Safeguarding Q-Sort
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Q-methodological analysis of factors influencing service user and professional views in children’s safeguarding work.
IRAS ID
158743
Contact name
Rachel Anne Sempija
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Durham
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 3 months, 7 days
Research summary
As Serious Case Reviews (SCR's) consistently demonstrate, it is the interaction and complexity of child protection collaborators’ perceptions that create an arena for outcome measures (which are themselves contingent and contentious). The value of understanding these complex, relationship-based processes has clear implications for promoting the wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable and 'hard to reach' young people. Understanding lived experiences has applications in many areas, including how young people can contribute to work designed to safeguard them and improve practice in child protection. Existing literature suggests that actual consultation about helping provisions with service users - and particularly young people - remains uncommon. Voices are often constructed and constrained by frameworks of measures and outcome indicators permeated with the values of professionals. That is, there is a need for studies that explore how safeguarding collaboration is perceived, shaped and understood by those directly involved in the process. Q-methodology and follow-up interviewing are utilised to examine participant perspectives to manage the likelihood of concealed attitudes in the defensive culture of children's safeguarding. Q is useful for eliciting opinion in politically sensitive domains. It allows participants to express personal views which they otherwise would be less willing to reveal in more traditional survey methods or via more invasive observational methods. The term 'Q' comes from the way data is factor analysed. Traditional 'R' methodologies (coming from the r for correlation coefficient) compare traits across individuals whereas Q compares individuals (through sets of sorting choices) - an inversion.
REC name
Social Care REC
REC reference
15/IEC08/0058
Date of REC Opinion
17 Nov 2015
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion