The future of RIG

Since RIG’s inception, the role of Principal Social Worker has been introduced following the acceptance of Munro’s recommendation to that effect in her report on the tragic case of Peter Connelly (Munro, 2011) and the work of the Social Work Reform Board. The precise function of this role has been open to interpretation by employers and consequently actioned differently across the country with Annie Hudson, then chief executive of the College of Social Work stating:

“PSWs are often what was described as a ‘go between’ – between practitioners and managers, between adult and children’s services and between national and local networks, it is the case that the role is not only being developed but it is being developed differently across the country”

(Schraer, 2014) The role is generally considered to be a driver of professional standards with

principal social workers taking a professional lead across an organisation, and having a responsibility for supporting and advising on the quality of practice

(BASW, 2014). However, there is concern that the principal social worker is at risk of being absorbed into just another part of the organisational structures that have:

“got us here in the first place. The opportunity is now for practice leadership. And if we don’t seize it, others will define it for us”

This reflects the negotiated nature of the role within individual authorities. Most relevant to my work and the future development of RIG is the statement that principal social workers have responsibility to:

“Create and sustain an environment that promotes learning and practice development, facilitating research within the organisation and with strategic partners”

(BASW, 2014, p.1) The principal social worker in my agency had become involved with RIG at my time of leaving the organisation, and is now taking on the development of a research- minded workforce as part of his role. RIG has served as a prompt to management and principal social workers that practitioners have an appetite for research but require a culture of learning along with access in order to be able to engage. These ideas are being taken forward into the development of the Pan Dorset Health and Social Care Academy.

Initiating RIG has contributed to my ongoing development as a researcher. Reflection on the development of the group leads me to appreciate how much its early success was dependent on the fortunate coincidence of gathering a specific group of individuals who were prepared to negotiate and collaborate in an

environment where creative innovations were encouraged and a degree of

freedom allowed. The individuals were of sufficient authority within the organisation to be able to make decisions with budgetary implications, which meant we could make decisions and take action. But the majority of members were practitioners meaning the focus remained on developing practitioner skills and confidence rather than organisational concerns such as demonstrating the outcome of RIG to justify its continuation. Considering the challenges and opportunities of my practice development experience led me to the work of McCormack and Garbett (2003) who reviewed the functions and activities of practice developers. Their review provides a helpful structure with which to analyse my work with RIG:

a. Promote and facilitate change – RIG was a new practitioner-led venture and consequently established new relationships within the organisation, bringing

together interested parties from across council departments as well as

geographical locations. My primary aim as practice developer was “supporting, raising awareness and helping create a culture to support change based on the perceptions and needs of staff themselves” (McCormack and Garbett, 2003, p. 320). However, because practitioner research engagement is necessary for both individual and organisational advantage (as discussed earlier in this chapter) the purpose of RIG was also to support change and raise awareness at management level, hence the importance of the inclusion of management representatives amongst the group membership.

b. Translation and communication – this involved my initiation of RIG, gathering information to explain and then communicate to a number of departmental

representatives why such a group was needed at that particular time. On reflection, I perceive that I was advocating for recognition that practitioners need to be

enabled to engage with research. It was a 'social worker as advocate' response to my perception that practitioners exercise less power than management within an organisation and therefore require a route to express their needs (perhaps also meeting my need to be a ‘hero’).

c. Responding to external influences – as already discussed, social workers have a regulatory responsibility to engage with research and to demonstrate critical thinking throughout their professional career (PCF and HCPC). This involves the ability to consider the multiple influences on themselves and service users which impact on well-being. In addition, the hostility to social work from the media, particularly following the death of children known to social services (for example, The Daily Mail, 14 December 2015: “Blitz on failing social services”), government criticism of social work education (Gove, 2013) and subsequent reforms (such as the proposed imprisonment of social workers (Stevenson, 2015)) require social workers to have the confidence, skills and resilience to, first, continue in practice and, secondly, develop a robust, defensible professional knowledge base. RIG provided a route to achieve this by creating a shared community of practice characterised by peer support.

d. Education – RIG organised practitioner training events through collaboration with RiPFA. These events were educative in themselves but from a personal

development perspective I gained an appreciation of the practice development role as one which “provides access to personal and professional development”

(McCormack and Garbett, 2003, p.322).

e. Qualities and skills – as mentioned previously, RIG members brought different qualities and skills, including expertise in organising learning events. The shared ‘can do attitude’ demonstrated by the group reflects the energy, enthusiasm and vision required to undertake practice development activity identified by McCormack and Garbett (2003). However, they also identify a range of skills which are unlikely to be found in any one person and therefore suggest that ‘centres of practice’ might be a way forward. In social work, the introduction of the role of Principal Social Worker includes aspects of the practice developer (Schrear, 2014), it is a role which continues the work of RIG by promoting research engagement and linking management and practitioners. In addition, in Dorset the development of the Pan Dorset Academy, in collaboration with Bournemouth University, offers the potential to be a ‘centre of practice’ where practice development activities can be facilitated and supported.

RIG’s decline reflects the changing workplace environment over recent years where local authority budgets have been cut by 27% (Penny, 2015) resulting in the curtailing of innovations beyond core work. But also the introduction of the PSW role reduced the need for such a group. All the original members of the steering group were reorganised into other posts and attendance declined as staff took on other responsibilities due to cutbacks. The enthusiasm which motivated the group for several years, and influenced senior management due the increasing visibility of our activities, was replaced by uncertainty over job security and a sense of fatigue. I understand that the decline of RIG coincided with my growing scepticism about governmental commitment to social work and well-being which influenced my ability to ‘drive’ RIG. For such an initiative to survive in a hostile environment it has to be more than a practice development project, it needs to become part of a whole organisational commitment to the development of a research-minded

workforce. In relation to the problem solving process (Gray, 2010) discussed

previously, I perceive that successful implementation depends, first, on who defines the problem and their level of influence within the organisation and, secondly, how closely the problem aligns to the purpose of an organisation at that time. With RIG my status as a practitioner gave credibility to the identification of the problem, with academic and analytic rigour assumed due to my additional identity as a D Prof student. In addition, the timing of RIG was beneficial as it alerted the organisation to practitioners’ appetite for research engagement and the impact enabling such engagement has on staff well-being, recruitment and retention. In light of this realisation I was pleased to be able to pass the learning from RIG to the PSW to use in the development of the Pan Dorset Academy.

This account has been a narrative of contextual change and the implications this has for ‘grass roots’ practice development subject to the influences of

organisational restructuring and reform of the profession. There is an evident desire amongst practitioners to engage in research yet the organisational

infrastructure enabling them to do so is lacking. RIG offered a model for research engagement which was valued for its ‘bottom up’ approach. However, for such a group to be sustainable through periods of change senior management

commitment is necessary, but this potentially introduces a ‘top down’ effect, prioritising the needs of the organisation over practitioners. The introduction of Principal Social Workers to raise standards and promote research-informed practice offers an opportunity for ‘bottom up’ initiatives like RIG to meet ‘top down’ needs as agencies change. With the recruitment and retention of social workers becoming an issue for employers (Skills for Care, 2014a,c; Carter, 2016) and ongoing professional development and learning opportunities being a recognised factor in attracting candidates to employment, agencies need to embrace initiatives such as RIG.

I now progress to my research literature review exploring sexual well-being, social work and disability. I have been reading the literature throughout my research journey and all the activities related to the various elements of a D Prof have nurtured one another, including the literature providing stimulating material for RIG

training sessions and meetings and RIG providing the peer support to aid my motivation.