A Relationship-Based Approach to Engaging Involuntary Clients: the Contribution of Recognition Theorycfs 830 1..11

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00830.x A relationship-based approach to engaging involuntary

clients: the contribution of recognition theorycfs_830 1..11

Danielle Turney School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Correspondence: ABSTRACT Danielle Turney, School for Policy Studies, This paper focuses on the process of engaging with families where a University of Bristol, child is at risk of harm, and considers a relationship-based approach Bristol BS8 1TZ, to work with ‘involuntary clients’ of child protection services. Con- UK textualizing the discussion within a broader understanding of the role E-mail: [email protected] and importance of relationship-based practice, a conceptual and ethical framework is outlined that can, it is suggested, support effec- Keywords: ethical issues, involuntary tive relationship-based work and moral decision-making with invol- clients, recognition theory, untary clients. Making use of psychoanalytic and more broadly relationship-based practice psychodynamic insights, along with perspectives drawn from recog- Accepted for publication: January nition theory, it is argued that relationship-based practice offers the 2012 potential for recognition, respect and reciprocity, and that these three aspects of relationship provide a foundation for ethical engagement with involuntary clients. However, such an approach is not without tensions, so the latter part of the paper considers some of the challenges and dilemmas that accompany the process of trying to engage parents who do not want to be ‘worked with’.

access to the child. Furthermore, as the Munro report INTRODUCTION identifies, it is more likely that help can be both effec- The challenges of working with ‘involuntary clients’ or tively offered and accepted when parents have been service users (see Note 1) have been considered successfully engaged – i.e. where there is a sound within research and literature from a range of perspec- professional relationship. Child protection work tives (Trotter 2006; Calder 2008; Rooney 2009). draws on Various aspects of the practitioner/service user rela- . . . a difficult combination of skills: being able to be authori- tionship have been addressed within these discussions. tative and ask challenging questions about family life as well as However, although Lefevre (2008) offered a thought- engaging with parents in order to work with them to resolve ful discussion and some relevant issues are addressed their problems and improve their parenting capacity. Profes- by Turnell (2004, 2008), overall there has been less sionals can struggle with this [ . . . ] but overall, successful attention paid so far to the nature and meaning of a engagement with the parents is a key contributor to effective relationship-based approach in the context of statu- helping. (Munro 2011, para. 2.24) tory and compulsory work (Turney et al. 2010, p. Munro’s emphasis on the importance of the profes- 246). Yet, the need to think about relationships, and sional relationship acknowledges the challenges of the particular challenges they pose in these often dif- establishing these connections with some parents. But ficult cases, is of paramount importance for a number her observations reinforce a point made previously by of reasons. Howe (2010, p. 331), who suggested that ‘parents who In the first place, parents are, of course, likely to be feel understood are less likely to experience stress and the source of much useful information about the so less likely to be a danger to their children’ (see also child, the current family situation and the broader Howe 2008). In addition, we know that the quality of family history. They can also facilitate or obstruct the relationship between parent and professional has a

significant impact on decision-making (Platt 2007; SOCIAL WORK AND Holland 2010). So, for these reasons at least, a focus RELATIONSHIP-BASED PRACTICE: on relationships seems relevant. ABRIEFHISTORY But beyond the pragmatic, there are perhaps broader ethical imperatives that apply here. The Relationship-based practice has a long, if somewhat professional encounter provides an opportunity to chequered, history in social work. Rooted in the work both in and with the relationship to promote psychodynamically influenced clinical and casework change; it is ‘not just the foundation on which the approaches of the 1950s and 1960s (Biestek 1957; working alliance is built but also the medium in Hollis 1964), an approach to practice was defined in which psychological change takes place’ (Howe which the relationship took centre stage, provid- 2010, p. 334). Indeed, person-centred approaches ing the medium through which the practitioner that put the (therapeutic) relationship at the heart of worked, as well as the focus for much therapeutic practice and insights from psychoanalytic theory intervention. Relationship-based practice fell out of suggest that ‘a thoughtful and emotionally receptive favour in 1980s/1990s with the emergence of more stance to clients can have therapeutic value without overtly political approaches to practice. While anything fancy being done’ (Bower 2005, p. 11). some of the early casework practitioners identified This moves the notion of relationship away from the themselves as having a psychosocial perspective merely instrumental and recognizes its potential con- (cf. Hollis 1964), Marxist and feminist writers tribution to emotional and psychological under- and practitioners disputed the way in which the standing, self-development and well-being. If, as ‘social’ was addressed. They challenged the poten- Howe (1998, p. 45) proposed, the ‘level of social tially pathologizing nature of a casework response understanding and social competence that people that, it was argued, focused on individual difficulties, develop depends on the quality of their relationship without locating these in a broader context of history’, then the way in which social work practitio- interconnecting forms of social disadvantage and ners understand and manage relationships becomes oppression. a significant part of their approach – and their ‘Radical’ approaches to practice identified the situ- ethical commitment – to service users whose prior ated nature of the social worker/client relationship and experience of relationships may have been anything critiqued the casework approach for failing to recog- but good. Relationship-based practice essentially nize the attendant power dynamics. It was argued that recognizes the moral claim of the service user – there was an assumed neutrality