doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00830.x
A relationship-based approach to engaging involuntary
clients: the contribution of recognition theory
cfs_830
1..11
Danielle Turney
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Correspondence:
Danielle Turney,
School for Policy Studies,
University of Bristol,
Bristol BS8 1TZ,
UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Keywords: ethical issues, involuntary
clients, recognition theory,
relationship-based practice
Accepted for publication: January
2012
A B S T R AC T
This paper focuses on the process of engaging with families where a
child is at risk of harm, and considers a relationship-based approach
to work with ‘involuntary clients’ of child protection services. Contextualizing the discussion within a broader understanding of the role
and importance of relationship-based practice, a conceptual and
ethical framework is outlined that can, it is suggested, support effective relationship-based work and moral decision-making with involuntary clients. Making use of psychoanalytic and more broadly
psychodynamic insights, along with perspectives drawn from recognition theory, it is argued that relationship-based practice offers the
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’.
INTRODUCTION
The challenges of working with ‘involuntary clients’ or
service users (see Note 1) have been considered
within research and literature from a range of perspectives (Trotter 2006; Calder 2008; Rooney 2009).
Various aspects of the practitioner/service user relationship have been addressed within these discussions.
However, although Lefevre (2008) offered a thoughtful discussion and some relevant issues are addressed
by Turnell (2004, 2008), overall there has been less
attention paid so far to the nature and meaning of a
relationship-based approach in the context of statutory and compulsory work (Turney et al. 2010, p.
246). Yet, the need to think about relationships, and
the particular challenges they pose in these often difficult cases, is of paramount importance for a number
of reasons.
In the first place, parents are, of course, likely to be
the source of much useful information about the
child, the current family situation and the broader
family history. They can also facilitate or obstruct
1
Child and Family Social Work 2012
access to the child. Furthermore, as the Munro report
identifies, it is more likely that help can be both effectively offered and accepted when parents have been
successfully engaged – i.e. where there is a sound
professional relationship. Child protection work
draws on
. . . a difficult combination of skills: being able to be authoritative and ask challenging questions about family life as well as
engaging with parents in order to work with them to resolve
their problems and improve their parenting capacity. Professionals can struggle with this [ . . . ] but overall, successful
engagement with the parents is a key contributor to effective
helping. (Munro 2011, para. 2.24)
Munro’s emphasis on the importance of the professional relationship acknowledges the challenges of
establishing these connections with some parents. But
her observations reinforce a point made previously by
Howe (2010, p. 331), who suggested that ‘parents who
feel understood are less likely to experience stress and
so less likely to be a danger to their children’ (see also
Howe 2008). In addition, we know that the quality of
the relationship between parent and professional has a
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
significant impact on decision-making (Platt 2007;
Holland 2010). So, for these reasons at least, a focus
on relationships seems relevant.
But beyond the pragmatic, there are perhaps
broader ethical imperatives that apply here. The
professional encounter provides an opportunity to
work both in and with the relationship to promote
change; it is ‘not just the foundation on which the
working alliance is built but also the medium in
which psychological change takes place’ (Howe
2010, p. 334). Indeed, person-centred approaches
that put the (therapeutic) relationship at the heart of
practice and insights from psychoanalytic theory
suggest that ‘a thoughtful and emotionally receptive
stance to clients can have therapeutic value without
anything fancy being done’ (Bower 2005, p. 11).
This moves the notion of relationship away from the
merely instrumental and recognizes its potential contribution to emotional and psychological understanding, self-development and well-being. If, as
Howe (1998, p. 45) proposed, the ‘level of social
understanding and social competence that people
develop depends on the quality of their relationship
history’, then the way in which social work practitioners understand and manage relationships becomes
a significant part of their approach – and their
ethical commitment – to service users whose prior
experience of relationships may have been anything
but good. Relationship-based practice essentially
recognizes the moral claim of the service user –
whether voluntary or involuntary – to be treated as
an individual in his or her own right; to be seen
as an ‘end in themselves’ rather than simply as a
means to the end of protecting their children from
harm.
This ethical claim is important, but we also know
from cases such as ‘Baby P’ (Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board 2009) that in the context
of child protection work, apparently positive
professional/service user relationships can be founded
on very shaky ground and become sources of dangerous misunderstanding. So, this is a difficult arena
within which to develop relationships – one where
practitioners need to offer the possibility of genuine
engagement and ethical decision-making without
being misled by false compliance.This paper therefore
acknowledges the complexities of a relationship-based
approach and offers a contribution to the theorization
of this problematic area of practice. It starts though by
locating the discussion within a broader understanding of the nature and role of relationship-based practice in social work and the challenges to this approach.
2
Child and Family Social Work 2012
SOCIAL WORK AND
R E L AT I O N S H I P - B A S E D P R AC T I C E :
A B R I E F H I S TO R Y
Relationship-based practice has a long, if somewhat
chequered, history in social work. Rooted in the
psychodynamically influenced clinical and casework
approaches of the 1950s and 1960s (Biestek 1957;
Hollis 1964), an approach to practice was defined in
which the relationship took centre stage, providing the medium through which the practitioner
worked, as well as the focus for much therapeutic
intervention. Relationship-based practice fell out of
favour in 1980s/1990s with the emergence of more
overtly political approaches to practice. While
some of the early casework practitioners identified
themselves as having a psychosocial perspective
(cf. Hollis 1964), Marxist and feminist writers
and practitioners disputed the way in which the
‘social’ was addressed. They challenged the potentially pathologizing nature of a casework response
that, it was argued, focused on individual difficulties,
without locating these in a broader context of
interconnecting forms of social disadvantage and
oppression.
