check work 500 word

Are you pressed for time and haven’t started working on your assignment yet? Would you like to buy an assignment? Use our custom writing services for better grades. Even if your deadline is approaching fast, our writers can handle your task right when you need it.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

check work 500 word

check work 500 word
500 words, relevant AASW documents (Code of Ethics etc.); Field Education placement experiences;  relevant pre-recorded weekly presentations, tutorial discussions and activities     Provide a short overview of Ferguson’s Critical Best Practice (CBP) explain and referee the article perspective.  The article by Ferguson (2003) outlines and underpins a more new and optimistic perspective on critical practice, learning on social work and social care. A ‘critical best practise perspective’ seeks to move the literature beyond a ‘deficit approach’ where the focus is on what does not get done (well), to create a perspective where learning occurs in terms of best practice, which is set out as a model for developing systems and practising competencies. This requires a focus on the actual critical practises that are ‘best’, demonstrating the very practises through which positive outcomes are achieved. The research method uses critical theory as an interpretative framework for reaching an operational definition of “excellence” and what is “best,” which is drawn from the perspectives of the range of stakeholders who construct practice. This requires a broadening of the concept of evidence-based practise to include qualitative research methods and the experience of professionals and service users as well as the production of “practice-based evidence”. Evidence-based practice as an element of CBP. This means drawing on research and literature. It also includes ‘practice-based evidence’ based on workers observations and practice experience. 2.      Provide a short descriptive overview of the good/best/promising practice you intend to focus on in your final assignment. You. Don’t need ref d of the practice The good practise that was applied in my placement, which is based on casework at the Department of Community and Justice (DCJ), uses the NSW practise framework where the focus is on doing justice for the child as well as providing dignity in the contact between the child and their family.  An example is while shadowing a contact caseworker for a child in out of home care to a family that has a history of substance use and abusive relationships. While contact supervision focuses on the interaction between the child and the parent, as it is every child’s right to be in contact with their biological family and have a sense of family connection, as contact workers we focus and explore the connection between the two. During the contact, the family met. The child’s needs were met as they fed the baby and provided him with the nutrition he needed. During the contact, the practise was used with dignity Driven Practice Safety-Centred Practice focuses on building an understanding of children, young people (children) and their families’ acts of resistance against violence, oppression, suffering or harm. It identifies strengths and protective factors that can be used to work with a family to achieve positive change and safety. The practise helps the caseworker to consider what life is like for the child and each member of their family, to consider what has happened to a child and their family members in the past, as well as examine the motivations behind behaviour and actions, identify resistance, strengths, and protective factors that can be built on in positive ways to achieve safety and change. 3.      Provide a list of at least five references ( in addition to Ferguson) that you intend to use to help you demonstrate how and why this is an example of good/promising or best practice. This reference list is not included in the word count  The refences that will be focused on in A3 is Ferguson, H. (2003). Outline of a Critical Best Practice Perspective on Social Work and Social Care. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 1005-1024.https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/bjsw/article/33/8/1005/1673319 The Department of Community and Justice (DCJ) 2021. Code of Ethical Conduct.,NSWGovernment.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjnuseWj_b5AhWYBLcAHVMmDEgQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdcj.nsw.gov.au%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fdcj%2Fdcj-website%2Fdocuments%2Fresource-centre%2Fpolicies%2Fcode-of-ethical-conduct.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ljtlv2T2Oj1_wakAqZYfZ. NASW, ASWB, CSWE, and CSWA Guidelines, N. and Practice, S., 2022. National Association of Social Workers (NASW). [online] NASW – National Association of Social Workers. Available at: https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/NASW-Practice-Standards-Guidelines/Standards-for-Technology-in-Social-Work-Practice. Accessed 30 August 2022. NSW Practice Framework. (2017). Retrieved 17 September 2022, from https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/providers/children-families/child-protection-services/practice-framework Dignity Driven Practice What is Dignity Driven Practice?. (2020). Retrieved 10 September 2022, from https://psplearninghub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Dignity-Driven-Practice.pdf.  The Common Approach – Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY). (2020). Retrieved 9th September 2022, from https://www.aracy.org.au/the-nest-in-action/the-common-approach.
check work 500 word
Outline of a Critical Best Practice Perspective on Social Work and Social Care Author(s): Harry Ferguson Source: The British Journal of Social Work , DECEMBER 2003 , Vol. 33, No. 8 (DECEMBER 2003), pp. 1005-1024 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23719848 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Social Work This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms British Journal of Social Work (2003yf 4 Outline of a Critical Best Practice Perspective on Social Work and Social Care Harry Ferguson Harry Ferguson is Professor of Social Work in the Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England. His latest book, Protecting Children in Time: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Consequences of Modernity, will be published in 2004 by Palgrave, Macmillan. Correspondence to Harry Ferguson, Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Blackberry Hill, Stapleton, Bristol BS16 1DD. E-mail: [email protected] uwe.ac.uk This article seeks to lay the foundations for a new, more positive perspective on critical practice, research and learning in social work and social care. A ‘critical best practice perspective’ seeks to move the literature beyond a ‘deficit approach’ where the focus is on what does not get done (wellyf W R F U H D W H D S H U V S H F W L Y H Z K H U H O H D U Q L Q J R F F X U V L n terms of best practice which is set out as a model for developing systems and practice competencies. This requires a focus on the actual critical practices that are ‘best’ demonstrating the very practice through which positive outcomes were achieved. A detailed case-study is offered drawn from a large scale research study which typifies how a critical best practice perspective can provide for learning in key areas such as how to engage service users, advocate on their behalf, promote protection, establish empowering relationships and conduct longer-term therapeutic work in an anti oppressive manner. The research method uses critical theory as an interpretative framework for reaching an operational definition of ‘excellence’ and what is ‘best’, which is drawn from the perspectives of the range of stakeholders who construct practice. This requires a broadening of the concept of evidence-based practice to include qualitative research methods and the experience of professionals, service users and the production of ‘practice-based evidence’. The aim of this paper is to outline what I call a critical best practice perspective on social work and social care. This is intended as a contribution to the development of a critical practice paradigm in social care by introducing a new, more positive perspective on thinking about, researching and learning about critical social work. At its most simple, the aim of a critical best practice perspective is to use critical theory as an interpretative framework and set out examples of best practice to promote learning. It seeks to move the literature beyond what I call a ‘deficit approach’ where the focus is on what does not get British Journal of Social Work 33/8 © BASW Trading Ltd 2003 all rights reserved. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1006 Harry Ferguson done (wellyf W R F U H D W H D S H U V S H F W L Y H Z K H U H O H D U Q L Q J F D Q R F F X U L Q W H U P V R I E H V t practice which is set out as a model for developing systems, knowledge and practice competencies. After some initial clarification of the concept of a critical best practice perspective, at the heart of the paper is a demonstration of the theory in action through a detailed case study drawn from a large scale research study. I argue that it provides an exemplary case for learning in respect of how to engage service users, promote protection and well-being, establish empowering relationships and conduct longer-term therapeutic work in an anti-oppressive manner. It illustrates a key purpose of critical best practice analysis which is to identify how social care professionals work creatively with and within structures to carve out actions which make a positive difference to service user’s lives. While such practitioners act through a creative critical consciousness, it is grounded in an empathetic approach to the client’s identity, trauma, and a highly skillful use of intervention methods to establish trust and develop supportive, healing relationships. A new urgency for such a perspective arises in the context of recent demands in social care in the UK and internationally for evidence-based practice. While the need for ‘evidence for practice’ in social work and methodologies for producing it have been promoted for sometime (Shaw, 1999yf J R Y H U Q P H Q t policy now asserts that decisions in professions like social work should be based less on ‘opinions’ and much more on data about ‘what works’ (Department of Health, 1998yf 7 K H U H L V D O V R W K H E H J L Q Q L Q J V R I D Q H Z S X E O L c discourse about ‘excellence’ in social work, as exemplified by the creation in 2001 of the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIEyf Z K L F K Z L O O V H H N W o develop a ‘best practice’ knowledge base, standards and guidance for social care and social work. Given the newness of this policy development, the meaning of evidence-based practice for social care is unclear and becoming contested (compare Webb, 2001, and Sheldon, 2001yf 8 Q F H U W D L Q W D O V o surrounds notions of ‘excellence’ and ‘best practice’ and the manner in which these might be operationally defined and implemented, although it is notable that SCIE has sought to define and operationalize its agenda in a manner that includes the contribution to knowledge of the range of stakeholders in social care, with a particular commitment to the participation of service users (www.scie.org.ukyf . The central aim of this paper is to broaden the agenda of critical social work and conceptualization of both ‘evidence’ and ‘practice’ in social care. I will argue that these need to be organized around a conception of ‘best’ or ‘excellence’ which is grounded methodologically in research which explores the meanings and outcomes of interventions for the full range of stakeholders involved, from government departments, local councils, to managers, front line professionals and service users. What I call a critical best practice (CBPyf perspective constitutes a way of combining four dimensions: (iyf L G H Q W L I L F D W L R n of the best practice that is going on; (iiyf W K H X V H R I F U L W L F D O W K H R U D V D n interpretative framework; (iiiyf H Y L G H Q F H E D V H G S U D F W L F H D Q G O H J L W L P D W H F R Q F H U Q s to produce scientifically robust data on ‘what works’; (ivyf D Q G W K H L Q F O X V L R Q R f This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1007 ‘practice-based evidence’ which relates to experiential knowledge and the social actions and processes that go to make up the very nature of social work in practice. Deficit culture: Social work and social care under a negative sign A CBP perspective needs to constitute a key part of the culture of social work and social care education and practice irrespective of the time and social conditions within which it is located. Its importance is all the greater, however, given the reconstitution of social work that is going on in many Western societies as the nature of welfare and citizenship are being reconstituted (Lorenz, 2001yf , Q W K H 8 . I R U L Q V W D Q F H V R F L D O Z R U N L V E H L Q J P R G H U Q L ] H G D Q d is in a dramatic state of flux, if not crisis. There is a major staffing and retention problem and a New Labour government which seems intent on changing the very nature of what social work is and transferring some of its functions to health and other disciplines (Jordan with Jordan, 2000yf 6 R S R R U L V W K H S X E O L c image of social work in the UK that in October 2001 the government launched an advertising campaign to try and improve public perceptions of the profession and attract more recruits. Successive governments operating to a neo-conservative agenda have played a key role in undermining the public legitimacy of welfare services and constructing social work under a ‘negative sign’. This has been exacerbated by the spate of public disclosures of system failures in areas such as child protection and mental health and the vitriolic treatment of social work in the media. It is crucial also to acknowledge the contribution that social work education has made to this state of affairs. This has its origins in the 1970s when the radical social work movement emerged in response to a profession then dominated by social casework (Bailey and Brake, 1975yf 6 F R U Q H G D V a method to ‘individualize’ and control the poor and the oppressed, social work began to be seen by academics as part of the problem rather than a possible solution to social ills (Pearson, 1975yf 6 L Q F H W K H Q D V W K H I R F X V R I F U L W L F D O W K H R U y has broadened to include awareness of sexism, disabilism, ageism and racism, critical awareness of the need to confront a wide range of oppressions has been important in enabling social work to struggle to respond respectfully to the diverse needs of all social groups (Dalrymple and Burke, 1995; Thompson, 1993yf , Q W K H S U R F H V V V R F L D O Z R U N H U V D U H U H T X L U H G W R G H Y H O R S D F U L W L F D l consciousness which is able to imagine the transformability of current social structures and work towards that. A negative consequence of this radical impulse, however, has been to help create a culture in which the dominant view is that there is always something inherently wrong with social work, that practice is never (quiteyf J R R G H Q R X J K . There has always been a solid tradition of writing which is quite positive and This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1008 Harry Ferguson advocates on behalf of the profession (for instance, Coulshed, 1988; Hanvey and Philpot, 1994yf < H W W K H F R Q V W U X F W L Y H S R V V L E L O L W L H V R I W K D W W U D G L W L R Q K D Y e never been fully realized or translated into a paradigm where best practice is showcased and used as a basis for learning and policy and practice development. The remarkable fact is that it is very difficult to find in the literature of social work examples of good practice that can help inform student’s and other’s learning (see, however, O’Hagan, 1996yf . The culture of front line agencies too often also becomes defined in deficit terms, whether through a focus on lack of resources, the pragmatics of managing risk or preventing the next mistake and reaching performance standards. The result is a ‘deficit’ culture in social work where hardly anyone has had a good word to say in public about it. This has left us devoid of a tradition of celebration, pride or sense of achievement on which to build or fall back on and has helped to create a context where governments can feel able to ride roughshod over social work. The entire way in which social care is represented to itself and others needs to change. Social work needs to showcase what it routinely does well by developing evidence of best practice on which to base learning and positive growth by making this visible both within the profession and to the public. This is the essential aim of a critical best practice perspective. Critical best practice: preliminary definitions At first sight, the notion of critical best practice seems like a contradiction in terms. For how can one be critical of something that is best? CBP constitutes an attempt to draw together two, usually distinct, areas of writing about social work and social care: critical social theory and practice methods approaches. ‘Critical’ here is meant in the sociological sense of critique as opposed to being negative. Critical social work theory has too often remained at the level of negative critique, prescribing what should not be done, while the actual practicalities of what can and often should be done, and how is ignored or left at the level of aspiration. Practice methods literature, on the other hand, tends to be pragmatic, so ‘hands-on’ that it leaves out socio-political critique. It has also, ironically, largely excluded representations of (bestyf S U D F W L F H D W O H D V W L n the sense that I wish to develop that notion here, as it tends to be descriptive of particular methods, rather than applying them to illustrations of how such work promotes personal and social change. There are, however, some emerging signs of a more grounded practically useful radicalism in the notion of ‘critical social work’ or ‘critical practice’ that has begun to take coherent shape since the 1990s. We are beginning to see the influence of a wide range of critical perspectives drawn not just from Marxism, feminism and anti-racism, but from Foucault and post-structuralism, post modernism, Habermas and modernism, Giddens, Beck and late-modernism, and the critical reflectivity of Schon and others (Adams et al., 1998, 2002; This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1009 Ferguson, 2001a; Healy, 2000; Leonard, 1997; Parton, 1996, 2003; Pease and Fook, 1999; Taylor and White, 2000yf $ Q H Z S D U D G L J P L V H P H U J L Q J K H U H Z K L F h seeks to transcend the often idealistic theoretical prescriptions of critical theorizing to include greater clarity with regard to what needs to be skillfully done in practice as well as thought and understood. As Brechin (2000, p. 35yf shows, ‘critical practice’ refers to a capacity to integrate at least four levels of knowledge and action: a critically reflective use of self and sound skills base; working with a value base that respects others as equals; adopting an open approach to practice; and understanding individuals (including oneselfyf L n relation to a socio-political and ideological context within which meanings are socially constructed. Yet this shift is incomplete. One of the missing pieces that I am seeking to offer in this paper is a conception of critical practice which incorporates best practice. A key task of the new paradigm for critical social work is to move beyond the sterility of overarching thinking, to recognize complexity and break down the crude oppositions and categories on which such radicalism has traditionally traded (Flealy, 1999yf E D G V V W H P J R R G V H U Y L F H X V H U S R Z H U I X l oppressive system’/’powerless victimized client’; ‘oppressive managerial system’/’powerless victimized social worker’. A more fluid understanding of power, human agency and creativity are required in practice, in which concerns with emancipatory issues are grounded in the everyday lives—the ‘life politics’—of services users and practitioners (Ferguson, 2001ayf 0 F R Q W H Q W L R n is that ‘good’ practice goes on even in systems that produce poor outcomes and are judged ‘bad’ or oppressive. But even this statement is problematic as we need to transcend the very thinking which reifies ‘the system’ in this way and fails to begin to do justice to the contingent nature of everyday life and social practices, in all their creativity and richness. A critical best practice perspective can be defined, then, as solution-focused in that it attempts to be strategic in terms of identifying ways of working that offer positive resources to professionals in guiding their work, but in a manner which takes full account of issues of power, inequalities and constraint, as well as creativity in how skillful social intervention makes a difference. Thus we are not talking about some unqualified celebration of ‘good works’, but a standard for the evaluation of ‘best’ practice which is rigorously, sociologically critical. A central aim of a CBP perspective is to produce knowledge which demonstrates good work which is skillfully supportive, therapeutic, and anti oppressive and which deserves the designation ‘best’ precisely because it integrates these different aspects. This means critical analysis of practice that is ‘best’ and a commitment to profiling the best practice that can be found to be going on. Crucially, CBP analysis is not concerned to produce idealized images of best practice, but attainable ones within the possibilities of current working realities. The importance of developing achievable standards of ‘excellence’ from the ‘bottom up’ cannot be over-exaggerated. (Bestyf S U D F W L F H L Q D Q F D V H R U V V W H m is always socially constructed and therefore open to debate. However, within a This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1010 Harry Ferguson CBP perspective, self-consciously positive pieces of work are provided to promote such debate and learning which can produce positive outcomes for service users and professionals. The primary aim of a CBP perspective, then, is not to advance a particular model of doing practice as such, although examples of best practice do invariably suggest effective ways of working. The core objective is to provide an analytical perspective which will enable the identification of the best work that is going on, so that what is done well will be acknowledged, celebrated and learned from so that it may be done more often. The cumulative effect of more and more best practice being performed could then be the transformation of the system in its own image. Critical best practice and evidence based practice A CBP perspective is not the same as an evidence based practice (EBPyf approach, although some common ground does need to be found. The true meaning(syf R I ( % 3 I R U V R F L D O F D U H D U H R Q O E H J L Q Q L Q J W R E H G H E D W H G D Q d formulated and much rests on the outcome of this debate (Holway, 2001yf . What is clear is that social work has traditionally been very weak at producing ‘harder’ scientific evidence of its effectiveness (Macdonald and Sheldon, 1992yf . EBP, as conventionally defined in its most ‘experimental’ forms, is concerned with the outcomes of interventions, with ‘what works’ (Sheldon and Macdonald, 1999yf , Q L W V S X U H V W I R U P V P H W K R G R O R J L F D O O L W V I R F X V L V R Q W K e use of bigger samples randomized into experimental and control groups and the outcomes of particular interventions in terms of statistical averages, probabilities and calculations based on numerical data (Sheldon, 2001yf . Generating such knowledge about effectiveness in social care is important, despite the hasty rejection of it by some influential commentators (Jordan with Jordan, 2000yf ( [ S H U L P H Q W D O U H V H D U F K G H V L J Q V V X F K D V W K H J R O G V W D Q G D U G R f randomized controlled trials can contribute important data on outcomes as the use of control groups allows for a more robust evaluation of the precise impact of the intervention undertaken with the experimental group (Macdonald, 2001yf . The limitations of such methods in evaluating work with complex social problems are also apparent, however. Experimental designs tend to be monopolized by researchers as experts to the exclusion of the voice of service users (Margison, 2001yf 7 K H L U H P S K D V L V R Q T X D Q W L W D W L Y H V W D W L V W L F D O P H D V X U e ment undermines qualitative issues and posits a rational relationship between knowledge and action in terms of how professional decisions and ‘behaviour’ are supposed to change in response to findings and increased economic efficiency achieved in terms of audit and ‘best value’ (Trinder, 2000; Webb, 2001yf 7 K H F R Q F H S W R I E H V W S U D F W L F H Q H H G V W R E H X Q K L Q J H G I U R P W K D W R I E H V t value’, which embodies the rational, economic concerns of public sector management. The micro practices of what gets done and the more deliberative aspects of human agency are downgraded or excluded. As Webb (2001, p. 67yf This content downloaded from :ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1011 argues, ‘Evidence at hand is thus only a partial determinant of decision making on the part of social workers. Social problems, to a very considerable extent depend on what social workers think they are, that is upon their ideas.’ Thus a CBP approach incorporates the ‘thinking’, ideational component to human subjectivity and social action; the irrational, messy nature of social processes of intervention as much as the rational. Holway (2001yf D U J X H V I R U D P R G H O R I ( % P which has a conception of the ‘psycho-social’ subject at its heart. Drawing on psychoanalysis she argues that research, no less than practice, is subject to complex psychological processes, such as transference and counter-transfer ence. These psycho-dynamics in research encounters are part of the knowledge of what practice is and have to be counted as data. The robust evidential criteria of experimental designs in EBP have their place, but best practice is not the same as ‘what works’ in that its conception of practice is about more than outcome. It is about social action, process and how practice works, both in the sense of how it goes on and how and why it succeeds. It includes critical attention to those processes which may not be amenable to measurement but which are the essence of what social work and social care are. As Margison argues with respect to psychotherapy, ‘Some outcomes may be valued by both therapist and patient but still be difficult to summarise in words, let alone measure accurately’ (Margison, 2001, p. 176yf . Methods that give primacy to subjective experience working within a narrative or meaning framework are essential to producing rounded profiles of practice. It is out of such an awareness that a ‘practice-based evidence’ approach is being developed in the helping professions to compliment evidence-based practice by drawing on evidence of effectiveness in routine practice in individual cases or samples of everyday work (Margison, 2001, p. 174yf . Compared to the deductive reasoning assumed in positivist experimental research approaches, this is a more inductive process of knowledge building in which practice theory is developed out of the everyday experience of professionals. Such a commitment to processes of professional creativity and ‘critical reflectivity’ in the production of knowledge exemplify the dynamic possibilities for promoting learning and reconstituting practice that are emerging within critical social work (Fook, 1999; Parton, 2003yf : K D W L s needed, however, is not simply the kinds of practice-based evidence which values experiential knowledge, but an explicit commitment to exploring the felt lived experience of best practice. While the very designation ‘best’ implies that often the intervention has worked, lessons about best practice can be deduced from what in a strict scientific sense of outcomes hasn’t worked. A great deal of social work goes into situations where outcomes are poor because the very nature of the work involves a huge struggle around preventing further harm. For instance, a user who is involuntary and determined not to co-operate with the service can often be constructively engaged in a best practice way, even though positive performance indicators about them as (good enoughyf S D U H Q W V / citizens and the outcome of intervention (as good enoughyf P D E H D E V H Q W . This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1012 Harry Ferguson A crucial aim of a CBP perspective is to capture the very ‘work’ that is social care, the actions taken which constitute particular kinds of ‘helping’ relationships and a variety of outcomes. Thus CBP analysis is not just about ‘happy endings’, although the state of knowledge of what gets done well in social work and social care is so poor that spreading a good deal of that kind of happiness is urgently needed. The methodologie(syf R I D F U L W L F D O E H V W S U D F W L F H D S S U R D F h A best practice perspective is concerned with the short and long-term processes of intervention as well as with what makes up the components of best practice at each stage of the intervention process, from referral, assessment, through to long-term work. As well as analysis of samples of cases or individual cases, this could involve evaluation of a group work project, community development project, or family support/centre work, to name but a few. Not all case studies can illuminate all the aspects and possibilities of intervention work, so the choice of practice illustration must be determined by the learning objectives of setting out the work done in terms of the criteria of CBP analysis. In research terms, flexibility of approach and design are paramount. All those involved at every level of social work and social care need to feel included as relevant to the production of knowledge of CBP. What is ‘best’ can be established through a range of sources of knowledge and methodologies. A combination of randomized controlled trials and qualitative methods are being developed in health services research, for instance (Newell, 1992; Strange et al. 2001yf : K D W F R Q V W L W X W H V E H V W S U D F W L F H L V Q R W G H W H U P L Q H G D O R Q H E W K H D J H Q F , the law and wider system of rules and regulations, but the views of the broad range of participants—service users, managers, front line professionals— should be represented in terms of how the practice was constructed and given meaning. A key analytical challenge of a CBP method is to build from these diverse narratives a unifying representation of (bestyf S U D F W L F H 7 K L V K R Q R X U V W K e fact that practice is a co-construction between all the actors and systems involved. Practice may still mean different things to different people, but points of agreement about what constitutes ‘best’ are crucial. I would contend that there are always (samples ofyf F D V H V Z K H U H D E U R D G F R Q V H Q V X V H [ L V W s between all the stakeholders that the practice was, on balance, good—although not necessarily explicitly stated outside of research interviews. The more that research designs and sampling enable it to be established where case studies fit into a wider reality of practice and measurements of ‘what works’, the more learning can result about macro as well as micro issues. Ideally what is needed are full-scale CBP research programmes involving partnerships between service providers, users and academics. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1013 Case-study analysis: a critical best practice perspective in action Ideally, entire articles need to be devoted to CBP analysis of interventions (for an example, see Ferguson, 2001byf 6 R P H F R P S U R P L V H R Q W K L V S U L Q F L S O H K D s been necessary here due to the requirement to outline the conceptual parameters of a CBP perspective. The case study featured here is taken from a research project which sampled 319 child-care and protection cases reported to three social work teams over a 3-month period in 1996 and tracked them for 12 months into 1997. Quantitative methods were used to produce a 100 per cent sample of all child-care and protection referrals made to the teams over the 3 months. This provided for an analysis of how the system processed cases, from the referral point to outcomes over a 12-month period. Qualitative methods were used to develop a series of case studies which established the deeper meanings of practice from the perspectives of professionals and service users. This sub-sample was representative of the typical concerns illuminated by analysis of the 100 per cent sample of cases. As many of the key actors as possible were interviewed and the case files read (Ferguson and O’Reilly, 2001yf . The research did identify many deficits in the system, but also some excellent work. This included a very high investigation rate, compared to other jurisdictions (Gibbons et al., 1995yf D V S H U F H Q W R I W K H U H I H U U D O V Z H U H G L U H F W O y investigated by social workers. Some 64 per cent of referrals received either intensive social work intervention or other long-term services from a range of statutory and voluntary agencies. Some 26 per cent of substantiated cases, however, did not receive a long-term service. A crucial finding concerned the relatively low number of cases with actual injuries to children arising from physical or sexual abuse. ‘Neglect’ and families with multiple problems dominated the work, involving poor parenting competencies and resources, domestic violence, and the emotional and developmental problems such adversities bring for children. The case selected for this article has been chosen because it reflects the profile of just such a typical case and the kinds of effective work that is being done with them. It constitutes an exemplary case for learning in respect of the core dimensions of engaging service users, establishing helping relationships and conducting longer-term therapeutic work. The case involved ‘neglect’ and domestic violence affecting two children, aged 7 years and 18 months at the time of referral. The case study is based on interviews with ten of the key actors in the case: the area social worker, court social worker, family support worker, public health nurse, police officer, director of nursing, surgeon/head of accident and emergency, casualty sister, GP and the mother. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1014 Harry Ferguson The referral and initial response The referral which opened the case was made by a public health nurse who had called to the home and found the children on their own with no supervision. She was told by the 7-year-old that his mother had gone down town and would be back in half an hour. The nurse returned to the home half an hour later and met with Maureen, who she established was a single parent, who works at night and had recently had her partner legally barred from the home as he was violent. After the visit the nurse reported the case to the area social worker and made an application to secure funding for a new cot for the youngest child. The social worker recalls getting the referral: ‘The nurse’s thing was the mother was under stress and the children were quite at risk at the moment. Her focus was not on a blaming level, but on a kind of support level and that’s the approach I would have taken’. The referral was processed by the official Child Protection Committee, a multidisciplinary group of senior managers who met weekly to monitor and decide on responses to cases. It recommended ‘monitoring of situation, ensure adequate baby sitting arrangements if mother is to continue working’. A central child protection concern was that the mother employed an ‘under-age’ babysitter, aged 12, to mind her children while she worked at night. The case was re-referred twice within four months, by a neighbour, and the mother’s ex-partner, making similar allegations of child neglect. The social worker tried to balance out the presenting facts, namely that Maureen ‘was the only single mother in the circle we knew that was going out and putting a few shillings together to make a better home for herself and her children’. While, on the other hand, ‘The mother was doing the twelve to three [am] shift… and that wasn’t helping’. Yet, the children were deemed to be at ‘high risk’: ‘Well they were left on their own with a twelve year old and with the [domestic] violence, that the ex-partner was capable of breaking in and the violence they witnessed’. The case was closed for child protection concerns at a case conference 7 months after the initial referral because Maureen had got a ‘mature baby sitter in place’. Nevertheless, the social worker continued to call and see Maureen. A recommendation of the conference was to ‘monitor and support’ the mother and ‘to re-check the mother’s babysitting arrangements in view of the financial implications if the mother is working three nights per week and socialising’. Here, again, we see the woman being positioned by the official discourse in purely utilitarian terms, as a mother. The wider aspects of her humanity and needs do not form part of the discursive reasoning of the bureaucratic child protection system. Crucially, however, neither the social worker nor the mother herself accepted the official version of the ‘case’ and combined to co construct a highly meaningful piece of work together. This kind of creative, reflexive response is all the more impressive given that it went on in an environment of high anxiety surrounding risk in child protection when This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1015 procedures and managerialism increasingly dictated responses in terms of ‘risk’ rather than need (Buckley, 1996; Ferguson 1996yf . ‘It’s good to talk’: the process of engagement It is not sufficient to point out simply that practice succeeded in a particular area. Within a CBP perspective, the aim should be to promote learning by demonstrating the very practice through which the positive outcome was achieved. Engaging service users is always a delicate process, but it is especially so when they have not initiated contact. As the social worker observed, ‘the mother was very defensive when I called and I didn’t go in first of all attacking about the child being left [unsupervised]’. For the public health nurse also, ‘I knew I had to tread carefully, or I’d be out the door altogether’. Her tactic was to ask: ‘Was the smaller child attending the developmental clinic?’ And then I introduced the fact that the child was on his own, being minded by an older sibling. I would have stayed up to an hour with her. [The mother] was under stress, she was under pressure and she wanted to talk. The social worker’s initial approach was: Not to be too confrontative about things, you know and say, ‘I understand you’re under stress, tell me your story,’ and then saying, ‘Weil I have some concerns, but we’d like to know where you’re coming from’. And I suppose that’s how the mother’s story came out and she would have told me why she was under stress and that she had just taken out a barring order. The social worker’s gentle authoritative approach did not stop Maureen feeling ‘threatened’ by social work involvement. As the nurse found when she called again, ‘The mother was quite defensive, annoyed by the fact that the social worker had called to her and why was she checking up on her.’ Maureen, then, despite her initial hostility, was not assessed solely on her presenting behaviour. Due consideration was given to social and psycholo gical factors that contributed to her lifestyle and initial attitudes to intervention. Here we see a creative critical consciousness which could be traced back to the influences of feminism, Marxism and social policy analysis, in terms of a critique of motherhood, inequality and the demands of parenting in poverty, but in a manner which is grounded in an empathetic approach to the client’s identity, trauma, and a highly skillful use of counselling methods to establish trust and begin a supportive, therapeutic relationship. According to Maureen, when she started to ‘work with’ the social worker she [mother] ‘Just cried. The social worker told me that is exactly what she wanted me to do. To get it out no matter, whatever it was. And I got to trust her then and that’s how I started to work out of it’. The social worker’s wonderfully skilled response was such that Maureen felt understood, comforted and safe talking about her life and the violence. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1016 Harry Ferguson As Maureen herself notes, ‘I’d do the talking and they’d [social workers] do the listening. It’s good to talk’. Inter-professional issues and safe practice Another reason why the engagement process worked so well was that the social worker not only listened to and believed Maureen, but acted purposefully on her behalf in a context where some other agencies, the police and medical services in particular, largely failed to do so. Just as it is possible to detect from the actors involved lines of consensus concerning best practice, so it is possible to identify deficits. The critical emphasis on best practice does not mean avoiding such realities, which still provide the basis for learning within the overall positive orientation. Care is needed here, as the selection bias in focusing on individual cases risks characterizing all police and medical work as so flawed. The larger study of the 100 per cent sample of work showed that this clearly was not the case, but the deficits revealed in this instance are typical of the problems encountered. The social worker saw a key part of her role as pressing the police to recognize the severity of the domestic violence and the mother’s need for adequate protection, and her success at advocacy constitutes a further best practice lesson. She called the police to the social work office to ensure that they took a statement from Maureen and impelled them to call at the home late at night. Maureen herself did not feel believed by the police. ‘It was like they gave me the impression that you have brought this on yourself, you know’. For instance, they asked her why she didn’t scream when they called to the house and the abuser was there. But as she points out: ‘I would get killed if I screamed.’ The police did seem convinced that she willingly let the man into the house. As the Detective involved said: I’d nearly be a 100 per cent sure that while the mother had the barring order she wanted her ex-partner in the house to baby sit while she was working. The problem starts when they let them [abusers] back in [to the home]. Certainly, I’d say [the police] would be losing a small bit of sympathy. This attitude prevailed despite the police view that ‘it is probably one of the more severer cases that I have seen around the place’. Nor did Maureen feel supported by the GP—’he is not that kind of doctor’— although he did make one referral to the hospital in relation to her injuries. Research interviews with the hospital sister, the surgeon and director of nursing revealed that no probing of injuries occurred at the hospital, even in cases where domestic violence is suspected, and no systematic referral of women for help was made. Case recording practices were very weak, with events described vaguely and in gender-neutral terms as opposed to identifying This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1017 this as a suspected case of male violence. In this case, the woman had even overdosed on three occasions and still no follow-up help was offered. Reasons given for this were the absence of a hospital social work post, lack of time and an absence of guidelines about responses to abused women who are repeatedly admitted. As Maureen observed: The staff don’t want to intrude in what’s going on. There could have been a little more help on their side. They see how badly you are hurt. They could have rang someone, got somebody onto me. The staff just come in and treat me and that would be it. I felt I was the bad one through the whole thing. I felt down, I felt low and these people did not help me. However, the area and court social workers also made reference to Maureen’s ambivalence towards her partner being a cause for concern. The father applied for access to the children and the social workers were dismayed that the mother was prepared to consider it. For the area social worker: We began to doubt, when I saw the mother’s ambivalence in Court [during the hearing for access], that she was all for the ex-partner seeing the children. She is not being up front, maybe there was some element, she can’t help herself, part of that victimisation thing, you know, that complex structure that personality thing where she couldn’t free herself from the violence. This kind of objectification of abused women operates on stereotypes which places them in rigid categories where ‘battered women’ cannot appear to be ambivalent, hesitant or confused (Dobash and Dobash, 1992, p. 233yf 7 K H D U e held to be rational actors who choose either to leave or stay, their ‘good’ moral character being contingent upon the woman being willing to completely disassociate herself from her abusive partner. When this did not happen, some professionals became disillusioned and blaming, with the implication that the ‘battered woman’ is suffering from some sort of pathology which ensures that she cannot disassociate herself from the violent partner. Ironically, perhaps, the court social worker, who wrote a report in relation to access, recommended that limited access be given to the ex-partner. The process of empowerment and healing Nevertheless, a striking feature of best practice in this case is that neither the social worker nor mother were passive actors, but actively co-constructed a meaningful, empowering therapeutic alliance. The social worker set the parameters for this by facilitating Maureen to talk about her life and pain. ‘If the mother could be in touch with her own stuff, she may be able to free herself from all the energy she was putting in to protect herself and she could protect her children’. Rather than remaining a ‘helpless victim’, Maureen took considerable risks in informing professionals about the abuse so that she could get help to stop it. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1018 Harry Ferguson It was a risk going down to the social worker because at the start my ex partner would follow me and he would stand outside and say, ‘What did you tell the social worker?’, you know. … I knew when I walked into the [police station], at three o’clock, [to make a complaint], I would be dead by four, because he is going to see me. I had to do it. I had no choice. It was a bit of no win situation. What was it that drew this woman into taking risks in seeking ongoing help? First and foremost, the social worker very effectively promoted the woman’s safety, realizing that fear was key to keeping her in the relationship. She facilitated Maureen and the children to spend some time in a refuge and, by her advocacy, ultimately ensured that the police acted against the violent partner who was convicted of assault and sent to prison. Once safety was secured, the woman was freed up to begin a therapeutic journey of healing (Herman, 1992yf . But what kind of therapeutic alliance was it, given that the social worker made comments such as that quoted above where she refers to that ‘victimisation thing … that personality thing where she couldn’t free herself from the violence’? Such remarks certainly make the social worker an easy target for being blamed for ‘pathologizing’ the abused woman, but this would be simplistic and unfair. The research interview with Maureen revealed that she had an unhappy childhood and had endured ‘toxic’ attachments all of her life. Her father was very violent towards her mother and she had little experience of intimate relationships that did not involve abuse and emotional chaos. She was shocked, despite all her best intentions, to find herself in exactly the same abusive situation. While not responsible in any way for the violence that was perpetrated on her, this woman needed to work on herself to heal and free herself from those attachment patterns. The social worker implicitly recognized this, taking the woman into a second stage of the healing process (Herman, 1992yf D V V L V W L Q J K H U W R U H P H P E H U P R X U Q I R U K H U O R V W V H O I D Q G E H J L Q W o re-write crucial aspects of her life narrative. They explored the psychological inheritance from the past which contributed to her low sense of self and being at risk in the present but in a manner which never lost sight of the perpetrator’s responsibility and did not blame the victim. Such interventions provide a ‘methodology of life planning’ which enable people to make crucial decisions about who they are and how they want to live in a context of a new kind of life politics involving increased lifestyle choices (Ferguson, 2001a, 2003; Giddens, 1991yf $ V 0 D X U H H Q U H I O H F W V : I think I know it has been ten months and I know things have gone well for me, but I still haven’t had time out for myself, there is an awful lot there that a good reach in myself will do me a world of good. Whether I stayed in the room and cried or did something different, you know, I feel myself there is a lot in there. There is often a night if I am not working and I could have been doing something in the kitchen and the tears will just roll. And she is optimistic that ‘time will heal.’ This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1019 Social work and social care under a positive sign The outstanding feature of this case study, which can promote real learning from a CBP perspective, concerns how the critical consciousness and creative, reflexive agency demonstrated by the front line professionals and service user co-constructs meaningful engagement and dynamic therapeutic work around agreed problems. The practice flies in the face of much of what has been written about work with such cases, as exemplified by Mullender’s (1996, p. 95yf assertion that there is ‘a profound ignorance on the part of many child care workers about woman abuse and its relevance to their own work’. This is a classic example of the deficit approach, where problems are referred to in a generalized way, with an entirely negative portrayal of ‘the system’ and little attempt to demonstrate positive alternatives in practice. However, in this case, the social worker did focus her work on the abused woman—’The mother’s a battered woman and it’s working with her that was the issue really’. This served to promote the children’s and her protection, give her a ‘voice’ to ventilate her experience of the abuse, and create a therapeutic space within which to begin to rethink her life and parenting. The sensitive, creative needs-based response of the front line practitioners and their refusal to be driven by the instrumental rationality of the Child Protection Committee’s focus on a limited concept of child ‘neglect’ created the initial opening for the excellent anti-oppressive therapeutic and support work that did occur. The case study vividly illustrates a key purpose of CBP analysis, which is to identify how social care professionals work creatively with and within structures to carve out actions which make a positive difference to service user’s lives. The service user also played a crucial part in this construction process. While Parton et al. (1997, p. 185yf D U J X H W K D W F K L O G F D U H S U R I H V V L R Q D O V G R Q W D F F H G H W o the ‘negotiated demands of clients’, here we see just how much the reflexive action taken by users can and does shape intervention. This finding also challenges the deficit view that mothers don’t want social work support and always do their best ‘to present an appropriate face and maneuver out of the clutches of social workers and the gaze of child protection’ (Parton et ai, 1997, p. 229yf $ V W K H V R F L D O Z R U N H U R E V H U Y H V , V X S S R V H W K H P R W K H U N H S W W K H K H D W R n us because she was not getting protected and that was really why we had more involvement’. Yet, despite concern about significant harm to the children from witnessing domestic violence, no direct work was done with them, which fitted the established pattern. This was a symptom both of a social worker being over worked and an ideology which regards mothers as central to casework: ‘The children never even came into my way of thinking, being really honest, I don’t know when I could do it.’ The casework largely failed to go beyond the tendency for children and mothers to be treated synonymously, which is contrary to constructing children as individuals in casework (Wise, 1995yf . This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1020 Harry Ferguson Indeed, the mother herself was critical of this aspect of the response, feeling that her capacity to parent well was so diminished that there should have been some other type of facility made available so that her children would have been taken out of the violent situation. However, practical support could only come from the area social worker because Maureen refused to work with the family support worker. Ironically, having been critical of a lack of child-centredness, the mother would not allow her 7-year-old to be interviewed for the research for fear that it would distress him. On the other hand, what was achieved through the mother affirms Featherstone’s (1999yf D U J X P H Q W W K D W L W L V L Q W K e interests of good child protection for professionals to help women to develop their own sense of self outside of the life of their child(renyf 7 K H G H J U H H W o which the work can be said to approximate to best practice with regard to intervention with violent men is also debatable. The social worker’s decision not to directly confront the man but leave this to the police and criminal justice system to engage him through sanctions is commendable in terms of justice making and a first step to him possibly taking responsibility for his problem with violence. Awareness of deficits highlights the importance of historical context to evaluations and best practice guidance. The very recent development in the UK of a systematic framework for assessing children in need changes the definition of best practice considerably (Horwath, 2000yf D V K D V W K H U H S R U W L Q W o the tragic death of Victoria Climbie (Laming, 2003yf V X F K W K D W L W Z R X O G Q R Z E e impossible to exclude real expectations of such child-centred work. Yet such case studies also demonstrate the journey that still has to be travelled, from government policy and guidance to changing practice. Equally, while the research design in the larger longitudinal study did include some outcome measures in terms of the effectiveness of child protection interventions, there was scope—in an ideal world of more time and resources—for more robust measurement of ‘what worked’ in terms of whether the specific developmental needs of children and parenting capacities were enhanced. However, I hope that I have done enough in this paper to show how a flexible range of research methodologies can advance useful ‘evidence’ of the nature and outcomes of practice, and the importance of reaching an operational definition of what is ‘best’ which is drawn from the perspectives of the range of stakeholders who construct practice. This research method did not involve the workers themselves in my study originating and testing out in their practice an approach called ‘critical best practice’, either among themselves or stimulated by the research. Neither did they jointly originate ideas about this approach from some initial practice, then refine it and build it up into an approach. They did what they did as best they could and the research picked out the best of what they did after they had done it—although, crucially, the research findings were fed back into the system to develop best practice. This is intended as a research method for originating theory from practice that needs to be widely followed. A CBP perspective provides a way of looking critically at (bestyf S U D F W L F H L Q W K L V Z D : K L O e This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 1021 working within the parameters of a value base and interpretative framework drawn from critical theory, it does not start out to advance a particular model of doing critical practice as such, but builds a knowledge base out of the best work that is already going on. But it is also possible when it emerges consistently out of this open-ended research method to claim that the work profiled constitutes a critical best practice approach to particular problems in a more general sense. In my study, the kind of best practice illustrated here did not go on in all cases, but its features were sufficiently evident in terms of a series of activities and processes across all the cases that had good outcomes to be able to claim this as an example of a critical best practice approach in cases of ‘child neglect’ and domestic violence. As the evidence for CBP expands, the knowledge base for desirable approaches to practice can be built up over time in an incremental way. A CBP perspective, then, involves a reflexive method which combines the analytical means to enable the identification of the best critical practice that is going on, and the basis for advancing particular effective ways of working which emerge out of the analysis. In making the case for best practice, the point is not that the practice was perfect—whatever that might look like—or beyond question. Questioning it is in fact the whole point, as by seeing it laid out we are able to engage with it and clarify our own definitions of best practice in terms of how we would respond. A critical best practice perspective, then, is solution-focused in that it goes beyond deficit approaches to provide examples of ways of working which work, focusing on the who, what, when and where of effective responses instead of the who, what, when and where of problems (De Jong and Miller, 1995yf , n many respects it involves applying a strengths-based perspective (Saleebey, 1997yf W R V R F L D O Z R U N L W V H O I Z K H U H L W V V X F F H V V H V D U H D I I L U P H G 2 Q F H W K H V e strengths are brought to awareness and thereby made available for public consumption both inside and outside of the profession, social work can mobilize them to create solutions tailor-made for the lives of service users and to promote the healthy development of the profession itself. This does not mean that examples of interventions that do not work or problems in systems should be denied. It means rather adopting a position of ‘radical engagement’ (Giddens, 1990yf W R W K H F K D O O H Q J H V D V D P H D Q V W o overcoming them. Crucially, every published piece of CBP must be balanced in favour of learning from what has gone well, despite—and often because of— the existence of problems, struggles and ‘mistakes’. The longer-term aim of the CBP perspective is to build a body of analytical work which covers all the human and social problems and types of work social care professionals engage in, perspectives on every type of case and intervention type. Note the plural here: there is no single representation of best practice in relation to types of cases and interventions. Several CBP perspectives are possible on referral taking, assessment and types of longer-term work and representations of such work need to be justified within the kind of methodological and philosophical principles of the CBP perspective delineated here. A CBP perspective can also contribute to broader social theorizing of the macro by linking the micro This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1022 Harry Ferguson practices of social intervention to broader social processes, and staking a claim to wider debates about the nature of modernity and theories of knowledge. Others may agree or disagree with our arguments, but the key point is to engage in the kind of debate which will advance the development of theory as well as practice, and the inevitable links between them. Taken together, the various strands of a CBP perspective can play an important part in removing social work and social care from under a ‘negative sign’ and attaching them to the pursuit of positive life values. Accepted: September 2002 References Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (1998yf 6 R F L D O : R U N 7 K H P H V , V V X H V D Q G & U L W L F D l Debates, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (edsyf f Critical Practice in Social Work, Basingstoke, Palgrave. Bailey, R. and Brake, M. (1975yf 5 D G L F D O 6 R F L D O : R U N / R Q G R Q ( G Z D U G $ U Q R O G . Brechin, A. (2000yf , Q W U R G X F L Q J F U L W L F D O S U D F W L F H L Q % U H F K L Q $ % U R Z Q + D Q G ( E , M., (edsyf & U L W L F D O 3 U D F W L F H L Q + H D O W K D Q G 6 R F L D O & D U H / R Q G R Q 6 D J H . Buckley, H. (1996yf & K L O G D E X V H J X L G H O L Q H V L Q , U H O D Q G ) R U Z K R V H S U R W H F W L R Q ” L n Ferguson, H. and McNamara, T. (edsyf 3 U R W H F W L Q J , U L V K & K L O G U H Q , Q Y H V W L J D W L R Q , Protection and Welfare, Special Edition of Administration, 44(2yf S S ‘ X E O L Q , Institute of Public Administration. Coulshed, V. (1988yf 6 R F L D O : R U N 3 U D F W L F H $ Q , Q W U R G X F W L R Q / R Q G R Q 0 D F P L O O D Q . Dalrymple, J. and Burke, B. (1995yf $ Q W L 2 S S U H V V L Y H 3 U D F W L F H 6 R F L D O & D U H D Q G W K H / D Z , Buckingham, Open University Press. De Jong, P. and Miller, S. (1995yf + R Z W R L Q W H U Y L H Z I R U F O L H Q W V W U H Q J W K V 6 R F L D O : R U N , pp. 729-36. Department of Health (1998yf 0 R G H U Q L V L Q J 6 R F L D O 6 H U Y L F H V / R Q G R Q 7 K H 6 W D W L R Q H U y Office. Dobash, R. E and Dobash, R. P. (1992yf : R P H Q 9 L R O H Q F H D Q G 6 R F L D O & K D Q J H / R Q G R Q , Routledge. Featherstone, B. (1999yf 7 D N L Q J P R W K H U L Q J V H U L R X V O 7 K H L P S O L F D W L R Q V I R U F K L O d protection’, Child and Family Social Work, 4(1yf S S . Ferguson, H. (1996yf 3 U R W H F W L Q J , U L V K F K L O G U H Q L Q W L P H L Q ) H U J X V R Q + D Q G 0 F 1 D P D U D , T. (edsyf 3 U R W H F W L Q J , U L V K & K L O G U H Q , Q Y H V W L J D W L R Q 3 U R W H F W L R Q D Q G : H O I D U H V S H F L D O L V V X e of Administration, Dublin, Institute of Public Administration. Ferguson, H. (2001ayf 6 R F L D O Z R U N L Q G L Y L G X D O L V D W L R Q D Q G O L I H S R O L W L H V % U L W L V K – R X U Q D O R f Social Work, 31(1yf S S . Ferguson, H. (20016yf 3 U R P R W L Q J F K L O G S U R W H F W L R Q Z H O I D U H D Q G K H D O L Q J 7 K H F D V H I R r developing best practice’, Child & Family Social Work, 6, pp. 1-12. Ferguson, H. (2003yf : H O I D U H V R F L D O H [ F O X V L R Q D Q G U H I O H [ L Y L W 7 K H F D V H R I F K L O G D Q d woman protection’, Journal of Social Policy, 32(2yf S S . Ferguson, H. and O’Reilly, M. (2001yf . H H S L Q J & K L O G U H Q 6 D I H & K L O G D E X V H F K L O d protection and the promotion of welfare, Dublin, A&A Farmar. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critical Best Practice and Social Work 102B Fook, J. (1999yf & U L W L F D O U H I O H F W L Y L W L Q H G X F D W L R Q D Q G S U D F W L F H L Q 3 H D V H % D Q G ) R R N – , (edsyf 7 U D Q V I R U P L Q J 6 R F L D O : R U N 3 U D F W L F H 3 R V W P R G H U Q & U L W L F D O 3 H U V S H F W L Y H V / R Q G R Q , Routledge. Gibbons, J., Conroy, S. and Bell, C. (1995yf 2 S H U D W L Q J W K H & K L O G 3 U R W H F W L R Q 6 V W H P , London, HMSO. Giddens, A. (1990yf 7 K H & R Q V H T X H Q F H V R I 0 R G H U Q L W & D P E U L G J H 3 R O L W . Hanvey, C. and Philpot, T. (1994yf 3 U D F W L V L Q J 6 R F L D O : R U N / R Q G R Q 5 R X W O H G J H . Healy, K. (1999yf 3 R Z H U D Q G D F W L Y L V W V R F L D O Z R U N L Q 3 H D V H % D Q G ) R R N – H G V f, Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives, London, Routledge. Healy, K. (2000yf 6 R F L D O : R U N 3 U D F W L F H V & R Q W H P S R U D U 3 H U V S H F W L Y H V R Q & K D Q J H / R Q G R Q , Sage. Herman, J. (1992yf 7 U D X P D D Q G 5 H F R Y H U / R Q G R Q 3 D Q G R U D . Holway, W. (2001yf 7 K H S V F K R V R F L D O V X E M H F W L Q H Y L G H Q F H E D V H G S U D F W L F H – R X U Q D O R f Social Work Practice, 15(1yf S S . Horwath, J. (2000yf 7 K H & K L O G V : R U O G $ V V H V V L Q J & K L O G U H Q L Q 1 H H G / R Q G R Q ‘ H S D U W P H Q t of Health. Jordan, B. with Jordan, C. ( 2000yf 6 R F L D O : R U N D Q G W K H 7 K L U G : D 6 R F L D O 3 R O L F D s Tough Love, London, Sage. Laming, H. (2003yf 7 K H 9 L F W R U L D & O L P E L H , Q T X L U / R Q G R Q 6 W D W L R Q H U 2 I I L F H . Leonard, P. (1997yf 3 R V W P R G H U Q : H O I D U H 5 H F R Q V W U X F W L Q J D Q ( P D Q F L S D W R U 3 U R M H F W , London, Sage. Lorenz, W. (2001yf 6 R F L D O Z R U N U H V S R Q V H V W R 1 H Z / D E R X U L Q & R Q W L Q H Q W D O ( X U R S H D n Countries’, British Journal of Social Work, 31(4yf S S . Macdonald, G. (2001yf ( I I H F W L Y H , Q W H U Y H Q W L R Q V I R U & K L O G $ E X V H D Q G 1 H J O H F W / R Q G R Q , Wiley. Macdonald, G. and Sheldon, B. (1992yf & R Q W H P S R U D U V W X G L H V R I W K H H I I H F W L Y H Q H V V R f social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 22(5yf S S . Margison, F. (2001yf 3 U D F W L F H E D V H G H Y L G H Q F H L Q S V F K R W K H U D S L Q 0 D F H & 0 R R U H 6 . and Roberts, B. (edsyf ( Y L G H Q F H L Q 3 V F K R O R J L F D O 7 K H R U L H V / R Q G R Q % U X Q Q H r Routledge. Mullender, A. (1996yf 5 H W K L Q N L Q J ‘ R P H V W L F 9 L R O H Q F H W K H 6 R F L D O : R U N D Q G 3 U R E D W L R n Response, London, Routledge. Newell, D. J. (1992yf 5 D Q G R P L V H G F R Q W U R O O H G W U L D O V L Q K H D O W K F D U H U H V H D U F K L Q ‘ D O – , McDonald, I. and Willis, E. (edsyf 5 H V H D U F K L Q J + H D O W K & D U H ‘ H V L J Q V ‘ L O H P P D V , Disciplines, London, Routledge. O’Hagan, K. (ed.yf f Competence in Social Work: A Practical Guide for Professionals, London, Jessica Kingsley. Parton, N. (1996yf 6 R F L D O : R U N 6 R F L D O 7 K H R U D Q G 6 R F L D O & K D Q J H / R Q G R Q 5 R X W O H G J H . Parton, N. (2003yf 5 H W K L Q N L Q J S U R I H V V L R Q D O S U D F W L F H 7 K H F R Q W U L E X W L R Q V R I V R F L D l constructivism and the feminist ‘ethics of care’, British Journal of Social Work, 33(1yf S S . Parton, N., Thorpe, D. and Wattam, C. (1997yf & K L O G 3 U R W H F W L R Q 5 L V N D Q G W K H 0 R U D l Order, London, Macmillan. Pearson, G. (1975yf 7 K H ‘ H Y L D Q W , P D J L Q D W L R Q / R Q G R Q 0 D F P L O O D Q . Pease, B. and Fook, J. (edsyf f, Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives, London, Routledge. Saleebey, D. (ed.yf f The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, New York, Longman. Shaw, I. (1999yf ( Y L G H Q F H I R U S U D F W L F H L Q 6 K D Z , D Q G / L V K P D Q – H G V f, Evaluation and Social Work Practice, London, Sage. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 1024 Harry Ferguson Sheldon, B. (2001yf 7 K H Y D O L G L W R I H Y L G H Q F H E D V H G S U D F W L F H L Q V R F L D O Z R U N $ U H S O W o Stephen Webb’, British Journal of Social Work, 31(5yf S S . Sheldon, B. and Macdonald, G. (1999yf 5 H V H D U F K D Q G 3 U D F W L F H L Q 6 R F L D O & D U H 0 L Q G W K e Gap, Exeter, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice. Strange, V., Forrest, S., Oakley, A. and the Ripple Study Team (2001yf $ O L V W H Q L Q J W U L D O : “qualitative” methods within experimental research’, in Oliver, S. and Peersman, G. (edsyf 8 V L Q J 5 H V H D U F K I R U ( I I H F W L Y H + H D O W K 3 U R P R W L R Q % X F N L Q J K D P 2 S H Q 8 Q L Y H U V L W y Press. Taylor, C. and White, S. (2000yf 3 U D F W L V L Q J 5 H I O H [ L Y L W L Q + H D O W K D Q G : H O I D U H 0 D N L Q g Knowledge, Buckingham, Open University Press. Thompson, N. (1993yf $ Q W L ‘ L V F U L P L Q D W R U 3 U D F W L F H / R Q G R Q 0 D F P L O O D Q . Trinder, L. (2000yf , Q W U R G X F W L R Q 7 K H F R Q W H [ W R I H Y L G H Q F H E D V H G S U D F W L F H L Q 7 U L Q G H U / . with Reynolds, S. (edsyf ( Y L G H Q F H % D V H G 3 U D F W L F H $ & U L W L F D O $ S S U D L V D O 2 [ I R U G , Blackwell. x Webb, S. (2001yf 6 R P H F R Q V L G H U D W L R Q V R Q W K H Y D O L G L W R I H Y L G H Q F H E D V H G S U D F W L F H L n social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 31(1yf S S . Wise, S. (1995yf ) H P L Q L V W H W K L F V L Q S U D F W L F H L Q + X J P D Q 5 D Q G 6 P L W K ‘ H G V f, Ethical Issues in Social Work, London, Routledge. This content downloaded from 137.154.19.40 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 03:46:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Writerbay.net

Most students find it hard to finish papers at some point in their studies. If it ever happens to you, don’t get desperate—we have a service for every writing emergency! Whether you’re stuck with a problem, equation, or a piece of creative writing, we will definitely come to your rescue. Fill in the order form with the details of your paper. Write your personal instructions so we can meet your expectations.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper