Parental Partnership, Advocacy and Engagement: The Way Forward

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the introduction paragraph - the first sentence feels like it should be cited as you are implying fact.

You do not provide any numbers around how the contributing groups gathered their information - is the analysis based on an n of 6 (one per each agency) or something larger?  How the results are interpreted could be impacted - an informed opinion piece or a piece based in research.

The concept of an s.47 report might not be known to an audience outside of England.

The first sentence on the last paragraph on page 5 reads like something is amiss.

The sources for 3.1 - various 2021 - I believe should be various 2019 - and the Tobis reference is not in the reference list.  The Casey paper has an important role in the paper and you use it to make a strong recommendation around peer support - however not all the reviewed literature in that paper showed positive outcomes (some were null).

On page 8 it would be helpful to discuss the approximate cost of such a legal system in dollars and resources.

In the conclusion of the paper you list the name of two children who died due to child maltreatment - I do not feel that the inclusion of the names strengthens the discussion nor does it add to the paper.  I would recommend that you exclude the names and instead refer to the fatal incidents.

Author Response

Firstly, thank you for your considered and constructive suggestions:

In the introduction paragraph - the first sentence feels like it should be cited as you are implying fact: The introduction has now been significantly changed. 

You do not provide any numbers around how the contributing groups gathered their information - is the analysis based on an n of 6 (one per each agency) or something larger?  How the results are interpreted could be impacted - an informed opinion piece or a piece based in research. We have now clearly set out the status of the article: a consultation focused on action, listening to marginalized voices and calling for change, not a funded piece of empirical research. We have also added detail to the section describing the consultation itself. 

The concept of an s.47 report might not be known to an audience outside of England. This has now been removed. 

The first sentence on the last paragraph on page 5 reads like something is amiss. As above, the article has now been significantly changed, and this sentence has been removed. 

The sources for 3.1 - various 2021 - I believe should be various 2019 - and the Tobis reference is not in the reference list.  The Casey paper has an important role in the paper and you use it to make a strong recommendation around peer support - however not all the reviewed literature in that paper showed positive outcomes (some were null). We have added the Tobis reference to the list, and removed discussion of the Casey paper. We have removed the various 2021 reference. 

On page 8 it would be helpful to discuss the approximate cost of such a legal system in dollars and resources. We are not able to do this, none of us has expertise on such costings. 

In the conclusion of the paper you list the name of two children who died due to child maltreatment - I do not feel that the inclusion of the names strengthens the discussion nor does it add to the paper.  I would recommend that you exclude the names and instead refer to the fatal incidents. We have removed reference to these cases. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I applaud the spirit of this submission that foregrounds the active contributions of (birth) parents and allies in presenting experiences of the child protection system in England.  The value of parent advocacy, and the need for transformational change are not in doubt.  However, in its current form, I do not believe this article meets the requirements for publication in this journal. Significant adaptations would be needed to fit with the aims of the special issue to which it has been submitted. 

It becomes clear reading through the paper that this submission is, in large part, a reshaping of a report, Children’s Social Care:  The Way Forward, for an academic audience, locating it within this special issue that seeks to centre child protection studies as a specific field of study.  However, it reads, at least in part, as a rejoinder to the recent review of children’s social care and making reference to the report on lessons learned from the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson.  The result is that the submission falls between a report, a campaigning argument with occasional use of polemic and hyperbole, and an academic piece linking empirical evidence of experiences of parents and their allies who have been exposed to the English child protection system, supported by evidence/argument from the literature.  To achieve the standard expected for publication as an article in this special issue attention to the following is needed:

·      Greater clarity about the purpose and value of the article in the context of the special issue (see the aims of the issue published in the journal).

·      Clarity about the status of the article and structure of the argument in the abstract/ introduction. 

·      More consistent clarification of the English context.  Remember the readership is international and the special issue is designed to look at child protection as an international issue.  There are many references to legislation/legislative sections, policy, the judicial system, inquiries etc. without explanation.

·      If presented as a research study with findings then there must be attention to:

o   origins, aims, methodology and methods (sampling, data collection and data analysis). Section 2 is headed ‘Consultation’ yet there is no mention in the abstract or introduction of consultation as the method used to generate the empirical data for the paper.  How did the consultation come about?  Any funding details?

o   ethical considerations.  In its current form there is no mention of ethical issues.

·      Critical coherence of argument ensuring a distinction between argument supported by earlier evidence/published argument and authors’ own evidence/argument

·      Presentation

o   thorough proof reading required to ensure accuracy and consistency

o   the piece would benefit from summarising in places. ‘Less can be more’.

·      Referencing

            o  check all text references appear in list.  Many are missing (eg. Tobis, Wall-Wieler, Dale, Wilkins & Forrester, Hunter et al)

                  o  check accuracy of author spelling (variable Morris/Morriss)

                  o  check/refer to context of cited references to avoid potential for using evidence/argument from one setting when referring to another.  Examples include:

First reference to Tobis:  These issues continue to generate significant barriers to engagement for families, few of whom feel either involved or respected when engaging with children’s social care (Dale, 2004; Tobis, 2013) suggests mismatch of argument (about England) and evidence (Tobis 2013 essentially about New York, USA).

Wall-Wieler et al 2018.  My understanding is that this is a Canadian study.

Smith et al 2020.  This refers to a study conducted in Spain.

References to quotes should also have page numbers (Ferguson et al (2020))  

Author Response

Firstly thank you for your detailed and constructive comments, these are our responses to the specific points you raised: 

Greater clarity about the purpose and value of the article in the context of the special issue (see the aims of the issue published in the journal). The article has undergone a significant re-write, in the process we believe it now sits more comfortably with the aims of this special issue. 

Clarity about the status of the article and structure of the argument in the abstract/ introduction. We have looked to address this in both the abstract and introduction. We have also re-structured and shortened the article itself. 

More consistent clarification of the English context.  Remember the readership is international and the special issue is designed to look at child protection as an international issue.  There are many references to legislation/legislative sections, policy, the judicial system, inquiries etc. without explanation. We have removed a number of these references, for example S.47 enquiries and reference to specific cases. We have re-written to make it clearer how the article links to the recent Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. 

If presented as a research study with findings then there must be attention to:

o   origins, aims, methodology and methods (sampling, data collection and data analysis). Section 2 is headed ‘Consultation’ yet there is no mention in the abstract or introduction of consultation as the method used to generate the empirical data for the paper.  How did the consultation come about?  Any funding details?

o   ethical considerations.  In its current form there is no mention of ethical issues.

We have more clearly described the status of this article and the consultation itself, notably at the start of section 2. That it is not a piece of funded empirical research, rather a consultation focussed on action and change. 

Critical coherence of argument ensuring a distinction between argument supported by earlier evidence/published argument and authors’ own evidence/argument: We have re-structured each sub-section within section 3 to first report the views shared in the consultation and then relate these to relevant academic literature. We have re-worked the whole article for the purposes of clarity of argument.  

Presentation

o   thorough proof reading required to ensure accuracy and consistency We have proof read the new version a number of times. 

o   the piece would benefit from summarising in places. ‘Less can be more’. The article is now significantly shorter and we believe more concise. 

Referencing

1. check all text references appear in list.  Many are missing (eg. Tobis, Wall-Wieler, Dale, Wilkins & Forrester, Hunter et al) We have now done this.
2. check accuracy of author spelling (variable Morris/Morriss) We have now done this.
3. check/refer to context of cited references to avoid potential for using evidence/argument from one setting when referring to another.  Examples include:

First reference to Tobis:  These issues continue to generate significant barriers to engagement for families, few of whom feel either involved or respected when engaging with children’s social care (Dale, 2004; Tobis, 2013) suggests mismatch of argument (about England) and evidence (Tobis 2013 essentially about New York, USA). We have removed the Tobis reference from this sentence. 

Wall-Wieler et al 2018.  My understanding is that this is a Canadian study. This reference is no longer included. 

Smith et al 2020.  This refers to a study conducted in Spain. In this section we have made clear that studies showing the benefits of open adoption are from across the globe. 

References to quotes should also have page numbers (Ferguson et al (2020))  This has been rectified.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

While the author/s have attempted to respond to the feedback on the original submission, there are a number of continuing concerns that, in my view, mean that this submission does not meet the standards of clarity (of argument) and critical scholarship required for publication in the journal.  While the topic is timely and important the following issues prevent a recommendation for publication:

One of the aims of the article is 'to present the transformative value of co-production in the context of child protection studies both as a form of critical scholarship and as a means to influence policy and practice'.   Yet with much of the article focusing on the views and experiences of 'parents and allies' the spirit of critical scholarship becomes lost.  Discussion of this second aim in the discussion section that comes late in the paper results in a loss of coherence about the process of the consultation.   

I have continuing concerns about attention to ethical issues.  The article now explains:  It is important to state that this consultation was focused on action, listening to marginalized voices and calling for change, not a funded piece of empirical research. It was undertaken as a response to the Care Review. Therefore, key empirical research steps such as ethics clearance did not have to be pursued.  This suggests poor understanding of the ethical underpinnings of work with users of organizations (some explanation of ‘enabling ethics’ that reflect the rights of individuals to participate in sharing their experiences/giving their views about services would have strengthened the overall argument) and contrasts with a sentence later in the article:  In line with Keddell and Hyslop’s (2018) assertion that progressive child protection practice and scholarship require political advocacy alongside practice reforms, it is important to acknowledge the explicit framing of the consultation process as an ethical and political act.

Written expression and proof reading remain significant concerns – I have marked up several places in the attached file where sentences could be shortened, expression could be clearer, repetitions avoided etc. to achieve greater succinctness (that would make the article more effective in conveying the intended messages).   I do not have time to do this throughout the whole article but hope the examples offered will help the authors to take the article to a higher standard of presentation for publication in future.

A much more carefully considered approach to proof reading is required.  Examples include:

·    the claim to refer to the ‘project’ as the consultation 'throughout', but failure to do so in practice, leaving muddled use of two terms to refer to the same thing. 

·    Inconsistency – eg. the number of participating organizations (five in the abstract, seven in section 2, PFAN + five named organizations in Box 1 Contributing Groups)

The importance claimed for genuinely critical scholarship (undefined/explained) and genuine partnership are not matched in written argument/evidence and descriptions of the consultation.  A couple of examples:

- Lack of careful attention to detail.  For example, misrepresentation of the key issues for change identified by the Case for Change Report.  'A system with a clear and confident purpose'.  However, the CfC report makes no reference to a 'confident' purpose.

·      ‘The contributors were asked to provide information from parents’ – this phrase contradicts the earlier argument in the introduction: ‘we present a project that attempts to challenge the traditional distinctions between researchers and research participants and between activism and research’.

     - A final, and broader, concern is that, while celebrating the inclusion of the recommendation to make parent advocacy more widely available in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, there is a disconnect between i) the consultation and its findings, ii) the argument about critical scholarship and taking a political stance and iii) the 'outcomes' of the project (which are not made clear though there seems to be an implicit suggestion that the  consultation report influenced the recommendations of the Independent Review).  As argued by the authors, the views and experiences of participants in this consultation chime with existing research findings, and the recommendations from the consultation certainly have strong face validity.  Yet there is little critical engagement (apart from passing reference to poverty and austerity) with: i) wider political, social and economic structures underpinning current policy and practice (and that may also threaten the implementation of the review’s recommendations) and ii) intersectional experiences (based on gender, social class, race/ethnicity etc.) that would help to identify inequalities within child protection processes.  In this respect it would have been helpful to offer some greater detail of the samples of contributors. OR, if this is not possible, to at least refer to publications that do engage with inequalities (see various papers by Bywaters).   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive feedback. We have significantly amended the article to address the points raised and offer an article with a clearer narrative and better standard of presentation. 

While the author/s have attempted to respond to the feedback on the original submission, there are a number of continuing concerns that, in my view, mean that this submission does not meet the standards of clarity (of argument) and critical scholarship required for publication in the journal.  While the topic is timely and important the following issues prevent a recommendation for publication:

One of the aims of the article is 'to present the transformative value of co-production in the context of child protection studies both as a form of critical scholarship and as a means to influence policy and practice'.   Yet with much of the article focusing on the views and experiences of 'parents and allies' the spirit of critical scholarship becomes lost.  Discussion of this second aim in the discussion section that comes late in the paper results in a loss of coherence about the process of the consultation. 

