Social work is frequently associated with our role in ensuring that children are well protected and supported. The consistent articulation is for the triumvirate of policy, practice and research to be constantly integrated in developing new approaches and understanding. The reasoning is that personal and professional critical evaluation helps assure that social work continues to advance in its responses to the crisis and need of children and families. In this the final issue of the year, we bring together four articles that embrace these deliberations.
In the first article, Asher Woodman-Worell and Martyn Higgins provide a systematic review examining adoption for children with disabilities or mental health experiences. The structure of such searches helps provide rigour to the process of searching in the proverbial haystack of evidence. They provide robust and succinct focused summaries for others. In this instance Woodman-Worrell and Higgins have critically examined seven, predominantly qualitative studies, out of initial potential 678 articles. The review focuses on the three actors of; child, adopter and organisation, and the core messages which the authors distil are those of a need for effective interventions, support to carers and the need for collaborative policy and organisational working. While the messages may seem familiar, this article provides a timely reminder of the importance of doing these core basics well, at the same time as responding with specificity in regards to the diversity of experience and need. The article concludes with calls for more research into very specific types of adoption arrangements for children with particular sets of needs.
We follow this with a second systematic review. In this instance a focus by Simon Haworth into social work practice with single fathers. Coincidently he also distils down from very high numbers of initial searches and findings, to seven articles, and observes that such focused inquiries highlight the lack of research with such specific groups. Haworth’s examination is augmented through theoretical frameworks associated with gender roles and in particular borderwork as developed by Doucet. The article extracts some really interesting, but again not unusual findings. The first is that of a misunderstanding and stereotyping of single fathers by social workers; and the second of a marginalised group experiencing lack of engagement and support. Haworth was able to identify and shares some elements of ‘best practice’ which focused on acceptance of single fathers’ distinctive need. What is particularly rich in this article is the way in then takes the findings and discusses them in the context of broader societal issues and questions about social work practice. Haworth concludes with a particular strong message; that the engagement of single fathers should form part of everyday practice, but that this requires structural, cultural, and individual changes, including challenging widespread gender stereotypes and assumptions.
One of the biggest assumptions in social work is that the welfare and safeguarding of children is paramount. In our third article Martyn Higgins provides a review contemporary safeguarding of children in the United Kingdom. The article begins with a critical exploration of the nature and contemporary culture of safeguarding for children, highlighting key concerns over some predisposition towards authoritarian and reactive approaches. The core considerations are explored through the examples of adoption and the case of Anna. Higgins then follows this with drawing out implications for national and international practice. In suggesting a way forward, he postulates the possibility of an emphasis on prevention through a public health model of safeguarding.
The notions of uncovering assumptions as put by Haworth and thinking aloud as Higgins does, come together in our final paper critically examining supervision and practitioner learning community approaches from Allyson Davys, Fiona Howard, Matt Rankine, and Andrew Thompson. This article further joins the dots by suggesting supervision plays a crucial role in the development and maintenance of professional competencies and ensuring safe, accountable and ethical practice. This paper describes a learning community for supervision of four experienced supervisors, in Aotearoa New Zealand. The four; three social workers and one clinical psychologist, developed the learning community out of initial meetings and discussions seeking to improve supervision practice, via the creation of shared teaching vignettes. Along with highlighting ideas of learning community, the article expounds the four step Koru model of reflection and thinking aloud. What Davy’s and colleagues have done is provide an informative piece, with emphasis on reflection, authenticity, presence, and sharing. Critically it highlights the value of (agencies supporting) peer support, and how attention to the practice from the practitioner community can lead to stronger outcomes for those they work with.
Finally, we would like to extend a warm welcome to the editorial board for Emily Keddell, Senior Lecturer, University of Otago.
[email protected]