Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 17 October 2014, At: 09:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Child Care in PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cccp20
Using Action Research to EnhanceResilience in a Children's Home: AnExploration of Need, Experience andRoleStan HoustonPublished online: 21 Apr 2011.
To cite this article: Stan Houston (2011) Using Action Research to Enhance Resilience in a Children'sHome: An Exploration of Need, Experience and Role, Child Care in Practice, 17:2, 115-129, DOI:10.1080/13575279.2010.541425
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2010.541425
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Using Action Research to EnhanceResilience in a Children’s Home:An Exploration of Need,Experience and RoleStan Houston
This paper describes an action research project aimed at enhancing resilience in young
people in a residential children’s home. Two core areas were explored, namely: the needs
of the young people as captured through a resilience framework; and the experiential and
role-related issues arising from the attempts to enhance the young people’s resilience. The
findings showed that the young people faced a number of intrapersonal and interpersonal
challenges. Yet, despite a number of organisational and role limitations, the residential
social workers were able to respond resourcefully to these challenges by engaging in
practices that simultaneously met agency imperatives, therapeutic goals and instru-
mental needs.
Background
A number of studies have reported on the mental health needs of children and young
people in the care system. For example, McCann, James, Wilson, and Dunn (1996)
found that 96% of the subjects in the residential units they sampled fitted into one or
more psychiatric categories. Warren (1999) also revealed that young people in foster
care were 50 times more likely to have a mental illness compared with their
counterparts living at home with their natural families. Further studies by Mount,
Lister, and Bennun (2004), Blower, Addo, Hodgson, Lamington, and Towlson
(2004), Sinclair and Gibbs (1998), Teggart and Menary (2005), and Meltzer, Lader,
Corbin, Goodman, and Ford (2003, 2004a, 2004b) have confirmed these high rates of
mental anguish in the care population throughout the United Kingdom. What is
more, Utting, Baines, Stuart, Rowland, and Vialva (1997) discovered that young
people in care settings had poor long-term outcomes as a result of their mental health
Stan Houston is Senior Lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast. Correspondence to: Stan Houston, School of
Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast, 6 College Park, Belfast BT7 1LP, UK.
Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1357-5279 print/1476-489X online/11/020115-15 # 2011 The Child Care in Practice Group
DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2010.541425
Child Care in Practice
Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2011, pp. 115�129
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
problems, including drug abuse, social exclusion, attempted suicide, homelessness
and drifting into other forms of institutional care.
There have been some attempts to approach these needs through the concept of
resilience; that is, by promoting and maintaining normal development under difficult
circumstances where complex, dynamic, interactional processes are to the fore
(Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Felsman & Vallient, 1987; Gilligan, 2001; Werner
& Smith, 2001). In one pertinent study, Schofield and Beek (2005) found that
children in foster care made good progress when their foster parents provided them
with a secure base and permanence through consistent and sensitive caregiving.
Gilligan (1999, 2000a), affording a complementary perspective, made a persuasive
argument for enhancing a looked-after child’s resilience by mentoring their talents
and diversifying their spare time experiences. In a different review (Gilligan, 2001) he
emphasised the importance of young people in care taking on multiple social roles;
staying connected with significant others; maximising their school opportunities; and
experiencing a secure base wherein self-esteem and self-efficacy might flourish.
Moreover, with specific reference to foster care (Gilligan, 2000b), he underscored the
need for purposeful contact, positive school experience, meaningful friendships with
peers and the young person’s active engagement in hobbies or cultural pursuits.
Daniel (2003, 2007) added to these findings by arguing that the concept of resilience
was tailor-made for residential social workers seeking to respond to young people’s
emotional and social needs in group care settings.
Yet ‘‘there is very little research into deliberate strategies to nurture resilience nor
attention to the precise processes and mechanisms that operate’’ (Hill, Stafford,
Seaman, Ross, & Daniel, 2007, p. 30). More specifically, our knowledge is far from
complete when it comes to an understanding of how resilience-based interventions
are enacted within specific settings such as children’s homes. Residential social
workers often operate within a ‘‘proceduralised’’ framework where an inordinate
emphasis is placed on risk and social care governance. In this context, it is hard to
maintain a psycho-social approach and role that attends to formative issues within
resilience such as pathway trajectories, biographical turning points, and positive and
negative chain effects (Rutter, 2002). Notwithstanding this organisational scaffolding
and its imposed limitations, a children’s home should be seen as a placement of
‘‘positive choice’’ where staff can work creatively at ‘‘the frontier of young people’s
needs’’ (Whitaker, Archer, & Hicks, 1998, p. 54). It is within this zone that an inquiry
into resilience, with its ‘‘power to carry new waves of thought and practice into
whatever it sweeps’’ (Howe, 2001, p. 71), takes on a particular purchase.
Method
The aim of this study was to explore residential social workers’ experience of building
resilience in young people living in a children’s home through successive cycles of
reflection and action. Linked with this aim were two primary objectives. The first was
to understand the social workers’ perceptions of the young people’s needs. The
second was to explore their attempt to enhance the young people’s resilience in terms
116 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
of how it impacted on the social work role and shaped their experience. Both of these
objectives were connected in the sense that the change process had to identify needs,
at the outset, in order to intervene appropriately in the young people’s lives. These
interventions then required the participants to act out various roles as they attempted
to enhance resilience within the home.
Action research was chosen as the orientation for approaching these areas given its
investigative focus, commitment to change and democratic, collaborative ethos
(Coghlan & Brannick, 2005). Moreover, the diagnostic component of the method
meant that it was appropriate for the assessment of the young people’s emotional
needs (objective one); and the evaluative component was pertinent to a consideration
of the issues arising from the change process (objective two).
The researcher, who had no previous association with the agency, selected the
home (fictitiously called Roundstone) purposively using criteria such as ‘‘fit’’ (with
the research aims), accessibility (to the site) and the participants’ motivation to
engage with the project. Roundstone comprised eight staff (including a team leader)
and five young people. It was situated in a small town within Northern Ireland. The
staff ’s remit was to provide safe and effective care on a long-term basis to young
people with challenging needs. Part of their role was also to prepare the young people
for leaving care. The staff team had been stable prior to the research commencing
with most having been employed in the home for at least two years.
At the start of the action research process, the staff were briefed on Daniel and
Wassell’s (2002) model of resilience and its six core domains, namely: secure base
(centring on the importance of attachment ties); education (highlighting the positive
role of learning experiences in schools and other settings); friendships (focusing on
peer relationships and social support); talents and interests (addressing different
activities that build self-esteem and competence); positive values (relating to moral
development); and social competencies (referring to good interpersonal skills and self-
efficacy). This model was chosen because of its accessible format, theoretical clarity
and helpful focus on social work practice. More specifically, it provided the
practitioner with apposite assessment and intervention charts linked to each of the
domains and pertinent checklists for assessing and enhancing resilience within
adolescents.
Based on Lewin’s (1951) schema of action research, the researcher and staff
implemented the following stages: (at the start of the process, an assessment of the
needs of the young people was undertaken drawing on the Daniel and Wassell
domains and their corresponding checklists; following this first step, concrete goals
for each of the young people were formulated*goals were also developed to address
the group context and the culture within the home; an action plan was then devised
involving, primarily, the young person’s key worker and also involving other staff; the
plan was subsequently put into effect by the staff; as a result of this fourth step, the
issues arising from the process and its outcomes were analysed; and finally, a new
action research cycle was initiated thereby repeating these stages of reflection and
action, albeit with a reworked focus.
Child Care in Practice 117
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Nine action research meetings were held over a period of six months. The staff
attempted to implement the agreed tasks between the meetings with the young
people’s consent and full participation. The researcher sometimes engaged in these
informal gatherings depending on the nature of the task being considered. The
formal action research meetings aimed to generate critical thinking, reflection and
discussion. The researcher adopted the role of a facilitator throughout this process,
sometimes providing direction, other times adopting a more permissive style. The
use of Socratic questions helped the participants to engage in self-criticism, tolerate
ambiguity and approach their practice in a reflective and deliberative manner. A loose
‘‘topic guide’’ was used to steer the discussion ensuring, in particular, that the diffe-
rent components of the action research process were being followed and that the
Daniel and Wassell framework was being applied to the assessment and intervention
stages. Importantly, the researcher and the participants adopted Habermas’ (1984�1987) rules for egalitarian communication, early on, to ensure that power was held in
check, allowing all to speak and shape the agenda for discussion.
Findings within the study were based on the exchange of views within the action
research meetings. These deliberations were tape-recorded and transcribed with the
consent of the participants. A manual content analysis was then applied to these data.
It was chosen over a computer-assisted software program to ensure that the inves-
tigation was as context-sensitive as possible and that there was an awareness of
the dynamic relationship between the part and the whole. The analysis produced a
range of initial themes. These themes were subsequently clustered into more inclusive
organising themes. Global, superordinate themes were then derived from the
organising themes. This process was iterative and inductive as the researcher moved
from description to interpretation. It was carried out by reading and rereading
original transcripts several times, making initial notes, developing the themes, and
searching for connections between them. In carrying out these activities, the
researcher established a clear and transparent audit trail, linking verbatim quotations
with the enumerated themes. Importantly, the themes outlined below arose from a
content analysis of the transcriptions of dialogue during the action research meetings
and hence were presented as such. That is, the thematic categories were formed
inductively from direct communication with the staff rather than starting with the
preformed resilience categories. This approach was taken because the researcher
wanted to remain ‘‘true’’ to the data presented, bracketing as much as possible all pre-
formed conceptual ideas about the subject under inquiry. This application of
bracketing is consistent with a phenomenological approach to qualitative research
where there is an attempt to ascertain the essence of subjects’ thoughts and
experience and collate them accordingly.
Findings
The presentation of the findings (outlined below) addresses the two objectives set out
earlier. This section builds on a previous review of the study where the themes of
effectiveness, enablement and constraint were probed (Houston, 2010).
118 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Young People’s Needs as Seen through Daniel and Wassell’s Domains
of Resilience
Table 1 presents a summary of the findings in relation to the needs of the
young people. As can be seen, there were two global themes. The first, entitled
‘‘adversity’’, referred to extrinsic factors in the formal environment that impinged
on the young people’s needs. The second, ‘‘vulnerability’’, pointed to the intrinsic
needs of the young people and how they were affected by relationships with
significant others.
The former global theme was, in turn, disaggregated into two subordinate,
organising themes: one addressing the impact of experiences beyond the home, and
the other looking at challenges within the placement itself. Daniel and Wassell’s
domain of education was much to the fore in the first of these organising themes. In
this regard, one staff member, reflecting on the challenges facing one young person
(‘‘J’’) who had recently moved to the home, stated:
I am now thinking about ‘‘J’’; he has only been here a few months, and he is verymuch trying to find out where he fits in here and he is very much role-modellingfrom the behaviours of the other young people . . . and particularly one of thebig things with ‘‘J’’ at the moment is going to be the possible change of schoolwhich he isn’t happy about . . . it is going to be a lot of change for him, which he isagainst.
Table 1 Young People’s Needs and the Challenges Facing Them
Global themes Organising themes Themes
Adversity (a) Challenges posed by external systems (i) Education(ii) Training
(b) Challenges within the placement (i) Adjusting to change in the placement(ii) Daily structure(iii) Role models(iv) Leaving care
Vulnerability (a) Young person’s inner world (i) Feeling abnormal/different(ii) External ‘‘locus of control’’(iii) Fear of independence(iv) Choice, responsibility and anxiety(v) Fear of failure(vi) Pessimism(vii) Unresolved care/control needs(viii) Negative emotions/anger/shame(ix) Unresolved loss and change(x) Needing to be ‘‘normal’’(xi) Wanting to belong(xii) Negative self-concept
(b) Social context (i) Social competencies(ii) Fear of new groups/social interaction(iii) Concern with others’ reactions(iv) Labelling/stigma/victimisation(v) Lack of trust in others
Child Care in Practice 119
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
For those young people who had left school, the experience of further training was
also invariably problematic:
With regard to ‘‘D’’ getting to technical college is the goal. He needs confidencebuilding here . . . he didn’t pass his GCSEs last year. He needs two to get this year todo electrical engineering. He is very motivated but can’t seem to apply himself tostudy. He is going to reapply again. How do we get him through these issues?
There were needs and challenges coming from the placement experience itself:
adjusting to change, coping with a paucity of daily structure, the lack of positive role
models and the uncertainties emanating from the leaving care process. Reflecting on the
fact that one young person, ‘‘S’’, was preparing to leave the home, a key worker opined:
‘‘S’’ was one of the most determined people about where she was going to go andyet on the night she was actually quite reflective herself and on the one hand shewas obviously looking forward to going out but she was realising . . . you felt thesense of loss too . . . the reality of the move was coming and some of the otheryoung people were hovering around and one of them was feeling the loss of hergoing. In some ways I found it affirming that we do form attachments and despiteall the difficulties of the day or underneath it all that they do know that we havebeen there.
The young people’s intrinsic needs further served to complicate these stressors from
the extrinsic environment. According to the staff, the young people experienced a
plethora of feeling states and cognitions including a sense of pessimism and fear of
failure. The staff attributed these states to unresolved care and control needs. Daniel
and Wassell’s domain of secure base provided a useful source of ideas to understand
the nature of this experience. Moreover, of immense salience and poignancy,
was the young people’s desperate struggle to feel ‘‘normal’’ and the emotional
sequelae that followed from its antithetical, yet ubiquitous, state of feeling fundamen-
tally ‘‘different’’ from others. After reflecting on the fact that the young people
continuously compared themselves with the staff ’s supposed, normal life and
routines, one participant surmised that:
the young people think you have a job, a home and a perfect life, you have a homeand family to go home to. I suppose this reflects the idea that there is ‘‘splitting’’going on . . . seeing their own lives as negative and your lives as staff as positive.I suppose what you are trying to say to the young person is that life is moredifferentiated for other people with its good and bad aspects.
