From frozen words to dialogue: turning around involuntary relationships in social work practice

Publisert den 16. desember 2024 kl. 10:30

ABSTRACT

Based on relationship-based practice discussed within a theoretical framework of recognition and salutogenic theory, this study draws on eleven experiences of individual child welfare workers. It highlights how to turn a hostile climate into collaboration in cases where families yield strong resistance. To turn resistance into cooperation, the child welfare workers within this study emphasize the importance of investing time and exploring resources within the family. Study findings suggest that the recognition framework may increase and strengthen the child welfare workers understanding of the value of the child and parents’ inherent resources. How a relationship-based practice may enhance cooperation with children and parents is discussed.

 

Introduction

Child welfare services (CWS) operate within a multifaceted landscape, mirroring societal values and the prevailing understanding of what constitutes a good upbringing and good parenting (Johner and Dust Citation2017). The primary mandate of CWS is to ensure a child’s development, which implies that parents are unable to provide the necessary care or protection for the child’s age and development. The field of CWS is seldom linear, often presenting intricate and uncertain issues. The work context, the situation, the problem, and potential solutions are all subject to variability and ambiguity (Fauske, Kvaran, and Lichtwarck Citation2017).

While searching the literature for research on improving collaboration between CWW and families, one of the initial challenges concerns finding appropriate terminology for families who resist CWS involvement. There appears to be no consensus regarding families forced into an involuntary collaboration (Ferguson et al. Citation2020). Fauth et al. (Citation2010) use ‘highly resistant families’ as a term, while others use ‘resistant parents’ (Laming Citation2009), ‘high-conflict families’ (Sudland Citation2019), ‘high-risk families’ (Littlechild Citation2005), ‘hostile parents’ (Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014), ‘hostile relationships’ or ‘involuntary clients’ (Ferguson et al. Citation2020; Turney Citation2012). However, while the families may be interpreted as being ‘high-conflict’ or ‘high-risk’ – and where the consequence of being forced into a collaboration with the CWS might challenge emotional regulation, leading to ‘hostile relationships’ – we argue that the use of ‘involuntary’ is best suited to describing the context of collaboration in such cases. Within this context, families may show ‘resistance’. However, the authority and assessment of whether the collaboration is necessary lies with CWS. Although there is an increased focus on decision-making strategies and user participation, e.g. within child welfare processes, the reality is that most social work relationships are ‘involuntary’ (Smith et al. Citation2012, 1462). Through both Norwegian law and international conventions, CWS has both the right and the obligation to intervene in the child’s and parent’s family life to prevent neglect and abuse – regardless of context or parental willingness.

While recognition that some service users do not want CWS involvement has grown in recent years (Ferguson et al. Citation2020), there is limited research on how this resistance may be turned into a functional collaboration. Previous research on working with involuntary families focuses either on how the collaboration climate affects the CWS (Hunt et al. Citation2016; Littlechild Citation2005; Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014; Sudland Citation2019) or how negativity within the collaboration climate reduces or hinders the potential effectiveness of interventions (Turney Citation2012). Studies show that resistance can manifest in a range of ways, including poor or ambivalent communication (Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014; Sudland Citation2019; Turney Citation2012), threats and aggression (Littlechild Citation2005; Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014), multiple complaints (Littlechild Citation2005) and violent behaviour (Hunt et al. Citation2016; Littlechild Citation2005). While it is essential to understand how working with involuntary families can impact collaboration and interventions, none of the studies provides strategies for effectively transforming resistance into functional collaboration.

According to Sudland (Citation2019), child welfare workers (CWWs) struggle to find ways to help such families. They often find themselves at an impasse trying to sustain relationships through working with intense feelings of anger, aggression, and hostility (Smith Citation2018). Several studies also identify the emotional impact of parents’ negative behaviour towards CWS (Hunt et al. Citation2016; Littlechild Citation2005; Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014); however, how this emotional stress may contribute as a variable in relation to the collaboration climate is not addressed. Littlechild (Citation2005) identifies strategies that CWW finds helpful in response to parental threats and aggression and how ambiguity may affect the power and control issues crucial to the collaboration climate. Additionally, some CWWs can learn from incidents and use their experience to aid the development of policies and training (Robson, Cossar, and Quayle Citation2014). Within this context, Turney (Citation2012) draws attention to a relationship-based approach in the context of statutory and compulsory work.

Drawing on Turney’s (Citation2012) proposed relationship-based approach, this study is based on a salutogenic orientation (Antonovsky Citation1979), discussed within a recognition theory theoretical framework (Honneth Citation2018, Citation2020). The study aims to use CWW’s experiences to showcase success stories in effectively transforming the collaboration climate in cases where families exhibit strong resistance.