‘Radical’ approaches to practice identified the situated nature of the social worker/client relationship and
critiqued the casework approach for failing to recognize the attendant power dynamics. It was argued that
there was an assumed neutrality and equality in the
casework relationship that ignored (or minimized) the
effect of factors such as race/ethnicity, class and
gender, and also failed to acknowledge their impact
‘outside’ the immediate relationship, i.e. in terms of
the experiences and opportunities available to the
client in the wider society.
However, more recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in relationship-based approaches.
This has been well documented in a range of practicefocused texts (Howe 1998, 2008, 2010; Sudbery
2002; Trevithick 2003; Ruch 2005, 2009; Ruch et al.
2010; Hennessey 2011), and a renewed emphasis on
the value and significance of the professional relationship is reflected in a range of social work research and
policy documents (Barlow & Scott 2010; Brandon
et al. 2010; Munro 2011). This re-connection with
relationship stems from a recognition that the
increased proceduralism and prescription of recent
practice have not led to the hoped for improvements
in work with vulnerable children and families. On the
contrary, the downplaying of relationship has led to
serious gaps in practice.The thoughtful analyses of the
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
Victoria Climbié case by Cooper (2005) and Rustin
(2005) articulate clearly the significance of the relational component of social work and the central need
to pay attention to emotions and to the self. Many
writers have commented on the way that practice has
become dominated by performance indicators and
paperwork (or, rather, electronic form filling) at the
expense of face-to-face work with children and families (Bell et al. 2007; Mitchell & Sloper 2008; White
2009; Munro 2011). And there is a clear sense – as
expressed in the Munro report – that something has
been lost in the process:
Complying with prescription and keeping records to demonstrate compliance has become too dominant. The centrality of
forming relationships with children and families to understand and help them has become obscured. (Munro 2011,
pp. 7–8)
There is then a case for reclaiming relationshipbased practice, but this must be in the context of an
approach that is fit for purpose – one that maintains
the centrality of human relationships in social work
practice but does not repeat the failings of the earlier
psychosocial approaches of the 1960s and 1970s.
Rather than an ‘either/or’ approach that pits emancipatory and empowerment-focused work against
relationship-based thinking and practice, we need a
‘both/and’ response, and this has been reflected in
attempts to re-configure relationship-based practice in
response to the critiques noted earlier. While much of
the ‘new style’ approach still draws heavily on psychoanalytic and psychodynamic traditions and insights,
there is also a much sharper awareness that all relationships take place in a context; broader social relations are not incidental to people’s intra-psychic
experiences and have profound effects on their emotional well-being. As Ruch (2009, p. 350) notes, ‘A
fundamental tenet of the relationship-based approach
is its focus on the individual in context and on the
psychological and the social, as neither the individual nor the context make sense without the
other’. In ‘re-balancing’ the psychosocial approach,
relationship-based practice must demonstrate the
potential to hold the tension between the inner and
outer, the intra-psychic and the social/political worlds
and understand the connections between the two.The
next section suggests that an approach informed by
recognition theory can support the development
of a model of relationship-based practice that
engages more effectively with both the social and the
psychological.
3
Child and Family Social Work 2012
T H E O R I Z I N G R E L AT I O N S H I P - B A S E D
P R AC T I C E – T H E C O N T R I B U T I O N O F
RECOGNITION THEORY
Social work has traditionally taken a rather eclectic
approach to theory, borrowing and incorporating elements from a range of positions and disciplines. Critical theory – notably the work of Habermas – has
proved a rich source of ideas and debate (e.g. Blaug
1995; Hayes & Houston 2007; Garrett 2009; Houston
2009). More recently, the ‘important psychoanalytical, existential and social insights’ (Hayes & Houston
2007, p. 1002) of the ethics of recognition developed
by Honneth, in particular, have been used to inform
thinking in different areas of social work practice
(Webb 2006, 2010; Hayes & Houston 2007; Houston
& Dolan 2008; Houston 2009; Juul 2009). This paper
builds on those earlier discussions. Starting with an
outline of three key concepts – recognition, respect
and reciprocity – drawn from the work of Honneth, I
will then look at the critiques that have been put
forward, and consider their impact on the usefulness
or otherwise of Honneth’s ideas for a politically and
socially grounded relationship-based practice.
Recognition
Developmental psychology and psychoanalytic thinking emphasize the significance of early experiences of
relationship for the infant’s developing sense of self,
identity and agency, and for longer-term emotional
and psychological well-being. Psychoanalytically
informed child development theory identifies the processes of differentiation and separation that the infant
must go through to develop a sense of him- or herself
as a separate and autonomous being (Hollway 2006,
pp. 31–32). Of particular importance, in the context
of this paper, is the work of theorists such as Benjamin
(1990a,b), Stern (1985) on understanding intersubjectivity and the emerging ability of the infant to
engage in ‘subject–subject relations’. Benjamin argues
that ‘the concept that unifies inter-subjective theories
of self development is the need for recognition’ (1990a,
p. 21, emphasis added). It is through the relational
experience of recognition – recognizing and being recognized by the other – that the infant learns to understand him- or herself.
As noted, the salience of recognition has also been
addressed – and critiqued – within critical social
theory (Fraser & Honneth 2003; Honneth 1997,
2007; Thompson 2006). Honneth identified three
forms of social recognition, which, he argued (2007,
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
p. 74), are necessary for the successful formation of
identity and a sense of self:
• Recognition of love
• Legal recognition
• Social appreciation
The first, recognition of love, is, for Honneth, the
most fundamental and seems highly consistent with
social work understandings of the importance of
early relationships. Drawing closely on psychoanalytic understandings of the development of intersubjectivity, particularly within object relations
theory (Honneth 1995), it addresses the process by
which an individual ‘learns to relate to themselves in
such a way that they conceive of their physical needs
and desires as an articulable part of their own
person’ (Honneth 2007, p. 136). When a person
receives this form of recognition – a level of emotional concern in the context of a social relationship
of love, friendship or care – then they are able to
develop a sense of ‘self confidence’ or ‘security in
one’s own sense of being’ (Hoggett 2000, p. 6).
Failure to experience the recognition of love, e.g.
within an abusive or neglectful family, is likely to
affect the individual’s perception of themselves as
someone worthy of being of genuine concern and
interest to another, and leave them at risk of
impaired ‘self-confidence’ in this particular sense.
The second sense of recognition is rights-based and
involves seeing the individual as ‘a morally accountable member of society’ (Honneth 2007, p. 74), which
accords them a form of ‘self-respect’. The third form
of recognition comes through social acknowledgement of the individual’s achievements and abilities.
Thompson (2006, p. 15) summarized this as follows:
‘Esteem is the positive acknowledgement of a particular type of person in light of the distinct characteristics
that they possess. It may refer, for instance, to ideas of
identity or difference, culture or community’. It does
not seem too big a jump from this account to a social
work commitment to anti-oppressive practice and
respect for difference. Together, these three forms of
recognition support the development of a secure identity and a positive sense of self for the individual,
within their social context.
Respect
Honneth outlined the positive effects on identity formation that come from affirming experiences of recognition but is also centrally concerned with the
consequences of the failure or refusal of recognition.
As recognition is closely associated with respect, so
4
Child and Family Social Work 2012
the withdrawal of recognition, or the experience of
misrecognition, is seen as a form of disrespect. The
significance of disrespect is addressed in Honneth’s
(2007) collection of essays exploring the normative
foundations of critical theory, and the moral nature of
the ‘injury’ it inflicts is clearly articulated. When a
person is denied recognition, ‘they will generally react
with moral feelings that accompany the experience of
disrespect – shame, anger or indignation’ (2007, p.
72). Moral injury, he suggests, threatens the individual’s sense of self and of autonomy.
Drawing on Kant, Honneth proposed that the
concept of respect ‘contains the core of the categorical
imperative to treat every other person only as an end
in him or herself’ (2007, p. 129), an injunction that
has clear resonance for social work ethics and values
(Clark 2000; Banks 2006). Indeed, the importance of
respect as a ‘fundamental moral principle’ (Shardlow
2009, p. 42) for social work is well established
(British Association of Social Workers 2002; General
Social Care Council 2002; Beckett & Maynard 2005)
and has particular resonance for person-centred and
relationship-based approaches, providing a significant
point of connection with Honneth’s position.
Reciprocity
According to Honneth, human subjects ‘encounter
each other within the parameters of the reciprocal
expectation that they be given recognition as moral
persons’ (2007, p. 71, emphasis added). Reciprocity
implies a degree of ‘give and take’, a relationship
where each participant has something to offer and to
receive. ‘It involves recognising the separate subjectivity and agency of the other person and calls for a
way of working that deals openly with differences of
power’ (Turney 2007, p. 71), a point to which I will
return. Again, there is an identifiable link to
relationship-based practice. A number of studies
have shown that service users are clear about the
qualities they value in social workers (Turnell 2004;
De Boer & Coady 2007; Howe 2008) – and reference is reliably made to the importance of reciprocity or mutuality.
This three-cornered framework of recognition, reciprocity and respect fits well with the practical and
ethical concerns of a relationship-based approach. As
Houston and Dolan observed, theories of recognition
‘maintain that identity formation hinges irrevocably
on social relations that acknowledge and validate personal existence; and that respect and understanding
should be at the forefront of our relationships with
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
others’ (2008, p. 459; also Honneth 1995). So far, so
positive, but recognition theory has itself been subject
to critique – both from within social theory (e.g.
Fraser & Honneth 2003; Thompson 2006; McNay
2008) and in relation to its application to social work
(Garrett 2010; Webb 2010). It is not possible in this
paper to give a comprehensive account of this literature, so in the following section, I will briefly outline
the basis of this critique and consider its validity specifically in relation to the understanding of social work
practice that has been proposed.
C H A L L E N G E S TO R E C O G N I T I O N T H E O R Y
A key argument against Honneth’s formulation of
recognition theory is its alleged ‘psychologism’.
Garrett (2010) and Webb (2010) outlined some cogent
objections, drawing particularly on Fraser’s (2003)
identification of the need for a broader theory of social
justice based on both recognition and ‘redistribution’.
Webb (2010) developed the idea of an integrated theoretical framework and sees the ‘coupling of the politics
of redistribution and recognition as the foundations for
a Critical social work’ (2010, p. 13). Garrett, however,
goes beyond the terms of the recognition/redistribution
debate. He argues that, while it is an advance on
Honneth’s position, even Fraser’s principle of ‘parity of
participation’ fails to give sufficient attention to the
part played by the neo-liberal state in structuring
(potentially oppressive) relations of recognition and
misrecognition. Garrett does not entirely dismiss the
relevance of recognition theory for social work but
argues that it encourages an over-emphasis on ‘microencounters and interactions’ (2010, p. 1517) at the
expense of a more textured understanding of the
broader role of the state in the production of particular
relationships of (mis)recognition.