Yet, staff ’s responses to this theme of ‘‘normality’’ had to contend with the reality and
durability of outward constructions of young people in public care:
Living in residential care and how people perceive them outside . . . they are the‘‘home’’ children . . . because it has come up, if yous don’t know what it is like tolive in care that’s how in many ways the people from the outside perceive them . . .even friends. How it really is for them. It means that they come home to thechildren’s home and sometimes all what that brings, the baggage in itself and thelimitations that that has. How many times have we said that there are otherteenagers out there but they are doing no different.
120 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Related to these perceptions was the participants’ unanimous view that the young
people often experienced a lack of control of their lives, a fear of independence and
failure, and an aversion to exercising choice and taking responsibility for their
future*all of these areas working against resilience:
There is a sense of learned helplessness about them. You know that idea of the‘‘locus of control’’, one young person believes everything is beyond her control. Shefeels that she has no choice but I felt it was important to remind her that she did.The young person said ‘‘I didn’t have a choice about coming into care or getting ajob’’. I said it is up to you whether you take the job or apply for the course. She wasshirking responsibility and finding it uncomfortable at that point.
The young people’s negative self-concept, another outcome of an insecure base,
manifested itself in a fear of new groups, a concern with others’ reactions and, more
generally, in difficulties in day-to-day social interaction:
When he initially came here and he went out, he felt other people were really‘‘looking at me and they want to hurt and they want to do things to me’’; before hecame here he had been down town with a friend and he got involved in a big group,so he has maybe brought that feeling with him . . . other groups of males hangingabout. So, he hasn’t settled in the area so much; he feels uncomfortable andthen maybe our residents are older; he is not really meeting anyone of his agegroup.
To compound matters further, the young people were often labelled, stigmatised and
victimised by people outside the home. These malign reactions exacerbated mistrust
and insecure identities:
For some young people they have never had the stuff they have in a children’shome. They are better off being cared for. Food, pocket money but they have thestigma in a home. They are seen to be in a home.
They are seen as bad children whenever you are asked where you work. Even taxidrivers coming to the door would say that. They say ‘‘how do you do that work’’?Some people say ‘‘aren’t you awful good working in a children’s home’’. It is a pitifulattitude. They say it takes a special person to work with the like of them.
These vulnerabilities and susceptibilities were paralleled by outward behavioural
responses that fell within Daniel and Wassell’s domain of ‘‘social competencies’’. In
this vein one participant indicated:
There are lots of times that even when you are having an ordinary conversation hecan be gruff and almost aggressive and you find yourself just saying to him just youknow, ‘‘talk to me, I am standing here, there is no need for that, I am listening toyou, just talk to me and sometimes that will pull him down a wee bit’’.
Yet, the experience of being in a residential home had also enhanced the young
people’s social competencies:
When ‘‘D’’ first came to the home he was a boy who sat in his room and never cameout of it. And now he is able to go to his Aunt’s. This shows how much he haslearnt in his time here; he can move on.
Child Care in Practice 121
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
In this context, it is also important to add that the participants observed the young
people’s determination, on many occasions, to improve their situation and attain
their goals, and their strong motivation to enhance their occupational skills. These
were intrinsic qualities within the young people that sometimes offset personal
vulnerabilities and wider adversities. They were matched by strengths in the envi-
ronment, which included: positive peer cultures, family support, help from staff,
accessible educational resources and study aids, recognised talents and interests, and
the secure base provided by the home. The following interchange, carried out in
respect of one of the young people, illustrated her inner qualities:
Researcher: So, what are ‘‘S’’’s strengths?Participant: Her own articulation, probably; her motivation to get a house and
be independent; her own personal care in many ways; she can putherself across very well; she is honest; she is loyal to people andcaring. She has an empathetic side to her . . .
Issues Relating to Experience and Role Arising from the Attempts to Build
Resilience in the Young People
Table 2 sets out the findings under this category of inquiry. The findings refer to the
issues arising from the staff ’s attempts to build resilience in the young people.
Table 2 Experiential and Role-related Issues Arising from Resilience-building Inter-
ventions
Global themes Organising themes Themes
‘‘State parenting’’ (a) Staff (i) Staff analysis/reflectiondevelopment (ii) Staff resilience
(iii) Staff ’s emotional reactivity/emotional labour
(b) Social work role (i) Contradictions in role(ii) Not viewing the role in a clinical way(iv) Care/change(v) Practical nature of role(viii) Issues inherent in bureaucratic parenting(x) Covering all the gaps/accountability/blame(xi) Person-centred ethics
(c) Theory�methods (i) Salience of opportunity-led workinterface (ii) Challenge of applying formal theory
(iii) Need for pragmatic responses(iv) Causation/explanation of behaviour(v) Application of action research model/domains
‘‘Psychosocial (a) Relational issues (i) Relating to staff as people not professionalsrealm’’ (ii) Impact on young people of relationship breakdown
(iii) Salience of friendships/secure base(iv) Normalising relationship(v) Being there for others(vi) Relationship and ‘‘place’’
(b) Emotional (i) Sensitivity to recordingresponse (ii) Transference/counter-transference
(iii) Types of aggression
122 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
As can be seen, two global themes were identified. The first, entitled ‘‘State
parenting’’, referred to the formalised, bureaucratic and administrative responses to
the care of the young people. The second, ‘‘the psycho-social realm’’, captured the
everyday, meaning-saturated, informal world of the young people: the world of
human relationship, encounter and perspective-taking. Within the former global
theme, three organising themes emerged from the data, namely: staff development,
social work role, and the theory�method interface.
The first of these organising themes dealt with the salience of the action research
project for the staff; how it highlighted issues pertaining to their own personal and
professional development. One of the participants, in an act of self-disclosure,
reflected on her how her own attachment experience impacted on her professional
responses:
I wouldn’t mind actually just looking at my own attachment. I find that as amember of the team . . . em . . . I would find that I would be the one who doesn’tlike conflict and you know the kind of tantrum for example that ‘‘S’’ threw lastnight might be best dealt with in terms of particular roles . . . you know you aregood at this particular type whereas ‘‘R’’ will come and do that being more direct. . . em . . . so it would be good to acknowledge that or to see if this is part of myinternal working model and therefore guides me and how I might avoid or youknow, look at that.
Connected with this theme were the staff ’s emotional reactions to the young people’s
behaviour. There was a periodic tension between their inner emotional worlds
(expressed on occasions in fear, anger or anxiety) and the outward professional
veneers, which they were meant to present consistently to the young people and other
professionals. This created a continuing sense of ‘‘emotional labour’’ or dissonance.
The need to resolve such feelings lay at the heart of building and maintaining their
own resilience. It centred on the insight that professional carers could not build
resilience in others if their own resilience was compromised.
Also emerging from this first organising theme were a number of tensions and
contradictions in the residential social work role when it came to the task of
building resilience in the young people. For instance, one commentator suggested
that:
it is very confusing at times because sometimes you are like a big sister, aunt orgranny . . . or they say ‘‘you’re just a social worker’’. You are thrust back into the roleof a social worker; if things are going well, you are a confider. It changes quickly;sometimes you are the confider, other times the social worker if they are unhappywith you.
Another said:
Sometimes your role is determined by the young people themselves. They go tostaff for different things. Some staff are approached to listen, others to do practicalthings.
An additional issue centred on how therapeutic work with the young people was to
be conceived. The residential social workers were adamant that they were not
Child Care in Practice 123
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
clinicians but rather informal helpers immersed in the young people’s everyday
worlds:
Our work sessions are very different from clinical sessions. We work on the floorand young people come to us with their needs.
Essentially what drove the therapeutic process, for the participants, was a
commitment to change, the expression of care and being rooted in the practicalities
of the young people’s lives. Reflecting on the Daniel and Wassell model and its
application within the home, one of the staff said:
The ‘‘how’’ of how we do it is the big barrier but the principle remains the same interms of working toward change all the time. If a young person wants change tohappen, then how do we tip the balance so that all the pros are higher than the consso that they will see that change is good.
That said, change and care took place within the context of competing perspectives
where bureaucratic parenting had to be ‘‘softened’’ by a person-centred, humanistic
engagement with the young people. Because of the preoccupation with regulation
and inspection in the wider organisational culture, and the requirement to fulfil the
procedures in order to meet accountability-led directives, the staff were constantly
attempting to ‘‘cover all the gaps and angles’’:
and even if it is something you are communicating to them is informed by ethicalcodes or is shaped by something bigger than you like the organisation . . . thebottom line, regardless of ethical perspectives, is that risk analysis will supersedeeverything else.
Yet, putting these tensions to one side, the participants viewed the action research
cycles of reflection and change, and the Daniel and Wassell framework, as very helpful
in shaping how they thought about resilience based work and how to carry it out.