Relationship-based practice

Relationship-based practice has a long history in social work and was based on psychodynamically influenced clinical and casework approaches of the 1950s and 1960s. This was a practice where building relationships had a central place in all social work. The relationship-based practice fell out of favour in 1980/1990, causing political requirements for efficiency rather than person-centred practice (Ruch Citation2018; Turney Citation2012). However, this approach cannot easily be pinned down or defined (Ruch Citation2018). Howe (Citation1998) talks about person-centred practice, which proposes that voluntary or involuntary families must be treated as individuals, independent of the situation. According to Howe (Citation1998, 45), the «level of social understanding and social competence that people develop depend on the quality of their relationship history». To understand how social workers immerse themselves in children and family life situations, Schøn (Citation1987) put professional knowledge on the agenda by analysing how experienced practitioners tried to solve the problems they encountered in practice. He suggests reversing the problem by asking how highly competent executives handle problematic situations. Regarding eminent practitioners, in the Reflective Approach, he does not say that they have more professional knowledge than others but that they have more wisdom, talent, intuition, or artistry. According to Ruch (Citation2018), relationship-based practice focuses on what occurs between social workers and service users. It offers a joined way of thinking about relationships that acknowledges the visible and invisible components of all relationships between social workers and families. Ferguson et al. (Citation2022) have focused on the concept of a ‘holding relationship’ to provide new ways of thinking and develop a relationship-based practice. A ‘holding relationship’ means that social workers are reliable, can get physically and emotionally close to children and families and practice critically by considering power and inequalities.

Thus, relationship-based practice may also be referred to as salutogenic practice, introduced by Aaron Antonovsky in 1979. It is a health theory that focuses on understanding and promoting practices that enhance the utilization of individual and collective resources to improve health and well-being (Hewis Citation2023, 2). The theory of salutogenesis provides a fundamental understanding of how coping, defined as a ‘Sense of Coherence’ (SOC), can be created about people in, for example, vulnerable life situations. SOC reflects a fundamental attitude expressing the extent to which one has a pervasive, stable, but dynamic sense or trust that stimuli originating from one’s internal or external environments are structured, predictable, and understandable. Resources must be available so that the person can meet the demands these stimuli pose, making the situation feel manageable. The meaningfulness component is the demands experienced as challenging and worth the person’s engagement (Antonovsky Citation1979). Antonovsky’s key research finding is that the way reality is perceived, in terms of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness, collectively constitutes SOC (OAS: Experience of Coherence) and contributes to the degree of coping, health, and well-being. According to this theory, life experiences and an individual’s perception of their life impact their health. By adopting a salutogenic orientation within child welfare work, CWW focuses on strengthening resources that positively empower children and families to increase their well-being when faced with stressors and adversity (Mittelmark and Bauer Citation2022). This may include working with families to identify their goals and aspirations and developing action plans to achieve them. It also involves working with children and families to expand their resilience and further develop the skills and resources they need to cope with adversity and promote well-being in a relationship-based practice.

Recognition as a framework for child welfare work

The theory of recognition as a framework for child welfare work is based on the relationship between two or more individuals (e.g. between CWW and the children and families). This social phenomenon is called intersubjective recognition (Honneth Citation2018). According to Honneth (Citation2018, Citation2020), such intersubjective relations do not evolve in a vacuum but within a socio-cultural context. As such, the theory of recognition consists of both an interpersonal and a cultural and political dimension (Altmeyer Citation2018, 418). The recognition theory is based on reciprocity: the individual depends on receiving and giving recognition. From this perspective, recognition becomes a necessity to ‘succeed’. Within this context, Honneth (Citation2018, Citation2020) argues that recognition is also a key concept for understanding social conflicts, as such conflicts may be interpreted as struggles for recognition. Based on this fundamental argument, Honneth distinguishes between three social spheres of relevant relationships in which he associates a particular form of recognition:

  1. Legal relations occur within the public sphere. Within this sphere, recognition appears as cognitive respect. It allows individuals to be recognized as having equal status, which enables a ‘sense of belonging’.

  2. Communities of shared values occur within the social sphere. Within this sphere, recognition appears as social regard or solidarity. The individual needs to experience that their knowledge, competence, and expertise are needed and that their qualities are valued and in demand.

  3. Primary or close relationships occur within the private sphere. Within this sphere, recognition appears as emotional affection (love). Individuals need to be appreciated and loved for who they are. They need to experience empathy and emotional support regardless of performance.

 

A prerequisite for developing a secure identity is that the individual experiences all three spheres in life (Honneth Citation2020). Within the context of CWS, the recognition theory relates specifically to the collaboration climate and whether or not the experience of children and families is one of participation throughout the intervention process.

Methods

This study aims to explore and showcase success stories within CWW. It employs an abductive appreciative inquiry approach to understand how CWW professionals effectively transform the collaboration climate in cases of strong family resistance. This methodology is chosen to highlight and learn from exemplary practices. Using an abductive approach, both theory and the empirical material are in dialogue, and theory is used as a source of inspiration to help uncover patterns and understand the data material (Alvesson and Sköldberg Citation2017). The research team comprised two primary researchers and a broader interdisciplinary team that assisted in data analysis and interpretation.

An open invitation to several child welfare offices randomly recruited the participants. Eleven CWW, working within six different municipalities, participated in individual interviews: five women and six men, aged 28 to 63, conducted between 2021 and 2022, and the participants’ time working within CWS varied, with a minimum of two years’ experience. Several participants had more than 20 years of experience, and some also had experience from neighbouring fields, such as child welfare institutions and community outreach activities. All participants had a bachelor’s degree in social work; some had higher education (more than four years) or a master’s in social work.

A semi-structured interview guide was used, consisting of the following four questions:

  1. Take as a starting point a family where you experienced some form of resistance when you started the collaboration: give a brief description of the situation.

  2. Briefly describe what happened when you experienced the family becoming more cooperative.

  3. Which professional approaches did you use to create conditions for change?

  4. What other conditions are decisive for creating good support processes in child welfare professional work?

 

Processing of data

Inspired by Braun and Clarke (Citation2006, Citation2022), the transcribed interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. The primary researchers, with extensive experience in qualitative research and social work, first independently coded the interview transcripts to minimize individual biases and enhance the robustness of the thematic analysis. Following this independent coding phase, the research team discussed these preliminary findings, sorted the codes according to similar themes and searched for recurring themes and discussions across the interviews. This involved several rounds and discussions concerning sorting the codes, and many categories were identified during this part of the process. We finished by merging the themes within two overarching themes: (a) using the time to build relationships and (b) exploring resources in dialogue with families. By taking a relationship-based approach, we increased our understanding of what CWW are doing when resistance is turned into a functional collaboration. We used the recognition theory to understand the complexity of child welfare professional work. We finished the analysis process by selecting quotations that could be linked to active choices in child welfare work with involuntary families. Our focus has been on analysing and discussing the various practices and addressing findings within an overarching professional discussion of child welfare.

Ethical considerations

This study was performed in line with the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) and was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt; no. 656471). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, with particular attention paid to protecting third-party information during interviews. While focusing on success stories, it was also essential to consider the potential emotional impact on participants recalling and sharing these experiences of hostile climate before turning it into collaboration in cases where families yield strong resistance.

Limitations

This study adopted an abductive appreciative inquiry methodology, focusing on identifying and understanding the factors contributing to successful outcomes in the given context. While this approach effectively highlights positive aspects and success stories, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. Nel and Govender (Citation2019) highlight, as a primary concern for such an approach, that concentrating solely on success risks overlooking significant challenges. Therefore, this study has deliberately incorporated a balanced view, ensuring that both successes and challenges are reflected through the interviews.

Furthermore, the research employed an abductive approach, which is known for its strength in allowing for the iterative development of theories based on emerging data. This approach facilitates a flexible exploration of theoretical frameworks and empirical data, particularly useful in complex analyses. However, its limitation lies in the potential for subjective bias in interpreting data to fit pre-existing theories (Malterud Citation2017; Nel and Govender Citation2019). To mitigate this, the study systematically managed and organized the interpretation process within the analysis to maintain objectivity and coherence.

Additionally, a substantial effort was made to clarify the study’s theoretical framework. This was essential in grounding the research and providing a clear lens through which the data were interpreted. The systematic handling and organization of interpretation throughout the analytical process ensured that the findings reflected the data and were theoretically informed.

Findings

Based on a thematic analysis of 11 CWW’s experiences, this study identified two main themes regarding how to turn an adverse climate into one of positive collaboration in cases where families yield strong resistance: (a) using the time to build relationships and (b) exploring resources in dialogues with families.

Using time to build relationship

This theme addresses how using time when working with involuntary children and families may positively affect the collaboration climate. In several of the participants’ experiences on how to turn things around in cases where families yield strong resistance, creating security and trust emerged as two main themes:

If you want to succeed, it is about investing time, investing in faith in people, seeing the value of relationships in work, and seeing the value of the self-power that exists in every person, child, and family. I believe that these are the most important prerequisites. (CWW8)

 

When depicting CWW in a context of heavy workload and limited time, participants acknowledged that establishing a secure environment and trust requires significant time investment. According to Honneth (Citation2018), investing in faith in people can help individuals articulate their desires and needs. When a person feels recognition, they will react with more self-confidence and, to a greater extent, become able to share their life experiences.

Several participants in this study highlight the use of time as a critical element in turning around situations with involuntary clients:

I believe using time with the family has helped develop a safe relationship. It was simply a question of frequent meetings. Moreover, it shows presence and interest. (CWW10)

I still believe that time and continuity help to reassure the parents. So, I try to meet them on their needs. Some involuntary clients need much assurance, don’t they? (CWW11)

 

As the quotes exemplify, time is a primary factor within the selected quotes. The participants talked about using time as an investment and an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the family’s needs to provide the necessary support and help. Within CWS, the participants highlighted the CWW’s social and emotional skills as crucial to creating security and safe relations. Discretion and individual power of judgement are mentioned as equally central values. Interpreted within the context of a relationship-based approach, the participants address the necessity of showing children and families a great degree of recognition; in the initial quote in this section, the participants reflect on how the value of self-power is connected to the collaboration climate.

Continuity is another example that was highlighted by the participants as key for turning around a situation and establishing a collaboration climate:

[A] boy whom I started to follow when he was nine years old, where the mother has a (…), or I might say, anger (…) the challenge of anger, then, and was very, very angry at the child welfare service, and rest. Moreover, it was difficult to both establish a dialogue and get into a position to establish a positive collaboration climate, that you almost feel that no matter what I suggested or said, it was poorly received (…). So I think that one of the success factors was that I was the one who followed the family all the way, that there has been a continuity in who had been there from child welfare service. After all, I have engaged in many storms with them – and I mean many. However, I have maintained a steady approach towards them and still tried as best I could to be caring and appreciative of their feelings (…). When you engage in situations together, you become confident in each other, which develops safety within the relationship. (CWW10)

 

This quote shows that sharing mutual experiences can prevent rejection in challenging situations. Standing in difficult situations together over a long time and accepting the other´s feelings with love and friendship also contribute to the mother becoming respectful. The CWWs’ focus on showing humanity, honesty and commitment will likely help families feel seen and heard in a vulnerable situation. It is also an identifiable link to relationship-based practice and Honneths’ understanding of reciprocity, which implies a degree of ‘give and take’. As another participant expressed it:

It is about investing so that you can create fertile ground for collaboration. The balance between help and control can be very demanding. On one side, you are obligated to support, but at the same time, you have a controlling role. This double role can be demanding and may affect the collaboration climate towards those you are supposed to help, being reserved because they think mainly about the control function you have and not primarily about the help they can get.

[A]nd I may not have said it enough, but the relationship’s value is so important for the involuntary clients to be open for interventions (…). When you become acquaintances, it strengthens the possibility of a positive collaboration climate. It is when you get a relationship with people that they also dare to be more open about how they feel, dare to talk more about themselves, dare to say something about what can be interpreted as a weakness in them, but which is a strength when they dare to say it. However, it requires a trusting relationship; you have to offer yourself to establish such a relationship. (CWW2)

 

As shown in the quotes above, establishing an emotional connection between the CWW and the involuntary client is crucial in transforming the situation into a collaborative environment. The importance of having a deep understanding of the family is also emphasized. A prerequisite for establishing a trusting environment is to offer a small quantity of oneself. The described practice shares many similarities with what Schøn (Citation1987) calls reflective practice, which is the ability of highly skilled professionals when facing challenging situations. Balancing between providing help and exercising control highlights child welfare professionals’ complexity, where they must reconcile, integrate or choose between conflicting values. People who find themselves in difficult situations ‘because of’ need to be met by empathetic professionals, as the nature of the case is usually both complex and emotionally demanding – or, as one participant articulated it:

[I]t was when they felt met at, and reassured that dialogue with them was managed, that they could become safe. (CWW1)

 

Moreover, while time was a recurring theme in the participants’ interviews, the lack of such was also evident:

After all, the framework in the municipal child protection service is different, and I believe that there is not always enough time to spend the time needed to do this kind of work. Moreover, therein lies the fact that you sometimes have to lower your ambition (…), and that is perhaps where I am critical (…) as I think you do not invest enough time to get in a position to help. As of today, it is what I would call case processing and not human processing. (CWW5)

