Tag Archives: communication

We have to talk about adoption – Feedback from the Bristol Performance

The first performance took place on 28th September at the Arnolfini in Bristol and the second will be taking place in London on 28th October 2017 – see here for further details and how to register for tickets.

I have written before about the process of preparing for the performance and want to take some time to consider the feedback from the Arnolfini – did we meet our objectives of ‘having an intimate conversation’ with the audience, did we succeed in showing the audience another perspective on an area they might not have thought much about before? Were we able to empower others to take this conversation into other areas of their lives and to continue this very necessary discussion?

My feedback

I wanted to ask the following questions – because I don’t know the answers and I don’t think we are collectively having open and honest discussions about these issues:

Can we make happy families?
Can we impose identity on a child?
Do we need to ‘rescue’ children or should we be trying to support unhappy families?
What is really at the heart of our child protection system and adoption and why aren’t we talking about this?

I was surprised how nervous I felt during the dress rehearsal – it was the first time using the actual space where the performance would take place. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how that anxiety diminished once the audience were actually there and even more pleasantly surprised by how the conversation developed afterwards.

Now, instead of dreading the London performance, I am in fact looking forward to it and to have a further arena for discussions. Because, and rather obviously, we will never get answers to questions if we don’t ask them.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZWwcE1B-Zu/?taken-by=sarah_phillimore

Pamela Neil on stage during dress rehearsal

Feedback from others

After the performance, Pamela Neil,the artist I collaborated with to create the performance, contacted those who had attended for feedback. We are very grateful for all the thoughtful comments and will give some thought to how best to respond and incorporate any changes into the London performance.

The following are some of questions posed and the text in bold are some of the responses.

What did you enjoy? the chance to hear some familiar concepts developed at a pace that i could absorb differently to their normal context (when sarah and I are cross and ranting to one another about the situation)
Are your ideas about adoption different now, following the performance? actually yes, pushed slightly further along the spectrum than i was from enthusiastic to worried
Has the performance inspired you to engage with the problem discussed? yes. i am already engaged with it, as i suspect were most of the audience, but it was helpful to look at things from a new angle. I found the analogies helpful.
If you could suggest one change to enhance future performances, what would it be? to let the audience know what was expected in terms of questions and participation at the end. I think only those who knew sarah felt empowered to participate. I don’t know how you could better manage that and the fact that some were quite pushy in terms of ensuring that the conversation is with new people not just those who are already part of it – other than by explicit invitation.

One attendee echoed that last concern about how people can be empowered to join in the conversations:

I was hoping for a conversation about the possibility of co-parenting and whether FDACs were a good model to follow but the after-show conversation felt exclusive and I didn’t say anything. I didn’t know who was speaking, what the issues were, nor the previous history between Sarah and the speakers, although I could feel the tension. I think it would have been helpful if speakers had been invited to introduce themselves and the organisations they were representing. I was watching people’s body language during the performance and saw lots of discomfort – I hoped social workers, if there were any there, would speak out at the end and perhaps they did but I left when I felt it was a private conversation that was re-hashing old arguments rather than discussing a way forward.

We clearly need to give some thought as to how to avoid any impression that what is happening is a ‘private conversation’ – this may be an inevitable consequence of holding the first event in Bristol where the audience were more likely to know me. Hopefully a London audience can be more diverse and conversations can be less about historic tensions and more about fresh perspectives.

However, this commentator did find the performance valuable:

There was lots of food for thought and I wanted to thank Sarah; it is good to hear other perspectives – our focus can become too narrow. I hope it will encourage the different systems to work together more closely and explore alternative ways of looking after children perhaps based on evidence from other countries.

I hope that the conversations can continue in London on October 28th.

Translation of professional jargon and avoiding cliches

This is a work in progress. We would like to continue adding to this list. Please feel free to make your own suggestions or comments about the included phrases and their definitions.

