Learning from casework in child protection: the view from within

ABSTRACT

Child protection is a complex and sensitive practice. The core responsibility is the care and protection of children and young people who have been subject to, or who are at risk from abuse and neglect. The work involves investigating allegations of harm, preparing for, and making representations to the legal system, and case planning and management across a continuum of complicated care interventions. Caseworkers’ learning for child protection services is evident in a range of literature investigating multiple learning processes such as university preparation, student placements, professional supervision, training, and other post-qualifying professional development experiences at work. Much of this literature reflects an orthodox conception of learning as mentalistic and individualized. This study offers an alternative view of learning grounded in the work experiences of caseworkers themselves. It uses practice theory as a lens through which the phenomenon of learning in statutory child protection casework is explored. The findings foreground the embodied and experiential dimensions of learning in casework, transpiring through deep familiarity with the social and material situatedness of casework activity, as a form of doing and being-in-the-world.

KEYWORDS:

• Professional learning
• workplace learning
• sociomaterial
• practice theory
• teleoaffective structures
• practical understanding
• child protection

Introduction

On a daily basis, child protection caseworkers deal with challenging social issues such as the sexual assault of children and young people, domestic and family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, and a range of other complex social and personal phenomena. The performance of the work requires caseworkers to develop unique understandings of intricate dynamics such as power and self, culture, disadvantage, gender, familial systems, ethical behaviors, and ways of operating in a complicated statutory context. Caseworkers must also engage a range of stakeholders including juvenile justice personal, police, education, legal and medical professionals, and negotiate complex legislation and other formal requirements of a statutory profession. The breadth of complexity that caseworkers encounter in the daily enactment of their work is well recognized in the literature (Hood, 2015; Munro, 2010). Despite the scope, complexity, and significance of the work, a dearth of research exists into how child protection caseworkers learn in and through their daily work. Casework is a rich source of learning, although underutilized in the context of the highly complex nature of child protection work.

This article reports key findings of a study exploring the experience of learning at work for child protection caseworkers. The study was set in an Australian statutory child protection agency with state-wide responsibility for the safety and protection of vulnerable children and young people. The impetus for the study was to explore and understand how caseworkers learn at work. The study used a sociomaterial interpretation of learning. As a practice-based perspective, sociomaterial theory (Burm & Macleod, 2020) is a distinct theoretical perspective that moves beyond orthodox interpretations of learning, with potential for new insight into how learning in casework comes to be and is experienced.

Literature review

Approaches to continuing professional education and workplace learning across most disciplines, have been dominated by orthodox interpretations of learning (Reich et al., 2015). The orthodox view of learning is informed by theoretical assumptions elaborated in behaviorist and cognitivist traditions. Prominent among these is the conception of learning as knowledge formation, transpiring through internal psychological processes such as thinking and comprehending. In this view, mind is conceived as a closed, internal system in which knowledge is stored (Crook, 2001). Knowledge, the product or outcome of learning, is understood to be context independent or neutral, composed of stable, abstract phenomena, or mental representations, or as technical skill or competency (Crook, 2001; Hager, 2010). The orthodox paradigm values formal learning settings as spaces in which knowledge is disseminated to the individual learner in processes such as ‘acquisition’ and ‘transfer’ (Boud & Hager, 2012). Learning is measured by observable changes in behavior, or through articulated comprehension of abstract or theoretical understanding. However, the process of learning itself remains unclear. Behaviouralist and cognitivist interpretations and approaches to learning have been critiqued on several levels. A particular concern is the unproblematic conception of learning as a product or ‘thing’ (Hager, 2010) that transpires independently to action, context and sociality. In addition, the orthodox view conceives professional knowledge as ‘a series of behaviours that can be minutely codified and workers trained to perform them correctly’ (Hager, 2010, p. 18). This is evident in competency and skill-based approaches to workplace and professional learning that reduce a practice or work role to a set of codified routines to be learned in training programmes prior to, or at work.

In response to this instrumentalism, sociocultural theory extended the notion of learning beyond the individual or individual mind, maintaining that learning and knowledge formation are situationally inscribed, emerging from the context and conditions of social practices. This tradition foregrounds the social and participatory dimensions of learning as situated in practices and transpiring through participation in communities of practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Although a more expansive view of learning, sociocultural theory provides a limited account of power relations present in practices and conceives the notion of context at the level of abstract container (Fenwick, 2015). Complicating this, sociocultural theories maintain a humanist orientation in which the role of artifacts is conceived as auxiliary to human cognition and action (Renshaw, 2003). This treatment of context, power, and artifacts provides only a partial view of the experiential complexity of professional practices. This is due to the conceptual limitation of the sociocultural tradition to see the interrelatedness of people, tools, relations, spaces and other materialities through which a practice is enacted. Sociocultural interpretations therefore shed limited light on the social and material conditions by which learning arises, and the ways in which associated phenomena such as professional identity and knowledge are realized.