 

According to the quote, relationship-based practice does not happen in a vacuum. CWS often manage legislation and resources within organizational frameworks and systems and face continuous management dilemmas such as report writing and budget cuts. CWWs are under much pressure to prioritize families, making it challenging to provide the same level of support to all the families needing them. This dual role can be challenging to handle, and a lack of time and resources may lead CWW to lower their level of ambition. This can sometimes be at the expense of children’s and parents’ needs, as the work is reduced to case processing rather than human processing. Even if requirements for efficiency and bureaucratic thoroughness bind organizations dealing with people, participants in our study highlighted the necessity to make individual adjustments:

Moreover, you must be able to make more individual adaptations because it is about individual people. And then what we offer must be adapted to that. In a municipal child protection service, I think there needs to be room to tailor a more approach to each individual. (CWW6)

[A]nd there are still many, what shall we call this kind of cultural lag, with attitudes which refer to ‘how we do it here’ and ‘how we have always done it’ which hinders the necessity facilitation work for involuntary families. (CWW3)

 

These quotes illustrate how vital it is for CWWs to create the conditions that give them the time and space to think clearly and critically about their work.

The relationship-based practice can be seen when a CWW argues that one must have the opportunity to make more individual adaptations, i.e. what is offered must be adapted to the individual child or family. This reasoning implies that considerations of the child’s best interests often conflict with economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness goals. CWW can control resources and accept or reject the expressed needs of children and parents. Relationship-based practice can help identify the tension between the organizational framework, the best interests of children and families, and their interconnectedness. Relationship-based practice can, therefore, provide some insights into the relational dynamics within which CWWs operate and prevent them from ending up in positions such as ‘this is how we do it here’ and becoming resistant to change.

Exploring resources in dialogues with families

The second overarching theme identified regarding how to transition to a collaboration climate in cases where families yield strong resistance was exploring resources in dialogues with families. This theme encompasses the conditions that CWW prioritize when focusing on building relationships with children and families:

Part of the purpose of meeting the other must be to focus on and to bring out the individual’s or family’s resources (…), for example, the resilience factor, being able to bring out the self-mobilization that lies in empowerment, focusing on identifying the resources (…) there is always something there. (CWW9)

 

This remark from the CWWs highlights one of the critical challenges in child welfare work. Acceptance and trust are vital values, even when they have incomplete and fragmented information. In this quote, the CWW argues for bringing out the resources. Bringing out resources can be more challenging when working with involuntary families, and there can be many reasons why children and parents are reluctant to trust the CWW. A salutogenic practice where CWW focuses on strengthening resources can, according to Mittelmark and Bauer (Citation2022), empower children and families to positively increase their well-being and build relationships based on respect and reciprocity. Alternatively, as one of the participants articulated it:

They have the answers; they need someone to support and acknowledge it. (CWW4)

In child welfare work, there has been a tendency to perceive that expertise resides exclusively in the CWS. According to Marthinsen et al. (Citation2013), there is an ongoing ideological shift in the view of family and family responsibility, and many parents understand CWS as a helping agency. This ideological shift is often linked with empowerment, which (as seen in the above quote) emphasizes the individual’s expertise and the right to handle their challenges. Inspired by Honneth (Citation2018), this entails recognizing unexpected possibilities and that interventions should be characterized by trust, mutual understanding, and shared goals. In this work, children and parents must work with CWW, which provides space to co-create experiences built on experiences that release children’s and parents’ inherent strengths.

[I] t is about finding the right intervention (…). For the person concerned, the experience of making it happen also with the help of one’s strength becomes so valuable that it is a much better basis for, what shall we say, a lasting result. (CWW7)

[T]he power of the user, the client, the patient, and the customer will be greater and greater in the future. Moreover, how does it affect our daily work within CWS when we know this? (CWW10)

[I]n many ways you can say that it is about common sense in a system (…) there are qualities you do not always learn in an education, which are necessary. How do relational skills affect the result? I think that is important. (CWW8)

 

The first two quotes can be related to understanding user participation. According to Antonovsky (Citation1979), this practice has an identifiable link to health theory that focuses on understanding and promoting practices that enhance the utilization of individual and collective resources. Rather than adopting a problem-focused approach, which primarily attributes children’s and young people’s life situations to their parents (as the root cause of the problems), resource orientation is essential in user-oriented working methods. In this practice, professional knowledge provides ideas about what might be necessary from a child’s best interest perspective. In contrast, the child and the parents’ specific knowledge about their life situation ensures that measures are taken in the child’s best interests. The approach is based on the fact that professional knowledge and legal texts alone are insufficient for decision-making in child protection.