Garrett’s critique provides an important corrective
to a naïve and narrowly psychological account of relationships but does not negate the utility of recognition
theory for social work. It is precisely in the microencounters he identifies that the day-to-day business
of social work takes place and recognition theory can
support understanding of these interactions. So, while
it is not being claimed as a ‘total theory’ for practice,
and both Webb’s and Garrett’s positions add to an
understanding of relations of power and oppression,
the remainder of this paper will focus on the particular
contribution of recognition theory to understanding
issues of engagement with involuntary clients. I have
proposed that relationship-based practice needs to be
recalibrated to get a better balance between the ‘psy’
5
Child and Family Social Work 2012
and the ‘social’ in psychosocial. Honneth’s work highlights the significance of both the affective and the
social dimensions of experience – it brings together
the internal, intra-psychic experiences of the individual with an understanding of inter-subjective processes and locates this explicitly in the context of
broader societal relationships. A relationship-based
approach informed by recognition theory may still
emphasize the ‘psy’ more than the ‘social’, but the
psychological understanding allows for engagement
with the social. Recognition theory identifies the
tension between these different levels of experience
and their interconnectedness and can therefore
provide some insights into the relational dynamics
within which individuals operate.
R E L AT I O N S H I P - B A S E D P R AC T I C E W I T H
I N VO L U N TA R Y C L I E N T S
Social work must always tread a path between ‘care’
and ‘control’ and this can be a particular tension in
situations where there are child protection concerns.
The difficulties of working in such cases have been
highlighted by a number of child death inquiries and
serious case reviews (for recent examples, see Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board 2009;
Laming 2003). Relationship-based practice is not
being offered as a panacea for all social work difficulties in relation to engagement, and working from a
relationship-based perspective with involuntary
clients is likely to give rise to some significant ethical
challenges. As Trotter points out, trying to engage
involuntary clients involves ‘working in a value-laden
environment. What is needed is a recognition that this
is so and debate about how the ethical and valuebased issues should be dealt with’ (Trotter 1997,
p. 26). The remainder of this section looks at how an
approach based on recognition, reciprocity and
respect may help both to frame and respond to these
issues. The areas that will be addressed include
• Resistance
• Trust and
• The use of power in involuntary relationships
Resistance, recognition and misrecognition
Client reluctance to engage with different welfare services has been explored from a variety of angles and
using a range of terminology. There is little clarity
around definitions or explanations, and the situation
is further complicated by inconsistent use of language: ‘Terms such as resistance, denial, motivation,
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
readiness and responsivity have all been used to
describe reluctant client behaviors (sic), sometimes
interchangeably’ (Scott & King 2007, p. 402). Arkowitz (2002) and Scott & King (2007) helped clarify the
range of meanings and possible professional/
therapeutic responses to different forms of ‘nonengagement’. Arkowitz (2002), in particular, explored
the meanings of ‘resistance’ and suggested that in
some cases it may be understood as an expression of
the client’s ambivalence at the prospect of possibly
quite profound change that could follow serious
engagement with a process of professional intervention. In a similar vein, I want to consider here whether
in some situations, the notion of misrecognition can
inform an understanding of non-engagement/
resistance.
Webb identified the distress that can be caused by
misrecognition: ‘as for example, when single women
are accused of being bad mothers, older people are told
that they are incapable of looking after themselves, or
ethnic minority communities are stereotyped as disengaged’ (2006, p. 217). And we can perhaps add to this
list the experience of those who find themselves as
involuntary clients of child protection services and may
feel that they have been stereotyped as ‘bad parents’
and nothing more, before they start. While practitioners may aim to establish a more rounded knowledge of
the parents, to enable them to feel more properly
recognized and respected, this is not easy in the highly
pressurized and time-constrained environment of child
protection work. In this context, then, the reactions
(disengagement, hostility, anger and so on) that are
typically expressed by parents are unsurprising. This
does not mean that the client’s perspective, or claim for
recognition, should be automatically accepted (Juul
2009). Demands for recognition will need to be tested
and evaluated – but determining between morally valid
and invalid, genuine and false claims raises both practical and ethical difficulties, a point I consider in more
detail in the next section.
As the expectation of recognition is reciprocal,
either party may experience the refusal or failure of
recognition. So arguably, this may apply as much to
practitioners as service users. It is therefore important
for practitioners to be aware of this dynamic and to be
alert to their own responses to feelings of being ‘misrecognized’ by antagonistic or unwilling clients. Resistance is clearly difficult to deal with and can be
particularly undermining for a practitioner to find that
their efforts to engage parents are rebuffed and their
good intentions viewed with suspicion or hostility. If
not acknowledged, the sense of rejection – of not
6
Child and Family Social Work 2012
being recognized for oneself – can have a significant
impact and lead to potentially punitive, or equally
dismissive, responses on the part of the worker.
Trust and respect in work with involuntary clients
6.298 Ms Arthurworrey’s misreading of the Central Middlesex Hospital fax had almost certainly given her a completely
false sense of security with respect to Kouao. She admitted, ‘I
was more trusting of Kouao when I went on that visit. I am
not a detective. I had no reason to question what I saw
and what I was being told at that point.’ She did not
believe that Kouao would harm Victoria in any way. (Laming
2003, p. 160, emphasis added)
This remark from Lisa Arthurworrey, Victoria
Climbié’s allocated social worker, highlights one of
the key challenges of engagement with parents/carers
where there are child protection concerns. Professional social work values include trust and acceptance
and these are seen as the basis on which relationships
are established, but it is clear that families do not
always reciprocate and may, in some cases, systematically deceive practitioners about the welfare of vulnerable children.
The message from Lord Laming (2003) – and
underlined by the Munro report (2011) – is that social
workers need to maintain an attitude of ‘respectful
uncertainty’ and ‘healthy scepticism’: they must be
skilled in developing trusting relationships with children and families while at the same time being aware
that things may be other than they appear. In particular, they need to be alert to the possibility that apparent co-operation may be feigned – the problem of
‘disguised compliance’ discussed by Reder et al.
(1993; see also National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children 2010; Turney, 2010). And this is
clearly not entirely straightforward, as demonstrated
in the furore surrounding the death of Peter Connelly
(‘Baby P’) in 2007, when it became apparent that
practitioners had again been misled – in this case, by
a parent’s apparent compliance with professional
involvement – into construing a situation of extreme
risk as one of adequate safety.
Social workers are frequently required to act in
emotionally fraught situations where they have incomplete and fragmented information and are working
with hostile and/or uncooperative clients. In such circumstances, it may be hard to know what information is reliable, whose ‘story’ to trust, whose claims
for recognition are valid. Practitioners must find a
position between, on one hand, an uncritical acceptance of information (based perhaps on a lack of confidence or knowledge, or on a misunderstanding of
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
anti-oppressive practice) and, on the other hand, a
slide into cynicism, where compassion is hard to
maintain. A well-founded relationship can incorporate
the need to be both genuinely supportive but also
appropriately challenging (Turney 2010). Achieving
this balance is much harder where there is no real
relationship to draw on. However, taking the view that
every interaction is a form of relationship, however
restricted, a relationship-based approach must try to
work with what exists and at the level of engagement
possible.
There may be good reasons why parents are reluctant to trust a worker who they fear could remove their
child. Equally, a pressured practitioner may not be
inclined to take the risk of offering trust when they
fear that it will be unreciprocated or met with hostility.
Indeed, as we have seen, in some situations a presumption of trust on the part of the worker may even
be dangerous. But Smith notes that ‘an absence of
trust can only be repaired by an experience of trust’
(Smith 2001, p. 297). This puts a particular onus on
the worker to behave as transparently and honestly as
possible – effectively, to model trustworthiness themselves, and to offer the service user the experience of
being treated with respect by being explicit about
concerns, risks, requirements for change and presenting this in a clear but compassionate way.
Relating this to experiences of recognition and the
possibilities of misrecognition, perhaps what the
notion of respectful uncertainty allows is a position of
qualified trust which acknowledges that what is being
presented could be the correct view of a situation, but
there may be other better, or equally compelling,
explanations. Maintaining a position of respectful
uncertainty in the face of a hostile or dismissive
response is a demanding work. Evidence submitted by
the Family Rights Group to the Munro Review makes
the point: ‘Practitioners need to be managed, supported and equipped to work with families in ways
that are high in support and high in challenge’ (Munro
2011, para. 2.26).
And there is no foolproof way of always getting it
right.We cannot prevent people from lying or misleading and it does not sit easily with a social work value
base to keep this uncomfortable fact in mind. But the
approach outlined here perhaps offers some ways of
thinking about why service users may adopt various
strategies to keep professionals ‘at bay’ and, being
alert to these, encourage practitioners to keep in mind
the possibility that the situation may not be as it
appears. Critically, it also acknowledges the subjective
experiences and attitudes of the professionals
7
Child and Family Social Work 2012
involved, and recognizes that they will have an investment in a particular understanding of a situation or
family member and will respond accordingly.
The use of power in involuntary relationships
Working with parents where there are child protection
concerns throws the power differences between professional and client into sharp relief. Lawrence (2004,
p. 78) identifies ‘an apparently paradoxical situation’
where
The social worker has to intervene in a mandated and often
seemingly punitive way, but at the same time with the aim of
empowering parents and enabling parental responsibility as a
means to reduce the likelihood of harm to the child.
As this suggests, there may be particular tensions in
trying to manage both the care and the control functions of the professional role where there is a risk of
harm to a child.We have noted that in such situations,
the absence of parental engagement can provoke a
potentially more coercive response from practitioners
who have the responsibility to safeguard that child’s
welfare. While it would be disingenuous and probably
dangerous to ignore the power social workers have,
there are nonetheless different ways to use it, and the
notion of reciprocity may help to frame approaches to
practice that contribute to less anxiety-driven, more
reflective, and potentially less oppressive, responses.
In this connection, I want to consider the concept of
‘not-knowing’ and its role in relation to the use of
power in professional relationships. Although ‘notknowing’ is more typically discussed in relation to the
interaction between therapist and patient, it also has
application to the social worker/client relationship’. In
both contexts, practitioners face the challenge of
holding an attitude of ‘not-knowing’ and retaining an
open-minded curiosity (Ruch 2009, p. 352) in situations of uncertainty, while resisting a premature rush
to judgement.
The importance (and the difficulty) of keeping an
open mind has been emphasized by a number of
writers who highlight the ways in which different
forms of cognitive bias arise and influence judgement
and decision-making (Galanter & Patel 2005; Gambrill 2005; Munro 2008; Holland 2010). Writing
about the application of systemic ideas to social work
with children, Daniel observes that ‘[o]ne of the most
helpful systemic ideas is that of conceptualising uncertainty as a rigorous, intellectually robust and ethical
position, rather than a sign of weakness or equivocation’ (Daniel 2005, p. 60). Applying this observation
to social work more generally gives the practitioner
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
permission to stay with uncertainty and anchors the
process of hypothesising at the heart of thoughtful and
reflective practice. Framing and testing hypotheses,
tentative explanations for situations or behaviours
encountered, can help keep the practitioner alert and
focused – neither adrift in an undifferentiated mass of
information nor overly committed to a particular
account or outcome before there is adequate warrant
for it.