and equality in the whether voluntary or involuntary – to be treated as casework relationship that ignored (or minimized) the an individual in his or her own right; to be seen effect of factors such as race/ethnicity, class and as an ‘end in themselves’ rather than simply as a gender, and also failed to acknowledge their impact means to the end of protecting their children from ‘outside’ the immediate relationship, i.e. in terms of harm. the experiences and opportunities available to the This ethical claim is important, but we also know client in the wider society. from cases such as ‘Baby P’ (Haringey Local Safe- However, more recently, there has been a resur- guarding Children Board 2009) that in the context gence of interest in relationship-based approaches. of child protection work, apparently positive This has been well documented in a range of practice- professional/service user relationships can be founded focused texts (Howe 1998, 2008, 2010; Sudbery on very shaky ground and become sources of danger- 2002; Trevithick 2003; Ruch 2005, 2009; Ruch et al. ous misunderstanding. So, this is a difficult arena 2010; Hennessey 2011), and a renewed emphasis on within which to develop relationships – one where the value and significance of the professional relation- practitioners need to offer the possibility of genuine ship is reflected in a range of social work research and engagement and ethical decision-making without policy documents (Barlow & Scott 2010; Brandon being misled by false compliance.This paper therefore et al. 2010; Munro 2011). This re-connection with acknowledges the complexities of a relationship-based relationship stems from a recognition that the approach and offers a contribution to the theorization increased proceduralism and prescription of recent of this problematic area of practice. It starts though by practice have not led to the hoped for improvements locating the discussion within a broader understand- in work with vulnerable children and families. On the ing of the nature and role of relationship-based prac- contrary, the downplaying of relationship has led to tice in social work and the challenges to this approach. serious gaps in practice.The thoughtful analyses of the

Victoria Climbié case by Cooper (2005) and Rustin THEORIZING RELATIONSHIP-BASED (2005) articulate clearly the significance of the rela- PRACTICE – THE CONTRIBUTION OF tional component of social work and the central need RECOGNITION THEORY to pay attention to emotions and to the self. Many writers have commented on the way that practice has Social work has traditionally taken a rather eclectic become dominated by performance indicators and approach to theory, borrowing and incorporating ele- paperwork (or, rather, electronic form filling) at the ments from a range of positions and disciplines. Criti- expense of face-to-face work with children and fami- cal theory – notably the work of Habermas – has lies (Bell et al. 2007; Mitchell & Sloper 2008; White proved a rich source of ideas and debate (e.g. Blaug 2009; Munro 2011). And there is a clear sense – as 1995; Hayes & Houston 2007; Garrett 2009; Houston expressed in the Munro report – that something has 2009). More recently, the ‘important psychoanalyti- been lost in the process: cal, existential and social insights’ (Hayes & Houston 2007, p. 1002) of the ethics of recognition developed Complying with prescription and keeping records to demon- by Honneth, in particular, have been used to inform strate compliance has become too dominant.The centrality of thinking in different areas of social work practice forming relationships with children and families to under- (Webb 2006, 2010; Hayes & Houston 2007; Houston stand and help them has become obscured. (Munro 2011, & Dolan 2008; Houston 2009; Juul 2009).This paper pp. 7–8) builds on those earlier discussions. Starting with an outline of three key concepts – recognition, respect There is then a case for reclaiming relationship- and reciprocity – drawn from the work of Honneth, I based practice, but this must be in the context of an will then look at the critiques that have been put approach that is fit for purpose – one that maintains forward, and consider their impact on the usefulness the centrality of human relationships in social work or otherwise of Honneth’s ideas for a politically and practice but does not repeat the failings of the earlier socially grounded relationship-based practice. psychosocial approaches of the 1960s and 1970s. Rather than an ‘either/or’ approach that pits emanci- Recognition patory and empowerment-focused work against relationship-based thinking and practice, we need a Developmental psychology and psychoanalytic think- ‘both/and’ response, and this has been reflected in ing emphasize the significance of early experiences of attempts to re-configure relationship-based practice in relationship for the infant’s developing sense of self, response to the critiques noted earlier.While much of identity and agency, and for longer-term emotional the ‘new style’ approach still draws heavily on psycho- and psychological well-being. Psychoanalytically analytic and psychodynamic traditions and insights, informed child development theory identifies the pro- there is also a much sharper awareness that all rela- cesses of differentiation and separation that the infant tionships take place in a context; broader social rela- must go through to develop a sense of him- or herself tions are not incidental to people’s intra-psychic as a separate and autonomous being (Hollway 2006, experiences and have profound effects on their emo- pp. 31–32). Of particular importance, in the context tional well-being. As Ruch (2009, p. 350) notes, ‘A of this paper, is the work of theorists such as Benjamin fundamental tenet of the relationship-based approach (1990a,b), Stern (1985) on understanding inter- is its focus on the individual in context and on the subjectivity and the emerging ability of the infant to psychological and the social, as neither the indi- engage in ‘subject–subject relations’. Benjamin argues vidual nor the context make sense without the that ‘the concept that unifies inter-subjective theories other’. In ‘re-balancing’ the psychosocial approach, of self development is the need for recognition’ (1990a, relationship-based practice must demonstrate the p. 21, emphasis added). It is through the relational potential to hold the tension between the inner and experience of recognition – recognizing and being rec- outer, the intra-psychic and the social/political worlds ognized by the other – that the infant learns to under- and understand the connections between the two.The stand him- or herself. next section suggests that an approach informed by As noted, the salience of recognition has also been recognition theory can support the development addressed – and critiqued – within critical social of a model of relationship-based practice that theory (Fraser & Honneth 2003; Honneth 1997, engages more effectively with both the social and the 2007; Thompson 2006). Honneth identified three psychological. forms of social recognition, which, he argued (2007,

p. 74), are necessary for the successful formation of the withdrawal of recognition, or the experience of identity and a sense of self: misrecognition, is seen as a form of disrespect. The • Recognition of love significance of disrespect is addressed in Honneth’s • Legal recognition (2007) collection of essays exploring the normative • Social appreciation foundations of critical theory, and the moral nature of The first, recognition of love, is, for Honneth, the the ‘injury’ it inflicts is clearly articulated. When a most fundamental and seems highly consistent with person is denied recognition, ‘they will generally react social work understandings of the importance of with moral feelings that accompany the experience of early relationships. Drawing closely on psychoana- disrespect – shame, anger or indignation’ (2007, p. lytic understandings of the development of inter- 72). Moral injury, he suggests, threatens the individu- subjectivity, particularly within object relations al’s sense of self and of autonomy. theory (Honneth 1995), it addresses the process by Drawing on Kant, Honneth proposed that the which an individual ‘learns to relate to themselves in concept of respect ‘contains the core of the categorical such a way that they conceive of their physical needs imperative to treat every other person only as an end and desires as an articulable part of their own in him or herself’ (2007, p. 129), an injunction that person’ (Honneth 2007, p. 136). When a person has clear resonance for social work ethics and values receives this form of recognition – a level of emo- (Clark 2000; Banks 2006). Indeed, the importance of tional concern in the context of a social relationship respect as a ‘fundamental moral principle’ (Shardlow of love, friendship or care – then they are able to 2009, p. 42) for social work is well established develop a sense of ‘self confidence’ or ‘security in (British Association of Social Workers 2002; General one’s own sense of being’ (Hoggett 2000, p. 6). Social Care Council 2002; Beckett & Maynard 2005) Failure to experience the recognition of love, e.g. and has particular resonance for person-centred and within an abusive or neglectful family, is likely to relationship-based approaches, providing a significant affect the individual’s perception of themselves as point of connection with Honneth’s position. someone worthy of being of genuine concern and interest to another, and leave them at risk of Reciprocity impaired ‘self-confidence’ in this particular sense. The second sense of recognition is rights-based and According to Honneth, human subjects ‘encounter involves seeing the individual as ‘a morally account- each other within the parameters of the reciprocal able member of society’ (Honneth 2007, p. 74), which expectation that they be given recognition as moral accords them a form of ‘self-respect’. The third form persons’ (2007, p. 71, emphasis added). Reciprocity of recognition comes through social acknowledge- implies a degree of ‘give and take’, a relationship ment of the individual’s achievements and abilities. where each participant has something to offer and to Thompson (2006, p. 15) summarized this as follows: receive. ‘It involves recognising the separate subjec- ‘Esteem is the positive acknowledgement of a particu- tivity and agency of the other person and calls for a lar type of person in light of the distinct characteristics way of working that deals openly with differences of that they possess. It may refer, for instance, to ideas of power’ (Turney 2007, p. 71), a point to which I will identity or difference, culture or community’. It does return. Again, there is an identifiable link to not seem too big a jump from this account to a social relationship-based practice. A number of studies work commitment to anti-oppressive practice and have shown that service users are clear about the respect for difference. Together, these three forms of qualities they value in social workers (Turnell 2004; recognition support the development of a secure iden- De Boer & Coady 2007; Howe 2008) – and refer- tity and a positive sense of self for the individual, ence is reliably made to the importance of reciproc- within their social context. ity or mutuality. This three-cornered framework of recognition, reciprocity and respect fits well with the practical and Respect ethical concerns of a relationship-based approach. As Honneth outlined the positive effects on identity for- Houston and Dolan observed, theories of recognition mation that come from affirming experiences of rec- ‘maintain that identity formation hinges irrevocably ognition but is also centrally concerned with the on social relations that acknowledge and validate per- consequences of the failure or refusal of recognition. sonal existence; and that respect and understanding As recognition is closely associated with respect, so should be at the forefront of our relationships with

others’ (2008, p. 459; also Honneth 1995). So far, so and the ‘social’ in psychosocial. Honneth’s work high- positive, but recognition theory has itself been subject lights the significance of both the affective and the to critique – both from within social theory (e.g. social dimensions of experience – it brings together Fraser & Honneth 2003; Thompson 2006; McNay the internal, intra-psychic experiences of the indi- 2008) and in relation to its application to social work vidual with an understanding of inter-subjective pro- (Garrett 2010; Webb 2010). It is not possible in this cesses and locates this explicitly in the context of paper to give a comprehensive account of this litera- broader societal relationships. A relationship-based ture, so in the following section, I will briefly outline approach informed by recognition theory may still the basis of this critique and consider its validity spe- emphasize the ‘psy’ more than the ‘social’, but the cifically in relation to the understanding of social work psychological understanding allows for engagement practice that has been proposed. with the social. Recognition theory identifies the tension between these different levels of experience and their interconnectedness and can therefore CHALLENGES TO RECOGNITION THEORY provide some insights into the relational dynamics A key argument against Honneth’s formulation of within which individuals operate. recognition theory is its alleged ‘psychologism’. Garrett (2010) and Webb (2010) outlined some cogent RELATIONSHIP-BASED PRACTICE WITH objections, drawing particularly on Fraser’s (2003) INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS identification of the need for a broader theory of social justice based on both recognition and ‘redistribution’. Social work must always tread a path between ‘care’ Webb (2010) developed the idea of an integrated theo- and ‘control’ and this can be a particular tension in retical framework and sees the ‘coupling of the politics situations where there are child protection concerns. of redistribution and recognition as the foundations for The difficulties of working in such cases have been a Critical social work’ (2010, p. 13). Garrett, however, highlighted by a number of child death inquiries and goes beyond the terms of the recognition/redistribution serious case reviews (for recent examples, see Har- debate. He argues that, while it is an advance on ingey Local Safeguarding Children Board 2009; Honneth’s position, even Fraser’s principle of ‘parity of Laming 2003). Relationship-based practice is not participation’ fails to give sufficient attention to the being offered as a panacea for all social work difficul- part played by the neo-liberal state in structuring ties in relation to engagement, and working from a (potentially oppressive) relations of recognition and relationship-based perspective with involuntary misrecognition. Garrett does not entirely dismiss the clients is likely to give rise to some significant ethical relevance of recognition theory for social work but challenges. As Trotter points out, trying to engage argues that it encourages an over-emphasis on ‘micro- involuntary clients involves ‘working in a value-laden encounters and interactions’ (2010, p. 1517) at the environment.What is needed is a recognition that this expense of a more textured understanding of the is so and debate about how the ethical and value- broader role of the state in the production of particular based issues should be dealt with’ (Trotter 1997, relationships of (mis)recognition. p. 26). The remainder of this section looks at how an Garrett’s critique provides an important corrective approach based on recognition, reciprocity and to a naïve and narrowly psychological account of rela- respect may help both to frame and respond to these tionships but does not negate the utility of recognition issues. The areas that will be addressed include theory for social work. It is precisely in the micro- • Resistance encounters he identifies that the day-to-day business • Trust and of social work takes place and recognition theory can • The use of power in involuntary relationships support understanding of these interactions. So, while it is not being claimed as a ‘total theory’ for practice, Resistance, recognition and misrecognition and both Webb’s and Garrett’s positions add to an understanding of relations of power and oppression, Client reluctance to engage with different welfare ser- the remainder of this paper will focus on the particular vices has been explored from a variety of angles and contribution of recognition theory to understanding using a range of terminology. There is little clarity issues of engagement with involuntary clients. I have around definitions or explanations, and the situation proposed that relationship-based practice needs to be is further complicated by inconsistent use of langu- recalibrated to get a better balance between the ‘psy’ age: ‘Terms such as resistance, denial, motivation,

readiness and responsivity have all been used to being recognized for oneself – can have a significant describe reluctant client behaviors (sic), sometimes impact and lead to potentially punitive, or equally interchangeably’ (Scott & King 2007, p. 402). Arkow- dismissive, responses on the part of the worker. itz (2002) and Scott & King (2007) helped clarify the range of meanings and possible professional/ Trust and respect in work with involuntary clients therapeutic responses to different forms of ‘non- 6.298 Ms Arthurworrey’s misreading of the Central Middle- engagement’. Arkowitz (2002), in particular, explored sex Hospital fax had almost certainly given her a completely the meanings of ‘resistance’ and suggested that in false sense of security with respect to Kouao. She admitted, ‘I some cases it may be understood as an expression of was more trusting of Kouao when I went on that visit. I am the client’s ambivalence at the prospect of possibly not a detective. I had no reason to question what I saw quite profound change that could follow serious and what I was being told at that point.’ She did not engagement with a process of professional interven- believe that Kouao would harm Victoria in any way. (Laming 2003, p. 160, emphasis added) tion. In a similar vein, I want to consider here whether in some situations, the notion of misrecognition can This remark from Lisa Arthurworrey, Victoria inform an understanding of non-engagement/ Climbié’s allocated social worker, highlights one of resistance. the key challenges of engagement with parents/carers Webb identified the distress that can be caused by where there are child protection concerns. Profes- misrecognition: ‘as for example, when single women sional social work values include trust and acceptance are accused of being bad mothers, older people are told and these are seen as the basis on which relationships that they are incapable of looking after themselves, or are established, but it is clear that families do not ethnic minority communities are stereotyped as disen- always reciprocate and may, in some cases, systemati- gaged’ (2006, p. 217). And we can perhaps add to this cally deceive practitioners about the welfare of vulner- list the experience of those who find themselves as able children. involuntary clients of child protection services and may The message from Lord Laming (2003) – and feel that they have been stereotyped as ‘bad parents’ underlined by the Munro report (2011) – is that social and nothing more, before they start. While practitio- workers need to maintain an attitude of ‘respectful ners may aim to establish a more rounded knowledge of uncertainty’ and ‘healthy scepticism’: they must be the parents, to enable them to feel more properly skilled in developing trusting relationships with chil- recognized and respected, this is not easy in the highly dren and families while at the same time being aware pressurized and time-constrained environment of child that things may be other than they appear. In particu- protection