Content uploaded by Eileen Munro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eileen Munro on Jun 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Improving child safety: deliberation, judgement and empirical research
Abstract and Figures
If you are working in child protection or child welfare making decisions that affect children, young people and their families, or deciding how to organise the local child welfare system, or what programmes to provide in your area, this book is intended for you. It aims to help you deliberate about what you should do to predict more reliably the outcomes of interventions you might be considering and to recognise what evidence you will need for these tasks and how judgement is central to doing them well. Our discussion grows out of systematic research and scholarship but this is no scholarly tome. It aims to be of help to real practitioners and managers making real decisions about real children and young people and wanting to think about how to do this better.
Figures - uploaded by Eileen Munro
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Eileen Munro
Content may be subject to copyright.
... I beslutninger, der traeffes i en gruppe, er bias en specifik udfordring, der betegnes "groupthink" (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). I vaerste fald kan groupthink få gruppen af sagsbehandlere til at traeffe upraecise og direkte forkerte beslutninger (Eileen Munro, 1999;Eileen Munro, Cartwright, Hardie, & Montuschi, 2017). Den begraensede viden, vi har fra danske undersøgelser om gruppebeslutninger, viser desuden, at beslutnings-møder ofte er tidspressede og ustrukturerede; dagsordenen er sammensat tilfaeldigt, der bliver ikke husket fra møde til møde, og der er mere fokus på at handle end på at afklare børn og unges behov for hjaelp (Ebsen, Hansen, & Justesen, 2004). ...
... Det kan betyde, at den enkelte sagsbehandler lader sig overbevise om en bestemt retning for indsatsen overfor et udsat barn, selvom han eller hun har informationer om barnet, der peger i en anden retning. Det modsatte kan imidlertid også opstå i gruppesammenhaenge -nemlig at sagsbehandleren laegger sig fast på en tolkning af barnets situation og fastholder den på trods af, at nyere informationer og gruppens teoretiske argumenter peger i en anden retning (Eileen Munro, 1998;Eileen Munro et al., 2017). ...
... Projektet hviler på en forståelse af, at sagsbehandlere udvikler beslutningsmønstre for at reducere kompleksiteten af beslutningen, og på den måde gør det muligt at handle -og i de fleste tilfaelde at handle fornuftigt ud fra de udsatte børn og unges behov, deres foraeldre, samarbejdet med andre professionelle parter, kommunens økonomi, normerne i afdelingen og ikke mindst de lovregler, som gaelder på området (Eileen Munro et al., 2017;Saltiel, 2016;Svendsen, Ebsen, Ejrnaes, & Bengtsson, 2017). Det er muligheden for at begraense uhensigtsmaessige konsekvenser af disse beslutningsmønstre, projektet skal undersøge i et mindre kvalitativt studie. ...
In this research report we present our reflections from a qualitative, small test of a tool aimed at de-biasing group decision-making. The tool was tested in the setting of team-based decision-making processes in a Danish child protection agency. In this setting decision-making does not follow a linear, rational path and sometimes a tendency for overoptimism might be what drives the decision to the next step of helping a family. Consequently, more than testing the usefulness of a de-biasing tool, informed by behavioral economy, the report resultet in reflections about the roles of biases in decision-making and the limits of emphasising de-biasing as a "good" result.
... 5 Our proposals draw heavily on Wesley Salmon's process theory of causation (Salmon 1998) and J. L. Mackie's INUS ('Insufficient but Necessary parts of an Unnecessary but Sufficient condition) account (Mackie 1980); on Jon Elster's work on psychological and social middle-level tendency principles ('mechanisms' in his vocabulary) (Elster 2007); on realist evaluation's stress on activities and on its work on processes ('mechanisms' in their vocabulary) (Pawson et al. 2004) and of EBM+ (http://ebmplus.org/). We also draw on the more concrete proposals of Cartwright and Hardie 2012, Munro et al. 2016, Layne et al. 2014, Howard White (eg White 2009, on similar ideas from the International Rescue Committee's outcome and evidence framework and many others. 6 Such as the need for stakeholder involvement, widespread barriers to organisational change, the general importance of the larger environment in which programmes are set, the need to address differences in understandings of what the problems are and what intended results should be. ...
... 13 There are a variety of ways of trying to represent visually many of the different kinds of information that we urge should be in a good pToC. We use one that we have been developing for a while (see for instance Munro et al. 2016) and that we find especially helpful. There is also a lot of software being developed, some of which can be of aid here too (see, for example, Monitoring and Evaluation NEWS). ...
... Udsatte børn og unges situation er skabt og påvirket af mange forskellige faktorer og i mange forskellige kontekster. Ydermere er socialt arbejde for at forbedre deres situation, praeget af forhold, som gør sig gaeldende både juridisk, økonomisk og organisatorisk i de forvaltninger, som har ansvar for en social indsats (Fluke et al., 2022;Munro et al., 2016). Der kan således vaere flere måder at opstille mål for de aspekter, som opfattes som vigtige for arbejdet. ...
... De fire artikler understreger, at der kan indsamles mange informationer for at belyse, hvorvidt børn og unge er udsatte, og hvordan de udvikler sig. Det konstateres at "one size does not fit all" (Trocmé et al., 2000), hvilket også passer med erfaringer fra anden forskning (Munro et al., 2016;Pawson, 2013). Der er et behov for øget indsigt (forskning) i hvilke indikatorer, som er mest relevante at følge, som også Forrester laegger op til. ...
Dette arbejdspapir handler om redskaber, som kan sikre, at børn og unge forbedrer deres sociale situation og trivsel, når de indgår i en social indsats. Rapportens mål er at se på hvilke krav, der kan stilles til redskaber, der informerer både børn/unge og socialrådgivere (sagsbehandlere, myndighedsrådgivere) om udviklingen, mens indsatsen foregår. Rapporten er disponeret så der efter en afgrænsning af analysen indenfor socialt arbejde med udsatte børn og unge, følger en præsentation af et review over engelsksprogede bidrag, som suppleres med kortlægninger af dansk forskning på området. Dernæst kommer et afsnit om digitaliserings betydning. Der afsluttes med en opsummering af hvilke krav, der bør stilles til det ønskede redskab.
... Importantly, the restorative approach centralizes the importance of considering the circumstances of each individual case; therefore, particular restorative approaches would be tailored to each family and set of circumstances. For example, in a case where neglect is the primary reason a family is reported to child protection, the restorative approach may include mechanisms to educate and reengage carers with children; to do this, practitioners need to build relationships with the parent to understand their unique circumstances and refer them to support services (Munro et al., 2017). In cases where family violence is present, the restorative approach may involve interventions which provide each family member voice but particularly collaborate with nonharming parents/family members, strengthen relationships between them and children, attempt to enhance accountability in the transgressing parent and educate them, and empower and support victim survivors (Victoria State Government, 2023, 2024. ...
... Professionals should not, of course, draw mindlessly on the contribution of research in supporting practice decision-making, without questioning the validity of the evidence (Munro et al., 2017;Holden and Barker, 2018). However, the retrieval of digital information has now become an everyday fact of life. ...
Skills of the 'information age' need to be applied to social work. Conceptual and practical aspects of using online bibliographic databases to identify research were explored using multi-professional decision-making in child protection as a case study. Five databases (Social Science Citation Index, Scopus, Medline, Social Work Abstracts and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for relevant studies, retrieving 6,934 records of which fifty-eight studies were identified as relevant. The usefulness of specific search terms and the process of learning from the terminology of previous searches are illustrated, as well as the value of software to manage retrieved studies. Scopus had the highest sensitivity (retrieving the highest number of relevant articles) and retrieved the most articles not retrieved by any other database (exclusiveness). All databases had low precision on this topic, despite extensive efforts in selecting search terms. Cumulative knowledge about search strategies and empirical comparison of database utility helps to increase the efficiency of systematic literature searching. Such endeavours encourage and support professionals to use the best available evidence to inform practice and policy.
