‘I know how it sounds on paper’ risk talk, the use of documents and epistemic justice in child protection assessment home visits

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK Qualitative Social Work Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1177/14733250221124217
L. Bostock, J. Koprowska
{"title":"‘I know how it sounds on paper’ risk talk, the use of documents and epistemic justice in child protection assessment home visits","authors":"L. Bostock, J. Koprowska","doi":"10.1177/14733250221124217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social workers carry much of the frontline authority to define risk to children and discuss it with families. Assessment reports and other institutional documents record professional views about family information, and also have the potential to convey the ‘voice’ of the family to institutions. Social workers have responsibility for sharing these documents with families, yet little is known about how they do this. This paper focuses on episodes when social workers introduce institutional documents in home visits, and on the family responses elicited. These are high-stakes encounters which, when they go seriously wrong, emerge in the press as tragedies and scandals. For families, these documents carry an emotional depth-charge as intimate, potentially shaming and sometimes inaccurate details of their lives are inscribed in them by and for others. Latour’s (1996) concept of interobjectivity sheds light on the use of documents, while concepts of epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond, 2005) and epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) are employed to examine how social workers respond to parental testimony about themselves and their children. Learning how to present institutional documentation in ways that reduce the risk of emotional reactivity and treating family perspectives with epistemic justice may enhance social work practice. At a policy level, the design of documents warrants review, so that they facilitate rather than obstruct social workers’ efforts to build what are already fragile relationships with families.","PeriodicalId":47677,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Social Work","volume":"21 1","pages":"1147 - 1166"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221124217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social workers carry much of the frontline authority to define risk to children and discuss it with families. Assessment reports and other institutional documents record professional views about family information, and also have the potential to convey the ‘voice’ of the family to institutions. Social workers have responsibility for sharing these documents with families, yet little is known about how they do this. This paper focuses on episodes when social workers introduce institutional documents in home visits, and on the family responses elicited. These are high-stakes encounters which, when they go seriously wrong, emerge in the press as tragedies and scandals. For families, these documents carry an emotional depth-charge as intimate, potentially shaming and sometimes inaccurate details of their lives are inscribed in them by and for others. Latour’s (1996) concept of interobjectivity sheds light on the use of documents, while concepts of epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond, 2005) and epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) are employed to examine how social workers respond to parental testimony about themselves and their children. Learning how to present institutional documentation in ways that reduce the risk of emotional reactivity and treating family perspectives with epistemic justice may enhance social work practice. At a policy level, the design of documents warrants review, so that they facilitate rather than obstruct social workers’ efforts to build what are already fragile relationships with families.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“我知道这在纸上听起来怎么样”风险谈话、文件的使用和儿童保护评估家访中的认识公正
社会工作者承担着定义儿童风险并与家庭讨论风险的大部分一线权力。评估报告和其他机构文件记录了专业人士对家庭信息的看法,也有可能向机构传达家庭的“声音”。社会工作者有责任与家人分享这些文件,但人们对他们是如何做到这一点知之甚少。本文关注社会工作者在家访中介绍制度文件的事件,以及引发的家庭反应。这些都是高风险的遭遇,当它们出现严重错误时,就会在媒体上以悲剧和丑闻的形式出现。对于家庭来说,这些文件带有情感上的深度电荷,因为他们的生活细节是由他人和他人记录的,可能会让人感到羞辱,有时甚至不准确。Latour(1996)的互客体性概念揭示了文献的使用,而认知权威(Heritage和Raymond,2005)和认知不公正(Fricker,2007)的概念被用来研究社会工作者如何回应父母关于自己和孩子的证词。学习如何以降低情绪反应风险的方式呈现机构文件,并以认识公正的态度对待家庭观点,可以加强社会工作实践。在政策层面,文件的设计值得审查,以便促进而不是阻碍社会工作者与家庭建立本已脆弱的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: Qualitative Social Work provides a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice. The journal facilitates interactive dialogue and integration between those interested in qualitative research and methodology and those involved in the world of practice. It reflects the fact that these worlds are increasingly international and interdisciplinary in nature. The journal is a forum for rigorous dialogue that promotes qualitatively informed professional practice and inquiry.
期刊最新文献
Toward a creative and imaginative research approach: Collage as a method of inquiry in social work Book review: Time In this issue… How conversations can empower and involve: Building the evidence for Approved Mental Health Professionals’ communicative practices Themes do not emerge. An editor’s reflections on the use of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1