work. In this context, then, the reactions lar, they need to be alert to the possibility that appar- (disengagement, hostility, anger and so on) that are ent co-operation may be feigned – the problem of typically expressed by parents are unsurprising. This ‘disguised compliance’ discussed by Reder et al. does not mean that the client’s perspective, or claim for (1993; see also National Society for the Prevention of recognition, should be automatically accepted (Juul Cruelty to Children 2010; Turney, 2010). And this is 2009). Demands for recognition will need to be tested clearly not entirely straightforward, as demonstrated and evaluated – but determining between morally valid in the furore surrounding the death of Peter Connelly and invalid, genuine and false claims raises both prac- (‘Baby P’) in 2007, when it became apparent that tical and ethical difficulties, a point I consider in more practitioners had again been misled – in this case, by detail in the next section. a parent’s apparent compliance with professional As the expectation of recognition is reciprocal, involvement – into construing a situation of extreme either party may experience the refusal or failure of risk as one of adequate safety. recognition. So arguably, this may apply as much to Social workers are frequently required to act in practitioners as service users. It is therefore important emotionally fraught situations where they have incom- for practitioners to be aware of this dynamic and to be plete and fragmented information and are working alert to their own responses to feelings of being ‘mis- with hostile and/or uncooperative clients. In such cir- recognized’ by antagonistic or unwilling clients. Resis- cumstances, it may be hard to know what informa- tance is clearly difficult to deal with and can be tion is reliable, whose ‘story’ to trust, whose claims particularly undermining for a practitioner to find that for recognition are valid. Practitioners must find a their efforts to engage parents are rebuffed and their position between, on one hand, an uncritical accep- good intentions viewed with suspicion or hostility. If tance of information (based perhaps on a lack of con- not acknowledged, the sense of rejection – of not fidence or knowledge, or on a misunderstanding of

anti-oppressive practice) and, on the other hand, a involved, and recognizes that they will have an invest- slide into cynicism, where compassion is hard to ment in a particular understanding of a situation or maintain. A well-founded relationship can incorporate family member and will respond accordingly. the need to be both genuinely supportive but also appropriately challenging (Turney 2010). Achieving The use of power in involuntary relationships this balance is much harder where there is no real Working with parents where there are child protection relationship to draw on. However, taking the view that concerns throws the power differences between pro- every interaction is a form of relationship, however fessional and client into sharp relief. Lawrence (2004, restricted, a relationship-based approach must try to p. 78) identifies ‘an apparently paradoxical situation’ work with what exists and at the level of engagement where possible. There may be good reasons why parents are reluc- The social worker has to intervene in a mandated and often tant to trust a worker who they fear could remove their seemingly punitive way, but at the same time with the aim of empowering parents and enabling parental responsibility as a child. Equally, a pressured practitioner may not be means to reduce the likelihood of harm to the child. inclined to take the risk of offering trust when they fear that it will be unreciprocated or met with hostility. As this suggests, there may be particular tensions in Indeed, as we have seen, in some situations a pre- trying to manage both the care and the control func- sumption of trust on the part of the worker may even tions of the professional role where there is a risk of be dangerous. But Smith notes that ‘an absence of harm to a child.We have noted that in such situations, trust can only be repaired by an experience of trust’ the absence of parental engagement can provoke a (Smith 2001, p. 297). This puts a particular onus on potentially more coercive response from practitioners the worker to behave as transparently and honestly as who have the responsibility to safeguard that child’s possible – effectively, to model trustworthiness them- welfare.While it would be disingenuous and probably selves, and to offer the service user the experience of dangerous to ignore the power social workers have, being treated with respect by being explicit about there are nonetheless different ways to use it, and the concerns, risks, requirements for change and present- notion of reciprocity may help to frame approaches to ing this in a clear but compassionate way. practice that contribute to less anxiety-driven, more Relating this to experiences of recognition and the reflective, and potentially less oppressive, responses. possibilities of misrecognition, perhaps what the In this connection, I want to consider the concept of notion of respectful uncertainty allows is a position of ‘not-knowing’ and its role in relation to the use of qualified trust which acknowledges that what is being power in professional relationships. Although ‘not- presented could be the correct view of a situation, but knowing’ is more typically discussed in relation to the there may be other better, or equally compelling, interaction between therapist and patient, it also has explanations. Maintaining a position of respectful application to the social worker/client relationship’. In uncertainty in the face of a hostile or dismissive both contexts, practitioners face the challenge of response is a demanding work. Evidence submitted by holding an attitude of ‘not-knowing’ and retaining an the Family Rights Group to the Munro Review makes open-minded curiosity (Ruch 2009, p. 352) in situa- the point: ‘Practitioners need to be managed, sup- tions of uncertainty, while resisting a premature rush ported and equipped to work with families in ways to judgement. that are high in support and high in challenge’ (Munro The importance (and the difficulty) of keeping an 2011, para. 2.26). open mind has been emphasized by a number of And there is no foolproof way of always getting it writers who highlight the ways in which different right.We cannot prevent people from lying or mislead- forms of cognitive bias arise and influence judgement ing and it does not sit easily with a social work value and decision-making (Galanter & Patel 2005; Gam- base to keep this uncomfortable fact in mind. But the brill 2005; Munro 2008; Holland 2010). Writing approach outlined here perhaps offers some ways of about the application of systemic ideas to social work thinking about why service users may adopt various with children, Daniel observes that ‘[o]ne of the most strategies to keep professionals ‘at bay’ and, being helpful systemic ideas is that of conceptualising uncer- alert to these, encourage practitioners to keep in mind tainty as a rigorous, intellectually robust and ethical the possibility that the situation may not be as it position, rather than a sign of weakness or equivoca- appears. Critically, it also acknowledges the subjective tion’ (Daniel 2005, p. 60). Applying this observation experiences and attitudes of the professionals to social work more generally gives the practitioner

