•Summary: This article reviews evidence on how social workers incorporate legal rules in their decision-making. It draws on a small empirical study in which practitioners shared with each other, in peer interviews, examples of their own casework, followed by individual interviews with a researcher. Taken together, the conversations cast light on the extent to which legal knowledge is foregrounded in practitioners’ accounts of their work.
•Findings: The findings show that references to law are more likely to be implicit than explicit, particularly in adult social care, and that absence of legal references is a striking feature of the social workers’ narratives. The article draws on related literature to interrogate the potential reasons for the relatively low profile of ‘law talk’ and identifies four factors – lack of legal knowledge and confidence, reliance on organizational and procedural approaches, assumptions about the role of law in different service contexts, and individual orientations to practice – as significant factors in determining whether and how legal rules are relied upon. Thus it presents a more nuanced analysis of the relationship between law and practice than has hitherto been available.
• Applications: The findings are significant in casting light on the complex range of factors that present barriers to the robust and consistent implementation of legal rules in social work. They have implications – in particular for the role of organizational management in the audit, development and supervision of practice – that are particularly topical in the context of the work in England of the Social Work Reform Board.
BallCHarrisRRobertsGVernonS. (1988). The Law Report. Teaching and Assessment of Law in Social Work Education. CCETSW, London, paper 4:1.
2.
BeckettCMcKeigueBTaylorH. (2007). Coming to conclusions: Social workers’ perceptions of the decision-making process in care proceedings. Child and Family Social Work, 12(1), 54–63.
3.
Blom-CooperL. (1985). A child in trust: The report of the Panel of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Jasmine Beckford. London Borough of Brent.
4.
BrayeSPreston-ShootM. (2010). Practising social work law (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
Braye, S., & Preston-Shoot, M. (with Cull, L.-A., Johns, R., & Roche, J.) (2005). Teaching, learning and assessment of law in social work education. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
6.
BrayeSMarrableTPreston-ShootM. (2011). Law learning in action: An action learning project to evaluate processes and outcomes of using law e-learning objects in social work education. London: SCIE.
7.
BrayeSOrrDPreston-ShootM. (2011). Self-neglect and adult safeguarding: Findings from research. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
8.
BrayeSPreston-ShootMThorpeA. (2007). Beyond the classroom: Learning social work law in practice. Journal of Social Work, 7(3), 322–340.
9.
ButlerI. (2002). A code of ethics for social work and social care research. British Journal of Social Work, 32(2), 239–248.
10.
Care Council for Wales. (2004). Approval and Visiting of Degree Courses in Social Work (Wales) Rules 2004.
11.
CorbyB. (2003). Supporting families and protecting children: Assisting child care professionals in initial decision-making and review of cases. Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 195–210.
12.
DickensJ. (2007). Child neglect and the law: Catapults, thresholds and delay. Child Abuse Review, 16(2), 77–92.
13.
DickensJ. (2008). Welfare, law and managerialism: Inter-discursivity and inter-professional practice in child care social work. Journal of Social Work, 8(1), 45–64.
14.
DoelMAllmarkPConwayPCowburnMFlynnMNelsonPToddA. (2010). Professional boundaries: Crossing a line or entering the shadows?British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1866–1889.
15.
Drury-HudsonJ. (1999). Decision-making in child protection: The use of theoretical, empirical and procedural knowledge by novices and experts and implications for fieldwork placement. British Journal of Social Work, 29(1), 147–169.
16.
DuffyJCollinsM. (2010). Macro impacts on caseworker decision-making in child welfare: A cross-national comparison. European Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 35–54.
17.
EvansT. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386.
18.
EvansSHuxleyPWebberMKatonaCGatelyCMearsAMedinaJPalakSKendallT. (2005). The impact of ‘statutory duties’ on mental health social workers in the UK. Health and Social Care in the Community, 13(2), 145–154.
19.
FrostNRobinsonNAnningA. (2005). Social workers in multidisciplinary teams: Issues and dilemmas for professional practice. Child and Family Social Work, 10(3), 187–196.
20.
GelwickR. (1987). The way of discovery: An introduction to the thought of Michael Polanyi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
General Social Care Council (2002). Codes of practice for social care workers and employers. London: GSCC.
22.