This kind of open-mindedness can also contribute to
the development of the professional relationship by
helping practitioners to ‘open themselves up to being
influenced more by the clients’ perspectives’ (Mason
2005, p. 161). It offers the possibility of a more reciprocal relationship, which acknowledges the client’s
understandings of their situation alongside those of the
practitioner. But ‘not-knowing’ needs to be managed
with care. Reflecting on relationships between therapists and their clients, Mason observes that adopting
this stance has, in some cases, constrained rather than
enabled therapists by ‘encouraging them (perhaps
inadvertently) to refrain from expressing ideas and
knowledge that might be beneficial to clients in addition
to taking a stance of curiosity’ (Mason 2005, p. 161).
That is to say, some therapists have felt unable to use
their expertise (clinical experience, research knowledge, etc.) in the form of ideas ‘as if to do so might be
seen as marginalizing the client and thus oppressive’
(ibid. 161) and similar dynamics may be found in the
social worker/client relationship. But as Mason points
out, this takes the idea of ‘not-knowing’ rather too
literally: being open to the possibility of not-knowing is
not the same as ‘knowing nothing at all’.
Mason himself offers the notion of ‘authoritative
doubt’ as a way of allowing practitioners to acknowledge that they do not have all the answers while at the
same time owning their own experience and expertise.
‘This gives us space for curiosity and exploration,
which of course involves taking some risks. The more
you know about a particular issue, the more you
appreciate what is missing and can see where to
explore for new answers’ (Flaskas et al. 2005, p. xv).
But uncertainty also has the capacity to generate
anxiety, particularly in situations where children may
be at risk of harm. Relationship-based practice takes
account of the practitioner’s affective responses to
their situation and acknowledges the effect of the
emotional climate on the way in which professionals
work with families:
. . . it is readily possible to recognize how acute and chronic
feelings of anxiety about difficult cases or work situations
8
Child and Family Social Work 2012
impede the capacity for practitioners to think clearly and
exacerbate the tendency to resort to defensive behaviours as
responses to the emotionally charged situations they face
(Taylor et al. 2008). (Ruch 2009, p. 351)
Recognising and responding to the practitioner’s
emotional responses plays a key part in managing
anxiety and promoting safer, more effective (and possibly less coercive) practice (Ruch 2005). This is most
likely to take place in an organizational culture that
values reflection and supports practitioners to ‘stay
with’ difficult feelings rather than seeing them as
inherently problematic and to be avoided.
Bringing an element of reciprocity into practice can
be seen as part of a broader commitment to building
an ethical foundation for work with involuntary
clients. Different strategies have been proposed to
achieve this, although there is a strong unifying commitment to a dialogic approach. For example, Rooney
(2009, p. 60) identifies ‘commitment to honest communication’ as a key requirement and De Jong & Berg
(2001) discuss an approach that, they suggest, facilitates ‘co-constructing cooperation with mandated
clients’ by building mutual confidence and understanding. This includes negotiating shared access to,
and ownership of, information. A dialogic approach
that sees the other as ‘conversible with’ may then
contribute to a less oppressive practice: ‘In dialogue,
we are subjects seeking understanding and to be
understood rather than objects seeking to act upon or
to be acted upon’ (Hoggett 2008, p. 76). This accords
value both to the practitioner’s and the client’s experience, expertise and knowledge, and shows respect
for the perspectives of both participants in a relationship of mutual – although not necessarily equal –
influence. As Juul (2009, p. 41) puts it:
. . . action as far as possible is based on mutual confidence
and common understanding, that the client’s narrative is the
point of departure and that the social worker – within the
existing possibilities – makes an effort to find a good and just
decision and communicate it to the client so he or she understands and accepts it.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has focused on the benefits and challenges
of developing a relationship-based practice that is sustainable and realistic and gives particular regard to the
difficulties of working with ‘involuntary clients’ of
statutory services. There are sound pragmatic reasons
for attempting to build relationships even with involuntary clients on the grounds that ‘a good deal of what
helps to keep at-risk children safe depends on the
quality of the relationship between the worker and the
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
parent’ (Howe 2010, p. 331), and that the more ‘recognized, acknowledged and contained’ (Howe 2010,
p. 332) the parent feels, the more the practitioner can
help them to keep the child ‘in mind’. At the same
time, an ethical case for relationship-based practice
has been made, which acknowledges the client as
someone with anxieties, hopes and strengths who can
be seen as an ‘end in themselves’ rather than simply as
a means to the end of protecting their children from
harm. Contributing to the theorization of this aspect
of practice, the paper draws on recognition theory to
enhance understanding of professional interactions
with involuntary clients. Effective professional relationships that engage with the individual, in all their
emotional ‘messiness’ and complexity, do this by
offering the possibility of recognition, respect and a
degree of reciprocity – key elements of an ethically
grounded practice. But such an approach also raises a
number of ethical tensions, e.g. in relation to issues of
resistance, trust and the use of power.
Relationship-based practice with unwilling or involuntary clients is always going to be challenging and
raise difficult questions about the application of social
work values. It requires practitioners to keep asking
themselves searching questions about the ethical
grounds for pursuing such an approach and trying to
establish ‘helping relationships’ with people who do
not feel able, or simply do not want, to participate. But
at its best, relationship-based practice informed by
recognition theory can provide the client with the
experience of being valued and recognized as an individual, and the practitioner with a conceptual and
ethical framework within which they can strive for a
position of ‘safe uncertainty and authoritative doubt’
(Flaskas 2005, p. xxv).
