From doing to being: the tensions of systemic practice in social work – group reflective supervision in child protection

Abstract

This research aimed to consider the impact of introducing the systemic approach to child protection practice through the forum of group reflective supervision. A single case discussion was observed, recorded and transcribed and the data interpreted using thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2006). The social workers observed were trained in the systemic approach to foundation level. The data generated showed social workers using hypotheses to put forward ideas about a family shaped by systemic principles. However the inclusion of a pathologising discourse about a mother being blind to the sexual abuse of her daughter and an absence of self‐reflexivity suggested social workers were limited by linear thinking. The paper uses this data to suggest a tension between systemic practice and the child protection paradigm. The findings illustrate the challenge of occupying a systemic posture (the being) and the application of systemic concepts and techniques (the doing) in child protection. This paper recommends that systemic practice be taught and supported in social work to shape a more robustly reflexive systemic ‘being’ in the child protection context. Practitioner points There are tensions in applying systemic principles in social work contexts that create unique challenges for practitioners Without due attention to systemic epistemology in group reflective supervision, practitioners can rely too much on techniques to the detriment of reflexivity Hypothesising in the child protection context can be useful in the work but can be constrained by institutional pressures Without paying attention to circularity and reflexivity, hypotheses can recreate pathologising discourses

Systemic Reflexivity in Residential Child Care: A Pedagogical Frame to Empower Professional Competence

“…Since our aim is to highlight the role of reflexivity in training RCC workers, this review is mainly based on papers that use "reflexivity" and "reflection" in relation to practice in child protection and care. We set aside other contexts, for example, researchwhere reflexivity has gained prominence after the turn to interpretivism (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000;Maton, 2003;Simon & Chard, 2014), but we did look into family therapy, for its influence on social work (Bingle & Middleton, 2019;Partridge et al, 2019;Watson, 2019).…”

“…Many authors have addressed the need to build awareness of how practice is shaped by each professional's unconsciously held assumptions, as well as personal ideas and theories. Bingle and Middleton (2019) defined self-reflexivity as a position enabling workers to distance themselves from the dominant language of child protection that pushes them to find "the right answer". Roets et al (2017) studied the capacity to connect perception, interpretation, and communication in practice, which may be sustained by the creation of stories.…”

“…Enduring relationships, groups, and organizations constitute systems that self-organize and learn: reflexivity, then, is not only a feature of the individual, but it can be (and needs to be) implemented in the organization of social work so that feedback and circularity of communication can sustain transformation. Many papers make reference to systemic theories and practices (Bingle & Middleton, 2019;Dugmore et al, 2018;Jude, 2018;Papp & Rácz, 2016;Partridge et al, 2019;Watson, 2019) that bring to the forefront relationships and contexts rather than individual features. The systemic approach to social work defines problems as relational and social, not intrinsic to the person.…”

“…Group reflective supervision (Bingle & Middleton, 2019) offers the possibility to exert curiosity and be open to the existence of multiple interpretations of reality -sometimes called "the multiverse", a term we have adopted in this article. Several authors (Bingle & Middleton, 2019;Dugmore et al, 2018;Partridge et al, 2019) have associated reflexivity with the professional stance of "curiosity", a concept proposed by Cecchin (1987) as an advancement of systemic "hypothesizing" (Selvini et al, 1980). The latter, initially introduced as a guideline for conducting family therapy interviews, is suitable for rethinking social work intervention as based on the multiplication and interconnection of different ideas.…”

“…The systemic approach is not new in the supervision, training, and practices of social work and child protection (Bingle & Middleton, 2019;Cameron et al, 2016;Goodman & Trowler, 2012;Munro, 2011;Partridge et al, 2019;Santello et al, 2017;Sebba et al, 2017). This approach, embedded in second-order cybernetics (von Foerster, 2003) and focused on circular dynamic processes of communication and interaction, considers persons, groups, and institutions as interacting dynamic systems (i.e., minds; see Bateson, 1979) following coherent paths of learning, differentiation, and transformation.…”