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

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.

Theory and social work: A conceptual review of the literature

“…Some authors, such as Howe () and Houston (), have argued that the dangers in anti‐intellectual and instrumental views of theory are that these see knowledge as merely practical or skills‐based and that this results in shallow or surface accounts of, or engagement with, the kinds of complex human situations that social workers face. Howe (, p. 1) suggests that theory is sometimes seen as pretentious and effete, opposed to ‘practical … down‐to‐earth wisdom’, but argues that all practice is theoretical and that the ‘choice of a theory for practice is also a choice about the kind of activity social work is taken to be’ (p. 166).…”

“…Some authors, such as Howe (1987Howe ( , 1996 and Houston (2001Houston ( , 2014, have argued that the dangers in anti-intellectual and instrumental views of theory are that these see knowledge as merely practical or skills-based and that this results in shallow or surface accounts of, or engagement with, the kinds of complex human situations that social workers face. Howe (1987, p. 1) suggests that theory is sometimes seen as pretentious and effete, opposed to 'practical .…”

Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review

“…These have been incorporated into risk assessment tools, often termed "actuarial" approaches to risk assessment work. While providing valuable information about patterns across populations and successful in some studies to predict future abuse, on their own, such methods have significant limitations for decision-making [65,66].…”

“…Considering risk assessment highlights two debates in decision-making: how risk assessment tools are derived and used and whether they include strengths or safety perspectives. Houston [65] states differences in ways of conceptualizing risk reflect objectivist, subjectivist and critical meta-theoretical paradigms, each with their own epistemology, ontology and axiology in relation to risk. One expression of an objectivist approach to risk, for example, has been in the development of risk factor science and related risk assessment tools.…”

Sense of coherence in late adolescence following involvement as a child in decision-making during parental separation

“…There is a substantial body of literature emerging in the field of social welfare on the problems that a too greater emphasis on risk presents to child wellbeing when not balanced with a notion of a child's capacity (Barth, 2009;Morris & Connolly, 2012;Houston, 2014;Lonne, Parton, Thompson & Harries, 2009;Morris & Burford, 2017;Connolly, 2017;Shlonsky & Mildon, 2017).…”