The move toward alternative perspectives through which to conceive learning at work in child protection is evident in studies that draw from phenomenological methodologies to explore professional knowledge and decision-making and interpret more fully the lived experience of child protection social workers and service users alike (Smeeton & O’Connor, 2020). Notions such as Heidegger’s being-in-the-world and Merleau-Ponty’s elaboration of embodiment foreground the experiential dimensions of professional experience beyond those available in psychological and sociological accounts, affording a view of the role of experiential capacities such as emotions in decision-making. The interest in practice-based knowledge and learning is evident in studies investigating learning and sensemaking in child protection social work (Avby, 2015), and have highlighted the embedded character of learning as a contextual and social phenomenon, intrinsic in participatory processes of everyday casework activity, in interactions between colleagues and other professionals, and artifacts. Studies have also investigated the knowledge sources that child protection workers use in their daily work (Iversen & Heggen, 2016), noting that the most frequent knowledge sources that caseworkers use are information from actual cases, cumulative personal experience gained at work, information shared by caseworker colleagues, and knowledge gained from professional supervision. These findings implicate the situated nature of knowledge in casework, and problematize techno-rationalist accounts of knowledge as discrete, preexisting, abstract schema that caseworkers consume. Scholars have explored different forms of situated knowledge that frontline child protection workers utilize in daily actions and decisions (Møller, 2021), finding that caseworkers draw on three interdependent forms of knowledge, delineated as declarative (or knowledge-that), procedural (or knowledge-how) and experiential knowledge (or knowledge-of). These forms of knowledge are mobilized and developed in response to practice situations. The reliance on didactic learning processes, such as training, online learning and research articles, has also been critiqued, with a call for a more holistic perspective of learning and knowledge sharing, immersed in professional contexts, to meet the practice needs of caseworkers more adequately, whilst maintaining the utility of academic inquiry (Kelly, 2017).

The above studies elaborate conceptions of practice, knowledge, and learning beyond those available in instrumental approaches. Notably, the search for alternative understandings of learning sits within a broader critique of neoliberal and managerial ideologies that have buffeted child protection and other professional fields in recent times. Neoliberal and managerial reforms have facilitated a proliferation of governing regimes (Fenwick, 2018) that shape and direct professional practices. This is evident in the adoption of systems of risk assessment (Gillingham, 2014) and a parallel focus on risk avoidance (Fenwick, 2018), a move to standardization and regulation of professional practices (Munro, 2010), and an increasing role of AI and digital analytics (Edwards & Fenwick, 2016; Gillingham, 2015), among other regimes of production. A profound effect of neoliberal managerialism is the quantification of professional effort, to the level of ‘measures of efficiency and visible output’ (Fenwick, 2018, p. 368). Orthodox modes of learning adopted by child protection organizations, effectuate compliance, and audit agendas by positioning learning instrumentally and measurably, as learning outcomes, competency frameworks, programmatic training interventions, and other frameworks that ‘account’ for learning. In addition, orthodox modes of learning carry particular theoretical assumptions that do not accommodate the complexities of child protection practice, nor reveal the depth of knowing required to meet the demands of the work. These approaches also act to regulate professional learning in terms of neoliberal and managerial reform agendas, thereby sometimes de-valuing the lived experiences of child protection caseworkers. The study reported here examines learning in casework as a social and materially constituted enactment. The findings shed light on aspects of child protection practice that have been addressed within the critique of neoliberal managerialism, and have implications for the ways in which ideologies shape and direct learning for caseworkers from afar. The focus of this research, however, is the experience of learning itself, as a dimension of casework practice. In this study, a different set of lenses is employed to conceptualize how professional learning comes to be and is experienced in the enactment of casework practice. In addition, scant attention has been given in the literature to phenomenological dimensions of child protection practice, the complex experiential dynamics and relations present in the work, or the role of non-human materialities. Sociomaterial and practice-based accounts of learning provide the conceptual resources by which these phenomena can be more fully interrogated, thus shedding light on the complex experience of learning in casework practice.

Sociomaterial theory

Sociomaterial theory describes a range of philosophical perspectives that share a commitment to the notion that ‘practices’ are constitutive of the social world (Burm & Macleod, 2020; Schatzki, 2019). There are multiple perspectives within sociomaterialism, each with particular epistemological and ontological interpretations, including complexity theory, science, and technology studies, actor network theory, theories of governmentality, practice architectures, ecological theories, feminist studies, and textures of practices (Fenwick & Landri, 2012; Hopwood, 2014; Kemmis, 2019; Nicolini, 2011; Reich et al., 2015). The notion of embodiment is explored in some sociomaterial theories (Alkemeyer & Buschmann, 2016). Despite the varied perspectives within sociomaterial theory, a common commitment is the decentering of the individual-material dualism of humanism, which privileges the human actor as the principal ontological category of the social world, and that relegates the non-human actor as secondary and instrumental to human cognition and action. It is proposed alternatively that both the human (social) and the non-human (material) are constitutive of practices and the social world (Hopwood, 2016; Schlauch, 2019). Sociomaterial theory therefore affords a conceptualization of practices and social life, beyond humanist ontological and epistemological accounts that underwrite orthodox conceptions of learning. It provides a theoretical focus on how the social and the material entwine to produce a practice. In the professional and workplace learning literature, sociomaterial theory has produced novel conceptualizations of professional learning at work, espoused in interpretations of learning such as knowing-in-practice, sociomateriality, embodiment, relationality, situatedness, and emergence (Reich & Hager, 2014). These perspectives challenge orthodox interpretations of learning by affording ‘more robust accounts of how practices are made, and how learning is entwined in practice’ (Reich & Hager, 2014, p. 419). The study reported here examined child protection caseworkers’ learning to understand how their practice is constructed, and how they learn through casework.

Practice theory—Schatzki

This research espouses an interpretation of learning using key elements of the practice theory of Schatzki (2002). Practice theory is a branch of sociomaterial theory and is described as a ‘perspective theory; rather than explaining why phenomena exist, it conceptualises how they are constituted and how the constituent entities relate to one another’ (Närvänen et al., 2023). In this way, practice theory works away from the orthodox, humanist conceptions that separate social and material dimensions of a practice, to focus on the situated and mutually constitutive materialism in which a practice is formed. The focus of inquiry in practice theory is therefore shifted from the individual actor and psychological states to the social and material actors, relations, meanings, dynamics, spatial and temporal characteristics, and other experiential phenomena of the work, and how these interact to produce practices. In this way, practice theory provides a direct line of sight to the social and material entities, dynamics and relations of child protection practice and the experience of learning within it.

As a major contributor to the ‘practice turn’ (Schatzki et al., 2001) and contemporary social theory, Schatzki elaborates a social ontological position that the social world comes to be in practice. In contrast to humanist ontologies that conceive the social world as a projection of the mental states or psychological properties of individuals, in Schatzki’s practice theory, social life transpires through the practice actions of human co-existence, described as the ‘hanging together of lives’ (Schatzki, 2003, p. 194). Human lives hang together or interrelate in practice, through orders of activity and the relations that these orders produce. Schatzki’s social ontological perspective is a theory of becoming through participation in practices. In this view, ‘practices are just as real as people are: both exist making a difference to how the world is’ (Schatzki, 2017b, p. 27). Practices are open-ended, and spatially and temporally dispersed, and thus change and evolve over time (Schatzki, 2019). At the same time, practices are shaped by the organizing structures present in practice sites.

Practices are composed of shared and organised human activity

A practice is defined as ‘embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared understanding’ (Schatzki, 2001a, p. 11). The activity of people is therefore the basic unit of analysis. This activity transpires through ‘sayings or doings or actions that these doings and sayings constitute’ (Schatzki, 2001b, p. 56). ‘Doings’ are the actions and activities performative of a practice. ‘Sayings’ are also a form of doing and include practice language, and verbal and non-verbal actions such as tone and gesture, and discursive artifacts such as texts.

A practice is conceived as a site or field of meaning (Schatzki, 2003), and is organized teleologically, toward goals and purposes. The phenomena that organize a practice are practical and general understandings, rules, and teleoaffective structures (Schatzki, 2003). Practical understanding is a fundamental organizing dimension of practices. It is embedded in practices and refers to the skills and abilities that participants use to participate. General understandings are akin to comprehending the interpretations of ethos, expectations and codes of a practice. The rules that organize a practice are formal, explicit directives, and informal understandings such as expectations. Teleoaffective structures refer to the ‘telos’, or goal-purpose orientation of activity, and ‘affectivity’, or the meaning propositions within it. Teleoaffective structures are temporal and change across time. Practical and general understandings, rules and teleoaffective structures express the ‘sanctioned public normative contexts in which people proceed’ (Schatzki, 2019, p. 35). These phenomena do not determine participant activity, nor reduce the performance of an activity in a prescribed sense; rather these phenomena lay out normative behaviors through which activity is structured. Intangible capacities such as thinking, emotions, instincts and beliefs are orientated to these organizing structures. This means that as participants move into a practice, they recognize and learn what is both acceptable and meaningful for them to do, and what makes practical sense for them to do, to participate in a practice (Schatzki, 2023).

Materiality

The second fundamental dimension of social life is materiality (Schatzki, 2010, 2002). Materiality is both social (human) and material (non-human). ‘Social’ refers to people, emotions, imaginings, symbols, and cultural meanings. Human intention is the primary mediating social dynamic of practices, as the interpersonal structuring of activity through which practices come to be (Schatzki, 2002). ‘Material’ refers to matter, or the stuff of the physical world, such as objects, everyday paraphernalia, technologies, texts, and discourses (Schatzki, 2019). Non-human material actors in a practice come to possess agency, or normative influence on activity by virtue of the attributes and meanings that they come to hold and convey. This means that unlike humanist ontologies, in practice theory, material actors are more than brute objects that augment human activity. Material things are instead understood to be dynamic in the production of activity and practices. Importantly, materiality also refers to the interconnectedness and interrelations of the social (human) and material (non-human) entities that compose a practice, as they ‘hang together’ to form material arrangements and relations through which a practice comes to be (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2023). The social and the material are always interconnected and mutually constitutive.

Learning in practices

Learning is a fundamental dimension of the relationship between people and practices. The notion of learning-by-acquaintance is introduced (Schatzki, 2017a) to extend the conception of learning beyond the acquisition of propositional know-that and know-how. Learning-by-acquaintance is ‘knowing-of’, exercised through direct experience and deep familiarity with the situatedness of activity. It is akin to ‘being-in-the-world’ (Schatzki, 2017a, p. 38). Learning-by-acquaintance transpires bodily, ‘as people perform actions’ (Schatzki, 2017b, p. 34). Therefore, learning has ontological potential, likened to ‘taking over a way of being’ (Schatzki, 2017a, p. 28). As a property of a practice, learning is emergent, and tied to and shaped by the conditions and materiality in which practice transpires.

A sociomaterial view of child protection casework

Statutory child protection casework is understood as a complex social and material practice. The sets of activities and actions that caseworkers perform in their daily work may vary according to specific casework roles, and include among several others, working directly with clients, carers, and other stakeholders, working with various forms of documentation and reporting, advocating and providing advice, overseeing client and carer contact, working with forms of information, case planning, and performing interventions (O’Reilly et al., 2011). From a practice theory perspective, these activities can be understood to be structured and organized by practical and general understandings, rules and teleoaffective structures. These organizing structures exist in casework and are not the product of the interior states of individual caseworkers. Instead, practice organizations prefigure activity for normative ways of operating intelligibly in the work. Practical understanding, the principal organizing feature of child protection casework, refers to the skills, dispositions and abilities that caseworkers acquire to perform the activities required of them. As a property of the work, practical understanding is embedded in the social and material dimensions of activity and accessed through participation. Casework is also organized by general understandings or beliefs, values and expectations for professional behavior relevant to the work. The rules that organize the work refer to formal procedures and instructions, such as child protection legislation, standards, the agency’s practice manual and framework, policies, protocols, procedures, professional and ethical standards, and organizational operating procedures, among many others. These pre-set the conditions for normative routine practices. The teleoaffective structures of the work are expressed in the ‘telos’, or goals of the work, such as the protection and safety of vulnerable children and young people, toward which the end-project-actions of other casework activities progress. The work is structured ‘affectively’ through meaning significations that bear strongly on professional and vocational actions and judgments, motivating caseworkers to act in ways that are personally and professionally important and meaningful. Practical and general understandings, rules and teleoaffective structures do not prescribe the activities or choices that caseworkers make, as multiple options for action are always present and exercised by caseworkers as intentional actors. Instead, practical and general understandings, rules and teleoaffective structures invite caseworkers to act in ways that are legitimate, and that have meaning for them, and that make practical sense for casework decisions. But, how do child protection caseworkers learn to develop the kinds of knowledge and understandings as a social and material phenomenon? This was the focus of this large study that was informed by three overarching questions: (1). How do caseworkers learn in and through child protection casework practice? (2.) In what ways do the social and material properties and relations of child protection casework shape the experience of learning in casework practice? (3.) How can learning in practice in child protection be understood as a sociomaterial phenomenon? This paper provides a comprehensive summary of the whole research study and presents a selection of findings that draw attention to critical features of learning in casework. These are—learning as a sociomaterial property of doing casework; the social ontological dimensions of learning in casework; and teleoaffectivity as a feature of learning in casework.

How the study was conducted

Professional caseworkers from a state child protection agency were invited to participate in the study. Seventeen participants volunteered to participate. The participants came from six child protection offices located in three adjacent regions close to the capital city. Fifteen were female and two were male. This gender distribution is typical of child protection work in Australia (McArthur & Thomson, 2012). The participants held bachelor-level degrees in a range of disciplines including behavioral science, criminology, health sciences, psychological science, and social work. Five participants held post-graduate qualifications. One had completed a Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma specific to child protection, two had completed honors degrees, and two participants held a master’s degree. Fourteen participants held the professional casework role of Child Safety Officer. This role is autihorised under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) and provides statutory child protection services appropriate to the needs of children and young people, and their families, who have contact with the child protection system. The role engages with a range of non-government, government, and community services. One participant held the role of Senior Child Safety Caseworker and worked with professional and paraprofessional caseworkers on complex cases as well as provided child protection services. A Senior Practitioner volunteered to participate. This role does not undertake casework, and instead provides specialist understanding of child protection practice, and performs important work such as undertaking reviews of complex cases. The role also leads and participates in the development of the skills and abilities of caseworkers. It was considered appropriate that the role was included in the study, given the importance and proximity of it to casework practice, and for the potential insight this participant perspective could provide about how caseworkers learn in practice. A Cultural Practice Advisor also volunteered to participate. This role supports casework through the provision of cultural advice in relation to working with Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander children and families, to augment casework. It was considered that, although not a professional casework role, it is nevertheless integral to culturally appropriate casework practice, and the experience of learning for caseworkers, and that the inclusion of this participant in the study was appropriate.

Data were collected through four sources: interviews, observations, observation-interviews, and reflective journals. A total of 45 interviews of approximately 60 minutes in duration were undertaken, with a minimum of two for each of the 17 participants. A third interview was conducted with 11 participants who were able to accommodate this in their workloads. Semi-structured interviews provide rich accounts of sociomaterial dimensions of practices (Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2018). A total of 20 observations were conducted, distributed as one observation for each of the 17 participants. A second observation was conducted with three participants. The observations captured details about the situatedness of casework learning and practices. In addition to these, an observation-interview was conducted with 15 (out of 17) caseworkers. Observation-interviews afforded a deep understanding of the context and process of learning, as it unfolded. The interviewer observed participants going about their daily activities and asked questions relating to learning: ‘How is learning happening for you now?’ ‘How did you come to learn how to do this activity/task?’, and ‘What people, tools, relations and other things did learning this task involve?’. The participants were asked to keep a reflective journal consisting of brief reflections and descriptions of learning in daily casework. The journaling process was semi-structured, with topics identified from participant interviews. Six caseworkers completed reflective journals.

Inductive and abductive analysis was conducted to organize and analyze the data. Practice theory acted to both frame the research questions and inform and guide the analysis and interpretation. Initial codes were produced inductively using the process described by Miles and Huberman (1994). Abductive analysis was used to move between key concepts of practice theory and the research data, in the formation of themes. As an approach, abductive analysis creates exchange, or interplay, between the conceptual framework of a study and the data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). This acts to expand analysis, with the potential for new themes.

Ethics approval was received from the university’s ethics committee. Potential volunteers were provided written information on the aims of the research study, that research involved interviews and observations, the expected time requirements of these, and that they would be asked to keep short, reflective diaries on their experience of learning at work. Potential participants were informed that interview recordings and transcripts, including observation data, would be de‐identified and stored securely according to the university’s data management protocol; and that confidentially would be maintained. Participants were also reminded that they could request more information or ask questions as required and withdraw from the research at any time. Written consent, signed by each participant, was obtained prior to the commencement of data collection.

The position of the first author as researcher

The lead author of this study was an insider researcher, a learning and development specialist with several years’ experience in professional development leadership roles in statutory child protection, and practice development and improvement in the health and human services. This author’s experience in professional learning and development in statutory child protection facilitated an analysis of learning that was strongly informed by context. Issues of potential bias were mitigated through questioning and discussions with the other two authors.

Findings

All participants spoke of the complex nature of child protection casework, composed of many people, situations, elements, tools, events, and relations. They described the work as ‘pieces that are floating everywhere that at some stage they all come together’ (Jules). This meant ‘juggling many plates’ (Jacqui) and ‘pulling things together’ (Jules). Making sense in the work was described as:

I think of it almost like … you’re putting a puzzle together and going OK, so, that fits there and that fits there, and that’s how you understand it.

(Jacqui)

When asked to describe learning in casework, most participants said their learning unfolded in the course of everyday casework situations. They learnt by ‘doing’ the work, and ‘getting the job done … so, learning on job’ (Jacqui). Learning through doing involved ‘testing a few things’ (Jules), and ‘trying different approaches or trying different methods of working with somebody’ (Gwen). Freida described learning by doing as ‘being every day in your practice … whilst you’re practising, you’re learning’. Jon added that he learnt through ‘intangible things…you are not going to learn in a classroom.’ Jess spoke of learning in situations by relying on ‘gut feelings.’ Similarly, Gwen elaborated this as ‘built-in intuitiveness that comes from working with people.’ Participants highlighted the importance of learning to ‘manage your emotions’ (Eva) and to ‘separate yourself from the job’ (Ellen) to ‘survive’ the work.

Participants spoke of ‘being present’ (Hannah) and learning casework by ‘noticing as much as you can’ (Bree) and ‘being there’ (Amy). Other descriptions of learning by presence included:

A lot of our clients, we are working with the same types of issues continuously, over and over and over. And whether people like it or not, there’s some similar patterns and themes happening across different families.

(Gwen)

I’ve noticed that there’s a distinct smell in certain households that I can best characterise is like neglect. I have smelt quite a few times in homes where the children are just like, yeah, left, there’s always like food scraps, and all sorts of clutter everywhere. It could be an eight-month-old child, but there’s stuff all over the floor. Sometimes there’s animal faeces, you know, baby bottles that are like half finished.

(Jon)

All the participants referred to colleagues as fundamental sources of learning casework. They spoke of ‘watching’ and ‘seeing’ how their experienced colleagues behaved across a range of situations to ascertain behavioral clues that they could add to their working styles. Examples include observing how their colleagues ‘compose themselves in stressful situations’ (Jeanne), and how ‘they conduct an interview’ (Jules). Participants described watching ‘how they’re speaking, their body language’ (Jeanne), and how they ‘interact with kids’ (Amy). They learned from colleagues ‘even in writing, so when you read somebody else’s document’ (Eva). Colleagues also provided opportunities to reflect and advise on their performances by way of ‘talking things out’ (Jess), acting as a type of ‘feedback loop of how you’re doing and the way you’re going’. (Jon). Additional observations of learning through experienced colleagues included:

Being exposed to different people you can actually see how they do this particular thing, but then you pick what is going to suit you and then you mould it to your own toolbox or the way you approach things.

(Jules)

Sometimes colleagues just give you that moment of clarity that gives you a way to move forward when you’re stuck. You could do the work without them, however, then you’re only being one-dimensional.

(Sue)

I have never done this before. I’ve got to figure out how to do it. I’ll go talk to someone, ask what that element is, and they’ll give you that practical learning and telling you how to do something.

(Hannah)

I learned more from the people around me than I would’ve back in formal training that we had.

(Jeanne)

My Team Leader … she’s also been very supportive of me and my journey in learning and making decisions. She explains ‘this is why [we do this] and if we can get this, then we could do this’ and by asking me ‘well, what would you do here?’ Or ‘what do you think about this?’ or ‘what direction should we head in?’.

(Freida)

Some participants described the experience of working alone or in isolation with limited interaction with colleagues, and the impact of this on learning as follows:

I don’t really get much support from my team leader. And it’s just a shit feeling … I

just feel like a very empty person. (Deena)

Winging it to me is just having to do it myself, without any help. Frustrating, if you want to know an emotion. Time consuming. … I think self-learning, it’s extremely silent and not productive. (Merle)

Clients figured strongly as a source of learning for caseworkers. Participants described ‘learning about the family, learning about the dynamics, learning about their supports and learning about how to work with them’ (Jacqui). Other experiences of learning through clients are described as follows:

I get nervous [laughs] when I try something new with a client, because I never know how it’s going to go and I feel a little bit uncomfortable. But then, I don’t know, you test it out a few times and I guess I adapted my own way of asking the same questions. And it moulds to me, I guess, in a way.

(Eva)

I know they’re young [caseworkers], but when they’re dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, they’re scared. So, I’ve tried to say to them don’t be scared. Have those conversations. That’s the only way you’re going to earn a bit of respect.

(BJ)

You can learn about a particular family, and work with that particular family, and that you’ll learn about that particular element of something. But then you can take that with you to the next family you work with. And then you build upon what you learnt about.

(Jacqui)

All participants stressed the importance of knowing the ‘direction of what needs to happen’ (Freida), or the ‘a purpose for what I’m doing’ (Merle). This applied to all facets of the work, ‘like everything right down to a case note, information gathering and case planning, all that has a bigger purpose’ (Dora). Having a sense of direction was described as ‘that moment of clarity that gives you a way to move forward when you’re stuck in your own story and your own thinking and your own experience and your own practice knowledge’ (Sue). In contrast, the experience of losing direction in a case or activity, was akin to ‘just plodding not learning’ (Freida).

Learning the ‘clerical side of the work’

The findings show that child protection casework is administratively dense, composed of various systems, processes, assessments and reports, legal documentation, and other practice tools. Learning the clerical side of casework was described as ‘case learning everything you need to be doing for your reports’ (Jon), such as ‘systems and processes’ (Gwen) and ‘your back of house’ (Jeanne). The agency’s electronic client management system was mentioned frequently in relation to learning, described as ‘form of learning, of learning how to do it [casework] in a particular way’ (Jacqui). It provided ‘the tools to outline a map of what we need and what we need to provide the families or the support we need to give and the direction we need to move in for the families’ (Freida). Most participants viewed the agency’s Structured Decision-Making (SDM) positively in regard to learning. In particular, the definitions of risk and harm were considered important to learning by ‘drawing attention to the areas that are needed’ (Eva) in each case. SDM was described as providing ‘a guide and it’s the same guide for all of us in the office. We’re not just off on a tangent’ (Gwen). Other caseworkers described the use of SDM in learning as:

You can see why you do things a certain way, and the outcome that you’re working towards … it’s solidifying those steps that you’re doing with the kids.

(Ellen)

I think I rely more on my professional judgment than SDMs [tools]. There might be similar charges or similar risk, but the context is always different. So, there’s definitely room for experience and knowledge and practice wisdom within that.

(Bree)

Other tools of casework, such as writing an affidavit, case noting and writing, review reports and assessments, were considered critical for learning and working, by providing a ‘structure to go by’ (Freida) so that ‘everyone knows what they’re working toward what goals and what actions need to be taken to get to those goals’ (Dora). By working with and through case tools, participants were able to see important interrelationships and connections within case elements:

It’s about reading case notes, being able to see how one thing might’ve impacted on another, how they might have correlated, how they might not have worked well together. So, to be able to really analyse the practice.

(Eva)

Discussion

Three key findings emerged from the data that describe the experience of learning in practice for statutory child protection caseworkers. These findings vindicate interpretations of learning as a participative and situated phenomenon, and substantiate the practice theory proposition that learning is tied to and arises in the human (social) and non-human (material) particularities constitutive of casework as a social practice. The findings are discussed in terms of learning as a sociomaterial property of doing casework; the social ontological dimensions of learning in casework; and teleoaffectivity as a feature of learning in casework.

Learning as a sociomaterial property of doing casework

The findings reveal that child protection casework is experientially thick, a dynamism of multiple, interrelated human and non-human actors, arrangements, activities, relations, and other phenomenological complexities that characterize the practice. The learning requirements for productive participation are significant, necessitating continual development and refinement of practical know-how, in response to unique practice issues and phenomena. The findings show that learning transpires as caseworkers encounter and perceive the range of potential situations and circumstances constitutive of their work. It is evident that learning is deeply experiential, enfolded in the social and material composition of casework activity, and realized through being-in-the world, through ‘practising’ processes such as ‘testing’ performances, and ‘trying new methods’. Caseworkers develop practical sense of the social and material phenomenon and contexts of the practice using embodied capacities such as ‘watching’ and ‘talking’ and using emotions to interpret what is at hand. In response to the specificity of case situations, they assemble practical understanding through dispositional capacities such as ‘being present’ and ‘gut feelings’ and ‘built in intuitiveness’, and by using sense making capacities, such as ‘putting a puzzle together’, and ‘pulling things together’. It is evident that practical understanding, or skills and abilities to perform the work, is assembled through deep familiarity with the situatedness of the social and material entities and arrangements present in casework practice. This is apparent in situations where caseworkers interpret ‘neglect’, by attuning to the materiality of what is at hand, such as ‘food scraps’ and ‘animal faeces’ and ‘baby bottles’, and other significant situational features that may be present. In a bodily sense, they encounter the materiality of these situations, and think, sense, intuit, imagine, reflect, and assemble an interpretation of the circumstances before them. This foregrounds the situated and experiential character of practical know-how in casework, as being-in-the-world, and substantiates the sociomaterial view of learning as transpiring through direct immersion in the social and material composition of practice, as a form of doing (Burm & Macleod, 2020; Schatzki, 2017a).

Fundamental to learning by doing casework, is the role of non-human material entities. The findings show that material entities in casework are constitutive of learning from the meaning significations, perception-actions relations, and teleological qualities they exercise in the performance of casework activity. A practice tool such as an affidavit, for example, projects a range of casework activity relevant to its function and purpose. This entails compiling particular sets of information, appearing in Court, conducting meetings, reviewing files and other relevant activities that exercise performative roles in the enactment of casework activity. The agentic influence of non-human materialities is evident in the attention organizing capacities and meaning significations that these entities possess, that frame perception-action toward specific ends. The definitions within the agency’s decision-making system, for example, direct attention to elements and relations in a case, providing ‘a map’ of potential action at each decision point, in a perception–action relation that shapes the progression of activity. Similarly, the agency’s electronic information system structures informational aspects of the work, shaping standards and common ways of operating, as a type of accountability. Of note, the findings show the non-human materialities of casework to be more than brute phenomenon that caseworkers consider, enact, or ‘do’, as neutral objects of human intention and thus auxiliary to action, as found in cognitivist interpretations of learning. Rather, these entities are performative of casework practice and learning, by intending a line of perception and action through which practical understanding is assembled. This substantiates the practice theory position that non-human material entities induce and shape the activity of a practice and are constitutive in practices (Fenwick, 2015; Hopwood, 2016; Schatzki, 2010; Schlauch, 2019).

Overall, the findings show that learning in casework emerges as caseworkers perform the activities of the work. This is most evident in descriptions of learning as ‘doing’, and ‘practising’ and learning, or learning as ‘getting the job done’. Caseworkers access practical understanding by direct encounter of the social and material field of meaning in which casework practice comes to be and is sustained. By doing the work, the practical sense and meaning of it for particular cases, emerges. This supports interpretations of learning as arising through participation in social practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and reinforces the notion of learning as deep familiarity with the context and situatedness of activity (Schatzki, 2017a). The findings also confirm the sociomaterial proposition that learning is entwined in and constitutive of practices (Reich & Hager, 2014; Schatzki, 2017a), and justifies the sociomaterial proposition that practical know-how is a property of practices and is assembled through direct encounter of the social and material specificities constitutive of practices.

The social ontological dimensions of learning in casework

The study reveals the fundamental role of colleagues and other human actors in learning for caseworkers. In a simple sense, it is the performances of colleagues in which caseworkers ‘can actually see’ practical ways to perform a range of tasks and activities. Colleagues translate practical understanding by ‘talking things out’ and by acting as ‘feedback loops’ from which caseworkers finesse their performances. Experienced colleagues shape the critical inquiry and reflection skills of caseworkers by prompting them to consider ‘what would you do here?’ and ‘what do you think about this?’ and assist caseworkers to apprehend the connections between case activities, and how these relate to the broader web of activities, people and processes, through which the work proceeds. The findings reveal that colleagues steer the actions of caseworkers toward potential paths of action through explanations of ‘this is why, [we do this] and if we can get this, then we could do this’, effectively organizing activity toward broader teleological, professional and vocation meaning structures that bear strongly on casework. This interpersonal structuring of activity (Schatzki, 2002) promotes reflective and critical thinking by which deep understandings about cases develop, that caseworkers use to respond to cases in distinct ways. In contrast, instances where caseworkers have to learn to operate alone, with limited guidance from peers or experienced colleagues, they sense being ‘stuck in your own experience’, and ‘one-dimensional’, in which they feel ‘extremely silent’ and ‘not productive’, and ‘empty’. These experiences accentuate the fundamentally social character of learning practical understanding in casework, arising as caseworkers encounter the work through the embodied repertoire of colleagues, in interactions with the materialities of the practice. These experiences also show that learning is embedded in practices and carries ontological potential as the means by which caseworkers take on practical and normative ways of performing and being in the work.

Teleoaffectivity as a feature of learning in casework

The findings show the importance of understanding the ‘direction’ of casework activity to learning. Participants referred to direction in terms of both complex and routine activities, ‘like everything right down to a case note’. Direction, or procedural steps, were described in the study as a ‘sense’, or understanding of the flow of the work that caseworkers use, to act practically toward expected ends. Notably, where casework activity made sense to participants, understanding ‘the direction of what needs to happen’, or knowing ‘a way to move forward’, was always present. In contrast, where direction was absent or unclear, caseworkers described ‘being stuck’ or entrenched, with limited options for practical action. In a simple sense, ‘direction’ refers to the movement of activity from a past-present state, toward a future, possible state. This movement is teleological, expressing the past-present-future organization of activity toward a purpose-goal state. From the practice theory lens used in this study, direction can be understood first as an expression of the teleoaffective structures of casework. Direction is teleological, and directs activities toward a possible purpose-goal, and affective, in the sense that direction toward a purpose-goal has affective potential as accomplishment. Second, direction can be understood as embodied, practical understanding that caseworkers grasp and use to discern potential pathways for action. The importance of direction to sensemaking, supports the notion of teleoaffectivity as an organizing, normative phenomenon in practices (Schatzki, 2010, 2002).

Conclusion

Professional and workplace learning has historically been conceived from an orthodox perspective evident in much of the educational research and practice across most disciplines. This study elaborates an alternative view of casework practice and learning, as social and materially constituted enactments. The findings foreground the embodied and experiential dimensions of learning in casework, transpiring through deep familiarity with the social and material situatedness of casework activity. It shows that learning is tied to this situatedness and emerges in response to the material specificities and contexts of the work which include the imperatives of managerialism. The study reveals the fundamentally social character of learning, arising through the practical experience of colleagues and others. It is also evident that practical understanding is a socially constructed, agentic property of the work that caseworkers use to participate and act purposefully and meaningfully. Associated with this, the embodied, experiential nature of learning, is evidenced in phenomenal capacities that caseworkers use such as sensing, feeling, intuiting, thinking, empathizing, and other bodily ways of doing and being in the work.

This alternative interpretation of learning highlights the importance of practice-based approaches to professional learning such as the student placement in social work and reinforces the need for approaches to continuing professional development of caseworkers used by organizations, that are grounded in practice. The study brings to the fore pedogeological opportunities for supporting professional learning of caseworkers, in particular, facilitating processes of attunement and attention that caseworkers use in their daily work to negotiate and make sense of social and material components and idiosyncrasies of case situations; understanding the affective ground of casework practice in shaping and delimiting case activity and what this means for learning; exploring the role of experienced colleagues in the structuring and assembling of professional experience and knowledge; exploring the potential of teleoaffective dimensions of casework and how these purpose-goal dimensions of activity contribute to sense making; and, exploring the role of non-human material actors in the enablement or constraint of practice and learning.

The study reported here explored the experiences of learning at work for child protection caseworkers. It introduces new understandings about the sociomateriality of learning using a practice theory interpretation of learning. This perspective casts light on the complex social and material dimensions and conditions present in casework practice through which learning comes to be and is experienced. From this vantage point, new conceptualizations of learning are possible that complement current approaches to learning in this field, with potential to transform and enhance learning practices for caseworkers.

Limitations

The researach and analysis presented in this paper are subject to several limitations. The theoretical framework that informs the work is only one of a set of contending perspectives. Although an argument has been offered for selecting Schatzki’s practice theory, there are others that make strong claims and it is noteworthy that these theories are evolving. The methodology is limited in a few respects, most obviously by the fact that data collection took place in only six empirical settings. Caution should therefore be exercised in relation to any generalization from the findings presented here. More research will be required to test the findings and elaborate the way differences in empirical setting may modify the understandings offered here.

Disclosure statement

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