FIVE: What ‘works’ in innovation?

What happens when system leaders believe, or want, innovation to work but are presented with evidence that it might not be possible? And what pressure to perform are researchers and practitioners under in order to demonstrate that innovations can and do work? This chapter explores the context of innovations and the conditions that compel researchers and professionals to perform success. Using the concept of the primary task, this chapter examines the work of researchers and professionals involved in the innovation process and how they navigate the complex ruling relations that govern their actions. The chapter considers the often hidden work of professionals to hold innovations alive, often at a personal cost. Instead of examining and evaluating the success of innovations in sites, the authors ask, ‘What if these innovations cannot work?’. In raising this question, the chapter invites readers to explore five provocations on the limits of innovating for children and young people affected by extra-familial risks and harms in the current context of social care.

Introduction

During an observation of a meeting held within one of our case-study sites, a senior member of the organisation remarked, “We know that Contextual Safeguarding works, but we need to be able to evidence it”. We had been invited to observe a discussion on developing an outcomes framework for the new system they were testing, which was rooted in Contextual Safeguarding principles. During the meeting, we were particularly struck by this comment that Contextual Safeguarding ‘worked’. Despite some of us having been involved for many years (in other capacities) with the frameworks of Trauma-informed Practice, Transitional Safeguarding and Contextual Safeguarding, we have never, ourselves, asserted with such confidence that they ‘work’. This was not an isolated example. Across various other of our case-study sites, practitioners and leaders echoed a similar idea: the new intervention or system being introduced either ‘works’ or ‘should work’.

What leads professionals to make these claims? Perhaps the ‘common sense’ promise that a new framework offers or its ethical compatibility with the social care sector encourage a type of confirmation bias (Oeij et al, 2019). Otherwise, maybe the professional quoted earlier had seen evidence that we had not. A more likely explanation is that the innovation contexts themselves create pressure on those involved to ‘perform’ successful innovation processes and achieve aspired outcomes. Definitions of social innovation share a similar vision of achieving better outcomes, improving lives and benefiting society, and it is recognised that significant investments of time, resources, funding and personal and emotional energy will be required to put this into play (Mulgan et al, 2007; Murray et al, 2010; Young Foundation, 2012). It is, then, unsurprising that not only innovators but also funders, commissioners and national and local government feel pressure to demonstrate that new practice systems or methods ‘work’ in order to justify the investment of public resources. Indeed, in the UK, a centre dedicated to ‘What Works for Children & Families’ (Foundations, 2023) is the latest manifestation of a long-standing requirement for social work to prove its legitimacy as a profession, underpinned by a decontextualised view of interventions, the best of which carry a so-called ‘gold standard’ evidence base (Mosley et al, 2019). Is it any wonder that professionals and researchers – even if unconsciously – feel the pressure to emphasise success and minimise the failures of their innovation activity?

In this chapter, we focus both on what work is required to ‘perform’ innovation and what factors come into play in determining whether it ‘works’. In this chapter, we use ‘work’ (in inverted commas) to denote ‘producing successful outcomes’. Conversely, drawing on Smith’s definition of the term from institutional ethnography (Smith and Griffith, 2022), we use work (without inverted commas) more expansively and fluidly to explore the practices of professionals and researchers engaged in the process of innovation, and the connections these practices have to wider discourses. Returning to the professional quoted earlier in this chapter, our aim is not to prove them wrong but to highlight how emotional and discursive practices – for example, believing in and promoting innovation – are important players in the innovation process. The context itself shapes such performances through a range of external influences and drivers. Again drawing on the work of institutional ethnography, we refer to these as examples of the ‘ruling relations [that] impose their objectified modes upon us’ (Smith and Griffith, 2022: 7). To understand these ruling relations, we look across the innovation activity in our case-study sites to explore the work that went into considering whether or how the three innovation frameworks (Contextual Safeguarding, Transitional Safeguarding and Trauma-informed Practice) had ‘worked’.

This chapter explores these contexts and the conditions that propel researchers and professionals towards performing success. In doing so, we ask if the aspired outcomes of these three innovation frameworks are even possible to achieve and, if not, what happens when there is a disconnect between a belief that a new system or intervention should work and evidence that it does not, or even cannot, work. We focus particularly on the boundary between organisational challenges that may enable or inhibit innovation success and the emotional and psychological experiences of practitioners tasked with implementing innovation. Our aim by so doing is to unearth the work of professionals that, while vital, is often hidden. We want to speak back to the mounting pressure practitioners and researchers are under to demonstrate quantifiable success and explore the limitations that this places on them, as well as on the ability of the sector, to truly learn about, and engage with, the context of innovation.

We conclude our introduction with a short illustrative story. In the final year of the Innovate Project, as a requirement of our annual reporting, a senior member of the research team asked us all to consider and record for the funder any evidence that our research had led to ascertainable benefits to the public (for example, the policy or practice field, young people, or families). We tried to think of any of the direct or tenuous ways our activities, publications and resources might have helped people, and obediently recorded these in a spreadsheet. While many familiar with public services in contexts of neoliberalism will not be surprised by a request to measure and quantify the value of work, we share this to show that we, as researchers, like the practitioner earlier in this chapter, are equally caught up in this performance, this dance to show that our activity ‘works’.

What are we doing when we innovate?

The primary task

When faced with the prospect of engaging in social innovation, it is likely that, at some point, all participants will be faced with the question, ‘What are we doing?’. While this question might be a practical one, it is more likely to be philosophical in nature: ‘What exactly is the task at hand?’. To understand the work required in innovation practice, we draw on the concept of the ‘primary task’ in seeking to understand how organisations order, prioritise and understand collective tasks (Lawrence, 1977; Miller and Rice; 2013; Owens, 2015). There are three ways of considering a group’s task: the ‘normative’, ‘existential’ and ‘phenomenal’. The normative task is the stated task of the group. In the Innovate Project, for example, our normative task was to research practice and system innovation associated with three frameworks – Contextual Safeguarding, Trauma-informed Practice and Transitional Safeguarding – to better understand the processes of innovation and improve safeguarding responses to young people experiencing extra-familial risks and harms. While the normative task is conscious, the existential and phenomenal are unconscious. Lawrence (1977) outlines how the existential task is what the group think they are doing, while the phenomenal is what they actually do (Owens, 2015).

Using these concepts, we explored data across the project, focusing specifically on interviews held with key professionals leading innovation in the case-study sites. While we focus primarily on interviews with those authorising, guiding or coordinating innovation activities, we contextualised these with examples from the wider data-collection activities. Looking across this data set, we focused down on the following aspects: the existential and phenomenal tasks; the work that was undertaken to perform these tasks; and the ruling relations that shaped the conceptions and activities.

A note should be provided before we begin. There is something inherently problematic about the concept of the primary task and specifically the phenomenal task. As we reflected in Chapter One, the idea that ‘we’, as academic outsiders, should be making judgements about what practitioners (who work extremely hard under challenging circumstances) really do feels uncomfortable, at best, and unfair, at worst. Therefore, we have sought to surface throughout this chapter (and the book as a whole) how we ourselves were influenced by the ruling relations; we bring wider systemic and structural powers into focus, and explore these concepts in relation to principles of ethical and psychosocially informed approaches. It is in the spirit of understanding and solidarity that we hope to shine a light on the hidden aspects of everyday work, particularly when it comes to the complex work involved in the performance of innovation.

What we think we are doing: the existential task

What do professionals think they are doing when they embark on the introduction of new practice methods and systems to respond to extra-familial risks and harms? In this section, we seek to reach beyond descriptions of activity and outcomes (the normative tasks) towards something grounded in the ‘doings’ of professionals (we include researchers in this group) to get closer to considering what is happening at an existential and less conscious level. Looking back on observations and interviews with those responsible for leading and progressing innovation, we have often wondered: ‘What is it that they think they are doing?’. Of course, this is only half the story because their innovation work and our research ethnography did not happen in a vacuum. To properly excavate the existential tasks, we needed to look at not only what happened in the case-study sites but also how we (the researchers) have been integral to the doing and performing of this innovation activity.

The existential task that dominated our analysis was that professionals thought it was their ‘responsibility’ to progress the innovation journey and even, as one professional noted, to “believe” in the potential benefits of the chosen framework and how it had been translated into systems or interventions: “I very much see myself in a bit of a facilitator [role] … no, I don’t know if that’s the right word … flying the flag!” (local leader). For many, their sense of duty to keep the innovation journey alive was experienced within a wider organisational environment where they, as individuals, felt isolated in this task and very much at the vanguard of the boundaries of their system, pushing at its ability to change. One person described themselves as a “maverick”, and several others saw themselves as always involved in trying to bring about change. However, occupying this position came at a cost. Professionals spoke about their roles and tasks in very personal terms; they displayed a strong sense of moral duty to the work of enabling the new practice methods and systems to flourish and sustain in their local area.

As research staff, our task was not as directly implicated in the holding and carrying work of innovation, but it did include some of these preoccupations. For example, at points through our study, ‘jokes’ arose within the research team about which of the three research strands (Contextual Safeguarding, Transitional Safeguarding and Trauma-informed Practice) was ‘performing’ the best – for example, who had collected the most data. This was never an official process but rather a cultural and affective manifestation of our preoccupations; we too were caught up in an unconscious existential task that was to do with how well we were performing. Like the professionals in the case-study sites, our response to this task was to double down on work – hard work – to take away the feeling that if there was anything amiss, it was not because of our lack of effort. In other words, the investment in the implementation of the innovation frameworks as something precious and in the task of dutifully guarding them was just as alive in the research team as it was with professionals in practice.

As well as bringing our own preoccupations about our performance into the system, we saw in the fieldwork how anxiety about innovation performance in sites was transferred unconsciously (Klein, 1952) between practitioners and the research staff. For example, at times, the researchers’ task seemed to focus on validating and acknowledging the work of professionals. Perhaps we sensed the absence of other forms of acknowledgement within the professionals’ system, or we wanted to ameliorate guilt at asking hard-working professionals to account for their innovation activity. It could even have been to comfort and reassure both researcher and professional that they/we were doing a good job in the face of a lack of obvious progress. Probably, it was a mix of all three. However, if we take it that their/our existential task was to hold alive the innovation endeavour within contexts variously hostile to this process, it makes sense that, as researchers, we might feel compelled to appreciate the work of professionals caught in this tension.

The extent to which the case-study sites were successful in keeping alive their innovations and getting them to grow differed. In one site, where a local leader felt that the innovation goals had not been accomplished, the landscape of her interview was full of the existential language of death and destruction, and she described herself as “sound[ing] a bit martyring”. Across the research strands, there were examples where those leading or coordinating innovation activity felt that they were holding personal responsibility. Indeed, the implication that a particular individual might represent and be accountable for the success of the innovation activity was embedded within the research methods. An example of this is apparent in our interview topic guide, which included asking local leaders to assess their site’s progress in operationalising their innovation framework on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 was ‘fully implemented’. Underlying this question was a shared assumption that sites should be striving towards a 5, with leaders being asked to rate their progress again at subsequent data-collection points.

Despite our best intentions towards reflexivity, as researchers, we were co-opted into the existential task of keeping alive the introduction of the new practice method or system. While in Chapter Three, we explored how understanding innovation as a recursive activity could relieve us from false expectations of ‘completion’, the question of whether we could contemplate the prospect of failure without recovery remained. In the interview with the professional who used the expression of “martyring”, she and the researcher seemed to share a hope that, despite perceptions and concerns about failure at that point, the introduction of the new practice system or method might yet come to fruition at some future point. It was as if the notion that it might not was too hard to think about – too existential and nihilistic. Looked at this way, perhaps, at an unconscious level, what we (both researchers and practitioners) think we are doing is proving that all is not lost – that social care can be reformed and change is possible.

This is a heavy existential task to bear. Throughout the interviews, professionals spent considerable time justifying, defending and querying whether they had gone about their work in the right way, whether they had influenced the right people and whether they had built the right relationships. They questioned both themselves and the enormity of the scope of the innovation. For example, in the following extract, a researcher and local leader stumble on the issue of the parameters of the innovation:
Leader:‘What do you mean by “organisation” again? So, we’re talking about–?’
Researcher:‘[Name of council.]’
Leader:‘The council as a whole?’
Researcher:‘Yeah, yeah, or children’s services specifically.’
Leader:‘Oh, children’s services, right, OK.’
The next two examples represent local leaders’ heavy personal feelings associated with the innovation task:

‘I genuinely hope it [the innovation framework] succeeds at some point. I’m going to be incredibly jealous of the person who does actually get it to succeed!’ (Local manager)

‘The things I’m struggling with is, like, I’ve got, like, my last meeting with [colleague] at 4 o’clock just to. … [I’m] feeling, like, a bit of guilt around leaving them holding things in quite a precarious position.’ (Team manager)

What comes through strongly when these extracts are set alongside each other is the personal responsibility of individuals grappling with their task. Why was the cost of the existential task held so personally, despite them being, by their very nature, about systemic change? Turning to institutional ethnography, this can be illuminated by thinking about the ruling relations, which may be uncovered by following lines of enquiry from the data about the institutional structures that govern and dictate the ‘doings’ of people. Foregrounding the systemic and structural features of social care highlights their significance in helping the move from the existential tasks (what we think we are doing) towards the phenomenal tasks (what we are really doing) because of the way they contextualise the innovation process. By way of example, the following quotes touch on the impact of policy and organisational challenges, including inspection, restructuring and underfunding, on this process:

‘And I think a number of things have also happened for us that have, maybe, have put us on a back foot and delayed us a little bit; so, Ofsted being one of them. So, I think, you know, when Ofsted come, everything stops, doesn’t it, really … you know the two weeks before, and then the few days that they’re here, and then the week after because you’re trying to recover.’ (Local leader)

‘So, my role was to be a project lead for introducing and embedding the [innovation]. And then that role was probably in place for a year and … then the funding stopped for that role, and I moved into another role, and I was promoted in those various roles. But the legacy of that work or the responsibility of that work I retained.’ (Team manager)

‘The staff are in trauma because they’re having to move to new buildings and a new way of working, and we haven’t got all the buildings yet geared up to that.’ (Service manager)

If we situate the existential tasks set out earlier alongside these ruling relations, we see that professionals and researchers are often engaged in a task of keeping innovations alive within a wider environment that is hostile to their taking root and growing. When they experience problems with this process, the nature of the existential task drives them to negative comparison and self-doubt. The collective wish to have done a good job, to have made a positive contribution, can overwhelm our ability to consider that, despite our best efforts and intentions, the conditions may not allow the good thing we want to bring about to happen. It may sometimes lead us to an even more problematic task of making it look like a new intervention or system is working, even where we lack evidence for such claims. This disconnect between what we think (and wish) we are doing and what we actually are doing is where we will dive in next.

What we are really doing: phenomenal tasks

The task of keeping the innovation activity alive, or ‘flying the flag’, was undoubtedly made easier by the fact that the majority of those tasked with doing so believed in the principles and ethics that underpinned the three frameworks for innovation that were being operationalised in the case-study sites. It was this belief that guided a desire for them to want to see them ‘work’. Professionals viewed the frameworks for innovation as variously common sense, a platform for bigger change and/or exciting: Contextual Safeguarding was referred to as “bloody obvious”; Transitional Safeguarding was believed to offer the means to “make significant changes across the whole organisation”; and one professional commented, “Nobody has ever said being trauma informed isn’t a good idea”. However, belief in the underlying values and a proven ability of these three innovation frameworks to improve experiences and outcomes for young people experiencing risk or harm are not the same thing.

Professionals spoke extensively about the challenges they experienced in embedding the chosen innovation framework and the new practice methods and systems it had spawned, including funding, leadership, inspections and bureaucracy. However, despite recognising the disconnect between their belief that the innovations should ‘work’ and a lack of evidence of that, this did not lead them to doubt the innovation frameworks themselves or whether they were possible to implement. If your primary task is based on the belief that the innovations will ‘work’, what do you do when the evidence you are presented with is that they have not ‘worked’ or may not work in your organisation? The phenomenal task, or the answer to the question ‘What are we really doing?’, is perhaps then avoiding talking about whether innovation frameworks themselves ‘work’ – in other words, ignoring the disconnect between what is hoped for and what is possible. In this final section, we consider the phenomenal task by asking, ‘What if the innovations cannot ‘work’ and what is the cost of not asking this question?’.

The cost it seems, as we saw in the previous section, is that professionals try to fill the gap themselves, often at a personal cost. Innovation leaders discussed their sense of guilt and dismay at the limited progress of their innovation project, and even recognised feelings of jealousy that someone else might be able to bring something to fruition that they had not. It was not, of course, a total picture of failure. Many felt that they were successfully embedding the innovations. In these sites, success was viewed as the result of the strengths of individual endeavours. Across the study, innovation leaders frequently asked us if other local authorities were implementing the innovation frameworks successfully and, if so, how were they achieving this. They looked for validation from our research team that others were also struggling to find practical solutions. However, they also had a seemingly genuine desire to hear of positive examples that they themselves could draw on, and we, also deeply invested, tried to meet their needs. We spoke of the struggles of other sites and tried to face up to difficult questions about the practical things people were doing in practice.

Instead of asking what factors and processes enable or inhibit innovations in sites, we turn now to asking, ‘What if these innovation frameworks do not/cannot work?’. What does this allow us to learn about social work today when seemingly common-sense approaches are so hard to implement? If we accept that Contextual Safeguarding, Trauma-informed Practice and Transitional Safeguarding should, in theory, work but are rarely presented with robust evidence of them being fully implemented or successful in addressing extra-familial risks and harms, we need to ask if it is ethical to bring them into social care departments, where the conditions may not be conducive to their successful development. This is not only because of the personal cost to those practitioners developing the work but because those likely to experience new systems or approaches that may not be beneficial or effective – young people and families – are some of the most marginalised in our societies.

We consider five provocations that could help our understanding of why these innovations might not, or cannot, ‘work’ (it should be noted how, even as we write this, we are fearful to write the more assertive ‘do not work’). First, the three innovation frameworks are premised on ethical and socially just approaches to working with young people. They require – as an absolute baseline – practitioners and services to care about young people and feel they have a right to safety. This is so much the case that with Contextual Safeguarding particularly, and with Transitional Safeguarding potentially, organisations and systems may need to increase the scope of work and the resources required to ensure that there are services for young people where there would otherwise not be. Do we, as adults, professionals, politicians, academics and the public, value young people enough to listen to them, respect them, care for them, provide them with what they need and, ultimately, put our hands in our pockets (Boddy, 2023)? Maybe the answer is ‘no’; if so, that would be one reason why these new frameworks would never ‘work’.

Second, these frameworks for innovation require us – even those of us who are so seemingly well intentioned – to look at how our own systems and practices inflict institutional harm. This must be done not as part of some audit process but through reflection and learning within an environment where it is safe to recognise our own limitations. We should not underestimate how challenging this is for those scrutinised by inspection frameworks and other forms of governance.

Third, what if the policy and practice infrastructure required to implement these frameworks is not sufficiently developed for authorities to utilise them? While there are differing principles and resources available for the three frameworks, they are not manualised, and arguably should not be. Is it just too early for the type of change proposed by these three frameworks?

Fourth, perhaps it is not possible to transfer principles from a strengths-based framework into social care systems that are often experienced by families and young people as surveilling, punishing and uncaring rather than supportive (Roberts et al, 2021), and where social workers and their decisions are scrutinised and assessed too. Finally, what if practitioners cannot see that the way they have interpreted and implemented the innovation frameworks are misaligned with their original intentions? Many practitioners and professionals we spoke with illustrated their accounts with positive examples of the way their local innovations were ‘working’. However, sometimes, the evidence we were presented with seemed to conflict with this, as we set out in one of our other project outputs (Firmin et al, forthcoming).

If there is any ‘truth’ to these provocations, then where do we go from here? First, we need to reflect, both individually and collectively, on our personal views and what we are/are not doing. In considering what it means for professionals to really care for, like or even love young people in the context of social care (for example, The Promise, Scotland, 2020), we all must ask ourselves, ‘Do we care sufficiently about young people and actively demonstrate that care?’, Second, we need to consider how we can more consistently apply a strengths-based approach and what possibilities this may open up. Finally, we (policy makers, professionals and researchers) need to create a practice environment that encourages and supports practitioners to stay true to values of social justice. We conclude with considering the implications of these points, asking, ‘What is it we cannot say?’.

Boundary transgressions and vested interests

Continuing a commitment to exploring parallel processes between the innovation sites and research team, it is not just practitioners who avoid questioning if the innovation frameworks or their local implementations ‘work’. After completing the data analysis for this chapter and identifying the themes, one of the authors stated: “The problem is, we need to be careful not to imply that the innovations don’t work.” Even as we write this, we sit uncomfortably with the idea that our critique might be used by some to dismiss these three innovation frameworks. As researchers, we are emotionally and socially committed to seeing that the public money invested in the practice sites and in our funded research project is used to good effect. Perhaps, in part, this is because we want to justify our existence. However, perhaps more importantly, we have all been drawn to this field because of our shared ethic of care and commitment to social justice: we want to help improve conditions for disadvantaged and vulnerable young people and their families. To this end, as researchers, we have at times stepped beyond the ethnographic outsider role envisaged by Smith (2005), where it would have been expected that we should observe without influence; instead, we have reflected back to our sites, at various points, what we were seeing and learning in order to support them on their journeys. If, when and how to do so was not a straightforward decision for us; however, ultimately, it would have ‘felt’ unethical not to do so – although it would have been perfectly within the bounds of our original research design. To coin a phrase, the personal and political, then, is methodological.

Some members of our research team have also been led to reflect on the extent to which we had a more personal investment in uncovering clear evidence that one or other of the innovation frameworks ‘works’, or at least offers strong promise. Where we had held a pivotal role in developing the underpinning innovation framework, we might also be fearful that, in acknowledging a current lack of evidence, or in even asking, ‘What if this framework might not “work”?’, we might lose funding, lose our jobs or lose credibility. As for innovators, so too for researchers: where a gap between theory, practice and evidence might be filled with personal cost, system conditions that allow for honesty, transparency and critical reflection become ever more essential.

Conclusion

What we have explored in this chapter is how innovation in social care involves professionals and researchers in a complex set of often unconscious and anxiety-laden tasks. At the existential level, we are preoccupied with responding to the neoliberal ruling relations that cause us to perform innovation success. Rather than acknowledging these relations, we enact defences against the unbearable thought that the context might be too hostile for innovation to take root and make a difference by working hard and often carrying emotional loads that are very difficult to bear. The aim of this chapter has been to support those involved in innovation to reach a more ‘depressive’ (Klein, 1952) or realistic position, which might include asking if these innovations are possible. This is about going beyond holding individuals to account for the failure or success of innovation. It requires a deeper examination of the way that defences are enacted at an organisational and systemic level.

Key chapter insights for policy and practice

  • Practitioners and researchers are caught within neoliberal ‘ruling relations’ that lead them to seek to perform innovation success.

  • Innovation successes and failures are often attributed to individuals rather than focusing on the organisational context that can facilitate or inhibit them.

  • Practitioners and researchers need to be supported to safely consider if and why innovations are/are not successful. They should ask:

    • What needs to change about the frameworks or local innovations to support them to ‘work’?

    • What needs to change about the ruling relations that govern the contexts in which they are developed to make progress possible?’

  • Aarons, G.A. and Palinkas, L.A. (2007) ‘Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: service provider perspectives’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services, 34(4): 41119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aarons, G.A., Hurlburt, M. and Horwitz S.M. (2011) ‘Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services, 38(1): 423.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Accept Mission (2023) ‘Improvement vs. innovation: defining the differences’, 16 March. Available at: www.acceptmission.com/blog/improvement-vs-innovation/ (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Archer, M. and Souleles, D. (2021) ‘Introduction: ethnographies of power and the powerful’, Critique of Anthropology, 41(3): 195205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baldwin, M. (2008) ‘Promoting and managing innovation: critical reflection, organizational learning and the development of innovative practice in a national children’s voluntary organization’, Qualitative Social Work, 7(3): 33048.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barrow Cadbury Commission (2005) Lost in Transition: Report of the Barrow Cadbury Commission on Young Adults and the Criminal Justice System. London: Barrow Cadbury Trust.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bason, C. (2018) Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society (2nd edn). Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Beckett, H. and Warrington, C. (2015) Making Justice Work: Experiences of Criminal Justice for Children and Young People Affected by Sexual Exploitation as Victims and Witnesses. Luton: University of Bedfordshire.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Billingham, L. and Irwin-Rogers, K. (2022) Against Youth Violence: A Social Harm Perspective. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

  • Bion, W.R. (1962) Learning from Experience. London: Heinemann.

  • Blase, K.A., Van Dyke, M., Fixsen, D.L. and Bailey, F.W. (2012) ‘Implementation science: key concepts, themes, and evidence for practitioners in educational psychology’, in B. Kelly and D.F. Perkins (eds) Handbook of Implementation Science for Psychology in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 1334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bloom, S.L. (2005) ‘The sanctuary model of organizational change for children’s residential treatment’, Therapeutic Community: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations, 26(1): 6581.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boddy, J. (2023) ‘Engaging with uncertainty: studying child and family welfare in precarious times’, Families, Relationships and Societies, 12(1): 12741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bovarnick, S., Peace, D., Warrington, C. and Pearce, J.J. (2018) Being Heard: Promoting Children and Young People’s Involvement in Participatory Research on Sexual Violence: Findings from an International Scoping Review. Luton: University of Bedfordshire.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (ed) (2005) Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. California, CA: Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, L. (2015) ‘A lasting legacy? Sustaining innovation in a social work context’, British Journal of Social Work, 45(1): 13852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, L. (2021) ‘Managing evidence and cultural adaptation in the international transfer of innovative social work models’, International Social Work, 64(2): 175186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, K. and Osborne, S.P. (2012) Managing Change and Innovation in Public Service Organizations. London: Routledge.

  • Brown, L. and Osborne, S.P. (2013) ‘Risk and innovation’, Public Management Review, 15(2): 186208.

  • Castro, F.G., Barrera, M. and Martinez, C.R. (2004) ‘The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: resolving tensions between fidelity and fit’, Prevention Science, 5(1): 415.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Castro, F.G., Barrerra, M. and Steiker, L.K.H. (2010) ‘Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions’, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1): 21339.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Centre for Public Impact (2021) ‘What we’re learning about reimagining government’, 27 April. Available at: www.centreforpublicimpact.org/insights/what-we-re-learning-about-reimagining-government (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clare, B. (2007) ‘Promoting deep learning: a teaching, learning and assessment endeavour’, Social Work Education, 26(5): 43346.

  • Cockbain, E. (2023) ‘Not even Suella Braverman’s own department agrees with her about “grooming gangs”’, The Guardian, 4 April. Available at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/04/suella-braverman-grooming-gangs-child-sexual-abuse-home-secretary-prejudice (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coliandris, G. (2015) ‘County lines and wicked problems: exploring the need for improved policing approaches to vulnerability and early intervention’, Australasian Policing, 7(2): 2536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coomer, R. and Moyle, L. (2017) ‘The changing shape of street-level heroin and crack supply in England: commuting, holidaying and cuckooing drug dealers across “county lines”’, British Journal of Criminology, 58(6): 132342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cooper, A. and Lees, A. (2015) ‘Spotlight: defences against anxiety in contemporary human service organizations’, in D. Armstrong and M. Rustin (eds) Social Defences against Anxiety: Explorations in a Paradigm. London: Karnac, pp 23955.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Costello, G.J., Conboy, K. and Donnellan, B. (2011) ‘An ecological perspective on innovation management’, 14th Annual IAM Conference, 31 August–2 September, Dublin: National College of Ireland.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2021) ‘UK innovation strategy: leading the future by creating it’. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-innovation-strategy-leading-the-future-by-creating-it (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009) Safeguarding Children and Young People from Sexual Exploitation. London: HMSO.

  • Department for Education (2022) ‘Children’s social care innovation programme: insights and evaluation’. Available at: www.gov.uk/guidance/childrens-social-care-innovation-programme-insights-and-evaluation (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Department for Education (2023) Stable Homes, Built on Love: Implementation Strategy and Consultation, Children’s Social Care Reform 2023, CP 780. London: Department for Education.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dettlaff, A.J., Weber, K., Pendleton, M., Boyd, R., Bettencourt, B. and Burton, L. (2020) ‘It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: the upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system’, Journal of Public Child Welfare, 14(5): 50017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeVault, M. (2006) ‘What is institutional ethnography?’, Social Problems, 53(3): 29498.

  • Dewar, C., Doucette, R. and Epstein, B. (2019) ‘How continuous improvement can build a competitive edge’, 6 May. Available at: www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-organization-blog/how-continuous-improvement-can-build-a-competitive-edge (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, M.A. (2007) ‘Organizing and the analytic third: locating and attending to unconscious organizational psychodynamics’, Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 12: 14264.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Finch, J. and Schaub, J. (2015) ‘Projective identification as an unconscious defence: social work, practice education and the fear of failure’, in D. Armstrong and M. Rustin (eds) Social Defences against Anxiety: Explorations in the Paradigm. London: Karnac, pp 30014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C. (2017) Contextual Safeguarding: An Overview of the Operational, Strategic and Conceptual Framework. Luton: University of Bedfordshire.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C. (2018) Abuse between Young People: A Contextual Account. Oxford: Routledge.

  • Firmin, C. (2020) Contextual Safeguarding and Child Protection: Rewriting the Rules. Oxford: Routledge.

  • Firmin, C. and Lloyd, J. (2020) Contextual Safeguarding: A 2020 Update on the Operational, Strategic and Conceptual Framework. Luton: University of Bedfordshire.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C. and Lloyd, J. (2022) ‘Green lights and red flags: the (im)possibilities of Contextual Safeguarding responses to extra-familial harm in the UK’, Social Sciences, 11(7): 303. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11070303 (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C., Warrington, C. and Pearce, J. (2016) ‘Sexual exploitation and its impact on developing sexualities and sexual relationships: the need for contextual social work interventions’, British Journal of Social Work, 46(8): 231837.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C., Lefevre, M., Huegler, N. and Peace, D. (2022) Safeguarding Young People Beyond the Family Home: Responding to Extra-Familial Risks and Harms. Bristol: Policy Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Firmin, C., Maglajlic, R., Hickle, K. and Lefevre, M. (forthcoming) ‘“Known to services” or “known by professionals”: relationality at the core of trauma-informed responses to extra-familial harm’.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fish, S. and Hardy, M. (2015) ‘Complex issues, complex solutions: applying complexity theory in social work practice’, Nordic Social Work Research, 5(1): 98114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FitzSimons, A. and McCracken, K. (2020) Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Round 2 Final Report. London: Department for Education.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friedman, R. and Wallace, F. (2005) Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of Florida.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Naoom, S. and Wallace, F. (2009) ‘Core implementation components’, Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5): 53140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Forrester, D., Westlake, D., Killian, M., Antonopoulou, V., McCann, M., Thurnham, A. et al (2018) ‘A randomized controlled trial of training in motivational interviewing for child protection’, Children and Youth Services Review, 88: 18090.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Foundations (2023) ‘Evidence-driven change making’. Available at: https://foundations.org.uk/ (accessed 3 October 2023).

  • Frosh, S. (2012) A Brief Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Garcia, A.R., DeNard, C., Morones, S. and Eldeeb, N. (2019) ‘Mitigating barriers to implementing evidence-based interventions in child welfare: lessons learned from scholars and agency directors’, Children and Youth Services Review, 100: 31331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gear, C., Eppel, E. and Koziol-Mclain, J. (2018) ‘Advancing complexity theory as a qualitative research methodology’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1): 110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Godar, R. and Botcherby, S. (2021) Learning from the Greater Manchester Scale and Spread Programme – Spreading Innovation across a City-Region. Dartington, Totnes: Research in Practice.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goldsmith, L.J. (2021) ‘Using framework analysis in applied qualitative research’, The Qualitative Report, 26(6): 206176.

  • Hampson, M., Goldsmith, C. and Lefevre, M. (2021) ‘Towards a framework for ethical innovation in children’s social care’, Journal of Children’s Services, 16(3): 198213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hanson, E. and Holmes, D. (2014) That Difficult Age: Developing a More Effective Response to Risks in Adolescence: Evidence Scope. Dartington, Totnes: Research in Practice.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hanson, R.F. and Lang, J. (2016) ‘A critical look at trauma-informed care among agencies and systems serving maltreated youth and their families’, Child Maltreatment, 21(2): 95100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harris, M.E. and Fallot, R.D. (2001) Using Trauma Theory to Design Service Systems. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hartley, J. (2006) Innovation and Its Contribution to Improvement: A Review for Policy Makers, Policy Advisors, Managers and Researchers. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Her Majesty’s Government (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. London: Stationary Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hickle, K. (2019) ‘Understanding trauma and its relevance to child sexual exploitation’, in J. Pearce (ed) Child Sexual Exploitation: Why Theory Matters. Bristol: Policy Press, pp 15172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hickle, K. and Lefevre, M. (2022) ‘Learning to love and trust again: a relational approach to developmental trauma’, in D. Holmes (ed) Safeguarding Young People: Risk, Rights, Relationships and Resilience. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp 15976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holling, C.S. (1987) ‘Simplifying the complex: the paradigms of ecological function and structure’, European Journal of Operational Research, 30(2): 13946.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holmes, D. (2022) ‘Transitional safeguarding: the case for change’, Practice, 34(1): 723.

  • Holmes, D. and Bowyer, S. (2020) ‘Transitional safeguarding: video blog’. Available at: www.theinnovateproject.co.uk/transitional-safeguarding (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holmes, D. and Smale, E. (2018) Transitional Safeguarding – Adolescence to Adulthood: Strategic Briefing. Dartington, Totnes: Research in Practice.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holmes, D.R. and Marcus, G.E. (2008) ‘Para-ethnography’, in L.M. Given (ed) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. California, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp 5957.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hudson, C.G. (2000) ‘At the edge of chaos: a new paradigm for social work?’, Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2): 21530.

  • Huegler, N. and Ruch, G. (2022) ‘Risk, vulnerability and complexity: transitional safeguarding as a reframing of binary perspectives’, Practice, 34(1): 2539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hunziker, S. and Blankenagel, M. (2021) Research Design in Business and Management. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

  • Hurst, D.K. and Zimmerman, B.J. (1994) ‘From life cycle to ecocycle: a new perspective on the growth, maturity, destruction, and renewal of complex systems’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 3(4): 33954.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Islam, G. (2015) ‘Practitioners as theorists: para-ethnography and the collaborative study of contemporary organizations’, Organizational Research Methods, 18(2): 23151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackson, D.B., Del Toro, J., Semenza, D.C., Testa, A. and Vaughn, M.G. (2021) ‘Unpacking racial/ethnic disparities in emotional distress among adolescents during witnessed police stops’, Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(2): 24854.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jesus, A. and Amaro, M.I. (forthcoming) ‘The growing rhetoric of entrepreneurship in times of crisis: future challenges of social work in the case of Portugal’, in J.P. Wilken, A. Parpan-Blaser, S. Prosser, S. van der Pas and E. Jansen (eds) Social Work and Social Innovation: Emerging Trends and Challenges for Practice, Policy and Education in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jones, R. (2018) In Whose Interest? The Privatisation of Child Protection and Social Work. Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Kaye, S., DePanfilis, D., Bright, C.L. and Fisher, C. (2012) ‘Applying implementation drivers to child welfare systems change: examples from the field’, Journal of Public Child Welfare, 6(4): 51230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keathley, J., Merrill, P., Owens, T., Meggarrey, I. and Posey, K. (2013) The Executive Guide to Innovation: Turning Good Ideas into Great Results. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, M. (1952) ‘The origins of transference’, The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 33: 4338.

  • Klein, M. (1973 [1955]) ‘On identification’, in M. Klein (ed), Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946–1963. London: Karnac, pp 14175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laird, S.E., Morris, K., Archard, P. and Clawson, R. (2018) ‘Changing practice: the possibilities and limits for reshaping social work practice’, Qualitative Social Work, 17(4): 57793.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lankelly Chase Foundation (2017) ‘Historical review of place-based approaches’. Available at: https://lankellychase.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Historical-review-of-place-based-approaches.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lawrence, G. (1977) ‘Management development … some ideals, images and realities’, in A.D. Coleman and M.H. Geller (eds) Group Relations Reader. Washington, DC: A.K. Rice Institute Series, pp 23140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M. (2023) ‘Contextual Safeguarding – does it work and how would we know?’. Available at: www.theinnovateproject.co.uk/contextual-safeguarding-does-it-work-and-how-would-we-know (accessed 5 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Hickle, K., Luckock, B. and Ruch, G. (2017) ‘Building trust with children and young people at risk of child sexual exploitation: the professional challenge’, British Journal of Social Work, 47(8): 245673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Hickle, K. and Luckock, B. (2019) ‘“Both/and” not “either/or”: reconciling rights to protection and participation in working with child sexual exploitation’, British Journal of Social Work, 49(7): 183755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Preston, O., Hickle, K., Horan, R., Drew, H., Banerjee, R. et al (2020) Evaluation of the Implementation of a Contextual Safeguarding System in the London Borough of Hackney. London: Department for Education.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Hampson, M. and Goldsmith, C. (2022) ‘Towards a synthesised directional map of the stages of innovation in children’s social care’, British Journal of Social Work, 53(5): 247898.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Holmes, L, Banerjee, R., Horan, R. and Hickle, K. (with Goldsmith, C., Paredes, F., Farieta, A., Baylis, S., Nasrawy, M., Huegler, N. and Bowyer, S.) (2023) ‘Evaluation of the process and impact of embedding Contextual Safeguarding in the London Borough of Hackney’. Available at: https://theinnovateproject.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Evaluation-of-embedding-Contextual-Safeguarding-in-Hackney_Final-published.pdf (accessed 29 September 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lefevre, M., Temperley, J. and Goldsmith, C. (forthcoming) ‘Creating a conducive context for innovation in children’s social care’.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lipmanowicz, H. and McCandless, K. (2013) The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures: Simple Rules to Unleash a Culture of Innovation. Seattle, WA: Liberating Structures Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lloyd, J., Hickle, K., Owens, R. and Peace, D. (2023) ‘Relationship-based practice and Contextual Safeguarding: approaches to working with young people experiencing extra-familial risk and harm’, Children and Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12787 (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lowe, T. and French, M. (2021) ‘The HLS principles: systems’, in Human Learning Systems (ed) Human Learning Systems: Public Service for the Real World. Cumbria: ThemPra Social Pedagogy, pp 7696. Available at: www.centreforpublicimpact.org/assets/documents/hls-real-world.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McPheat, G. and Butler, L. (2014) ‘Residential child-care agencies as learning organisations: innovation and learning from mistakes’, Social Work Education, 33(2): 24053.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Méndez-Fernández, A., Aguiar-Fernández, F.J., Lombardero-Posada, X., Murcia-Álvarez, E. and González-Fernández, A. (2022) ‘Vicariously resilient or traumatised social workers: exploring some risk and protective factors’, British Journal of Social Work, 52(2): 1089109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Menzies-Lyth, I. (1988 [1959]) ‘The functions of social systems as a defence against anxiety: a report on a study of the nursing service of a general hospital’, in I. Menzies-Lyth, Containing Anxiety in Institutions: Selected Essays, Vol. I. London: Free Association Books, pp 4388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, E.J. and Rice, A.K. (2013) Systems of Organization: The Control of Task and Sentient Boundaries. Oxford: Routledge.

  • Moore, M. (2013) Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Mosley, J.E., Marwell, N.P. and Ybarra, M. (2019) ‘How the “what works” movement is failing human service organizations, and what social work can do to fix it’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 43(4): 32635.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mulgan, G. (2014) ‘Innovation in the public sector: how can public organisations better create, improve and adapt?’. Available at: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/innovation_in_the_public_sector-_how_can_public_organisations_better_create_improve_and_adapt_0.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mulgan, G. (2019) Social Innovation: How Societies Find the Power to Change. Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Mulgan, G. with Tucker, S., Ali, R., and Sanders, B. (2007) Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010) ‘The open book of social innovation’, The Young Foundation/Nesta. Available at: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Audit Office (2022) Evaluating Innovation in Children’s Social Care. London: House of Commons.

  • Nesta (2016) Using Research Evidence: A Practice Guide. London: Nesta/Alliance for Useful Evidence.

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th edn, Paris and Luxembourg: OECD Publishing and Eurostat. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oeij, P.R., Wouter van der Torre, A., Vaas, F. and Dhondt, S. (2019) ‘Understanding social innovation as an innovation process: applying the innovation journey model’, Journal of Business Research, 101: 24354.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Office of the Chief Social Worker for Adults, Research in Practice, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, BASW (British Association of Social Workers), Care and Health Improvement Programme and the NWG Network (2021) ‘Bridging the gap: transitional safeguarding and the role of social work with adults – knowledge Briefing’, Department of Health and Social Care. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/bridging-the-gap-transitional-safeguarding-and-the-role-of-social-work-with-adults (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Owens, R. (2015) ‘Working together: using group relations theory to understand and rethink the interplay between administrators and social work practitioners’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(2): 2318.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peace, D. (forthcoming) ‘Contextual Safeguarding in the voluntary and community sector: opportunities and challenges’.

  • Pecukonis, E., Greeno, E., Hodorowicz, H., Park, H., Ting, L., Moyers, T. et al (2016) ‘Teaching motivational interviewing to child welfare social work students using live supervision and standardized clients: a randomized controlled trial’, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(3): 479505.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Preston-Shoot, M., Cocker, C. and Cooper, A. (2022) ‘Learning from safeguarding adult reviews about Transitional Safeguarding: building an evidence base’, The Journal of Adult Protection, 24(2): 90101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabinow, P., Marcus, G.E., Faubion, J.D. and Rees, T. (2008) Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Radford, L., Richardson Foster, H., Barter, C. and Stanley, N. (2017) Rapid Evidence Assessment: What Can Be Learnt from Other Jurisdictions about Preventing and Responding to Child Sexual Abuse. Preston: University of Central Lancashire.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rankin, J. (2017) ‘Conducting analysis in institutional ethnography: guidance and cautions’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1): 111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reynolds, V. (2011) ‘Resisting burnout with justice-doing’, The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 4: 2745.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roberts, L., Mannay, D., Rees, A., Bayfield, H., Corliss, C., Diaz, C. et al (2021) ‘“It’s been a massive struggle”: exploring the experiences of young people leaving care during COVID-19’, YOUNG, 29(4_suppl): S8199.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn). New York, NY: Free Press.

  • Ruch, G. (2007) ‘Reflective practice in contemporary social care: the role of containment’, British Journal of Social Work, 37(4): 65990.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruch, G. (2020) Understanding the Impact of Social Systems as Defences in your Organisation. Dartington, Totnes: Research in Practice.

  • Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D.T. et al (2017) ‘The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health’, The Lancet, 390(10112): 26024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Salzberger-Wittenberg, I. (1983) ‘Emotional aspects of learning’, in I. Salzberger-Wittenberg, G. Henry and E. Osbourne (eds) The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp 5376.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sapiro, B., Johnson, L., Postmus, J.L. and Simmel, C. (2016) ‘Supporting youth involved in domestic minor sex trafficking: divergent perspectives on youth agency’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 58: 99110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sawyer, S., Azzopardi, P., Wickremarathne, D. and Patton, G. (2018) ‘The age of adolescence’, The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 2(3): 2238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence) (2012) Introduction to Children’s Social Care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Government (2021) ‘Trauma-informed practice: a toolkit for Scotland’. Available at: www.gov.scot/publications/trauma-informed-practice-toolkit-scotland/ (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scottish Government (2023) ‘Criminal exploitation: practitioner guidance’. Available at: www.gov.scot/publications/practitioner-guidance-criminal-exploitation/documents/ (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sebba, J. (with Luke, N., Rees, A. and McNeish, D.) (2017) ‘Systemic conditions for innovation in children’s social care. Children’s social care innovation programme: thematic report 4’. Available at: www.education.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Systemic-conditions-for-innovation-in-childrens-social-care.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shuker, L. (2013) ‘Constructs of safety for children in care affected by sexual exploitation’, in M. Melrose and J. Pearce (eds) Critical Perspectives on Child Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 12538.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, D.E. (2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

  • Smith, D.E. and Griffith, A.I. (2022) Simply Institutional Ethnography: Creating a Sociology for People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, H. (2019) ‘Omniscience at the edge of chaos: complexity, defences and change in a children and families social work department’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 33(4): 47180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Social Exclusion Unit (2005) Transitions: Young Adults with Complex Needs. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  • Suh, E. and Holmes, L. (2022) ‘A critical review of cost-effectiveness research in children’s social care: what have we learnt so far?’, Social Policy and Administration, 56(5): 74256.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sweeney, A., Clement, S., Filson, B. and Kennedy, A. (2016) ‘Trauma-informed mental healthcare in the UK: what is it and how can we further its development?’, Mental Health Review Journal, 21(3): 17492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The Promise, Scotland (2020) ‘What must change: Plan 21–24’. Available at: https://thepromise.scot/what-must-change/plan-21-24 (accessed 13 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trevithick, P. (2014) ‘Humanising managerialism: reclaiming emotional reasoning, intuition, the relationship, and knowledge and skills in social work’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(3): 287311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tufail, W. (2015) ‘Rotherham, Rochdale, and the racialised threat of the “Muslim grooming gang”’, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4(3): 3043.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UK Research Integrity Office (2023) Code of Practice for Research. Croydon: UK Research Integrity Office.

  • Van der Pas, S. and Jansen, E. (forthcoming) ‘Regional learning networks in the social welfare domain: drivers of social innovation in social work’, in J.P. Wilken, A. Parpan-Blaser, S. Prosser, S. van der Pas and E. Jansen (eds) Social Work and Social Innovation: Emerging Trends and Challenges for Practice, Policy and Education in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wroe, L. (2022) ‘When helping hurts: a zemiological analysis of a child protection intervention in adolescence – implications for a critical child protection studies’, Social Sciences, 11(6): 263. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11060263 (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wroe, L., Peace, D., Bradbury, V. and Huegler, N. (2023) ‘Contextual Safeguarding across borders: the international applicability and feasibility of Contextual Safeguarding’. Available at: www.contextualsafeguarding.org.uk/media/o4doufgz/csab-international-findings-briefing.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Young Foundation (2012) ‘Defining social innovation, Deliverable 1.1 of the FP7-project: TEPSIE (290771)’. Available at: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TEPSIE.D1.1.Report.DefiningSocialInnovation.Part-1-defining-social-innovation.pdf (accessed 3 October 2023).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zuber, C.D., Alterescu, V. and Chow, M.P. (2005) ‘Fail often to succeed sooner: adventures in innovation’, The Permanente Journal, 9(4): 449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 709 709 64
PDF Downloads 58 58 7

Altmetrics