IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v47y2014ip1p55-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-theoretical paradigms underpinning risk in child welfare: Towards a position of methodological pragmatism

Author

Listed:
  • Houston, Stan

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the ‘natural attitude’ underpinning risk practices in child welfare. This refers to various taken-for-granted approaches to risk that social workers and other human service professionals draw upon in their everyday practice. The approach proceeds by identifying and critically examining three key, meta-theoretical paradigms on risk which typically shape the natural attitude. They are labelled ‘objectivist’, ‘subjectivist’ and ‘critical’. The ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological premises supporting each paradigm, and how they shape risk practices, are then reviewed leading to a composite, meta-theoretical position on risk termed ‘methodological pragmatism’. This position draws on the strengths of each paradigm and is formulated into ten propositions which consider how risk should be approached in child welfare. Within this corpus of thought salient themes are endorsed such as the need for method triangulation, an examination of ‘deep causality’, and the promotion of emancipatory perspectives. By critically reflecting on meta-theory, the paper contributes to the development of substantive theories of risk assessment and management in child welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Houston, Stan, 2014. "Meta-theoretical paradigms underpinning risk in child welfare: Towards a position of methodological pragmatism," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 55-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:47:y:2014:i:p1:p:55-60
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740913003873
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 2005. "The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    2. Schwalbe, Craig, 2004. "Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 561-576, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Serbati, Sara, 2017. "“You won't take away my children!” families' participation in child protection. Lessons since a best practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 214-221.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schwalbe, Craig S., 2008. "Strengthening the integration of actuarial risk assessment with clinical judgment in an evidence based practice framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 1458-1464, December.
    2. Schwartz, Ira M. & York, Peter & Nowakowski-Sims, Eva & Ramos-Hernandez, Ana, 2017. "Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 309-320.
    3. Lavi, Iris & Katz, Carmit, 2016. "Neglected voices: Lessons from forensic investigation following neglect," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 171-176.
    4. Rolock, Nancy & Jantz, Ian & Abner, Kristin, 2015. "Community perceptions and foster care placement: A multi-level analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 186-191.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:114-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Charles F. Manski, 2016. "Credible Ecological Inference for Personalized Medicine: Formalizing Clinical Judgment," NBER Working Papers 22643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Whitt-Woosley, Adrienne & Sprang, Ginny & Gustman, Brian D., 2014. "Lives at risk: Uncovering factors associated with fatal child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P3), pages 307-313.
    8. Harden, Brenda Jones & D'Amour Meisch, Allison & Vick, Jessica E. & Pandohie-Johnson, Lisa, 2008. "Measuring parenting among foster families: The development of the Foster Parent Attitudes Questionnaire (FPAQ)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 879-892, August.
    9. de Kwaadsteniet, Leontien & Bartelink, Cora & Witteman, Cilia & ten Berge, Ingrid & van Yperen, Tom, 2013. "Improved decision making about suspected child maltreatment: Results of structuring the decision process," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 347-352.
    10. Victor Grimaldi & Javier Pérez-Padilla & Miguel Ángel Garrido & Bárbara Lorence, 2019. "Assessment and Decision-Making in Child Protective Services: Risk Situations Kept-at-Home Versus Out-of-Home Care," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(5), pages 1611-1628, October.
    11. Bolton, Annalese & Lennings, Chris, 2010. "Clinical opinions of structured risk assessments for forensic child protection: The development of a clinically relevant device," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1300-1310, October.
    12. Barbee, Anita P. & Christensen, Dana & Antle, Becky & Wandersman, Abraham & Cahn, Katharine, 2011. "Successful adoption and implementation of a comprehensive casework practice model in a public child welfare agency: Application of the Getting to Outcomes (GTO) model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 622-633, May.
    13. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    14. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    15. Munro, Eileen, 2005. "Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 375-391, April.
    16. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 2005. "The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    17. Baumann, Donald J. & Grigsby, Charles & Sheets, Janess & Reid, Grant & Graham, J. Christopher & Robinson, David & Holoubek, Jason & Farris, James & Jeffries, Victoria & Wang, Eugene, 2011. "Concept guided risk assessment: Promoting prediction and understanding," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1648-1657, September.
    18. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    19. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Lee, Shawna J. & Sobeck, Joanne L. & Djelaj, Valentina & Agius, Elizabeth, 2013. "When practice and policy collide: Child welfare workers' perceptions of investigation processes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 634-641.
    21. Ryan, Scott & Wiles, Debra & Cash, Scottye & Siebert, Carl, 2005. "Risk assessments: empirically supported or values driven?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 213-225, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:47:y:2014:i:p1:p:55-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.