HamiltonD J. (1996). The peer interview about complex events: A new method for the investigation of preinstructional knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 493–506.
23.
HatfieldB. (2008). Powers to detain under mental health legislation in England and the role of the approved social worker: An analysis of patterns and trends under the 1983 Mental Health Act in six local authorities. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1553–1571.
24.
HawkinsLFookJRyanM. (2001). Social workers’ use of the language of social justice. British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), 1–13.
25.
HM Government (2010). Building a safe and confident future: Implementing the recommendations of the Social Work Task Force. London: The Stationery Office.
26.
House of Commons Children, Schools & Families Committee (2009). Training of Children and Families Social Workers. Seventh Report of Session 2008–09. London: The Stationery Office.
27.
JohnsR. (2004). Of unsound mind? Mental health social work and the European Convention on Human Rights. Practice, 16(4), 247–259.
28.
LamingH. (2003). The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Lord Laming. London: HMSO.
29.
LamingH. (2009). The protection of children in England: A progress report. London: HMSO.
30.
LandauR. (1999). Professional socialization, ethical judgment and decision making orientation in social work. Journal of Social Service Research, 25(4), 57–74.
31.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of individuals in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
LymberyM. (1998). Care management and professional autonomy: The impact of community care legislation on social work with older people. British Journal of Social Work, 28(6), 863–878.
33.
MacIntyreGGreen ListerP. (2010). Evaluating learning using vignettes. In: BurgessHCarpenterJ (Eds.), The outcomes of social work education: Developing evaluation methods. Southampton: The Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work.
34.
McDonaldAPostleKDawsonC. (2008). Barriers to retaining and using professional knowledge in local authority social work practice with adults in the UK. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), 1370–1387.
35.
Northern Ireland Social Care Council. (2003). Framework specification for the degree in social work. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
36.
NygrenLBlomB. (2001). Analysis of short reflective narratives: A method for the study of knowledge in social workers’ actions. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 369–384.
37.
Ofsted (2009a). Learning lessons from serious case reviews: Year 2. Manchester: Ofsted.
38.
Ofsted (2009b). The annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/09. London: TSO.
39.
OsmondJO’ConnorI. (2004). Formalizing the unformalized: Practitioners’ communication of knowledge in practice. British Journal of Social Work, 34(5), 677–692.
40.
OsmondJDarlingtonY. (2005). Reflective analysis: Techniques for facilitating reflection. Australian Social Work, 58(1), 3–14.
41.
PerkinsNPenhaleBReidDPinkneyLHusseinSManthorpeJ. (2007). Partnership means protection? Perceptions of the effectiveness of multi-agency working and the regulatory framework within adult protection in England and Wales. Journal of Adult Protection, 9(3), 9–23.
42.
Preston-ShootM(2010). Looking after social work in its organisational context: Neglected and disconcerting questions. In AyrePPreston-ShootM (Eds.), Children’s services at the crossroads: A critical evaluation of contemporary policy for practice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
43.
Preston-ShootMWigleyV. (2002). Closing the circle – social workers’ responses to multi-agency procedures on older age abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 32(3), 299–320.
44.
Preston-ShootMRobertsGVernonS. (1997). ‘We work in isolation often and in ignorance occasionally’: On the experiences of practice teachers teaching and assessing social work law. Social Work Education, 16(4), 4–34.
45.
Quality Assurance Agency (2008). Subject benchmark statements: Social work. Gloucester: The QAA for Higher Education.
46.
ReynoldsB. (1965). Learning and teaching in the practice of social work. New York: Russell & Russell.
47.
Scottish Executive (2003). Standards in social work education: Framework for social work education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
48.
SheppardMRyanK. (2003). Practitioners as rule using analysts: A further development of process knowledge in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 157–176.
49.
Social Work Taskforce (2009). Building a safe, confident future. The final report of the Social Work Taskforce. London: DCSF.
50.
SprattT. (2001). The influence of child protection orientation on child welfare practice. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 933–954.
51.
TaylorB. (2006). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187–1207.
52.
TaylorHBeckettCMcKeigueB. (2008). Judgements of Solomon: Anxieties and defences of social workers involved in care proceedings. Child and Family Social Work, 13(1), 23–31.
