Child Care in Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cccp20

Editorial

Lars B. Kristofersen

To cite this article: Lars B. Kristofersen (2020) Editorial, Child Care in Practice, 26:3, 223-225,
DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2020.1760521

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2020.1760521

Published online: 29 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 88

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cccp20
CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE
2020, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 223–225
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2020.1760521

EDITORIAL

This issue of the journal Child Care in Practice is focusing on social rejection from peers, the
situation for asylum seekers in Ireland, children with terminal illness, social work in England,
physical abuse and disclosure, child centred practice and looked after children as decision
makers.
A number of important questions concerning children’s health and welfare are raised in this
issue of the journal. Children in various situations and with different challenges are facing
difficulties that are important for research and for teaching us how to improve our work in
different institutions and disciplines. “Cross over work” and cooperation between different
professions is important when we are facing children with multiple problems as physical or
mental health problems, poverty, physical or mental abuse and/or lack of care.
The first article “The Heartbreak of Social Rejection: Young Children’s Expressions about
How They Experience Rejection from Peers in ECEC”, is authored by Kari Nergaard. The
article gives insight into how children in early childhood education and care in Norway experi-
ence their situation. Data were conducted through video-recorded interviews with children
between 3.5 and 6 years old. The researcher was using a phenomenological hermeneutical
approach to examine the children’s experiences. Her findings reveal that the peer rejections
between children are experienced as stressful and emotionally painful events. The study
shows how the rejections from peers affect the children’s emotional state and impact their
social self-perception. The study gives advice to how create an inclusive and nurturing
social environment within ECECs that prevents peer rejections.
The second article “Practice guidance for culturally sensitive practice in working with chil-
dren and families who are asylum seekers: learning from an early years study in Ireland” is
authored by Caroline Mc Gregor, Colletta Dalikeni, Carmel Devaney, Lisa Moran and
Sheila Garrity. The article is based on data from two early years services in the West of
Ireland which was attended mostly by asylum seekers. The authors are using a sample of
findings for illustration. They are discussing how the study captured an example of culturally
sensitive practice that demonstrated an ability to counteract some of the negative effects of
being an asylum seeker. Eight specific practice points were drawn out and considered
within the context of the ecological model (Bronfenbrenner et al. 2006). Overall, the
findings of this study can inform training of a range of professions. That might be professionals
engaged with children and families from early years educators to teachers, youth and commu-
nity workers, social care workers and social workers. There is also wider applicability from this
specific study for working with diverse populations for social workers and social care prac-
titioners in a range of settings. The study also offers key messages specific to the early years
sector.
The third paper in this issue, “The Needs of Children with Terminal Illness: A Qualitative
Study”, is authored by Fanny Adistie, Valentina B. M. Lumbantobing and Nenden Nur
Asriyani Maryam. The purpose of the study is to examine the needs of children with terminal
illnesses from the perspective of nurses and parents. The response of each child to terminal
illness treatment is highly individual. This will affect the level and type of perceived needs.
The study was a qualitative descriptive study. The method used was in depth interviews

© 2020 The Child Care in Practice Group

224 EDITORIAL

with eight nurses and eleven parents and focus group discussion with seven nurses at a referral
hospital in West Java, Indonesia. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling. The
researchers used content analysis when they analysed their data. The researchers conclude that
the needs of a child with terminal illness are complex and require special attention from the
nurse. The nurses have a very important role and must be able to comprehensively assess
the needs of these children. They make efforts to improve the quality of life of children.
This includes the fulfilment of biological needs, a therapy programme with minimal side
effects, intervention to improve comfort, infection prevention and care. They need to
inform both the child and the parents and give them motivation.
The fourth paper is authored by Clive Diaz and Laureen Hill. The article, “A Critical Evalu-
ation of the Extent to Which the Reform and Modernisation Agenda Has Impacted on the
Professionalisation of Social Work in England”, starts with a discussion of what is meant by
a profession. The authors then explore whether the reform and modernisation agenda has
enhanced the professional quality of social work or whether it has been to detriment. Social
workers have seen a reduction in their ability to act independently. It is asserted that pro-
fessional knowledge therefore has been eroded. The authors posit that the reforms have not
contributed to service user’s life opportunities. It is concluded that this, alongside with man-
agerialism agenda, social work’s poor media profile and the question of being considered pro-
fessionals or not, has contributed to the continued lack of professional standing. The authors
discuss initiatives that may help improving the profile of the social work profession and the
outcome for service users. But they also state that the current government’s (2019) commit-
ment to these aims appears limited.
The fifth article, “Children’s disclosure of physical abuse – the process of disclosing and the
responses from social welfare workers”, is authored by Johanna Thulin, Cecilia Kjellgren and
Doris Nilsson. Children experiencing physical abuse by their parents are left with several
difficult questions. One of these questions are whether the child wants to disclose her or his
experiences of the physical abuse, and if yes, how the process of disclosure is experienced
from the children’s perspective. The present article aims at exploring the process of disclosing
the abuse and what type of responses the child received from the social workers in a Swedish
context. In depth interviews with 15 children with a history of physical abuse were obtained. A
qualitative content analyses was conducted in the study to understand the children’s experi-
ences. Some of the children described their everyday life before disclosure with an escalation
of violence urging them to act to prevent further abuse. Many of the children selected a trust-
worthy person of their information when they decided to disclose the physical abuse. It was
important for the children that the social service worker and the police informed them
about the further process. They emphasize the importance of trustworthy and competent
adults when disclosing physical abuse. The authors discuss ethical issues and implications
for practice in the conclusion of the paper.
The sixth paper, “Child-Centred Practice in a Bi- and Multi-Cultural Context: Challenges
and Dilemmas”, is authored by Nicola Atwool. The article takes as point of departure the social
service sector in New Zealand and their new Ministry for Children signalling a commitment to
practice being child-centred and trauma-informed. Atwool states that there is no shared
understanding of these two terms and their meaning in practice. The paper focuses on
child-centred practice and gives an overview of some of the events since the Children and
Young Persons and their Families Act was introduced in the year 1989. After a discussion
of the concepts care and protection and the shortcomings of those, the author discusses the
third option; child-centred practice. Three components of such a practice is discussed: An
understanding of power dynamics, a child’s right perspective and cultural competence. The
paper concludes with an overview of what will be needed. New Zealand 1989 child protection
 CHILD CARE IN PRACTICE 225

legislation introduced family group conferencing to the world. A significant paradigm shift is
now necessary. It will be needed to embed culturally appropriate child-centred practice and
consider the implications hereof within a global context.
The last article in this issue, “Looked After Children As Decision Makers: Family Group
Conferences in Practice”, is authored by Deanna Edwards, Kate Parkinson, Tim Fischer and
James Owen. The fundamental philosophy behind Family Group Conferences (FGCs) is
that families are experts on their own situation and as such should lead the decision
making. The model advocates that children should be in the centre of decisions and should
be supported to have their say in the FG Conferences. Many services offer FGCs to looked
after children, either to consider family alternatives to local authority care, to make contact
arrangements or to involve children in the care planning process. The article examines the
use of FGCs in engaging with looked after children. A case study approach is applied, focusing
on the Camden FGC Service in London. The service has been offering FGCs for looked after
children for several years. The researchers found that in practice the voice of the child some-
times could be overlooked in their FGC. Children also report that their opinions can get
ignored by the adults in their family. The paper concludes with a discussion about how to
ensure that looked after children are engaged to a meaningful degree in decision making
about their lives.
The papers in this issue of Child Care in Practice have different points of departure. But
they have in common valuable new knowledge to research and practice with children and
young people experiencing severe challenges in our society. These challenges are for some chil-
dren life threatening diseases, for other children difficult care situations, for still other children
experience of violence from parents. The articles offer new empirical knowledge from both
England, Ireland, Indonesia, from two of the Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Norway,
and from New Zealand. Some of the papers offer more overviews and theoretical guidelines
to the practice fields, others are more empirically driven. Some of the papers are discussing
the children’s rights. All the papers give important views to the international debate about
how we organize our health and social services for children. They all urge professionals,
both in general services as well as more specialized services, to listen to the voices of the
children.

Lars B. Kristofersen
Norwegian Social Research, NOVA, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
lars.b.kristofersen@oslomet.no