Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Preface -- 1 Helping Families -- Introduction -- Family supportive practice -- Whole family approach -- Prevention and early intervention -- Social policy and family support -- Family support and law -- 2 Understanding Families -- Introduction -- Families -- Family ecology -- Social positioning -- Family assets -- Family relationships and dynamics -- The dynamics of time -- 3 Families under Strain -- Introduction -- Family assets and stressors model -- Family challenges -- 4 Being Supportive -- Introduction -- Developing supportive relationships -- Working with diverse family members -- Communication and family narratives -- 5 Supportive Interventions -- Introduction -- Ecological framework -- Family group -- Specific models -- Other services -- 6 Working Collaboratively -- Introduction -- Working together -- Shared theoretical frameworks -- Interprofessional communication -- Facilitating and hindering factors -- Working as a team -- 7 Remaining Vigilant -- Introduction -- Errors in reasoning and thinking -- Attitude and stance -- Emotions and feelings -- 8 Supportive Supervision -- Introduction -- Organisational context -- Peer supervision -- The supervision session -- The supervisory relationship -- Relationship dynamics -- Reflective supervision -- Outcomes of supervision -- References -- Author Index -- Subject Index.

This article examines the processes and outputs of an adoption panel and is the second by Terence O'Sullivan to report on an observational case study. The research investigates how representative and participative panel members were, how attendee presence was structured, what the panel focused on and how conclusions were reached. The panel considered social work proposals in relation to looked after children whose permanence plan was adoption. A scrutiny process was observed that took the form of identifying issues, asking questions, being reassured (or not), coming to a conclusion and giving feedback. The importance of the panel's work stems from its scrutiny of social work proposals and the article suggests various ways in which this could be made more effective.

Summary: The author aims to advance the theoretical understanding of practice wisdom by presenting three propositions in relation to its nature and process. A model of practice wisdom is constructed that seeks to address some issues of critical, accountable and knowledge-based practice, while retaining its flexible, creative and intuitive use of practice knowledge. Findings: It is argued that a critical, accountable and knowledge-based practice wisdom requires distinctive knowledge production processes, the ability to make reasoning explicit, and credible and valuable knowledge. Models of experienced practice development are needed if social work educators are to effectively facilitate the growth of practice wisdom. Such models will need to set out a framework of how such factors as disposition towards knowledge, professional education, practice experience and practice contexts influence whether practitioners engage in wise practice. Applications: The article makes a contribution to the debate about the nature of social work practice and how entrants to social work can become effective practitioners. Practitioners, researchers and social work educators can use the presented framework to review their thinking about the nature of social work practice and the place practice wisdom has in contemporary social work.

Terence O'Sullivan reports on an observational case study of an adoption panel and focuses on some of its inputs, namely social work reports, social worker attendance and applicant attendance. The research found that although the outputs of the panel meetings were well defined, including the recommendations to the agency decision-maker, the inputs lacked a clear sense of purpose. It was hypothesised that this related to a lack of clarity as to the prime purpose of the panel, in particular whether it was a decision- making group that made recommendations to the agency decision-maker or a decision- validation group, confirming recommendations made by agency social workers. The article discusses ways in which the purpose and inputs of the panel meetings could be aligned with one another and how this could lead to the panel becoming a forum for more open dialogue between panel attendees and panel members.