Translation of jargon phrases

What Professionals say	What parents hear	What you should say
‘disguised compliance’	I can’t do anything right	Nothing. If you think parents are not genuinely engaging then test their engagement. Continue to assess.
‘attachment’	They don’t think I love my child	We are worried about the way your child understands the world around him, and who he can trust to keep him safe. This sometimes happen if parents find it hard to be consistent in the way they look after a child. Here are some things we can do to make things better for you and your child.
‘good enough parenting’	As long as I don’t hit my child, I’m ok	No parent can ever be perfect. But every child deserves to have his basic physical and emotional needs met. A lot of the time, that means parents are going to have to put the children’s needs first and above their own particularly while the children are very young and vulnerable.
‘pre-contemplative stage’	????	It is often difficult to make changes to the way you live your life. Making changes comes in stages – first you have to recognise you have a problem, then you have to do something about it and then you have to keep doing it! If parents haven’t even got to the first stage of recognizing they have a problem, then it is difficult to help them
Significant emotional harm	As long as I don’t hit my child, I’m ok	Children can get hurt in all sorts of ways, not just by being hit. If they are ignored, shouted at or never praised, this can make it hard for them to grow up feeling good about themselves. Adults who don’t feel good about themselves are often very unhappy and sometimes make bad choices in their lives, which hurt them and everyone around them. Children deserve a chance to be able to grow up into happy adults.
Future risk of harm	Social workers think they can gaze into a crystal ball and take my child away for no real reason	If something happened in the past then there is a risk it will happen in the future. But no one is a prisoner of their past. You can show that you understand what went wrong before and that you want to change it. But you don’t accept anything did go wrong, and you won’t work to try and change it, then the court will be worried about what is likely to keep on happening in the chld’s future.

Words and phrases to avoid

Some words and phrases are not helpful in either establishing or maintaining a relationship between professionals and parents. They are seen as inflammatory and/or cliches .

There is a danger that such phrases are used as a convenient shorthand for a bundle of concerns which may lead to professionals failing to properly analyse what it is about the particular examples that is causing legitimate concern. Also, people find it difficult to engage with or listen to someone who appears to be talking in cliches.

For example: avoid saying ‘Parent X is lacking insight into his problems with substance abuse’. Instead say: Parent X has been using drugs for a long time and has not got any help to stop, even though I have asked him to and given him the address for where he needs to go to get help. Therefore i am worried Parent X just doesn’t understand that he has a serious problem with drug use and I don’t think he can safely look after his children unless he deals with this’.

It is always better to speak plainly and provide examples of actions or failure to act so that everyone is clear exactly what the problem is and what, if anything can be done about it.

Examples of words and phrases that are becoming unhelpful cliches/are not easily understood

I can see an immediate distinction here between legal ‘terms of art’, such as ‘recusal’ and phrases which risk slipping into unhelpful cliche, such as ‘lack of insight’.

Please add in the comments any words/phrases you think should be on this list.

collusion
core assessment
CP Conference
domestic violence
emotional attunement
failure to engage
guardian ad litem
holistic needs
lack of insight
minutes of meeting
orange book assessment [I have no idea what this is!]
personality traits
professionals meeting
recusal
redacted
social work assessment

‘Disguised compliance’ as example of Jargon and Cliche – the chilling effects on working relationships

“… they are basically stripping us of any rights we have, freedom of speech, our private life, freedom of choice, taking away our descion making and how the sw precieves this Is exactly how it is there is no other version of things in their eyes their’s is the only view that’s right and if your don’t conform to it then you are being disguise compliance well it really is a case of do as I say or reap the consequences…”

This post arises out of a discussion on Facebook. The phrase ‘disguised compliance’ appears to be used more frequently in care proceedings recently. What does it mean? What do parents think it means? Is this just another example of the potentially very damaging impact of jargon upon effective communication and good working relationships?

You may also be interested to see our post where we attempt to translate some of the more commonly used profession jargon.

What is ‘disguised compliance?’

The NSPCC provide this definition:

‘Disguised compliance’ involves a parent or carer giving the appearance of co-operating with child welfare agencies to avoid raising suspicions, to allay professional concerns and ultimately to diffuse professional intervention.

The term is attributed to Peter Reder, Sylvia Duncan and Moira Gray who outlined this type of behaviour in their book Beyond blame: child abuse tragedies revisited :

“Sometimes, during cycles of intermittent closure, a professional worker would decide to adopt a more controlling stance. However, this was defused by apparent co-operation from the family. We have called this disguised compliance because its effect was to neutralise the professional’s authority and return the relationship to closure and the previous status quo.” (Reder et al, 1993, pp 106-7).1

Examples of disguised compliance would be a sudden increase in school attendance, attending a run of appointments, engaging with professionals such as health workers for a limited period of time, or cleaning the house before a visit from a professional.

Impact of use of jargon in working relationships between parents and professionals.

‘Jargon’ is defined in this way by Tony Proscio

The technical definition of jargon, the strictest, is language that is so technical that a person outside the field, the layperson so to speak, wouldn’t understand it, but that’s not the way most people that I work with think about jargon and it’s not generally the way I use the word either. For me, the definition of jargon is language that stops the reader instead of encouraging the reader to keep going, reader or listener. It’s language that either is grating or hard to figure out or seemingly wrong in some way that makes the reader or the listener stop and, instead of paying attention to your point, pay attention to your language.