In the quote above, the work towards positive change is contextualized within the CWW’s ability to coordinate their professional approach in working with children and parents. According to Schøn (Citation1987), knowing-in-action is a term that covers what we cannot explain with language. Here, the knowledge lies in the action itself, and we reveal it through spontaneity and skilful execution. Knowing-in-action is a continuous process of attention, assessment and adjustment. The participants gave examples of how they perform this in their daily work:

I often talk to the parents about content in everyday life and what can contribute to stability. In other words, I take turns with the parents. The family’s resources come to light more quickly when we in CWS appear as human beings, not bureaucrats. (CWW6)

So, the fact that we recognised that the parents were right on several points was quite important in determining whether they could then lower their guard. (CWW11)

We observed that the parents did a lot, which was sensible and good, too. Moreover, I think that was probably one of the things that contributed to them eventually being able to accept what we had to offer. (CWW10)

 

These quotes emphasize dialogue with the parents, focusing on creating stability in everyday life. Throughout the dialogue, the emphasis is on engaging with children and families in a manner that encourages and facilitates their active involvement and participation. The professional argumentation can be understood in light of notions about agency. From this perspective, people are regarded as social actors with the ability and willingness to act according to the goals and choices they define for themselves. The actor perspective assumes that professional helpers can meet children’s and parents’ experiences with interest and respect, with the conviction that they will and can contribute reasonable solutions. As one of the participants expressed it:

We must appear as human beings, not as bureaucrats (…) or figures of power. (CWW1)[B]e open for possibilities, even if it might look dark. It is a lot about nurturing hope. (CWW2)

 

As the quotes exemplify, the relationship between care and control emerges. The double mandate between ‘care’ and ‘control’ can be a particular tension in working with involuntary families. To balance value-based practice and organizational framework, relationship-based practice based on health theory, reflective practice, and recognition, reciprocity, and respect may help families and CWWs focus on the child’s best interests.

Discussion

Drawing on Antonowsky’s salutogenic practice (Antonovsky Citation1979) and Honneth’s thoughts about recognition (Honneth Citation2018), this study utilizes CWW’s experiences to highlight how to turn a negative relation into a positive collaboration climate in cases where families yield strong resistance in a relationship-based practice. When transforming resistance into cooperation, CWW emphasizes investing time in building relationships. Time is utilized to develop a deeper understanding of the family and establish emotional connections between the CWW and the family. This process helps create a sense of security and trust. Within this framework, control measures, when needed, are not merely regulatory but are designed to protect and progress the well-being of children and families. Effective control is exercised transparently and sensitively, supporting the relationship-building process. The ethical balancing of help and control is especially pivotal in cases of strong resistance. As the dialogue between CWW and families deepens, it also addresses the role of control within the dynamic, ensuring that all parties fully understand and, whenever possible, agree upon any control measures employed. This approach underscores the importance of maintaining a collaborative environment even when control is unavoidable.

Within such work, dialogue is identified as an essential element. However, participants also noted that lack of time represents a risk factor determining whether it is possible to turn around the collaboration when working with involuntary clients. By adopting an approach that highlights the inherent resources of children and parents, CWW works in partnership with the family and other relevant stakeholders. This involves recognizing and valuing the family’s knowledge of their needs, which fosters an environment conducive to building a trusting and collaborative relationship (Honneth Citation2018; Turney Citation2012, Citation2018). This, in turn, establishes a form of reciprocity, promoting collaboration (Ferguson et al. Citation2022; Turney Citation2018). Thus, some issues need further discussion.