permission to stay with uncertainty and anchors the impede the capacity for practitioners to think clearly and process of hypothesising at the heart of thoughtful and exacerbate the tendency to resort to defensive behaviours as reflective practice. Framing and testing hypotheses, responses to the emotionally charged situations they face tentative explanations for situations or behaviours (Taylor et al. 2008). (Ruch 2009, p. 351) encountered, can help keep the practitioner alert and Recognising and responding to the practitioner’s focused – neither adrift in an undifferentiated mass of emotional responses plays a key part in managing information nor overly committed to a particular anxiety and promoting safer, more effective (and pos- account or outcome before there is adequate warrant sibly less coercive) practice (Ruch 2005).This is most for it. likely to take place in an organizational culture that This kind of open-mindedness can also contribute to values reflection and supports practitioners to ‘stay the development of the professional relationship by with’ difficult feelings rather than seeing them as helping practitioners to ‘open themselves up to being inherently problematic and to be avoided. influenced more by the clients’ perspectives’ (Mason Bringing an element of reciprocity into practice can 2005, p. 161). It offers the possibility of a more recip- be seen as part of a broader commitment to building rocal relationship, which acknowledges the client’s an ethical foundation for work with involuntary understandings of their situation alongside those of the clients. Different strategies have been proposed to practitioner. But ‘not-knowing’ needs to be managed achieve this, although there is a strong unifying com- with care. Reflecting on relationships between thera- mitment to a dialogic approach. For example, Rooney pists and their clients, Mason observes that adopting (2009, p. 60) identifies ‘commitment to honest com- this stance has, in some cases, constrained rather than munication’ as a key requirement and De Jong & Berg enabled therapists by ‘encouraging them (perhaps (2001) discuss an approach that, they suggest, facili- inadvertently) to refrain from expressing ideas and tates ‘co-constructing cooperation with mandated knowledge that might be beneficial to clients in addition clients’ by building mutual confidence and under- to taking a stance of curiosity’ (Mason 2005, p. 161). standing. This includes negotiating shared access to, That is to say, some therapists have felt unable to use and ownership of, information. A dialogic approach their expertise (clinical experience, research knowl- that sees the other as ‘conversible with’ may then edge, etc.) in the form of ideas ‘as if to do so might be contribute to a less oppressive practice: ‘In dialogue, seen as marginalizing the client and thus oppressive’ we are subjects seeking understanding and to be (ibid. 161) and similar dynamics may be found in the understood rather than objects seeking to act upon or social worker/client relationship. But as Mason points to be acted upon’ (Hoggett 2008, p. 76).This accords out, this takes the idea of ‘not-knowing’ rather too value both to the practitioner’s and the client’s expe- literally: being open to the possibility of not-knowing is rience, expertise and knowledge, and shows respect not the same as ‘knowing nothing at all’. for the perspectives of both participants in a relation- Mason himself offers the notion of ‘authoritative ship of mutual – although not necessarily equal – doubt’ as a way of allowing practitioners to acknowl- influence. As Juul (2009, p. 41) puts it: edge that they do not have all the answers while at the . . . action as far as possible is based on mutual confidence same time owning their own experience and expertise. and common understanding, that the client’s narrative is the ‘This gives us space for curiosity and exploration, point of departure and that the social worker – within the which of course involves taking some risks. The more existing possibilities – makes an effort to find a good and just you know about a particular issue, the more you decision and communicate it to the client so he or she under- appreciate what is missing and can see where to stands and accepts it. explore for new answers’ (Flaskas et al. 2005, p. xv). CONCLUSIONS But uncertainty also has the capacity to generate anxiety, particularly in situations where children may This paper has focused on the benefits and challenges be at risk of harm. Relationship-based practice takes of developing a relationship-based practice that is sus- account of the practitioner’s affective responses to tainable and realistic and gives particular regard to the their situation and acknowledges the effect of the difficulties of working with ‘involuntary clients’ of emotional climate on the way in which professionals statutory services. There are sound pragmatic reasons work with families: for attempting to build relationships even with involuntary clients on the grounds that ‘a good deal of what . . . it is readily possible to recognize how acute and chronic helps to keep at-risk children safe depends on the feelings of anxiety about difficult cases or work situations quality of the relationship between the worker and the

