Editorial

Date19 September 2016
Pages189-190
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-08-2016-0016
Published date19 September 2016
AuthorMichael Little,Georgina Warner
Subject MatterHealth & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Children/youth,Parents,Education,Early childhood education,Home culture,Social/physical development
Michael Little and Georgina Warner
Shifting sands
The papers in this edition of the journal reflect to some extent the ever-changing nature of
research intended to inform social policy for children. We see some of the emerging trends in our
own work at Dartington, and in the interests of our collaborators mainly in the UK and the USA.
A good example is the renaissance of interest in agency the decisions a child or young person
makes that influence their future life chances. The great and productive interest in the risk and
protective factor model over the last three decades has tended to demote agency, treating the
individual as a passive responder to the good and bad influences in his or her life. Yet, as young
people exposed to the greatest disadvantage are often the first to say, I was exposed to lots of
challenges in life but I was the one who decided to take drugs and, if I am going to stop using
them, it will down to me again.
The challenge is to get beyond these first and once they are said somewhat obvious steps in
the recovery of agency in models of child and adolescent development. As Tulane and Oxford
philosopher Alison Denham said at one of our recent seminars, So much of what we do is
unchosen. Few of our decisions are final: we shilly-shally. Relatively little of what we resolve to do
reflects a scientific rational choice methodology that balances costs and benefits. Instead, we
subject ourselves to unhelpful heuristics and our resolution too easily wilts in the heat of social
expectation. Some of this can be seen in William Hansen and Jared Hansens analysis in this
edition of the way that adolescentsdecision-making changes over the course of their
development, and the bearing down of gender.
We also see a coming back to the role of emotions in child and adolescent well-being. Helena
Russell and Joel Harvey take an important but traditional perspective by drawing out the impact
on practitioners of supporting adolescents who are prone to sexually harmful behaviours. We
anticipate that future research will go further and look at the role of emotions in the trajectories of
children and adolescents.
For example, a recent enquiry undertaken by our unit into young people dealing with multiple
risks at one time being homeless and misusing substances and getting involved in crime
showed that many were driven away from the help that they needed by the sense of shame in
their circumstances and behaviours. Their shame, just like our own shame, leads to hiding away
from society. We also found that the young people were highly attuned to pity expressed by
those who reached out to help them, and where they found it they once again recoiled.
Probe a little further and the role of emotions becomes a little more complicated. Some,
reading our work, have commented that victims of maltreatment can see themselves as
deserving of blame , which on first hear ing sounds counter intuitive until one reflects that by
accepting blame the victim recovers some agency for what has happened. There are emotions
and there are managable emotions. The former can wreak havoc with good decision-making
and life chances, while the latter give the person in need of help as well as those who provide
that help a fighting c hance.
Agency and emotions are strongly implicated in what we are beginning to shorthand as C2O,
or connection to outcomes, which is where we place the article by Ann Hagell and Stephanie
Lamb on boosting the rate of referrals to a well-being centre for adolescents in London. In the last
three decades, as articles in this journal clearly demonstrate, the primary interest has been in
finding effective interventions. But if we cannot get people who can benefit from those
interventions to the front door, if we cannot get them to participate, then any gains will be
potential not real.
DOI 10.1108/JCS-08-2016-0016 VOL. 11 NO. 3 2016, pp. 189-190, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
j
PAG E 18 9
Editorial

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT