Discovery or Construction? Theorising the Roots of Adult Protection Policy and Practice

This paper outlines two models for understanding the roots of adult safeguarding/adult support and protection (ASP) policy and practice, and considers the strengths and limitations of each model in an educational context. The 'discovery' model understands ASP policy to be a response to a g...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social work education 2016-02, Vol.35 (2), p.119-130
Main Author: Sherwood-Johnson, Fiona
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
abuse
adult safeguarding
Adult support and protection
Adults
At risk populations
Consciousness
constructionism
Discovery
epistemology
Ethical dilemmas
neglect
ontology
Political participation
Protection
realism
Social protection
theory
training
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper outlines two models for understanding the roots of adult safeguarding/adult support and protection (ASP) policy and practice, and considers the strengths and limitations of each model in an educational context. The 'discovery' model understands ASP policy to be a response to a growing societal awareness of a phenomenon called 'harm' to 'adults at risk'. It understands ASP practice to be triggered by the discovery of an instance of that phenomenon. The 'construction' model understands ASP policy to reflect a particular characterisation of the problem(s) at stake, contingent on particular historical, cultural and political influences. It understands ASP practice to be actively engaged in re-constructing 'harm', 'adults at risk' and 'ASP' itself. The discovery model is argued to be useful in delivering a clear, basic message to practitioners about harm and abuse, particularly where time and the potential for interaction in educational contexts are limited. The construction model is argued to be useful in connecting more deeply with practitioners' lived experiences, promoting political engagement and developing professional judgement informed by ethical debate.
ISSN:0261-5479
1470-1227
DOI:10.1080/02615479.2015.1130804