Doing ‘duty’ work was in important area of child protection practice where participants’ sense-making and professional judgement was observed as being accomplished. Dependent upon the nature of a referral, I observed how sense- making and judgement formulation was achieved by several practitioners primarily through a discursive dialogue either with the team manager, other team members and/or other professionals. However, I noted how this was not always the case as some practitioners were inclined to respond to referrals in a way where their sense- making and judgement formulation was accomplished independently. I observed how this was often the case where information on referrals suggested the need for a
- 186 -
standardised response. With a CCN reporting an incident of domestic violence (DV), for example, duty social workers were required to undertake an IA in all cases.
Where a standardised response to a CCN was required, I observed the contribution to workflow efficiency the ‘disposal’ of a referral through a prescribed practice afforded some duty social workers. However, the consistently high number of referrals received meant doing duty remained a busy, unpredictable and anxiety provoking experience. Although a standardised response was required in some cases, practitioners were observed as not always happy to ‘process’ CCNs in a prescriptive way. This occurrence was reflected across the data set where, for example, despite feeling pressurised to do so some social workers’ frustration at having to practice in an uncompromising way was evidenced. This is highlighted in the following observation extract where on doing duty the social worker communicates her irritation at being encouraged to respond to referrals in a narrowly-defined way:
Sometimes it feels like…the phone never stops and it’s the same issues, same responses required but with different names on the sheet type of thing and it can be quite overwhelming at times…but you don’t want to treat everybody the same you don’t want to assume the same issues apply...because nine out of ten times they don’t they just look the same…but we start to get into it the same…the same response but every family is different…you have to keep that in your head [Field note extract]
Here the data illustrates how the practitioner was feeling pressurised to make sense and formulate judgement in a biased, narrowly-defined way. This was due to the presenting information being interpreted as familiar scenarios that are interpreted as potentially requiring a standard response. However, by stating ‘you don’t want to
- 187 -
awareness of the danger of adopting a heuristic or biased approach to sense-making in child protection. Despite feeling ‘quite overwhelmed’ and under pressure to get cases through the duty system, the data highlights how the practitioner communicates her reluctance to practice in a delineated and/or routinised manner.
In their study Broadhurst et al. (2010c: 365) describe how routinised sense-making and/or ‘patterns of tacit reasoning’ can contribute to erroneous judgement as they become established where duty social workers are placed under pressure to process a high level of referrals. However, with the data presented within the above extract the practitioner demonstrates a level of criticality and reflexivity indicated by Broadhurst et al. (2010b) as required to safeguard against the potential error of hasty judgement formulation in child protection. Here the data offers evidence of how practice-depth can be achieved where practitioners are willing to curtail sense- making short-cuts encouraged by the need to maintain workflow management within the context of a ‘conveyer-belt’ culture.
However, data highlighting the frustration of some social workers in relation to duty system management, and how this acted as a constraint to practice-depth is child protection, is highlighted in the following interview extract:
Sometimes I am working on duty and you go into a family…responding to a report or whatever…a concern about the child and because we have the policies and practice standards and performance indicators we have to respond as a duty worker and have to go in…and we work up this incredible whirlwind and then we leave…and the family is left in disarray [SW: 7]
- 188 -
While the IA process is concerned with understanding the importance of an initial response to CCNs, the data presented above highlights how a bureaucratic, performance driven pre-occupation with risk continues to influence the UK child protection system. Klein (2000) indicates when encouraged to engage in prescriptive practices that are performance driven a social workers’ judgement and decision- making risks being accomplished through a recognition-primed response. As highlighted in chapter 2, a recognition-primed response involves practitioners’ sense- making in child protection by identifying a presenting scenario as ‘typical’ of a previous case. On formulating a response, practitioners are then able to interpret information in a patterned way and anticipate action courses.
However, as the preceding extracts highlight, this kind of recognition-primed response was not always considered desirable by practitioners. As demonstrated, this was particularly the case where participants, while under pressure to ‘filter’ referrals and manage ‘workflow’ efficiently, critically questioned the need to enact a standardised response to similarly presenting information. As I discussed in the literature review, Lipsky’s (1980) concept of the ‘street level bureaucrat’ highlights the importance of a practitioners’ discretion in child protection. Consequently, as demonstrated with the data, while some practitioners show a willingness to question prescriptive policy and practice frameworks, as Broadhurst et al. (2010c: 365) found, sense-making ‘short-cuts’ were used to categorise and/or filter referrals to manage workflow.
- 189 -