First, a relationship-based practice may increase and strengthen the understanding of the value of the children’s and parents’ inherent resources (Ward Citation2018). Building relationships with involuntary families based on respect and reciprocity can help enhance understanding of the family’s hopes and strengths (Ferguson et al. Citation2020; Turney Citation2018). According to Cutrona and Russell (Citation1987), social support is a crucial resistance resource, and different types of social support provide proportionally different resistance resources. Our findings indicate that promoting social support or working in partnership will sustain formative dialogues that, in turn, develop cognitive and emotional resistance resources. Children and parents may feel unsafe in a CWS environment and must subjectively sense safety as a prerequisite for ‘being able’ to engage in prosocial behaviour and dialogical activity. The probability of voluntary participation in constructive dialogue increases after subjectively felt safety, predictability and continuity (Turney Citation2018). Ness et al. (Citation2014) describe working in partnership through negotiated dialogues as ‘walking alongside’ young adults. Finding ways of working together on this requires respect for the person’s integrity and life, based on reciprocity, where the person depends on receiving and giving recognition (Ferguson et al. Citation2020, Citation2022; Honneth Citation2018; Ness et al. Citation2014). From this perspective, dialogue can strengthen and bring to awareness a person’s potential internal and external resources and increase their SOC, well-being, and coping skills (Antonovsky Citation1979). A sense of safety is the prerequisite for prosocial activity. It engenders trust (Turney Citation2018; Ward Citation2018): features required for implementing interventions and operationalizing problem-solving measures within a CWS context.

Second, in child welfare work, it is crucial to understand the family’s overall situation, and the interaction between CWW and families always plays an important role (e.g. Ferguson et al. Citation2020). Our findings indicate that the personal perspectives, biases and attitudes of CWW have a substantial influence on outcomes. When a CWW adopts a relationship-based practice, even stressors such as tension can be coped with and constitute a resource and prerequisite for personal development and growth (Smith Citation2018). Salutogenic practice assumes a positive approach by shifting focus from problems and failures to salutary factors (Langeland et al. Citation2016). From this perspective, a CWW focus is not solely on solving problems such as child neglect but is also on developing and building on each family member’s available resources. Families coping with stress is determined by comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness (Antonovsky Citation1979). Coinciding with Turney (Citation2012), our findings indicate that when CWW works with the family to increase comprehensibility and manageability, cooperation can emerge in the wake of meaning-making and the family’s increasing ability to cope. Coping also tends to increase levels of well-being and make cooperation more likely (and resistance less so).

Third and finally, the ability to turn around an adverse collaboration climate appears to be closely related to how the CWW balances what is best described as organizational cross-pressure. CWW often end up in situations characterized by aspects of bureaucracy, such as the requirements for documentation and efficiency, and much of the time is spent administering the bureaucratic requirements (Lipsky Citation2010). The CWW in our study seemed to have more loyalty to children and families than to the bureaucratic system. Focusing on empathy and emotional support for children and families strengthens the possibility of turning from a negative to a positive collaboration climate in cases where families yield strong resistance. Though this is argued to be an essential value when working with involuntary families (Ferguson et al. Citation2020; Turney Citation2012), lack of time for, e.g. documentation and other administrative work may have an overall impact on the preservation of child and parent’s rights in both the short and long term. Establishing frameworks to support a work process that preserves both elements requires further research.

In conclusion, the findings advocate for policies that support the complex demands of relationship-based approaches, ensuring CWS can integrate these practices sustainably. Future research should focus on frameworks that accommodate care and control, supporting social workers to transform family dynamics positively.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

 