REFERENCES
Arkowitz, H. (2002) Towards an integrative perspective on resistance to change. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (2), 219–
227.
Banks, S. (2006) Ethics and Values in Social Work, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Barlow, J. & Scott, J. (2010) Safeguarding in the 21st Century –
Where to Now? Research in Practice, Dartington.
Beckett, C. & Maynard, A. (2005) Values and Ethics in Social
Work: An Introduction. Sage Publications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bell, M., Shaw, I., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P. & Rafferty, J. (2007) An
Evaluation of the Practice, Process and Consequences of the ICS in
Councils with Social Services Responsibilities. Report to Department for Education and Skills Welsh Assembly Government,
May 2007.
9
Child and Family Social Work 2012
Benjamin, J. (1990a) The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism,
and the Problem of Domination. Virago, London.
Benjamin, J. (1990b) An outline of intersubjectivity: the
development of recognition. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7,
33–46.
Biestek, F. (1957) The Casework Relationship. George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Blaug, R. (1995) Distortion of the face to face: communicative
reason and social work practice. British Journal of Social Work,
25 (4), 423–439.
Bower, M. (ed.) (2005) Psychoanalytic Theory for Social Work
Practice: Thinking under Fire. Routledge, London.
Brandon, M., Bailey, S. & Belderson, P. (2010) Building on the
Learning from Serious Case Reviews: A two-year analysis of child
protection database notifications 2007–2009. Research Report
DFE-RR040. University of East Anglia.
British Association of Social Workers (2002) Code of Ethics. Available at: http://www.basw.co.uk/ (accessed 26 November 2011).
Calder, M.C. (ed.) (2008) The Carrot or the Stick? Towards Effective Practice with Involuntary Clients in Safeguarding Children
Work. Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis.
Clark, C. (2000) SocialWork Ethics: Politics, Principles and Practice.
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Cooper, A. (2005) Surface and depth in the Victoria Climbié
report. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (1), 1–9.
Daniel, G. (2005) ‘Thinking in and out of the frame’: applying
systemic ideas to social work with children. In: Psychoanalytic
Theory for Social Work Practice: Thinking under Fire (ed. M.
Bower), pp. 59–70. Routledge, London.
De Boer, C. & Coady, N. (2007) Good helping relationships in
child welfare: learning from stories of success. Child & Family
Social Work, 17, 32–42.
De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (2001) Co-constructing cooperation
with mandated clients. Social Work, 46 (4), 361–374.
Flaskas, C. (2005) Introduction. In: The Space Between: Experience, Context, and Process in the Therapeutic Relationship (eds
C. Flaskas, B. Mason & A. Perlesz), pp. xix–xxviii. Karnac,
London.
Flaskas, C., Mason, B. & Perlesz, A. (eds) (2005) The Space
Between: Experience, Context, and Process in the Therapeutic Relationship. Karnac, London.
Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition?
Verso, London.
Galanter, C. & Patel, V. (2005) Medical decision making: a
selective review for child psychiatrists and psychologists.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (7), 675–
689.
Gambrill, E. (2005) Critical Thinking in Critical Practice: Improving the Quality of Judgements and Decisions, 2nd edn. Wiley,
New York.
Garrett, P.M. (2009) Questioning Habermasian social work: a
note of some alternative theoretical resources. British Journal of
Social Work, 39 (5), 867–883.
Garrett, P.M. (2010) Recognizing the limitations of the political
theory of recognition: Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser and social
work. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1517–1533.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
General Social Care Council (2002) Codes of Practice for
Social Care Workers and Employers. Available at: http://
www.gscc.org.uk/codes/ (accessed 26 November 2011).
Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board (2009) Serious
Case Review: Baby Peter. Executive Summary. Haringey Children’s Services Department, London.
Hayes, D. & Houston, S. (2007) ‘Lifeworld’, ‘System’ and Family
Group Conferences: Habermas’s contribution to discourse in
child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 987–
1006.
Hennessey, R. (2011) Relationship Skills in Social Work. Sage
Publications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hoggett, P. (2000) Emotional Life and the Politics of Welfare. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hoggett, P. (2008) Relational thinking and welfare practice. In:
Object Relations and Social Relations: The Implications of the
Relational Turn in Psychoanalysis (eds S. Clarke, H. Hahn &
P. Hoggett), pp. 65–86. Karnac Books, London.
Holland, S. (2010) Child and Family Assessment in Social Work
Practice, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London.
Hollis, F. (1964) Casework: A Psychosocial Therapy. Random
House, New York.
Hollway, W. (2006) The Capacity to Care: Gender and Ethical
Subjectivity. Routledge, London and New York.
Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral
Grammar of Social Conflicts. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Honneth, A. (1997) Recognition and moral obligation. Social
Research, 64 (1), 16–35.
Honneth, A. (2007) Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of
Critical Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Houston, S. (2009) Communication, recognition and social
work. British Journal of Social Work, 39 (7), 1274–1290.
Houston, S. & Dolan, P. (2008) Conceptualising child and
family support: the contribution of Honneth’s critical theory of
recognition. Children and Society, 22 (6), 458–469.
Howe, D. (1998) Relationship-cased thinking and practice in
social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 12 (1), 45–56.
Howe, D. (2008) The Emotionally Intelligent Social Worker. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Howe, D. (2010) The safety of children and the parent-worker
relationship in cases of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse
Review, 19 (5), 330–341.
Juul, S. (2009) Recognition and judgement. European Journal of
Social Work, 12 (4), 403–417.
Laming, H. (2003) The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of An
Inquiry by Lord Laming. Cm 5730. HMSO, London.
Lawrence, A. (2004) Principles of Child Protection: Management
and Practice. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education,
Maidenhead and New York.
Lefevre, M. (2008) Assessment and decision-making in child
protection: relationship-based considerations. In: The Carrot or
the Stick? Towards Effective Practice with Involuntary Clients in
Safeguarding Children Work (ed. M.C. Calder), pp. 78–92.
Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis.
McNay, L. (2008) Against Recognition. Polity Press, Cambridge
and Malden, MA.
10
Child and Family Social Work 2012
Mason, B. (2005) Relational risk-taking and the therapeutic
relationship. In: The Space Between: Experience, Context and
Process in the Therapeutic Relationship (eds C. Flaskas, B. Mason
& A. Perlesz), pp. 157–170. Karnac, London.
Mitchell, W. & Sloper, P. (2008) The integrated children’s
system and disabled children. Child & Family Social Work,
13 (3), 274–285.
Munro, E. (2008) Effective Child Protection, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.
Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection. Final
Report: A Child-Centred System. The Stationery Office,
Norwich.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(2010) Disguised compliance. NSPCC Factsheet. Available at:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/
disguised_compliance_wda74079.html (accessed 26 November 2011).
Platt, D. (2007) Congruence and co-operation in social workers’
assessments of children in need. Child & Family Social Work,
12, 326–335.
Reder, P., Duncan, S. & Gray, M. (1993) Beyond Blame: Child
Abuse Tragedies Revisited. Routledge, London.
Rooney, R. (ed.) (2009) Strategies for Working with Involuntary
Clients, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York.
Ruch, G. (2005) Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: holistic approaches to contemporary child care social
work. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (2), 111–123.
Ruch, G. (2009) Identifying the ‘critical’ in a relationship-based
model of reflection. European Journal of Social Work, 12 (3),
349–362.
Ruch, G., Turney, D. & Ward, A. (eds) (2010) Relationship-Based
Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice. Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, London and Philadelphia.
Rustin, M. (2005) Conceptual analysis of critical moments in
Victoria Climbié’s life. Child & Family Social Work, 10 (1),
11–19.
Scott, K.L. & King, C.B. (2007) Resistance, reluctance and
readiness in perpetrators of abuse against women and children.
Trauma,Violence and Abuse, 8 (4), 401–417.
Shardlow, S. (2009) Values, ethics and social work. In: Social
Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, 3rd edn. (eds R.
Adams, L. Dominelli & M. Payne), pp. 37–48. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Smith, C. (2001) Trust and confidence: possibilities for social
work in ‘high modernity’. British Journal of Social Work, 31,
287–305.
Stern, D. (1985) The InterpersonalWorld of the Infant. Basic Books,
New York.
Sudbery, J. (2002) Key features of therapeutic social work:
the use of relationships. Journal of Social Work Practice, 16 (2),
149–162.
Taylor, H., Beckett, C. & Mckeigue, B. (2008) Judgments of
Solomon: anxiety and defences of social workers in care proceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 13 (1), 23–31.
Thompson, S. (2006) The Political Theory of Recognition:A Critical
Introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Recognition, reciprocity and respect D Turney
Trevithick, P. (2003) Effective relationship-based practice: a
theoretical exploration. Journal of Social Work Practice, 17 (2),
163–176.
Trotter, C. (1997) Working with mandated clients: a pro-social
approach. Australian Social Work, 50 (2), 19–28.
Trotter, C. (2006) Working with Involuntary Clients: A Guide to
Practice. 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London and Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Turnell, A. (2004) Relationship-grounded, safety-organised
child protection practice: dreamtime or real-time option for
child welfare? Protecting Children, 19 (2), 14–25.
Turnell, A. (2008) Adoption of ‘Signs of Safety’ as the Department
for Child Protection’s Child Protection Practice Framework. Background Paper. Department for Child Protection, Perth, West
Australia.
Turney, D. (2007) Practice. In: Youth in Context: Frameworks,
Settings and Encounters (ed. M. Robb), pp. 53–88. Sage Publications, London, in association with The Open University.
Turney, D. (2010) Sustaining relationships: working with strong
feelings. III Love and positive feelings. In: Relationship-Based
Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice (eds G. Ruch, D.
Turney, A. Ward), pp. 133–147. Jessica Kingsley Publishers,
London and Philadelphia.
Turney, D., Ward, A. & Ruch, G. (2010) Conclusion. In:
Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice
11
Child and Family Social Work 2012
(eds G. Ruch, D. Turney & A. Ward), pp. 244–246. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, London and Philadelphia.
Webb, S.A. (2006) Social Work in A Risk Society: Social and
Political Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Webb, S.A. (2010) (Re)Assembling the left: the politics of redistribution and recognition in social work. British Journal of
Social Work, 40 (8), 2364–2379.
White, S. (2009) Error, Blame and Responsibility in Child Welfare:
Problematics of Governance in an Invisible Trade. End of Award
report. Lancaster University, University of Nottingham and
Cardiff University.
N OT E
1 A note on terminology: this paper is concerned with
the process of engaging parents who are involved with
social services because there are child protection concerns but who have not voluntarily sought help. It uses
the term ‘involuntary clients’ to refer to these individuals, following the terminology adopted by Calder
(2008), Rooney (2009) and Trotter (2006) to refer to
people who have not chosen their involvement with
social services and who are ‘under some formal or
informal pressure to seek help’ (Rooney 2009, 4).
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd