Categorisation and Processing

Tacit knowledge also appears as an important subject within this theme, with Wattam (1992) and Hall, Slembrouck and Sarangi (2006). In Making a case in child protection

(1992), Corinne Wattam examined decision making in child protection practice by carrying out two ethnographies: one in a social work setting and the other in the

62

crown prosecution service (CPS). The study was carried out between 1988 and 1991, and even though the length of time actually spent carrying out the research is not clarified, Wattam is clear about the tools she used to undertake this chosen method: participant observation; document analysis of files, video recordings/ taped

interviews and interviews were conducted with teachers, social workers, police CPS personnel and children.

Although Wattam aimed to explicate the process of constructing a child protection case in order to provide practitioners with a base on which to make informed decisions following the inauguration of the Memorandum of Good Practice framework,30 what she actually found was in practice this guidance was often

replaced by another set of rules. These were deemed more important by

professionals in determining whether a case was categorised as a case or not, by using a method more commonly known today as ‘tacit knowledge’ (see also Pithouse, 1998; Scourfield, 1999; White, 1997)

In Language practices in social work: categorisation and accountability in child welfare (2006), Christopher Hall, Stef Slembrouck and Srikant Sarangi used a

theoretical framework they had formulated to expand on this concept by

demonstrating how categorisation can actually take place amongst professionals. They argued that certain categories reveal how institutional arrangements influence (and are influenced by) the establishment of case groups by professionals. Their framework utilised discourse analysis to explore professional talk and texts by drawing on particular themes and categories such as: professional and institutional; argumentation, membership; action work etc (2006:25).

30 _{The Memorandum of Good Practice (1992) framework was, at the time, new guidance for professionals}

63

Hall et al. through the use of categorisation, developed some interesting ideas and demonstrated ways in which social work practice can be deconstructed through the analysis of talk and text. In their de-construction of a case conference, the authors revealed how social workers and other professionals can turn the inadequate parent into an inadequate person by simply emitting a ‘strong moral overtone’ (2006: 95).

Although their theoretical framework is useful in highlighting how this

characterisation process can take place in practice, it does not, unfortunately, offer an explanation as to why this has actually taken place. By focusing on a few extracts of talk and text, they missed what goes on behind the scenes, that which is not visible to the outsider, such as the implicit forms of communication that occur between senior management and staff in the office setting: the actual talk or discourse that constructs the micro culture where these social workers find themselves located and are

subjected to which I will duly attend to in Chapter six.

Their research not only missed the voices of the social workers but also pertinent aspects of why the culture functions in the way that it does. Despite the authors recognising that the social worker needs to learn how to navigate

‘professional, legal and institutional definitions and discourses’, unfortunately, no links are made between these discourses and the reasons why professionals may have behaved and categorised in the way that they did towards ‘the inadequate parent’ (2006: 24).

Wattam, however, did try to explain how professionals categorise and did so by explaining how they take accounts of child abuse at face value rather than

requesting a formal procedure, such as a medical, to ascertain the facts of the case. But by advocating that medicals should become routine procedure Wattam, has ignored the concerns raised by others (see Cooper et al. 1995; Parton et al. 1997) in

64

relation to the overzealous behaviour of professionals exhibited during the Cleveland Inquiry. Wattam asserted instead that social workers need to be accountable for their cases by building factual records to replace what she felt was just a ‘gloss of a

discussion’ (1992:70).

I understand that Wattam’s aim was to strengthen social work evidence gathering procedures so that it would improve the reputation of the profession and so that cases could stand up in court and justice could be served for children who have been subjected to abuse. But I believe that the role she advocates for the social worker is one that is already available and takes shape in the form of a police officer.

It is evident throughout the study that Wattam recognised that this is a contradiction and as a result she appeared to struggle with trying to balance child centred practice with the need for gathering evidence. Although Wattam did not directly refer to this struggle herself, she did often notice that children who are ‘the subjects of the offence’ are also ‘the objects of evidence’ (1992: 29). Therefore, despite Wattam recognising that legal discourse dominates in child protection work, she, in turn, effectively promoted it herself. Gaining justice for the child is not always in the child’s best interests. Medical examinations are invasive, lengthy processes; they can also be traumatic experiences for children. This conflict is not only an issue social workers grapple with (see de Montigny, 1995; Cooper et al. 1995; Parton et al. 1997) but one which Wattam also struggled to explain.

These authors show that different methods bring different issues. Although Wattam used an ethnography and in the process, gained an understanding of the social worker’s perspective, she struggled to find a reasonable way of strengthening the practice of child protection social work without bringing unwarranted,

65

through the use of discourse analysis, Hall et al. (2006) attempted to draw social workers’ attentions to the way that clients can be characterised in the child protection process. However, by focusing primarily on discourse they ignore the identities of the social workers and so lack the insight and understanding of why social workers are doing what they are doing.

Within this theme the issue of social injustice has also emerged, once again, as professionals are depicted, by both studies, as struggling with balancing their

patriarchal paternalistic role with their protective one in child protection cases (see also Dingwall et al. 1993; Parton et al. 1997). This common theme appears to be a re- occurring issue within this area of social work in the UK but it is not seen as a

problem for professionals working within the same framework but a different system of the next theme: the social welfare system.