Kate Wells has written about the importance of using language to communicate between social worker and parent. There is clearly a danger that the use of jargon seriously impedes communication. It may reassure the professional as a badge of their intelligence or learning – but it alienates, frustrates and confuses the lay person.

Mark Neary wrote about the use of jargon he encountered in the adult care system for his autistic son, and how this use of language meant his son’s life was further defined as ‘not normal’. For example where Mark Neary simply had ‘friends’ his son had a ‘circle of support and influence’. The alienating impact of this kind of language is clear.

But ‘disguised compliance’ is not simply jargon, it is also a cliche. It appears to be used increasingly frequently in assessments of parents. The negative impact of cliches is described in this way by Tony Poscio, in answer to the question why cliches are so irritating:

It’s partly the effect of just hearing anything over and over and over again. After a while you just get first bored and then irritated. Hearing the same word used repeatedly gives the subtle, maybe subliminal, impression that the person speaking or writing doesn’t have much of a vocabulary. That is it actually undermines the impression that the writer is trying to give of intelligence or mastery of the subject and instead replaces it with the only word this person knows. We don’t necessarily know we’re doing it. In fact, I may be doing it in this call and you’ll probably get ten emails later saying the jerk was doing exactly what he was criticizing and that maybe because it is a human tendency when you find a word that works, that describes what you want it to describe, you tend to use it over and over again, but it’s a harmful tactic for communication because the effect on the reader is just grating.

The further danger of use of the term ‘disguised compliance’ is the frustration it causes in parents who cannot see what they can do to show professionals that they are taking concerns on board. If the parents refuse to co-operate they are viewed with suspicion; but co-operating doesn’t help either as this will be reduced to ‘disguised compliance’.

The use of jargon and cliche is particularly infuriating for parents when it is seen as an attempt to mask hypocrisy or lazy thinking. For example, a typical complaint from many parents, is if they are late for contact with their children, this will be written up as evidence of their lack of consideration for their children or their inability to plan their lives. Social workers who are late for appointments however will blame traffic jams.

Views of a parent

I’m speechless I’ve spent a couple of hours reading about disguise compliance and my honest view everyone on here is disguise compliance because we are taking a stand. Some of the advice on community care for social workers is don’t ever believe a parent, anyone that makes a complaint has issues with authorities, a parent may have a good relationship with one professional they clearly got motives to hide abuse … if u don’t agree to the appointment they want to have with you because u made plans three weeks ago to meet up with a friend who you haven’t seen for a long time and they ring up the day before or sometimes hours before because you say you can’t your busy but any other day is fine you are avoiding in their eyes.
If they turn up early or late for appointment and you have not quite made it home or you have waited in hours for them.and you had to go out again you are hiding something if you refuse to consent to given the access to your medical records you are hiding something, well no you keeps saying the concerns are with my child why do u need to know my personal medical history it’s not going to show if the child is ill is it, they are basically stripping us of any rights we have, freedom of speech, our private life, freedom of choice, taking away our descion making and how the sw precieves this Is exactly how it is there is no other version of things in their eyes their’s is the only view that’s right and if your don’t conform to it then you are being disguise compliance well it really is a case of do as I say or reap the consequences…

Conclusions

There are strong temptations to slip into ‘industry speak’ – as a sign of your belonging, as effective shorthand when communicating with other professionals, etc. But we have to be aware of the impact of our language. Not only can it serve as a barrier to communication but it can have a detrimental impact on our ability to think about what we are really saying and what we really mean.

It was recognised and discussed at the Child Protection Conference in June 2015 that there was work to be done on simplifying and humanising the language used by professionals. Delegates were asked to give their definitions of commonly used phrases in care proceedings such as ‘pre-contemplative stage’ or ‘attachment’. Even when people were confident that the meaning of the word was ‘clear’ there were a great many variations on the definitions they gave; the words and phrases did not mean the same things to the same people.

Tony Proscio was asked if people got better results when they’re more direct, when they use simple language and avoid phrases like “engagement” or “advocacy,” . He answered:

… If the objective is to inspire people or to sort of prod them to action, the sounds and the words they hear ought to strike them as coming from friends and allies, not from a disgruntled professor. The whole point of inspiring people to do things is that you reach them at a level that’s both emotional and intellectual. The emotions are stirred by emotional speech and the intellect is stirred by originality. Neither of those things is going to come from a lot of cliché, jargon, abstractions, and technicalities.