References

  • Altmeyer, S. 2018. “A Theory of Recognition as a Framework for Religious Education. Reading Axel Honneth from a Pedagogical and Theological Perspective.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 39 (4): 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2018.1442979.
  • Alvesson, M., and K. Sköldberg. 2017. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Antonovsky, A. 1979. Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Antonovsky, A., and A. Sjøbu. 2012. “The Mystery of Health: The Salutogenic Model.” Gyldendal.
  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2022. Thematic Analysis. A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publication Ltd.
  • Cutrona, C. E., and D. W. Russell. 1987. “The Provisions of Social Relationships and Adaptation to Stress.” In Advances in Personal Relationships, edited by In W. H. Jones and D. Perlman, 37–67. JAI Press.
  • Fauske, H., I. Kvaran, and W. Lichtwarck. 2017. “Interventions Used by Child Welfare Service. Complex Problems and Uncertain Outcomes.” Fontene Forskning 10 (2): 45–58.
  • Fauth, R., H. Jelicic, D. Hart, S. Burton, D. Shemmings, C. Bergeron, K. White, and M. Morris. 2010. Effective Practice to Protect Children Living in ‘Highly Resistant’ Families. www.c4eo.org.uk(open in a new window).
  • Ferguson, H., T. Disney, L. Warwick, J. Leigh, T. S. Cooner, and L. Beddoe. 2020. “Hostile Relationships in Social Work Practice: Anxiety, Hate and Conflict in Long-Term with Involuntary Service Users.” Journal of Social Work Practice 35 (1): 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.1834371.
  • Ferguson, H., L. Warwick, T. Disney, J. Leigh, T. S. Cooner, and L. Beddoe. 2022. “Relationship-Based Practice and Creation of Therapeutic Change in Long-Term Work: Social Work as a Holding Relationship.” Social Work Social Work Education 41 (2): 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1837105.
  • Hewis, J. 2023. “A Salutogenic Approach: Changing the Paradigm.” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 54 (2): 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2023.02.004.
  • Honneth, A. 2018. “Taylor’s Hegel.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 44 (7): 773–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718781249.
  • Honneth, A. 2020. Recognition. A European History of Ideas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Howe, D. 1998. “Relationship-Cased Thinking and Practice in Social Work.” Journal of SocialWork Practice 12 (1): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650539808415131.
  • Hunt, S., C. Goddard, J. Cooper, B. Littlechild, and J. Wild. 2016. “‘If I Feel Like This, How Does the Child Feel? Child Protection Workers, Supervision, Management and Organizational Responses to Parental Violence.” Journal of Social Work Practice 30 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2015.1073145.
  • Johner, R., and D. Dust. 2017. “Constructing Family from a Social Work Perspective in Child Welfare: A Juggling Act at Best.” Journal of Comparative Social Work 12 (1): 4–37. https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v12i1.145.
  • Laming, H. 2009. The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report. Stationary Office.
  • Langeland, E., O. Førland, E. Aas, A. Birkeland, B. Folkestad, I. Kjeken, F. F. Jacobsen, and H. Tuntland. 2016. “Models for Everyday Rehabilitation – an Evaluation of Norwegian Municipalities.” Rapport 6/2016. Senter for omsorgsforskning, vest og CHARM.
  • Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  • Littlechild, B. 2005. “The Nature and Effects of Violence Against Child Protection Social Workers: Providing Effective Support.” British Journal of Social Work 35 (3): 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch188.
  • Malterud, K. 2017. Qualitative Research Methods for Medicine and Health Sciences (In Norwegian: Kvalitative Forskningsmetoder for Medisin Og helsefag). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Marthinsen, E., G. Clifford, H. Fauske, W. Lichtwarck, and B. H. Kojan. 2013. “New Insight into Norwegian Child Welfare Service - What Does the Data Show?” In The New Child Welfare Service, edited by E. Marthinsen and W. Lichtwarck, 36–69. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Mittelmark, M. B., G. F. Bauer, L. Vaandrager, J. M. Pelikan, S. Sagy, M. Eriksson, B. Lindström, and C. M. Magistretti. 2022. The Handbook of Salutogenesis. 2nd ed. Salutogenesis as a theory, as an orientation and as the sense of coherence. Zurich: Springer Link.
  • Nel, K., and S. Govender. 2019. “Appreciative Inquiry as Transformative Methodology: Case Studies in Health and Wellness.” In Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, edited by S. Laher, A. Fynn, and S. Kramer, 337–353. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
  • Ness, O., M. Borg, R. Semb, and B. Karlsson. 2014. “‘Walking Alongside:’ Collaborative Practices in Mental Health and Substance Use Care.” International Journal of Mental Health Systems 8 (55). https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-8-55.
  • Robson, A., J. Cossar, and E. Quayle. 2014. “Critical Commentary: The Impact of Work-Related Violence Towards Social Workers in Children and Family Services.” British Journal of Social Work 44 (4): 924–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu015.
  • Ruch, G. 2018. “Theoretical Framework Informing Relationship-Based Practice.” In Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 29–45. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Schøn, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Smith, M. 2018. “Sustaining Relationships: Working with Strong Feelings I. Anger, Aggression, and Hostility.” In Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 102–117. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Smith, M., M. Gallagher, H. Wosu, V. Cree, S. Montgomery, S. Hunter, C. Evans, S. Holiday, H. Wilkinson, and H. Wilkinson. 2012. “Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project.” British Journal of Social Work 42 (8): 1460–1477. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr162.
  • Sudland, C. 2019. “Challenges and Dilemmas Working with High-Conflict Families in Child Protection Casework.” Child & Family Social Work 25 (2): 25, 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12680.
  • Turney, D. 2012. “A Relationship-Based Approach to Engaging Involuntary Clients: The Contribution of Recognition Theory.” Child & Family Social Work 17 (2): 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00830.x.
  • Turney, D. 2018. “Sustaining Relationships: Working with Strong Feelings III. Love and Positive Feelings.” In Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 133–147. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Ward, A. 2018. “The Learning Relationship: Learning and Development for Relationship-Based Practice.” In Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 183–198. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

 

«   »

Legg til kommentar

Kommentarer

Det er ingen kommentarer ennå.