In this chapter I discuss the quality and legitimacy of mapping in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and how the mapping and cooperation with the parents can be a bridge-builder to the Child Welfare Services (CWS). I use data from my doctoral dissertation on how mapping is included in the pedagogical practice of ECEC assistants and teachers, with a focus on whether and to what extent this process takes children’s perspectives into account (Midtskogen, 2022). Through participatory observation and individual interviews with parents and ECEC employees, I find that there is no standardised mapping with specific quality requirements for ECEC institutions today. It is interesting to discuss the quality and legitimacy of the ECEC institution’s dynamic mapping process because such mapping can have implications for the family’s path to the CWS at an early stage, contribute to the family’s resilience process and prevent dangerous situations for the children. I direct the analyses and interpretation of the findings towards the extent to which the mapping process includes elements that fulfil the requirements of deliberative theory, such as the involvement of affected parties, argumentation, discussion and transparency (Læret & Skivenes, 2016; Oterholm, 2003; Eriksen & Weigård, 1999). Thus, this chapter contributes knowledge about the right to child and family participation in the mapping process in Norwegian ECEC institutions and how the institution’s mapping can be part of a comprehensive developmental process for the family, serving as a bridge to the CWS and other child and family services.
What is science and what can it do? Nancy Cartwright here takes issue with three common images of science: that it amounts to the combination of theory and experiment; that all science is basically reducible to physics; and that science and the natural world which it pictures are deterministic. The author's innovative and thoughtful book draws on examples from the physical, life, and social sciences alike, and focuses on all the products of science – not just experiments or theories – and how they work together. She reveals just what it is that makes science ultimately reliable, and how this reliability is nevertheless still compatible with a view of nature as more responsive to human change than we might think. Her book is a call for greater intellectual humility by and within scientific institutions. It will have strong appeal to anyone who thinks about science and how it is practised in society.
Hensikt og problemstilling: Akutt tvangsvedtak med hjemmel i § 4–6, annet ledd i lov om barneverntjenester er et av de mest inngripende tiltak barneverntjenesten kan benytte. Vedtaket medfører at barnet umiddelbart flytter ut av hjemmet mot foreldrenes vilje. Utforskning av saksforløpet i slike saker har vært avhandlingens overordnede problemstilling som jeg belyser gjennom to deltema: – Hvordan arbeider barneverntjenesten seg fram mot beslutningen i akutte tvangssaker? – Hvordan arter den eventuelle medvirkningen seg for barn og foreldre i det akutte saksforløpet? Avhandlingens problemstilling er altså knyttet opp mot utforskning av barneverntjenestens vurdering av barnets omsorgssituasjon når den treffer akuttvedtaket og oppfølging av barn og foreldre videre i saksforløpet. Metode: Datagrunnlaget er transkriberte tekster fra semistrukturerte intervjuer med ansatte i 16 kommunale barneverntjenester i Norge og fire tilsvarende tjenester (Jugendamt) i Tyskland. I de norske sakene er i tillegg anonymiserte dokumenter fra fylkesnemnda og tingretten re-presentert. 29 akuttsaker, 22 norske og sju tyske, inngår i datagrunnlaget. Tekstene er analysert med tre ulike kvalitative analysemetoder: Systematic text condensation (STC), thematic analysis (TA) og constructivist Grounded Theory. Resultater: Et hovedfunn er at barneverntjenesten, fra den får melding om bekymring og til den treffer akuttvedtaket, arbeider seg fram langs to beslutningsspor: Det raske og det langsomme hastesporet. Sporene indikerer også at det er ulike terskler for barneverntjenestenes bruk av akuttvedtak. Begge hastespor består av akuttsaker som lar seg gruppere i sakstyper. I det raske sporet er de som saken direkte gjelder ukjente for barneverntjenesten. I det langsomme kjenner ofte barneverntjenesten barnet og familien fra tidligere, men har ikke kommet i posisjon til å iverksettetiltak. Et trekk ved sakene, uavhengig av hvilket spor de følger, er at be-slutningen om akuttvedtak og plasseringen av barnet skjer svært raskt og som regel uten at familien er forberedt eller underrettet i forkant. Sammenligningen av tysk og norsk akuttpraksis viser at det er kontraster på følgende områder: brukermedvirkning og innflytelse, akuttplasseringens lengde og familiens posisjon. Når det gjelder bruker-medvirkning, indikerer datagrunnlaget at tyske barn og foreldre har et tydelig og gjennomgående eierforhold til sin egen akuttsak. En konsekvens er at barn og ungdom i de tyske sakene er tilbøyelige til å ha en mindre omstendelig vei om de ønsker å avslutte akuttplasseringen. Det er også et trekk ved de tyske akuttplasseringene i datagrunnlaget at de kan ha et kortere forløp sammenlignet med de norske. Når det gjelder barn og særlig ungdoms medvirkning i akuttforløpet, er et hovedfunn at barn og ungdom både medvirker og har medinnflytelse på beslutningen om å treffe akuttvedtaket. Barnet skaper troverdighet i akuttforløpet ved verbal kommunikasjon og ulike kroppslige formidlingsformer. For foreldre er situasjonen nærmest omvendt. Sammenlignet med barnet legger barneverntjenesten gjennomgående mindre vekt på foreldrenes synspunkter. Konklusjon: Både barneverntjenesten og Jugendamt legger vekt på barnets medvirkning og innflytelse når akuttvedtaket treffes. Selv om det norske barnet seinere bringer inn nyanser eller nye momenter, preger i stor grad det barnet formidlet i det første møtet med barneverntjenesten akuttforløpet. Jugendamt gir barnet tydeligere medinnflytelse også etter at akuttvedtaket er truffet. I tillegg indikerer datagrunnlaget at Jugendamt, i større grad enn barneverntjenesten, benytter akuttvedtaket til å initiere hjelpetiltak i familien. Studien peker på at den norske barneverntjenesten, ved i større grad å ta hensyn til både barnets og foreldrenes rettigheter, kan utvikle en mer balansert akuttpraksis.
This chapter calls for researchers to reconceptualize research quality from the perspective of its expected use, attending to power dynamics that influence how knowledge is defined, constructed, and validated through the research enterprise. Addressing these concerns when designing and conducting education research can yield more useful research evidence for building more equitable education systems. Anchored in scholarship on research utilization and methodological critiques, the chapter introduces a research quality framework that integrates relevance and rigor through five key dimensions of Research Worth Using: (1) relevance of question: alignment of research topics to practical priorities; (2) theoretical credibility: explanatory strength and coherence of principles investigated; (3) methodological credibility: internal and external credibility of study design and execution; (4) evidentiary credibility: robustness and consistency of cumulative evidence; and (5) relevance of answers: justification for practical application. This framework simultaneously uplifts the voices and needs of policymakers, practitioners, and community members, while elevating standards for excellence in education research. We call attention to the myriad ways in which the quality of evidence generated can be strengthened, before describing implications for curating and using research. We conclude by offering suggestions for applying and further developing the framework.
This book presents a theory with the ambition of both describing and explaining the nature of social-work practice. It is the first book that presents an explanative theory developed specifically from and for social-work practice. One of the fundamental questions is: How can we explain how results in social-work practice emanate from social worker's and clients' actions under certain contextual conditions? The theory presented in this book is named CAIMeR, which means that it takes a systematic and coherent approach to the theory of Contexts, Actors, Interventions, Mechanisms and Results. The meta-theoretical basis is critical realism, where a key feature is the concept of generative mechanisms. This perspective can help us capture the often unobservable powers that explain how results in social work emerge as a consequence of interventions and contextual conditions. The book also presents a domain theory that explains how social workers' professional practice is conditioned by politics, management and institutional conditions. This book is essential reading for students in social work and adjoining disciplines, but also for researchers, managers and professional social workers.
https://amzn.to/2GkyCKN
How does science enter policy making, and for what purpose? Surely consulting scientific facts in making policy is done with a view to making policy decisions more reliable, and ultimately more objective. In this paper I address the way/s by which science contributes to achieving objectivity in policy making and social debate, and argue that objectivity is not exhausted by what scientific evidence contributes to either. In policy making and social debates, scientific evidence is taken into account alongside other relevant factors (political, social, economic, ethical, etc.). Such complex contexts of practical interaction constitute a challenge both for the objectivity of scientific evidence (how far should science let extra-scientific factors interfere with scientific facts, without endangering the objectivity of evidence?), and for the objectivity of the role of the scientist in the policy-making process (is he/she only to inform policy, and only on matters of scientific evidence? Or should they also ultimately advise on what to do, running the risk of becoming partial on matters of evidence?) I analyse a case study - the ongoing debate over the spread of bovine TB in the UK - that displays some of the worries and several of the aspects we ought to keep in mind when we bring scientific objectivity to bear on social debate and policy making. I argue in favour of a picture where scientific objectivity enters a productive and effective dialogue with practical objectivity.
As seen in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink: the modern classic on how people make decisions by drawing on prior experience and using a combination of intuition and analysis.
We have all seen images of firefighters rescuing people from burning buildings and paramedics treating bombing victims. How do these individuals make the split-second decisions that save lives? Most studies of decision making, based on artificial tasks assigned in laboratory settings, view people as biased and unskilled. In this modern classic, Gary A. Klein proposes a naturalistic approach to decision making, which views people as gaining experience that then enables them to use a combination of intuition and analysis to make decisions. To illustrate this approach, Klein tells stories of people—from pilots to chess masters—acting under such real-life constraints as time pressure, high stakes, personal responsibility, and shifting conditions.
Since its publication, Sources of Power has been enormously influential. The book has sold more than 50,000 copies, has been translated into six languages, has been cited in professional journals that range from Journal of Marketing Research to Journal of Nursing, and is mentioned by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink. Author Gary Klein has collaborated with Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and served on a team that redesigned the White House Situation Room to support more effective decision making. The model of decision-making Klein proposes in the book has been adopted in many fields, including law enforcement training and petrochemical plant operation.
For several decades, social work and child protection systems have beensubject to accelerating cycles of crisis and reform, with each crisis involving intense media and political scrutiny. In understanding the nature and causes of this cycle, little attention has been paid to the importance of collective emotions. Using a range of cases from the UK, and also considering cases from the Netherlands, the US and New Zealand, this book introduces the concept of emotional politics. It shows how collective emotions, such as anger, shame, fear and disgust, are central to constructions of risk and blame, and are generated and reflected by official documents, politicians and the media. The book considers strategies for challenging these ‘emotional politics’, including identifying models for a more politically engaged stance for the social work profession.
Over the last twenty or so years, it has become standard to require policy makers to base their recommendations on evidence. That is now uncontroversial to the point of triviality—of course, policy should be based on the facts. But are the methods that policy makers rely on to gather and analyze evidence the right ones? In Evidence-Based Policy, Nancy Cartwright, an eminent scholar, and Jeremy Hardie, who has had a long and successful career in both business and the economy, explain that the dominant methods which are in use now—broadly speaking, methods that imitate standard practices in medicine like randomized control trials—do not work. They fail, Cartwright and Hardie contend, because they do not enhance our ability to predict if policies will be effective.
The prevailing methods fall short not just because social science, which operates within the domain of real-world politics and deals with people, differs so much from the natural science milieu of the lab. Rather, there are principled reasons why the advice for crafting and implementing policy now on offer will lead to bad results. Current guides in use tend to rank scientific methods according to the degree of trustworthiness of the evidence they produce. That is valuable in certain respects, but such approaches offer little advice about how to think about putting such evidence to use. Evidence-Based Policy focuses on showing policymakers how to effectively use evidence. It also explains what types of information are most necessary for making reliable policy, and offers lessons on how to organize that information.