and raised concerns about how power and knowledge employed by experts constrain children’s ability to be self-directing (Mayall, 1994; James and Prout, 1997).

This study examined how practitioners conceptualised childhood and the significance of this for developing child-directed practice. The action research approach was informed by young people as consultants and involved social workers and psychologists as research participants. Evaluation of the research suggested significant movement towards child-directed practice. The changes indicate the potential of this approach for achieving an agenda for practice development involving practitioners and informed by young people in contact with welfare services.

Action research involves those who are most affected by the research issue (Hart and Bond, 1995). Ten young people with experience of social work intervention were engaged to act as counsultants to the research. Ten social workers and two psychologists were actively involved as research participants

Linking empowerment and participation

Questions young people would want to ask social workers

Methodology: action research outline

Findings from first interviews

Others

Teacher

Psychologist

Key-worker

Mentor

Social worker

Child

Parents

Problems Decisions

Child-centred practice

Others

Others

Key-worker

Mentor

Psychologist

Teacher

Social worker

Parents

Child

Child-directed practice

Future workPractice-based action research Development within organisational strategic agendasConsider implications for social work education and training

ReferencesChristensen, P. and Prout, A. (2002) Working with Ethical Symmetry in Social Research with Children. Childhood 9, 477-497. Hart, E. and Bond, M. (1995) Action research for health and social care: A

guide to practice, Buckingham: Open University Press.James, A. and Prout, A. (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood Second Edition London: Falmer Press.Lardner, C. ( 2001) Youth Participation – A new model [online] www.lardner.demon.co.uk Accessed August, 2005Mayall, B. (1994) Children's Childhoods Observed and Experienced, London: Falmer Press.Thomas, N. and O'Kane, C. (1998) The Ethics of Participatory Research with Children Children & Society 12: 336-348

A grid model for determining levels of participation (adapted from: Lardner, 2001)

This work was performed as part of doctoral research registered at the University of Warwick, supervised by Dr Christine Harrison with assistance from Dr Eileen McLeod at Warwick. Professor Guðrún Kristinsdóttir at the Iceland University of Education, acted as academic consultant and co-facilitated the consultation with young people. The research was supported by KEA/University of Akureyri research funds and RANNIS, the national research fund of Iceland.

The research was carried out with the cooperation of Reykjavik Social Services Department. I would like to thank the young people and the practitioners for their contribution to the research.

Most models of participation use ladders or steps to show levels of decision-making powers that children have relative to adults. Lardner’s model helps to identify how practitioners can break down the process of decision-making into different elements. The left and right columns indicate the extremes of participation and non-participation. Different levels of participation along the continuum between these extremes may be appriopriate to different situations. The practitioner is directed by children’s experience and communication in determining support for maximising children’s control over decisions.

How long have you been in this job?

What is your education?

What is your experience?

Have you had a good relationship with children seeking help?

Have you been able to help children who have sought your help?

How do you make people feel good?

How do you feel about kids, e.g. autistic ones and the like, also just kids with ordinary problems?

Do you ignore them, or do you listen to them and take an interest in solving their problems?

Do you become angry if kids achieve no success?

If you were given a shy child, how would you approach him/her?

What do you do if the child tells you her/his problems and does not want others to know about them?

How can I be sure that you won’t tell anybody else?

How can I trust you?

Work with the child and family can have an appearance of being child-centred, but fails to provide avenues for children to have their say and contribute to decision-making. In the model of child-directed practice the child has moved to a more equal position alongside adults. From here there are more opportunities for children to contribute to a process of defining their situations and negotiating what happens.

Adultsinitiate

Childinitiates

Adultsdecide agenda

Childdecides agenda

Adultsmake

decisions

Childmakes

decisions

Adultshave

information

Childhas

information

Adultsimplement

action

Childimplements

action

Formal adult

structures

Informal structures

Findings from second interviews

Conceptualisations of childhood

Informed by discourses of welfare and control

• Children as irrational, disordered and difficult• Children as ‘the problem’• Children subsumed by family• Children in passive and subordinate roles

Practice implications

• Adult-directed• Service-led• Children excluded from decision-making

Informed by discourses of rights and agency

• Children as rational and able to evaluate their own situations and effects of practitioner’s intervention

• Children as active in defining problems• Children influencing the direction of the work

Practice implications

• More child-directed• Practitioners were active in forming participatory

relationships with children and through these relationships included children in the work

First interviews with practitioners

Reflective workshop with practitioners

Working on action plans with

practitioners

Evaluation workshop

Initial group meeting with practitioners

Second interviews with practitioners

First consultation

meeting with young

people

Newsletter to young people

Second consultation

meeting with young

people

Planning meeting and newsletters to young

people

Newsletter to practitioners

Newsletter to practitioners

Third consultation

meeting with young

people

Newsletter to practitioners

Factors limiting child-directed practice

• Maintaining service-led approach• Dominance of professional interpretations of problems• Reliance on age related guidelines• Emphasis on vulnerability and protection• Lack of organisational ‘champion’ and obligation to work in

participation established in systems

Significant shifts towards child-directed practice

• Active engagement of young people in action plans: practitioners asking for feedback directly from young people

• Increasing honesty, trust and involvement through sharing records

• Supporting children’s participation in meetings through preparation

• Provision of services informed by children’s views• Reciprocal sharing of knowledge, skill and resources • Small numbers; but significant sharing of power and control;

relationships more equal, reciprocal and interdependent