module specification

This module reflects the Safeguarding and Security MA’s ethos of enabling students to engage with contested perspectives and values relating to effective safeguarding practice. It therefore complements core modules addressing the legislative landscape and politics of vulnerability by turning to the implementation of policies and questions of agency.

The module aims to:

• develop students’ understanding of the concept and ideology of social responsibility and its relationship to constructs of state agency and inter-agency partnerships
• develop students’ critical understanding of the theoretical models, methods and approaches which frame mandatory and voluntary interventions 
• facilitate the development of students’ capacity to evaluate the impact of economic, political, sociological and cultural factors on the design and implementation of interventions promoted to support social change and control
• develop the intellectual tools that enable the safeguarding practitioner to demonstrate the fundamental course objectives of critical reflexivity and practical judgment in relation to structures of institutional intervention

This module will examine the factors that have led to the development of ideas and constructs of social responsibility. Students will critically explore concepts of state agency and inter-agency responsibilities. The nature of authoritative and therapeutic relationships will be considered alongside the significance of role clarification and professional legitimacy. The module will expect students to apply these areas of knowledge to issues of care and control and address questions of privacy and choice. LO1, LO2, LO4, LO5

The module will also debate the following themes:
• The parameters and definitions of consent and coercion LO3, 4 & 5
• The relationship between rights, professional ethics and effective judgement LO3, 4 & 5
• The boundaries and responsibilities within information sharing LO1 & 2
• Different perspectives on questions of risk and the pathology of behaviour LO5
• The interrelatedness of engagement, compliance, motivation and change LO3, 4 & 5
• The impact of managerial structures on quality assurance and measures of ‘success’ LO3, 4 & 5
• The nature of resistance and it’s bearing on developing professional relationships LO5
• The degree to which preventative support networks and strengths-based approaches might offer a model of collaborative problem-solving LO3 & 4
• The role of individual autonomy in the context of social responsibility LO4

A variety of teaching and learning methods are employed to facilitate the development of subject-specific and transferable skills.  These include lectures, seminars, workshops, visual material and self-directed student learning.  Research is used as the point of departure for a range of debates.  To facilitate the learning process students are provided with a dedicated Blackboard platform upon which study resources are located including relevant publications and hyperlinks to relevant web-based resources.
Students are provided with opportunities to develop reflexive learning through engaging in a range of exploratory and evidence-based activities; students are given the opportunity to evaluate their own practice in relation to their professional development in seminar contexts, discussion and exercises to encourage the application of learning.

On successful completion of this module student will be able to:

LO1. Explain how and why social responsibility has become a feature of social policy and identify key characteristics
LO2. Recognise the core theoretical frameworks that have been central to intervention relationships
LO3.  Demonstrate the ability to critically examine the current institutional and community-based application of these approaches and their implications
LO4.   Identify and critically assess levels of potential conflict in the management of intervention and ensuring appropriate autonomy and respect
LO5.  Master a reflexive capacity for ensuring best safeguarding practice in terms of system accountability and personal development

Students will submit one essay addressing apparent dichotomies of care and control, consent and coercion, mandatory and voluntary interventions. Students should demonstrate an argument grounded in epistemological thinking and showing an understanding of ethical considerations and professional responsibilities. These reflect core learning outcomes. Students will also produce a Critical Incident Report in which they will reflect on responses to a given case study. The report meets core learning outcomes by exploring why certain actions were taken, what aspects of social responsibility guidelines these were drawn from, and assess alternative interventions and outcomes.

This reading list is indicative and as such, provides suggested texts that we think will be useful. This is not a confirmed or compulsory reading list and we expect students to research wider articles, texts and resources as part of their own directed study.

Core texts

Aveyard, H. and Sharp, P. (2013) A Beginner’s Guide To Evidence Based Practice in Health and Social Care. [2nd edn]. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill

Barrientos, A. and Hulme, D. [eds]. (2008) Social Protection for the Poor and the Poorest: Concepts, Policies and Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan;

Clark, A., Kjorholt, A. and Moss, P. (2005) Beyond Listening; Children’s Perspectives on Early Childhood Services. Polity: Bristol

Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press

Devine, L. (2017) The Limits of State Power & Private Rights: Exploring Child Protection & Safeguarding Referrals and Assessments. London: Routledge

Firmin, C. (2018) Abuse Between Young People: A Contextual Account. London: Routledge.

Kemshall, H. (2001) Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Lister, R. (2016) Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Additional readings

Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings. London: Cabinet Office.

Atkinson, A.  (2015) Inequality: What Can Be Done? Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.

Bovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

British and Irish Legal Information Institute (1985) ‘Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority’, UKHL 7
Bunn, A. (2013) Signs Of Safety® In England.  NSPCC.

Calder, M. [ed]. (2008) The Carrot or the Stick? - Toward Effective Practice with Involuntary Clients in Safeguarding Children Work. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

Candlin, C. and  Crichton, J. [eds] (2011) Discourses of Deficit. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Canton, R. and Dominey, J. (2017) Desistance, Good Lives, Compliance and Motivation in Probation. London: Routledge.

Davie, R., Upton, G., and Varma,V. [eds] (1996) The Voice of the Child. London: Falmer Press,

Dean, H. & Platt, L. (2016) Social Advantage and Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Egan, G. (2007) The Skilled Helper. California: Cengage Learning.
Farnfield, S. and Kaszap, M. (1998) ‘What Makes a Helpful Grown-up? Children's Views of Professionals in the Mental Health Services’. Health Informatics Journal, 4(1): 3-14.

Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B. and Goddard, J. (2004). Contemporary Child Care Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Fook, J. (2004) ‘Critical Reflection and Transformative Possibilities’ in Davies, L. and Leonard, P. [eds] Social Work in a Corporate Era: Practices of Power and Resistance. Aldershot: Ashgate

Fook, J. (2004) ‘Critical Reflection and Organisational Learning and Change: a Case Study’, in Gould N. and Baldwin, M. [eds]  Social Work, Critical Reflection and the Learning Organisation. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Fook, J. and Askeland, G. (2006) ‘The ‘‘Critical’’ in Critical Reflection’, in White, S., Fook, J. and Gardner, F. [eds] Critical Reflection in Health and Welfare. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

France, A. and Utting, D. (2006).The Paradigm of ‘Risk and Protection‐focused Prevention’ and its Impact on Services for Children and Families’. Children and Society. 19(2): 77-90.

Howe, D. (1993) On Being a Client. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jack, G. (2005) ‘Assessing the Impact of Community Programmes Working with Children and Families in Disadvantaged Areas’.  Child & Family Social Work, 10(4): 293-304.
Jones, R. (2014) The Story of Baby P: Setting the Record Straight. Bristol: Policy Press.

Keeling,J. and van Wormer, K. (2012) ‘Social Worker Interventions in Situations Of Domestic Violence: What We Can Learn From Survivors' Personal Narratives?’ The British Journal of Social Work, 42(7):1354–1370.

McLeod, A. (2008), Listening to Children. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Moon, J. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Platt, D. and Turney, D. (2013) ‘Making Threshold Decisions in Child Protection: A Conceptual Analysis’. British Journal of Social Work. 44(6): 1472-1490.
Prout, A. and James, A. (2002) ‘A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems’ in James, A. and  Prout, A.[eds] Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood : Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. Oxon: Routledge Farmer.
Senge, P, Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. and  Smith, B. (2007) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation. London: Random House.

Stapley, L. (2006) Individuals, Groups and Organizations Beneath The Surface: An Introduction. London: Karmac.

Thomas, J., Pollard, K., and Sellman, D. (2014) Interprofessional Working In Health and Social Care: Professional Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Taylor, I. and Kelly, J. (2006) ‘Professionals, Discretion and Public Sector Reform in the UK: Re-Visiting Lipsky’. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 19(7): 629-642.

Thomas, N. [ed] (2009) Children, Politics and Communication: Participation at the Margins. Bristol: Policy Press.

Tidmarsh, J., Carpenter, J.  and Slade, J. (2003) ‘Practitioners as Gatekeepers and Researchers: Family Support Outcomes’. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2):  59-79.

Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (2000) Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal. Blackwell: London.

Trotter, C., and Ward, T. (2013) ‘Involuntary Clients, Pro-social Modelling and Ethics’. Ethics and Social Welfare 7(1):74-90.

Trotter, C. (2015) Working with Involuntary Clients: A Guide to Practice. London: Routledge.

Selected online resources

Officers and partners join forces for Operation Limelight 20 Jul 2018
https://www.essex.police.uk/news/news-and-features/2018/07jul/officers-and-partners-join-forces-for-operation-li/

Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines: Handling Cases of Forced Marriage, UK Government, June 2014.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322307/HMG_MULTI_AGENCY_PRACTICE_GUIDELINES_v1_180614_FINAL.pdf

Working together to safeguard children 2018
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children--2

Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice 2005,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-capacity-act-code-of-practice

DASH Risk Model
https://www.dashriskchecklist.co.uk/