IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v3y2014i4p893-915d42288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practicing from Theory: Thinking and Knowing to “Do” Child Protection Work

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Young

    (Social Work and Social Policy, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009, Australia)

  • Margaret McKenzie

    (School of Social Services, Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand)

  • Cecilie Omre

    (Department of Social Studies, University of Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway)

  • Liv Schjelderup

    (Department of Social Studies, University of Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway)

  • Shayne Walker

    (Department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand)

Abstract

Child protection practice in much of the Western world is performed using some specific models with limited attention paid to the underpinning of informing worldviews, theories for practice (explanatory theories) and theories of practice (intervention theories). Over the past few years we have explored how child protection practice may be undertaken using a child rights perspective and community development principles and practices. From this we have developed a model which we here seek to support with worldviews, explanatory and intervention theories. We hope this theoretical framework answers some of the complexity found in the “wicked problem” of child abuse and provides guidance to the practice of protecting children.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Young & Margaret McKenzie & Cecilie Omre & Liv Schjelderup & Shayne Walker, 2014. "Practicing from Theory: Thinking and Knowing to “Do” Child Protection Work," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:4:p:893-915:d:42288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/4/893/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/4/893/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devaney, John & Spratt, Trevor, 2009. "Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 635-641, 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. Elena Cabiati, 2015. "The Need for Participative Interventions in Child Protection: Perspectives from Nuevo León State," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-28, May.

    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. de Haan, Irene & Connolly, Marie, 2014. "Another Pandora's box? Some pros and cons of predictive risk modeling," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 86-91.
    2. Stanley, Nicky & Ellis, Jane & Farrelly, Nicola & Hollinghurst, Sandra & Downe, Soo, 2015. "Preventing domestic abuse for children and young people: A review of school-based interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 120-131.
    3. Caffrey, Louise, 2020. "How everyone’s business can become no one’s business: A systems study of interprofessional referral to child contact centres," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Stanley, Nicky & Humphreys, Cathy, 2014. "Multi-agency risk assessment and management for children and families experiencing domestic violence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 78-85.
    5. Caroline McGregor & Carmel Devaney, 2020. "A Framework to Inform Protective Support and Supportive Protection in Child Protection and Welfare Practice and Supervision," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, April.
    6. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:4:p:893-915:d:42288. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.