We have now introduced the concept of critical scholarship earlier in the paper and set out a clearer understanding of critical scholarship. The introduction now sets out the aims and contents of the article more clearly. We have significantly revised our methods chapter, adding more detail and a clearer narrative of what we did and why. We believe this article now presents a clearer narrative for the reader and thank the reviewer for commenting on the need for this.

I have continuing concerns about attention to ethical issues.  The article now explains:  It is important to state that this consultation was focused on action, listening to marginalized voices and calling for change, not a funded piece of empirical research. It was undertaken as a response to the Care Review. Therefore, key empirical research steps such as ethics clearance did not have to be pursued.  This suggests poor understanding of the ethical underpinnings of work with users of organizations (some explanation of ‘enabling ethics’ that reflect the rights of individuals to participate in sharing their experiences/giving their views about services would have strengthened the overall argument) and contrasts with a sentence later in the article:  In line with Keddell and Hyslop’s (2018) assertion that progressive child protection practice and scholarship require political advocacy alongside practice reforms, it is important to acknowledge the explicit framing of the consultation process as an ethical and political act.

We have revisited and revised the ethics part of the methods section, setting out more clearly the strong ethical underpinnings of our project. We have linked this to Butler’s ‘Code of ethics for social work and social care research’ and our embracing of an ethics of care throughout.

Written expression and proof reading remain significant concerns – I have marked up several places in the attached file where sentences could be shortened, expression could be clearer, repetitions avoided etc. to achieve greater succinctness (that would make the article more effective in conveying the intended messages).   

We have now repeatedly proof read our article and rectified a range of issues and thank the reviewer for their detailed focus on this.

A much more carefully considered approach to proof reading is required.  Examples include:

• the claim to refer to the ‘project’ as the consultation 'throughout', but failure to do so in practice, leaving muddled use of two terms to refer to the same thing We have rectified this.

Inconsistency – eg. the number of participating organizations (five in the abstract, seven in section 2, PFAN + five named organizations in Box 1 Contributing Groups): We have rectified this.

The importance claimed for genuinely critical scholarship (undefined/explained) and genuine partnership are not matched in written argument/evidence and descriptions of the consultation.  A couple of examples:

• Lack of careful attention to detail.  For example, misrepresentation of the key issues for change identified by the Case for Change Report.  'A system with a clear and confident purpose'.  However, the CfC report makes no reference to a 'confident' purpose. We have rectified this example and others we found through further repeated proof reading.
• ‘The contributors were asked to provide information from parents’– this phrase contradicts the earlier argument in the introduction: ‘we present a project that attempts to challenge the traditional distinctions between researchers and research participants and between activism and research’.  As above we have now significantly changed the methods section to set out a clearer narrative of what we did and how the project was collaborative at all stages.

A final, and broader, concern is that, while celebrating the inclusion of the recommendation to make parent advocacy more widely available in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, there is a disconnect between i) the consultation and its findings, ii) the argument about critical scholarship and taking a political stance and iii) the 'outcomes' of the project (which are not made clear though there seems to be an implicit suggestion that the  consultation report influenced the recommendations of the Independent Review).  As argued by the authors, the views and experiences of participants in this consultation chime with existing research findings, and the recommendations from the consultation certainly have strong face validity.  Yet there is little critical engagement (apart from passing reference to poverty and austerity) with: i) wider political, social and economic structures underpinning current policy and practice (and that may also threaten the implementation of the review’s recommendations) and ii) intersectional experiences (based on gender, social class, race/ethnicity etc.) that would help to identify inequalities within child protection processes.  In this respect it would have been helpful to offer some greater detail of the samples of contributors. OR, if this is not possible, to at least refer to publications that do engage with inequalities (see various papers by Bywaters).   

We have looked to address tis through reference to this critical literature base and recognition of intersectionality of disadvantage. Further as above, we have significantly revised the article to present a clearer and more coherent narrative.