Rethinking Risk and Resilience in Childhood and Child Maltreatment

Abstract

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Working back to the future: strengthening radical social work with children and young people, and their perspectives on resilience, capabilities and overcoming adversity

“…While a focus on resilience is welcomed by some as a strengths-based approach that recognises children's agency (Titterton and Taylor, 2018), there are major critiques of the concept. Neocleous (2013: 7, quoted in Garrett, 2015 notes that resilience demands 'acquiescence, not resistance'.…”

“…To retain attention to politics and structures, Daniel and Wassell (2002), Ungar (2011), Hart et al (2016, Titterton and Taylor (2018) and others argue that resilience should be understood in socio-ecological context, which can then guide social work interventions across what van Breda (2018: 2-3) calls the 'micro-meso-macro continuum' . For example, Daniel and Wassell (2002) propose a socio-ecological framework of six domains (secure base, education, friendships, talents and interests, positive values, and social competencies), which spread across individual, family and community zones of experience.…”

“…While a socio-ecological approach to resilience does push the focus towards contextual factors, a mindset of focus on individual change still remains in some of these practice models and the need for creative alternatives is acknowledged. For example, Titterton and Taylor's (2018) life-course model emphasises the individual's 'resourcefulness' and provides little detail about how individuals interact with systems and structural factors. Piel et al (2017) describe the need for cultural change to reduce macro-level stigma related to care experience, yet their recommendations for practice change focus on micro-and meso-level contexts.…”

“…Piel et al (2017) describe the need for cultural change to reduce macro-level stigma related to care experience, yet their recommendations for practice change focus on micro-and meso-level contexts. Titterton and Taylor (2018) acknowledge that more creative thinking is needed, and Aranda and Hart, (2015: 13) propose that professionals should experiment in achieving changes by using available networks and assemblages of activities and resources.…”

“…In contrast to resilience, CA may provide social work with an approach aligned to insights from childhood studies (Stoecklin and Bonvin, 2014). Although resilience is strengths-based and recognises children's agency (Titterton and Taylor, 2018), adversity is seen to disrupt 'normal development' for future adults (Zolkoski and Bullock, 2012); however, judgements about 'normal development' and appropriate outcomes are culturally specific and value-laden (Garrett, 2015). CA focuses on the present experiences and life goals of children rather than future outcomes (del Moral-Espin et al, 2017).…”