Editorial

One of the pleasures in writing an editorial is the invitation to consider a broad range of articles and reflect on how these individually and collectively illuminate the focus and scope of the multi-disciplinary journal Child Care in Practice. This edition reflects a range of perspectives from child health, child care, social care, child protection and mental health. Importantly, reflection is also drawn from a breadth of socio-cultural contexts including Kenya, Ireland, Albania, the United States and South Africa. Considered together, these offer different ways of seeing, researching, making and critiquing policy and developing practice. Within this diversity however, there are clear threads of connection; a focus on child rights and voice is evident in contributions by McGregor, Devaney, and Moran (2020) in relation to children in foster care while protection rights in the context of migration are addressed by Vathi and Richards (2020).

Bronfenbrenner’s bi-directional framework (1979, 2005) is a common point of reference in research, policy and practice across the social scientific disciplines. Another unifying aspect is in the sustained reference to the ecology of childhood which provides a critical framework for the study by Sonkola, Kvalsvig, Brouwer, Holding, and Taylor (2020) which has a focus on paternal involvement and child health. Similarly, a systems perspective and a focus on the enabling and challenging features of the ecological context for adolescent mental health are captured by Harrison, Loxton, and Somhlaba (2020) while the study by Flynn (2019) is focused on the implications for social care practice of broader systemic change. Asymmetry within the system, inequalities of access and the impact of poverty is a key focus of Moran’s (2020) work on childcare transitions, of Vathi and Richards (2020) in relation to migration and of Harrison et al. (2020) in relation to adolescent mental health.

The placement of the child at the ecological centre is not only concerned with systemic impact and professional concern but also agency and voice. In their exploration of power relations in practice with children in foster care in Ireland, McGregor et al. (2020) alert us to the importance of “recognising and seeing the relative powerlessness of the child in care within the overall picture” (p. 10). In addition to the ecological perspective, the study draws on Foucauldian discourse analysis (1982) alongside Smith’s (1990) work on materiality to examine how power and power relations featured in the narratives of children, young people, parents and foster carers. While complexity in the interlayering of interactions between child, family, social worker and the wider system is recognised, the call to advocacy is clear. The need for increased voice for children and young people is recognised as crucial to the improvement of child welfare services towards enhanced permanence and stability.

The interaction of rights and ecology in relation to protection is critically examined in the article by Vathi and Richards (2020) which looks at the intersection between migration management and child protection systems in Albania. The lack of linkages between these systems is described as a “policy blind spot” which impacts access by returned migrant children and those from very disadvantaged socio- economic backgrounds. Systemic inequalities of access and poverty is also a key factor in Moran’s study of childcare instability and transition patterns in low-income, urban neighbourhoods in the United States. This study examines planned and forced transitions in childcare arrangements and their role in fostering instability for young children and their families. In addition, Moran raises the prevalence of what are termed “abrupt transitions” in low income neighbourhoods and the negative impact on stability. In spite of multiple challenges, findings also highlight the importance caregivers place on finding the most appropriate care arrangements for their children in terms of enhanced educational and socialisation opportunities.

In their Kenyan based study of parental involvement in decision making in child health, Sonkola et al. (2020) present important insights into the need to consider paternal and maternal involvement as distinct systemic interactions. A consideration of the different ecology of fathers’ lives and an associated shift of focus for engagement beyond the clinic to include informal opportunities such as religious and community meetings is one suggested example for enhancing the participation of fathers in important decisions around nutrition and vaccination. Adolescent mental health and the combined effect of poverty and other stressors such as the legacy of Apartheid are the concern of the study by Harrison et al. (2020). The authors identify approaches focused on psychological strengths such as social support, self-esteem and resilience as an under researched area in the South African context and advocate for a policy focus that explores these.

The systemic interaction of research, policy and practice is explored in Flynn’s (2020) article which considers the reform of social care policy and practice in Ireland in the context of the literature on Evidence-Informed Practice (EIP) and the professionalisation of social care practitioners working with children. Informed by a social constructionist approach, Flynn’s commentary is focused on practitioner engagement with EIP and the call to advocacy for service improvement. Considered together, the systemic focus from the perspective of child, adolescent, parent, practitioner and the interaction with the macro systems of policy and research is a connective thread in the articles presented in this edition. Theoretical frameworks derived from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 2005) ecology are further illuminated by social constructionist approaches, Foucauldian perspectives on power (1982) and critically explored in a diverse range of socio-cultural contexts.