parent’ (Howe 2010, p. 331), and that the more ‘rec- Benjamin, J. (1990a) The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, ognized, acknowledged and contained’ (Howe 2010, and the Problem of Domination. Virago, London. p. 332) the parent feels, the more the practitioner can Benjamin, J. (1990b) An outline of intersubjectivity: the help them to keep the child ‘in mind’. At the same development of recognition. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7, 33–46. time, an ethical case for relationship-based practice Biestek, F. (1957) The Casework Relationship. George Allen and has been made, which acknowledges the client as Unwin, London. someone with anxieties, hopes and strengths who can Blaug, R. (1995) Distortion of the face to face: communicative be seen as an ‘end in themselves’ rather than simply as reason and social work practice. British Journal of SocialWork, a means to the end of protecting their children from 25 (4), 423–439. harm. Contributing to the theorization of this aspect Bower, M. (ed.) (2005) Psychoanalytic Theory for Social Work of practice, the paper draws on recognition theory to Practice:Thinking under Fire. Routledge, London. enhance understanding of professional interactions Brandon, M., Bailey, S. & Belderson, P. (2010) Building on the with involuntary clients. Effective professional rela- Learning from Serious Case Reviews: A two-year analysis of child tionships that engage with the individual, in all their protection database notiﬁcations 2007–2009. Research Report emotional ‘messiness’ and complexity, do this by DFE-RR040. University of East Anglia. British Association of SocialWorkers (2002) Code of Ethics. Avail- offering the possibility of recognition, respect and a able at: http://www.basw.co.uk/ (accessed 26 November 2011). degree of reciprocity – key elements of an ethically Calder, M.C. (ed.) (2008) The Carrot or the Stick? Towards Effec- grounded practice. But such an approach also raises a tive Practice with Involuntary Clients in Safeguarding Children number of ethical tensions, e.g. in relation to issues of Work. Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis. resistance, trust and the use of power. Clark, C. (2000) SocialWork Ethics: Politics, Principles and Practice. Relationship-based practice with unwilling or invol- Macmillan, Basingstoke. untary clients is always going to be challenging and Cooper, A. (2005) Surface and depth in the Victoria Climbié raise difﬁcult questions about the application of social report. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (1), 1–9. work values. It requires practitioners to keep asking Daniel, G. (2005) ‘Thinking in and out of the frame’: applying themselves searching questions about the ethical systemic ideas to social work with children. In: Psychoanalytic grounds for pursuing such an approach and trying to Theory for Social Work Practice: Thinking under Fire (ed. M. Bower), pp. 59–70. Routledge, London. establish ‘helping relationships’ with people who do De Boer, C. & Coady, N. (2007) Good helping relationships in not feel able, or simply do not want, to participate. But child welfare: learning from stories of success. Child & Family at its best, relationship-based practice informed by Social Work, 17, 32–42. recognition theory can provide the client with the De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (2001) Co-constructing cooperation experience of being valued and recognized as an indi- with mandated clients. Social Work, 46 (4), 361–374. vidual, and the practitioner with a conceptual and Flaskas, C. (2005) Introduction. In: The Space Between: Experi- ethical framework within which they can strive for a ence, Context, and Process in the Therapeutic Relationship (eds position of ‘safe uncertainty and authoritative doubt’ C. Flaskas, B. Mason & A. Perlesz), pp. xix–xxviii. Karnac, (Flaskas 2005, p. xxv). London. Flaskas, C., Mason, B. & Perlesz, A. (eds) (2005) The Space REFERENCES Between: Experience, Context, and Process in the Therapeutic Rela- tionship. Karnac, London. Arkowitz, H. (2002) Towards an integrative perspective on resis- Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? tance to change. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (2), 219– Verso, London. 227. Galanter, C. & Patel, V. (2005) Medical decision making: a Banks, S. (2006) Ethics and Values in Social Work, 3rd edn. Pal- selective review for child psychiatrists and psychologists. grave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (7), 675– Barlow, J. & Scott, J. (2010) Safeguarding in the 21st Century – 689. Where to Now? Research in Practice, Dartington. Gambrill, E. (2005) Critical Thinking in Critical Practice: Improv- Beckett, C. & Maynard, A. (2005) Values and Ethics in Social ing the Quality of Judgements and Decisions, 2nd edn. Wiley, Work: An Introduction. Sage Publications, London and Thou- New York. sand Oaks, CA. Garrett, P.M. (2009) Questioning Habermasian social work: a Bell, M., Shaw, I., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P. & Rafferty, J. (2007) An note of some alternative theoretical resources. British Journal of Evaluation of the Practice, Process and Consequences of the ICS in Social Work, 39 (5), 867–883. Councils with Social Services Responsibilities. Report to Depart- Garrett, P.M. (2010) Recognizing the limitations of the political ment for Education and Skills Welsh Assembly Government, theory of recognition: Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser and social May 2007. work. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1517–1533.

General Social Care Council (2002) Codes of Practice for Mason, B. (2005) Relational risk-taking and the therapeutic Social Care Workers and Employers. Available at: http:// relationship. In: The Space Between: Experience, Context and www.gscc.org.uk/codes/ (accessed 26 November 2011). Process in theTherapeutic Relationship (eds C. Flaskas, B. Mason Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board (2009) Serious & A. Perlesz), pp. 157–170. Karnac, London. Case Review: Baby Peter. Executive Summary. Haringey Chil- Mitchell, W. & Sloper, P. (2008) The integrated children’s dren’s Services Department, London. system and disabled children. Child & Family Social Work, Hayes, D. & Houston, S. (2007) ‘Lifeworld’, ‘System’ and Family 13 (3), 274–285. Group Conferences: Habermas’s contribution to discourse in Munro, E. (2008) Effective Child Protection, 2nd edn. Sage Pub- child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 987– lications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA. 1006. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection. Final Hennessey, R. (2011) Relationship Skills in Social Work. Sage Report: A Child-Centred System. The Stationery Office, Publications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA. Norwich. Hoggett, P. (2000) Emotional Life and the Politics of Welfare. Pal- National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children grave Macmillan, Basingstoke. (2010) Disguised compliance. NSPCC Factsheet. Available at: Hoggett, P. (2008) Relational thinking and welfare practice. In: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/ Object Relations and Social Relations: The Implications of the disguised_compliance_wda74079.html (accessed 26 Novem- Relational Turn in Psychoanalysis (eds S. Clarke, H. Hahn & ber 2011). P. Hoggett), pp. 65–86. Karnac Books, London. Platt, D. (2007) Congruence and co-operation in social workers’ Holland, S. (2010) Child and Family Assessment in Social Work assessments of children in need. Child & Family Social Work, Practice, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London. 12, 326–335. Hollis, F. (1964) Casework: A Psychosocial Therapy. Random Reder, P., Duncan, S. & Gray, M. (1993) Beyond Blame: Child House, New York. Abuse Tragedies Revisited. Routledge, London. Hollway, W. (2006) The Capacity to Care: Gender and Ethical Rooney, R. (ed.) (2009) Strategies for Working with Involuntary Subjectivity. Routledge, London and New York. Clients, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York. Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Ruch, G. (2005) Relationship-based practice and reflective prac- Grammar of Social Conflicts. Polity Press, Cambridge. tice: holistic approaches to contemporary child care social Honneth, A. (1997) Recognition and moral obligation. Social work. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (2), 111–123. Research, 64 (1), 16–35. Ruch, G. (2009) Identifying the ‘critical’ in a relationship-based Honneth, A. (2007) Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of model of reflection. European Journal of Social Work, 12 (3), Critical Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge. 349–362. Houston, S. (2009) Communication, recognition and social Ruch, G., Turney, D. & Ward, A. (eds) (2010) Relationship-Based work. British Journal of Social Work, 39 (7), 1274–1290. Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice. Jessica Kingsley Houston, S. & Dolan, P. (2008) Conceptualising child and Publishers, London and Philadelphia. family support: the contribution of Honneth’s critical theory of Rustin, M. (2005) Conceptual analysis of critical moments in recognition. Children and Society, 22 (6), 458–469. Victoria Climbié’s life. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (1), Howe, D. (1998) Relationship-cased thinking and practice in 11–19. social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 12 (1), 45–56. Scott, K.L. & King, C.B. (2007) Resistance, reluctance and Howe, D. (2008) The Emotionally Intelligent Social Worker. Pal- readiness in perpetrators of abuse against women and children. grave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Trauma,Violence and Abuse, 8 (4), 401–417. Howe, D. (2010) The safety of children and the parent-worker Shardlow, S. (2009) Values, ethics and social work. In: Social relationship in cases of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, 3rd edn. (eds R. Review, 19 (5), 330–341. Adams, L. Dominelli & M. Payne), pp. 37–48. Palgrave Mac- Juul, S. (2009) Recognition and judgement. European Journal of millan, Basingstoke. Social Work, 12 (4), 403–417. Smith, C. (2001) Trust and confidence: possibilities for social Laming, H. (2003) The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of An work in ‘high modernity’. British Journal of Social Work, 31, Inquiry by Lord Laming. Cm 5730. HMSO, London. 287–305. Lawrence, A. (2004) Principles of Child Protection: Management Stern, D. (1985) The InterpersonalWorld of the Infant. Basic Books, and Practice. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Maidenhead and New York. Sudbery, J. (2002) Key features of therapeutic social work: Lefevre, M. (2008) Assessment and decision-making in child the use of relationships. Journal of SocialWork Practice, 16 (2), protection: relationship-based considerations. In: The Carrot or 149–162. the Stick? Towards Effective Practice with Involuntary Clients in Taylor, H., Beckett, C. & Mckeigue, B. (2008) Judgments of Safeguarding Children Work (ed. M.C. Calder), pp. 78–92. Solomon: anxiety and defences of social workers in care pro- Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis. ceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 13 (1), 23–31. McNay, L. (2008) Against Recognition. Polity Press, Cambridge Thompson, S. (2006) The PoliticalTheory of Recognition:A Critical and Malden, MA. Introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Trevithick, P. (2003) Effective relationship-based practice: a (eds G. Ruch, D. Turney & A. Ward), pp. 244–246. Jessica theoretical exploration. Journal of Social Work Practice, 17 (2), Kingsley Publishers, London and Philadelphia. 163–176. Webb, S.A. (2006) Social Work in A Risk Society: Social and Trotter, C. (1997) Working with mandated clients: a pro-social Political Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. approach. Australian Social Work, 50 (2), 19–28. Webb, S.A. (2010) (Re)Assembling the left: the politics of redis- Trotter, C. (2006) Working with Involuntary Clients: A Guide to tribution and recognition in social work. British Journal of Practice. 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London and Thousand Social Work, 40 (8), 2364–2379. Oaks, CA. White, S. (2009) Error, Blame and Responsibility in Child Welfare: Turnell, A. (2004) Relationship-grounded, safety-organised Problematics of Governance in an Invisible Trade. End of Award child protection practice: dreamtime or real-time option for report. Lancaster University, University of Nottingham and child welfare? Protecting Children, 19 (2), 14–25. Cardiff University. Turnell, A. (2008) Adoption of ‘Signs of Safety’ as the Department for Child Protection’s Child Protection Practice Framework. Back- NOTE ground Paper. Department for Child Protection, Perth, West Australia. 1 A note on terminology: this paper is concerned with Turney, D. (2007) Practice. In: Youth in Context: Frameworks, the process of engaging parents who are involved with Settings and Encounters (ed. M. Robb), pp. 53–88. Sage Pub- social services because there are child protection con- lications, London, in association with The Open University. cerns but who have not voluntarily sought help. It uses Turney, D. (2010) Sustaining relationships: working with strong the term ‘involuntary clients’ to refer to these indi- feelings. III Love and positive feelings. In: Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice (eds G. Ruch, D. viduals, following the terminology adopted by Calder Turney, A. Ward), pp. 133–147. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, (2008), Rooney (2009) and Trotter (2006) to refer to London and Philadelphia. people who have not chosen their involvement with Turney, D., Ward, A. & Ruch, G. (2010) Conclusion. In: social services and who are ‘under some formal or Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice informal pressure to seek help’ (Rooney 2009, 4).