Commenting on the latter, a participant remarked:
I find this (resilience theory) much more easy than the other theory . . . it justseems to follow a lot easier in our work. We don’t have the same challenges of howdo I fit this young people into the work. The work fits naturally into the domains.
Of major significance was the innovatory manner in which both of these models
were moulded into existing administrative systems and structures, thus fulfilling
statutory requirements on the one hand while also attending to therapeutic and
practical areas on the other. For example, the staff reworked agency documents
utilising the Daniel and Wassell domains of resilience as critical points of reference.
When asked by the researcher ‘‘in what sense do you think these documents are
actually being used in your work sessions with the young people?’’, a respondent
replied:
They are being used as a work planner and at handover . . . at our team meetings,and staff being identified for work. We can fit our work into the file, looking at‘‘friendships’’, ‘‘social competencies’’ and ‘‘secure base’’, so you can get everythingcovered and if we can see anything lacking we can encourage the young person insome way . . .
124 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
As well as pursuing such innovations through conventional bureaucratic systems, the
participants used the reflective space in the action research meetings to think
critically, problem-solve, make reasoned decisions and plan in a structured manner.
Again, the Daniel and Wassell domains provided a focus for these processes. When
asked about the value of the action research project itself in relation to these cognitive
areas, a member of staff replied:
It has made it more creative by how we use our work so we are covering thedomains and if we are not covering them how can we . . . it is getting us thinkingand it has benefited the young people because of that.
These processes infused ‘‘opportunistic’’ work ‘‘on the floor’’, ‘‘life�space’’ reactions
and pragmatic responses to needs as they arose. Moreover, the participants valued the
opportunity of applying formal theories to shape their practice but found this to be a
challenge when the theory did not directly map onto their experience. Attachment
theory, in particular, was viewed as having great explanatory power and was seen to
connect firmly with Daniel and Wassell’s domain of secure base. Interestingly, of the
six domains, secure base was the one that took on a superordinate status; that is, the
staff saw it as the axial domain around which the others revolved.
To reiterate, one of the central findings of the study was the social workers’ use of
their professional agency to reflect critically on both their practice and also the
statutory context within which it arose. Their use of reflection brought together
various kinds of knowledge, including the application of formal theories (of human
growth and development), tacit theories (the use of rules of thumb and heuristics),
procedural knowledge (what to do as dictated by the agency) and factual knowledge
(the use of research). In turn, this enabled the participants to examine the domain of
practice theory; that is, how the formal knowledge just listed combined with the use
of commonsense and also the use of intuition.
From the second global theme, two organising themes emerged, namely: relational
issues and the young people’s emotional response while residing in the home. In
relation to the former, the young people wanted to relate to staff as people rather than
bureau-professionals. This reflected their emphasis on attaining and maintaining
‘‘normal’’, informal roles and relationships, resolving the negative impact of
relationship breakdown and having someone to turn to whom they trusted when
they felt vulnerable. Hence, from the staff ’s perspective, the young people’s sense of
resilience very much depended on the strength of the secure base and friendship
domains and their association with a physical place that was meaningful. This was
captured in the following remark:
I think it would be easier to identify for each young person the most pertinent areato look at . . . and focus on the that and devise ways to work on that area . . .because sometimes you are just trying to juggle balls in the air and one falls andeverything else falls. Secure base is definitely a key area for ‘‘S’’.
The young people’s reaction to the resilience interventions constituted one of the
areas under the second organising theme. In this regard, the young people were
Child Care in Practice 125
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
initially sensitive about the newly-introduced resilience recording forms: what was
being recorded and whether it touched on private areas in their lives. The staff were
able to respond positively to these concerns by sharing information openly and
discussing its meaning. This episode led the participants to reflect, more generally, on
how they dealt with the young people’s moods and emotions: two areas that often
constrained attempts at building resilience. There was a strong sense of them having
to deal with ‘‘transference’’: relational issues from the young person’s past that
pointed to a troubled inner world. A prevalent concern, in this context, was the
management of aggression, and how, through the ‘‘positive values’’ domain, and ideas
drawn from restorative practice, the participants could help the young people
generate effective solutions to interpersonal problems:
Researcher: Would that be the essential goal in this work, then, working with R’semotional reactivity?
Participant: I think this is the first area to address before we tackle his identityissues because these are much deeper. We need to even look at justsimple exercises with R, you know ‘‘when you feel this happen, try toidentify them’’. Like helping him to identify things within himself likehis body temperature rising and get him to use some sort of activity,breathe, walk away . . . start with the basics and that might be the firstthing we target before he is maybe willing to look at identity.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings confirmed those of other studies (Berridge & Brodie, 1998; Sinclair &
Gibbs, 1998; Clough, Bullock, & Ward, 2006) that have addressed the needs of young
people in residential care. Tellingly, the young people’s desperate need to be seen as
‘‘normal’’, their acute sense of stigma, labelling and shame, of feeling uncomfortable
and lacking confidence in new group situations, highlighted the salience of identity as
a primary theme*and its anchorage in social interaction including attachment
experiences with significant others. This emphasis on the ‘‘psycho-social’’ was only
part of the picture, though. The study also showed that the young people displayed a
range of practical, instrumental needs: adjusting to changes in school, making
transitions to technical college and taking up new leisure interests, to name a few.
Importantly, the study endorsed the importance of a relationship-based social work
role (Ruch, 2005) as a pressing response to these psycho-social and practical needs.
Yet, this modus operandi did not always sit comfortably with an increased stress on role
‘‘performativity’’ (the focus on measurable elements of practice) that Smith (1997) has
referred to along with the informational surge to collate and report incidents of
concern (Parton, 2008). Nor did it rest easily with the role of bureaucratic parenting
and the tensions emanating from it: the requirement to balance risk and need, afford
care and control, and manage the ‘‘personal�professional’’ interface. There was a sense
of the staff ’s day-to-day ‘‘emotional labour’’ (Hochschild, 1983); that is, their
experiential attempts to maintain an outward veneer of professionalism while
experiencing inner emotional discord.
126 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Yet, in spite of these constraints, the findings indicated that the action research
process opened up an occupational space for the staff to reflect creatively on their role
with the young people in order to address their manifold needs and enhance their
resilience. This space allowed a number of theoretical frameworks to surface.
Prominent, here was the Daniel and Wassell model as an overarching perspective
drawing in attachment theory, ideas about change and perspectives on group care.
Notably, this occupational space was used to develop innovatory structures,
systems and processes that fitted the agency’s administrative imperatives for
accountable and safe practice (e.g. the attention to recording and planning) but
which also drew on the aforementioned theoretical perspectives in order to address
both the psychological and practical needs of the young people. This was the real
achievement of the action research process. Fundamentally, it helped to bridge the
need for three key, role-related goals in effective residential homes (Sinclair, 2006):
expressive goals (the creation of warm relationships with the young people),
instrumental goals (achieving practically at school or in further training), and
organisational goals (fulfilling agency requirements, protocols, and procedures). The
attention to a specific goal-setting stage within the action research model itself meant
that a range of objectives were formulated concomitant with these three areas. More
than that, it provided a positive vision for staff, a sense of unity of purpose
concerning their role and a shared horizon of values centring on the concept of
‘‘resilience’’; these are also areas that are vital for effective group care (Clough et al.,
2006; Sinclair, 2006; White, 2007).
It is important to add at this juncture that the findings of this study were limited
to the subjective perceptions of the staff members*their lived experience of
reflecting and acting to make resilience a more tangible feature in the young people’s
lives. Two additional limitations should also be noted. First, the inquiry was centred
on one home and, as a consequence, some caution had to be exercised in
generalising the conclusions to other sites. Second, the young people were not
interviewed by the researcher due to time and resource constraints. Their
perspectives would have imparted important information concerning the application
of the resilience constructs giving added validity to the study. However, the young
people were approached periodically by their key workers to ascertain how they felt
about the work undertaken with them and its impact on their lives. Although relayed
as second-hand reports, their reactions to innovations such the reworked
documentary sources, were, by and large, favourable.
These limitations were partly offset by two important aspects of the inquiry. First,
it constituted an in-depth, idiographic case study of the home that probed deeply into
the ‘‘contextual uniqueness’’ of the site through an understanding of the participants’
meanings, reflections and subsequent actions. These participants were embroiled in
the immediacy of the group care experience, the young people’s everyday world and
the organisation’s imperatives. Hence, this approach allowed the researcher to engage
in the professional lives of the staff over a significant period of time, thereby
bolstering the study’s internal validity. Second, the study attained a measure of
authenticity by enabling the participants to achieve a better understanding of the
Child Care in Practice 127
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
group care milieu and how it could engage with the resilience framework.
Furthermore, it enabled them to reach a better appreciation of each other’s
perspectives and then to use this new found understanding as a catalytic impetus
for change.
By way of conclusion, children’s homes have been blighted by critical inquiry
reports, theoretical obfuscation and negative research findings, in the United
Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere (Sinclair, 2006; Whittaker, 2006).
Although this study was centred on one site, it did show the very positive potential
of this form of care. More specifically, when a highly-motivated staff team, working
with a small number of young people, is empowered to examine their practice
through successive waves of reflection and action, then there is the potential, at least,
for creative forms of practice to emerge.
References
Berridge, D., & Brodie, I. (1998). Children’s homes revisted. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Blower, A., Addo, A., Hodgson, R., Lamington, L., & Towlson, K. (2004). Mental health of looked
after children: A needs assessment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9, 117�129.
Clough, R., Bullock, R., & Ward, A. (2006). What works in residential child care: A review of research
evidence and the practical considerations. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Daniel, B. (2003). The value of resilience as a concept for practice in residential settings. Scottish
Journal of Residential Child Care, 2, 6�15.
Daniel, B. (2007). The concept of resilience: Messages from residential child care. In A. Kendrick
(Ed.), Residential child care: Prospects and challenges (pp. 60�75). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Daniel, B., & Wassell, S. (2002). Adolescence: Assessing and promoting resilience in vulnerable
children 3. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 517�528.
Felsman, J., & Vallient, G. (1987). Resilient children as adults: A forty year study. In E. Anthoney &
B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child. New York: Guildford.
Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by
mentoring their talents and interests. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 187�196.
Gilligan, R. (2000a). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school
and spare time experiences. Children and Society, 14, 37�47.
Gilligan, R. (2000b). Promoting resilience in children in foster care. In G. Kelly & R. Gilligan (Eds.),
Issues in foster care: Policy, practice and research (pp. 107�126). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Gilligan, R. (2001). Promoting resilience: A resource guide on working with children in the care system.
London: BAAF.
Habermas, J. (1984�1987). The theory of communicative action (Vols. 1�2). London: Heinemann.
Hill, M., Stafford, A., Seaman, P., Ross, N., & Daniel, B. (2007). Parenting and resilience. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Houston, S. (2010). Building research in a children’s home: Results from an action research project.
Child and Family Social Work, 15, 357�368.
Howe, D. (2001). Review of Gilligan, R. Promoting resilience: A resource guide on working with
children in the care system. London: British Agencies of Adoption and Fostering.
128 S. Houston
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Bros.
McCann, J., James, A., Wilson, S., & Dunn, G. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in young
people in the care system. British Medical Journal, 313, 1529�1530.
Meltzer, H., Lader, D., Corbin, T., Goodman, R., & Ford, T. (2003). Mental health of young people
looked after by local authorities in England. London: HMSO.
Meltzer, H., Lader, D., Corbin, T., Goodman, R., & Ford, T. (2004a). Mental health of young people
looked after by local authorities in Scotland. London: HMSO.
Meltzer, H., Lader., D., Corbin, T., Goodman, R., & Ford, T. (2004b). The mental health of young
people looked after by local authorities in Wales. London: HMSO.
Mount, J., Lister, A., & Bennun, I. (2004). Identifying the mental health needs of looked after young
people. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9, 363�382.
Parton, N. (2008). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the social to the
informational? British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 253�269.
Ruch, G. (2005). Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: Holistic approaches to
contemporary child care social work. Child and Family Social Work, 10(2), 111�123.
Rutter, M. (2002). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of
Family Therapy, 2, 119�144.
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005). Risk and resilience in long-term foster-care. British Journal of
Social Work, 35, 1283�1301.
Sinclair, I. (2006). Residential care in the UK. In C. McAuley, P. Pecora, & W. Rose (Eds.),
Enhancing the well-being of children and families through effective interventions (pp. 203�216).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Sinclair, I., & Gibbs, I. (1998). Children’s homes: A study in diversity. Chichester: Wiley.
Smith, C. (1997). Children’s rights: Have carers abandoned values? Children and Society, 11(1),
3�15.
Teggart, T., & Menary, M. (2005). An investigation of the mental health needs of children looked
after in Craigavon and Banbridge Health and Social Services Trust. Child Care in Practice, 11,
39�49.
Utting, W., Baines, C., Stuart, M., Rowland, J., & Vialva, R. (1997). People like us: The report of the
review of the safeguards for children living away from home. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Warren, D. (1999). Setting new standards for foster care. Adoption and Fostering, 23(2),
48�56.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience and recovery.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Whitaker, D., Archer, L., & Hicks, L. (1998). Working with children’s homes: Challenges and
complexities. Chichester: Wiley.
White, K. (2007). On the shoulders of giants (part one): Inspiring residential child care. Scottish
Journal of Residential Child Care, 6(2), 25�31.
Whittaker, J. (2006). Residential care in the US. In C. McAuley, P. Pecora, & W. Rose (Eds.),
Enhancing the well-being of children and families through effective interventions: International
evidence for practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Child Care in Practice 129
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
09:
07 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
