Missing the targets and being misunderstood: Child phonology and interactive problems

Effects of vowel variation on interaction are considered, with particular relevance to their role in conversational breakdown. The effect of speaker knowledge and experience is noted as a variable in developmental progress which must inform profiling decisions, and the need for appropriate taxonomies of speech varieties is emphasized as a precursor to clinical and educational assessments. It is noted, too, that a shared sociolinguistic background between speaker and listener does not always resolve difficulties arising from non-target realizations, casting some doubt on ideas that assessors always possess a guaranteed sense of phonological variability and its effects. Hence, an informed understanding of phonological variation, rather than merely awareness that such variation exists, is advocated.

Mandated prevention in child welfare: Considerations from a framework shaping ethical inquiry

Summary: This article outlines a framework for approaching ethical dilemmas arising from the development, evaluation and implementation of child welfare policies. As such, it is relevant to policy-makers, social researchers and social workers. The central tenets of the framework are developed by drawing on ideas from moral philosophy and critical social theory. These ideas are presented as axioms, theorems and corollaries, a format which has been employed in the social sciences to offer a rational justification for a set of claims. • Findings: This process of reasoning leads to four principle axioms that are seen to shape the ethical scrutiny of social policy: 1) problematizing knowledge; 2) utilizing structured forms of inquiry to enhance understanding; 3) engendering enabling communication with those affected by the ethical concern; and 4) enhancing self-awareness. • Applications: The four axioms are then applied, by way of example, to the current and contentious, 'third way' policy of mandated prevention in child welfare, where the aim is to obviate deleterious outcomes in later life. It is argued that the framework can be applied beyond this specific concern to other pressing, ethical challenges in child welfare.

Explicit argumentation as a supervisory tool for decision making in child protection cases involving human rights issues

This paper addresses the problems often faced by social workers and their supervisors in decision making where human rights considerations and child protection concerns collide. High profile court cases in the United Kingdom and Europe have consistently called for social workers to convey more clarity when justifying their reasons for interfering with human rights in child protection cases. The themes emerging from these case law decisions imply that social workers need to be better at giving reasons and evidence in more explicit ways to support any actions they propose which cause interference with Convention Rights. Toulmin (1958, 1985) offers a structured approach to argumentation which may have relevance to the supervision of child protection cases when social workers and managers are required to balance these human rights considerations. One of the key challenges in this balancing act is the need for decision makers to feel confident that any interventions resulting in the interference of human rights are both justified and proportionate. Toulmin’s work has already been shown to have relevance for assisting social workers navigate pathways through cases involving competing ethical and moral demands (Osmo and Landau, 2001) and more recently to human rights and decision making in child protection (Duffy et al, 2006). Toulmin’s model takes the practitioner through a series of stages where any argument or proposed recommendation (claim) is subjected to intense critical analysis involving exposition of its strengths and weaknesses. The author therefore proposes that explicit argumentation (Osmo and Landau, 2001) may help supervisors and practitioners towards safer and more confident decision making in child protection cases involving the interference of the human rights of children and parents. In addition to highlighting the broader context of human rights currently permeating child protection decision making, the paper will include case material to practically demonstrate the application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation to the supervision context. In this way the paper adopts a strong practice approach in helping to assist practitioners with the problems and dilemmas they may come up against in decision making in complex cases.

Championing the interface between mental health and child protection: evaluation of a service initiative to improve joint working in Northern Ireland

The importance of establishing effective interagency working between adult mental health services and child care services in order to safeguard children has been repeatedly identified by research, policy, inquiries and inspection reports. This article reports on the evaluation of an initiative in one Health and Social Care Trust in Northern Ireland that aimed to facilitate joint working and so improve service provision and protection for children and families. The Champions Initiative involved identifying a champion in each multi-disciplinary community mental health team and in each family and child care team who would have responsibility for providing information, promoting joint working and identifying any obstacles to better co-operation. The evaluation of this initiative assessed levels of experience, training, confidence, understanding and awareness in the Champions and their team members at baseline. The Champions and their Team Leaders were then followed-up after six months to obtain their qualitative views of the impact of the initiative. The results include comparisons between mental health and child care staff, and crucially, views about whether the initiative has had any impact on working together. This study also generated recommendations for further service development in this complex and important area of practice.

The genetics of coronary heart disease: The contribution of twin studies

Despite the decline in coronary heart disease in many European countries, the disease remains an enormous public health problem. Although we know a great deal about environmental risk factors for coronary heart disease, a heritable component was recognized a long time ago. The earliest and best known examples of how our genetic constitution may determine cardiovascular risk relate to lipoprotein(a), familial hypercholesterolaemia and apolipoprotein E. In the past 20 years a fair number of polymorphisms assessed singly have shown strong associations with the disease but most are subject to poor repeatability. Twins constitute a compelling natural experiment to establish the genetic contribution to coronary heart disease and its risk factors. GenomEUtwin, a recently funded Framework 5 Programme of the European Community, affords the opportunity of comparing the heritability of risk factors in different European Twin Registries. As an illustration we present the heritabilities of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, based on data from over 4000 twin pairs from six different European countries and Australia. Heritabilities for systolic blood pressure are between 52 and 66% and for diastolic blood pressure between 44 and 66%. There is no evidence of sex differences in heritability estimates and very little to no evidence for a significant contribution of shared family environment. A non-twin based prospective case/cohort study of coronary heart disease and stroke (MORGAM) will allow hypotheses relating to cardiovascular disease, generated in the twin cohorts, to be tested prospectively in adult populations. Twin studies have also contributed to our understanding of the life course hypothesis, and GenomEUtwin has the potential to add to this.