6-8 pages Child and Youth care

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Knowing, Doing and Being in Context: A Praxis-oriented Approach to Child and Youth Care

Jennifer White

Published online: 20 October 2007 � Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract Engaging with youth and families in collaborative and respectful ways; taking practical actions to create the conditions for young people to experience meaning, worth

and connection; supporting them to imagine hopeful futures for themselves; and bringing

oneself fully to the therapeutic relationship are all hallmark characteristics of child and

youth care (CYC) practice. Those who do this work and those who prepare practitioners for

the field recognize the need for conceptual frameworks that can adequately represent the

complexities of everyday CYC practice. By taking up the notion of praxis as knowing,

doing and being in context, I hope to plant some fresh seeds to animate and extend current

conceptualizations of everyday CYC practice.

Keywords Child and youth care � Praxis � Conceptualiztions of practice � Professional development

Like many of the other human caring professions, everyday child and youth care (CYC)

practice is complex, unpredictable, and value-laden. It is also highly relational work that is

deeply embedded within very specific local contexts. Engaging with children, youth,

families and communities in collaborative and respectful ways; taking practical actions to

create the conditions for young people to experience meaning, worth and connection;

supporting them to imagine hopeful futures for themselves; and bringing oneself fully to

the therapeutic relationship are all hallmark characteristics of CYC practice. Those who do

this work and those who prepare practitioners for the field recognize the need for dynamic

conceptual frameworks that can adequately represent the complexities of everyday CYC

practice, while also offering a practical tool for critical reflection and analysis.

Building on the work of others who have highlighted the thoroughly interpretive and

ethical dimensions of CYC practice (Garfat 2004; Nakkula and Ravitch 1998; Ricks and

Bellefeuille 2003; Stacey 2001) and drawing from other strands of postmodernism,

J. White (&) School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria, STN CSC, P.O. Box 1700, V8W 2Y2 Victoria, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

123

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 DOI 10.1007/s10566-007-9043-1

including social constructionism (Gergen 2000), pragmatism (Fishman 1999), hermeneu-

tics (Schwandt 2002; VanderVen in press) and narrative approaches (Freedman and Combs

1996; Pendlebury 1995; White and Epston 1990), I hope to plant some fresh seeds to

animate and extend current conceptualizations of everyday CYC practice. To begin I

introduce the concept of praxis. It is defined here as ethical, self-aware, responsive and

accountable action, which reflects dimensions of knowing, doing and being. Next, as a way

to contextualize my contribution I provide a very brief history of the field of CYC. This

includes a brief consideration of other related postmodern perspectives as well as a critique

of some of the conceptualizations of CYC practice that have recently been advanced. The

final section, representing the main contribution, includes a series of tables that explicate

various ways of knowing, doing and being. A graphic illustration of some of the specific

contexts and ecological influences that give shape and meaning to everyday CYC practice

is also included. By outlining some of the conceptual underpinnings of the field and by

locating them within a postmodern, non-linear perspective, my hope is to offer a poten-

tially useful resource for guiding, advancing, analyzing and researching everyday CYC

practice.

Praxis

The concept of praxis has enjoyed a resurgence of late and has been enthusiastically taken

up by theorists and practitioners working across a diverse range of academic disciplines.

The notion of praxis occupies a central place in the professional literature of many of the

human caring professions, including teaching, nursing, health care and social work (Carr

1987; Dorazio-Migliore et al. 2005; Nelson et al. 2004; Tarlier 2005). In many people’s

minds, the term praxis refers to the integration of knowledge and action (theory and

practice), which is indeed a core feature of the concept. It is however much more than that.

Briefly, praxis is a concept that finds it origins in Greek philosophy, particularly the

teachings of Aristotle. For Aristotle, praxis was ‘‘guided by a moral disposition to act truly

and rightly; a concern to further human well being and the good life’’ (Smith 1999). Friere

(1970) also wrote extensively about the place of praxis in emancipatory education, high-

lighting the role of values, respect, dialogue, and action in the effort to ‘‘make a difference

in the world.’’ Schwandt (2002), following from Habermas suggests that ‘‘Praxis does not require knowledge of how to make something, but knowledge of how to be a particular

kind of person; it is ‘action-oriented self-understanding’’’ (p. 49).

While the term praxis roughly corresponds with contemporary understandings of

practice, there are a few unique and important features that distinguish praxis from

commonsense understandings of practice. Specifically, theory and practice are integrated

and one does not precede nor hold greater value than the other (Carr 1987). Praxis is

creative, ‘‘other-seeking’’ and dialogic (Smith 1999). It is the place where words and

actions, discourses and experience merge (Stacey 2001). Praxis includes conscious

reflection both on and in practice (Tarlier 2005). Praxis is expressed in particular contexts

and thus can never be proceduralized or specified in advance (Schwandt 2002). Finally,

praxis is guided by practical wisdom (Schwandt) and is expressed through committed

moral action (Carr) and practices of accountability (Stacey 2001).

Picking up on some of the core features of praxis identified by these theorists, for the

purposes here I am defining praxis as ethical, self-aware, responsive and accountable

action. In other words, praxis involves knowing, doing and being. The use of verbs is

deliberate and signals the active and dynamic character of praxis. Within the field of CYC,

226 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

there are diverse ways of knowing, doing and being and these actions always get expressed within specific historical, sociocultural, political and institutional contexts. Language,

context, values, situated meanings, dialogue, relationships and multiple interpretations all

play a role in the approach I develop here, revealing its decidedly postmodern character

(Bohman et al. 1991; Fishman 1999; Gergen 2000). Many of these ideas will be taken up

in a later section.

First however, I need to situate this particular contribution within a rich theoretical and

practice tradition that has been actively shaped by the contributions of many gifted CYC

educators, practitioners and scholars 1

(Anglin 1992; Beker 2001; Denholm 1990; Fewster

1990; Garfat 2003; Krueger 2004; Maier 2001; Mattingly 1995; Nakkula and Ravitch

1998; Pence 1987; Ricks 1989;VanderVen 1991). Their diverse contributions have laid

the groundwork for the emergence of a distinct, multi-vocal community of practice

which, to take but one contemporary example, is regularly made visible through the

lively, diverse and thoughtful discussions currently underway on the CYC-Net

(http://www.cyc-net.org/network.html). By building on this rich foundation, I am engaging

in a form of theorizing that could best be described as ‘‘imaginative reflection on possible

modifications of practice’’ (Bohman et al. 1991).

One other point of clarification is in order. I am writing this from the perspective of a

relative newcomer, that is, someone who is joining a scholarly discussion that is already in-

progress - a position which can be both risky and (hopefully) facilitative. I am carrying with me my own intellectual traditions and disciplinary training (psychology, counselling,

education), practice experiences (residential child and youth care, child and youth mental

health, prevention and health promotion, community development) and personal life his-

tory and social location (white, heterosexual, middle-class, 4th generation Canadian) as I

embark on this task.

It is my hope that by critically and respectfully engaging with a diverse range of

resources and intellectual traditions that I will be able to offer a perspective that is creative,

generative and useful to the CYC field. As others have noted,

Changing circumstances and encounters with other practices can nourish the imag-

ination; and since no practice is defined for all possible situations, there is always

need for imaginative projections and creative decisions in pursuing a practice… (Bohman et al. 1991, p. 13)

Locating the Child and Youth Care Field

Child and youth care (CYC) is an active and diverse, relatively new field of professional

practice that is broadly concerned with promoting and supporting the optimal development

and well-being of infants, children, youth and families in specific contexts through

approaches that focus on individuals and their social circumstances and environments. CYC work is deeply rooted in a strong set of values and principles, including: holistic,

strengths-based, context sensitive, developmentally-informed, collaborative, and commit-

ted to social justice and diversity (Mattingly and Stuart 2002; Corney 2004; School of

Child and Youth Care 2005).

1 The number of individuals who have made a significant contribution to the CYC field are too numerous to

mention and inevitably this is an incomplete list. My apologies for the omissions.

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 227

123

Of considerable interest here is the ongoing dialogue regarding the nature of CYC work,

which includes various attempts to explicate and legitimize the field’s existence and

activities. As early as 1982, following the Conference-Research Sequence in Child Care

Education, a series of principles and guidelines were developed to guide those involved in

the planning and delivery of child and youth care education (Peters and Kelly 1982). Later,

a Code of Ethics was developed to signify the field’s status as a formal profession

(Mattingly 1995). Several authors have tried to define the essence of CYC work (Anglin

1992; Ferguson and Anglin 1985; VanderVen 1991), which has occasionally included

attempts to distinguish the CYC profession from other related fields of practice like social

work (Anglin 1999; Bates 2005) or counseling (Phelan 2005). Others have described a

distinctly CYC approach to working with families (Garfat 2003; Ricks and Bellefeuille

2003).

The Rise of Postmodernism

Paralleling developments in other professional fields and consistent with the emergence of

postmodern ideas within the social and human sciences generally (Fishman 1999; Pol-

kinghorne 1988), many CYC practitioners and scholars have articulated some of the limits

of positivist epistemologies and have expressed concern over the encroachment of overly

mechanistic models and proceduralized approaches into CYC practice. For example, some

have suggested that CYC work might be more appropriately conceptualized as a craft

based on its distinctively practical and emergent character (Eisikovits and Beker 2001).

Such a conceptualization of CYC work has clear implications for professional

development.

Such work cannot be effectively standardized…because its success is a function of the practitioner’s interpersonal sensitivity in applying the requisite knowledge and

skills contextually in situations where the need is determined in part by the dynamic

and often unpredictable responses of all those involved (p. 418).

Others have expressed concern with the limitations of rule-based formulations and so-

called ‘‘value-neutral’’ approaches to practice and have called for more personal,

embodied, narratively informed and situationally immersed understandings of practice

(Corney 2004; Krueger 1997; Ricks and Bellefeuille 2003). Constructivist and hermeneutic

(interpretive) approaches to CYC work, which highlight the role of self-understanding,

language, dialogue, and context have also been well-articulated (Fewster 1990; Garfat

2004; Hoskins 1996; Nakkula and Ravitch 1998; Ungar 2004; VanderVen in press). These

approaches recognize that CYC work, with its emphasis on self-reflection and mutual

transformation, are thoroughly ethical endeavours (Nakkula and Ravitch 1998). More

critical perspectives, which illuminate the political and sociocultural forces that serve to

perpetuate inequities among marginalized groups, including many youth and families, have

also been advanced (Skott-Myhre 2003).

Clearly there is no one singular or final view of CYC practice and it is the embrace of

multiple perspectives, openness to critique, and serious, respectful engagement with each

others’ ideas that lends the field its richness. In an effort to keep pace with the field’s

growing diversity, various models for preparing CYC practitioners have been developed,

including the generative curriculum model used in early childhood education (Dahlberg

et al. 1999) and the Knowledge, Skills and Self (KSS) model (described below). It is out of

this rich history that several different ways of thinking about, describing, and teaching

228 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

CYC practice have been advanced. It is to some of these models and conceptualizations of

CYC practice that I now turn my attention.

Conceptualizations of CYC Practice

Various models and descriptions of CYC practice have been developed over the years,

including the umbrella model (Denholm et al. 1983), the cube model (Ferguson 1991), and

the ecological onion model (Ferguson 1991). Each new image and metaphor appears to

reflect an increasing appreciation for the complexity and ecological character of CYC

practice. These models—which incidentally have been defined as ‘‘curriculum models’’ as

opposed to models of practice—have done a good job of mapping the scope of the field.

They are largely descriptive in nature (i.e. they name the settings where the work typically

occurs, the target audiences, and the types of interventions used) and testify to the field’s

growth over time. Two specific conceptualizations of CYC practice will be briefly

reviewed below: the KSS model and the more recent North American Certification Project:

Competencies for Professional Child and Youth Work Practitioners.

Knowledge, Skills and Self (KSS)

The KSS model, which has occupied a central place in the School of Child and Youth Care

(SCYC), University of Victoria curricula for many years, offers students and practitioners

new to the field an efficient and easy-to-grasp understanding of the unique character of

CYC practice. 2

What began as a conceptual tool for guiding curricula development in the

applied tradition of a professional school (Ferguson personal communication 2007), soon

became a primary pedagogical resource for helping CYC students understand the unique

character of CYC work. It was an approach that explicitly recognized the practitioner’s

values, beliefs and experiences in making meaning of the social world (Ricks 1989). It was

this notable emphasis on the ‘‘Self’’ that served to signal the field’s distinctive commitment

to developing and valuing qualities of reflexivity and critical self-awareness among CYC

practitioners (Fewster 1990).

North American Certification Project

More recent efforts have been undertaken through the North American Certification Project

to articulate the specific competencies required of CYC practitioners across a number of

broad domains including: professionalism, applied human diversity, applied human

development, communication and relationship, and developmental practice (Mattingly and

Stuart 2002). 3

In addition to identifying specific foundational knowledge and associated

competencies within each of these broad domains, there is also an explicit statement of

nine foundational attitudes that underlie all professional CYC work. The focus on

knowledge, competencies and attitudes is consistent with the categories of knowing, doing

2 A more recently developed model expands on KSS by making explicit links between the CYC field, the

post-secondary curriculum and client outcomes (Stuart and Carty 2006). 3

Based on consultation with faculty and staff in the School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria, these domains have been extended to include community capacity building and social policy.

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 229

123

and being that I am advancing here and yet there are some important distinctions in the

way these ideas are being conceptualized which I will discuss in a later section. For now, it

is important to acknowledge that the North American Certification Project reflects a high

level of collaboration, careful thought, rigorous analysis and adds much needed clarity to

directing the future growth of our field.

Critical Commentary

Despite the considerable strengths of both the KSS model and the North American Cer-

tification Project, each of them in their own way implicitly conveys a rather flat view of

practice whereby knowledge is acquired, skills are mastered, attitudes are adopted, self- awareness is gained and then these things are applied to children, youth, families and communities. Such a conceptualization of practice (and pedagogy) is consistent with the

technical rational paradigm that is currently favoured by funders and policy-makers across

a wide range of health, education and social care fields (McKee Sellick et al. 2002; Usher

et al. 1997). Guided by an instrumental view of practice, this approach is centrally con-

cerned with the development of results-oriented goals, clear measures of success, and the

demonstration of tangible, measurable outcomes. Such a narrow and mechanistic approach

to characterizing practice is often taken-for granted. Program logic models, which are

increasingly demanded by funders, are but one expression of this. At one level, we are

comforted by the clarity and certainty that these unproblematic conceptions of practice

seem to promise,

Increasing scrutiny and pressure from agency administrators, insurance providers,

and consumers to prove that we know what we are doing and that what we are doing

really works, makes us susceptible to the clarion call of the empirical practice and

evidence-based practice movements. Their certainty is seductive, an answer to our

desire for real competence (McKee Sellick et al. 2002, p. 493).

Without question, it is important for CYC practitioners to be able to articulate what they

are doing and why and to what effect. My intent is not to reject or replace a competency-

based approach, but rather to expand the possibilities for thinking about CYC practice in a

way that explicitly recognizes its social, moral and political character (Schwandt 2002).

Helping practitioners to practice wisely by helping them to cultivate a respect for principles

and an attunement to particulars is a stance that Pendlebury (1995), who borrows from Nussbaum, describes as ‘‘perceptive equilibrium;’’ a concept that has much in common

with the notion of praxis being developed here.

As a starting place, we need to recognize that a narrowly defined, technical rational

view of practice that is based on the assumption that the complexity of practice—and

professional development—can be adequately conceptualized and measured by discrete

‘‘outputs’’ like knowledge, skills and attitudes can be highly problematic. This is because

‘‘practice situations are not only unique, they are also characterised by a complexity and

uncertainty which resist routinization’’ (Usher et al. 1997, p. 127). As Schon (1983)

famously said,

In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground where

practitioners can make effective use of research-based theory and technique, and

there is a swampy lowland where situations are confusing ‘messes’ incapable of

technical solutions (p. 42).

230 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

I contend that a more contextually rich, theoretically informed, explicitly moral, and

dynamic view of CYC practice is needed. In the next section I will describe a praxis-

oriented approach for understanding and analyzing CYC practice that attempts to respond

to the diverse and emerging needs of the field.

Praxis as Knowing, Doing and Being

Praxis, which is ethical, self-aware, responsive and accountable action involves the reci-

procal integration of knowing, doing and being. Consistent with the thinking of others

calling for a re-imagined view of professional development in the human services field

(VanderVen in press) the perspective on praxis being presented here also attempts to

collapse the sharp—rather unhelpful, yet historically entrenched—distinction between

theory and practice. Praxis is thus seen as the active integration of knowing, doing and

being and is visually depicted in Fig. 1. The use of verbs is deliberate since taken together,

these actions respond to the question, ‘‘what is to be done?’’ the question that remains at the heart of any practice (Usher et al. 1997). In many respects, with these linguistic moves

one could say that I am ‘‘verbing’’ the world of practice.

Clearly there are multiple ways of knowing, doing, and being that contribute to self-

aware, ethical, responsive and accountable practice in the CYC field. What follows is a

description of some common ways of conceptualizing knowing, doing and being in CYC.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive description of everything a CYC practitioner will

ever need to know, do, or be in order to become to be a competent and caring CYC

practitioner. Instead, it is offered as one entry point to a community of practice and a

tradition of working that is firmly rooted in a solid foundation. I have also made every

attempt to make this model compatible with the material included in the North American

Certification Project (Mattingly and Stuart 2002). In the sections that follow, I will further

unpack each of these contributions to praxis with the understanding that this is but one

potential view for thinking about and engaging in CYC practice as opposed to the final word.

Knowing

There are multiple ways of thinking about knowing and types of knowledge that guide

CYC practitioners in their everyday work. Indeed, it is the development of a specialized

Fig. 1 Praxis as knowing, doing and being

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 231

123

body of knowledge that typically defines a profession (Eisikovits and Beker 2001; Hoyle

and John 1995; Usher et al. 1997). Given the complexity and holistic character of CYC

work however, it would be unreasonable to assume that a single form of knowledge (e.g.

experiential or empirical) could reliably guide practitioners in every practice encounter, an

observation that has convincingly been made by others in the human caring professions.

For example Tarlier (2005) writing about the need for multiple ways of knowing in nursing

writes, ‘‘…praxis demands epistemologies that are sufficiently broad to support all of its complexities’’ (p. 129).

Many very useful attempts have already been made by others to categorize different

ways, types and patterns of knowing that are relevant to CYC practice. For example, Artz

(1994) suggests that our feelings serve as important ways of knowing. Feminist scholars

(Goldberger et al. 1996) have challenged conventional understandings of what it means to

know, leading to new epistemological orientations inspired by women’s ways of knowing.

Much earlier, Aristotle theorized about three different forms of knowledge: episteme (theoretical, contemplative knowledge), techne (action-oriented, pragmatic and productive knowledge) and phronesis (practical and context-dependent deliberation about values or ‘‘wise judgement’’ (Greenwood and Levin 2005; Schwandt 2002).

While it is not the intent here to provide a systematic review of the diverse episte-

mologies informing CYC practice, it is important to declare my own orientation which is

grounded in a postmodern, social constructionist, hermeneutic perspective that locates and

understands knowledge-making in particular relationships, communities and traditions

(Gergen 2000; Schwandt 2002; Taylor and White 2000). Five assumptions about knowl-

edge/knowing are guiding this work (Greenwood and Levin 2005; Tarlier 2005):

1. Knowledge/knowing is inherently social and collective

2. Knowledge/knowing is always highly contextual

3. Singular forms of knowledge/knowing (e.g. empirical or experiential) are insufficient for informing complex, holistic practices like CYC

4. Different knowledges/ways of knowing are equally valid in particular contexts

5. Knowledge is made, not discovered

One way to assist CYC students and practitioners start thinking about the diverse ways

and types of knowing that are relevant to CYC practice is to name them. Of course the

danger of such an exercise is to inadvertently leave an impression that there is such a thing

as a fixed or final way of thinking about knowing in CYC practice. This is not the message I want to convey. Instead, with Table 1, what I am offering is one potential approach to

considering the diverse ways of understanding and thinking about knowing in the CYC

field as part of an overall praxis orientation. Such a conceptualization is designed to

challenge taken-for-granted ideas about knowledge, call attention to the social process of

knowledge-making, and heighten practitioner reflexivity (Taylor andWhite 2000). I fully

expect that this will evolve over time as others engage with it.

It is important to remember that the distinctions being made between various ways of

thinking about knowing are not this sharp in reality. This artificial way of categorizing

knowing is designed as a tool to aid teaching and support analyses of practice. The

questions are included as a way to invite further reflection and to remind students and

practitioners of the value of drawing from and critically examining multiple ways of

knowing when trying to make sense of the social world and their place in it. While a key

strength and a unique aspect of CYC work is the profession’s explicit valuing of multiple

ways and forms of knowing, Table 1 is not meant to be a grocery list from which practitioners

232 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

T a

b le

1 S

o m

e w

a y

s o

f th

in k

in g

a b

o u

t k n

o w

in g

in c h

il d

a n

d y

o u

th c a re

K n

o w

in g

K e y

q u

e st

io n

s C

o m

m o

n c h

a ra

c te

ri st

ic s

E x

a m

p le

(s )

S e lf

u n

d e rs

ta n

d in

g

V a lu

e s,

b e li

e fs

, fe

e li

n g s

A ss

u m

p ti

o n

s

B ia

se s/

p re

ju d ic

e s

R e la

ti o

n a l

id e n ti

ti e s

W h

o a m

I? W

h a t

m ig

h t

I b

e c o

m e ?

W h

e re

d o

I c o

m e

fr o m

?

W h

a t

d o

I st

a n

d fo

r?

H o

w d

o e s

m y

so c ia

l lo

c a ti

o n

in fl

u e n c e

h o

w a n

d w

h a t

I c a n

k n

o w

a n

d w

h o

I c a n

b e ?

R o o te

d in

re la

ti o n sh

ip s

a n d

c o m

m u

n it

ie s

o f

m e a n

in g

A lw

a y

s in

c o m

p le

te /p

a rt

ia l

D e te

rm in

e d /l

im it

e d

b y

a v a il

a b le

la n g u a g e

S h

a rp

e n

e d

th ro

u g

h c ri

ti c a l

re fl

e c ti

o n

a n d

e n

g a g

e m

e n

t w

it h

o th

e rs

R e c o

g n

it io

n a n

d a rt

ic u la

ti o

n o

f p

e rs

o n

a l

v a lu

e s,

fe e li

n g

s a n

d e x

p e ri

e n

c e s

L o

c a ti

n g

u n

d e rs

ta n

d in

g o

f se

lf a n

d o

th e rs

w it

h in

so c ia

l, c u

lt u

ra l

a n d

h is

to ri

c a l

tr a d

it io

n s

A b

il it

y to

re fl

e c t

u p

o n

o n

e ’s

o w

n im

p a c t

o n

o th

e rs

R e fl

e x iv

it y

P ra

c ti

c a l/

E x p

e ri

e n

ti a

l

T a c it

/c ra

ft k

n o

w le

d g e

N a rr

a ti

v e

k n

o w

in g

R o

u ti

n e s/

h a b

it s

S u

b je

c ti

v e

‘‘ li

v e d

e x

p e ri

e n c e ’’

H o

w is

th is

si tu

a ti

o n

li k

e o

r u

n li

k e

o th

e rs

I h

a v

e e n c o

u n

te re

d ?

W h

a t

is th

e st

o ry

h e re

?

W h

a t

d o

e s

m y

e x

p e ri

e n c e

te ll

m e ?

H o

w sh

o u

ld I

a c t

in th

is m

o m

e n

t?

W h

a t

is m

y g

u t

te ll

in g

m e ?

In d

iv id

u a l/

p ri

v a te

U su

a ll

y u n a rt

ic u la

te d

a n d

u n c ri

ti c a ll

y a c c e p te

d

A c ti

o n

-o ri

e n

te d

C o

n te

x tu

a li

z e d

O ft

e n

fe lt

in th

e b

o d

y

P ra

c ti

c a l

w is

d o

m

C li

n ic

a l

ju d g

m e n

t

T ri

a l

a n d

e rr

o r

k n

o w

le d

g e

‘‘ S

p e a k in

g fr

o m

th e

h e a rt

’’

‘‘ C

o m

m o

n se

n se

’’

P ra

c ti

c e

st o

ri e s

P ro

fe ss

io n

a l

P ro

fe ss

io n

a l

k n

o w

le d

g e ,

v a lu

e s

a n

d e th

ic s

W h

a t

d o

e s

m y

p ro

fe ss

io n

te ll

m e

is th

e ri

g h

t w

a y

to p

ro c e e d

?

W h

a t

p ro

fe ss

io n

a l

re so

u rc

e s

a re

a v

a il

a b

le to

g u

id e

m e ?

P u

b li

c

C o

d ifi

e d

/S a n

c ti

o n

e d

R o o te

d in

sp e c ifi

c in

te ll

e c tu

a l

tr a d

it io

n s

a n d

c o

m m

u n

it ie

s o

f p

ra c ti

c e

H is

to ry

o f

th e

p ro

fe ss

io n

P ro

fe ss

io n

a l

v a lu

e s

st a te

m e n

ts

C o

d e s

o f

e th

ic s

P re

-s e rv

ic e

c u rr

ic u la

/p ro

fe ss

io n a l

d e v

e lo

p m

e n

t

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 233

123

T a

b le

1 c o

n ti

n u

e d

K n o w

in g

K e y

q u e st

io n s

C o m

m o n

c h a ra

c te

ri st

ic s

E x a m

p le

(s )

C re

a ti

v e /A

rt is

ti c

In tu

it iv

e

A e st

h e ti

c

Im p

ro v

is a ti

o n

a l

W h

a t

m e ta

p h

o rs

m ig

h t

a p

p ly

h e re

?

W h ic

h o

f m

y se

n se

s a re

a c ti

v a te

d ?

W h

a t

rh y

th m

s a m

I n

o ti

c in

g ?

W h

a t

p o

ss ib

il it

ie s

c a n

I im

a g

in e ?

E x p re

ss e d

in m

u lt

ip le

fo rm

s

O p e n

to m

u lt

ip le

in te

rp re

ta ti

o n s

U n p re

d ic

ta b le

S y

m b o

li c

m e a n

in g s

A rt

/P o

e tr

y

P la

y

Im a g

in a ti

o n

B e a u

ty

T h e o re

ti c a l/

E m

p ir

ic a l

R e se

a rc

h

T h

e o

ry

W h a t

d o e s

th e

sc h o la

rl y

li te

ra tu

re sa

y ?

H o

w c a n

th e se

re so

u rc

e s

h e lp

m e ?

A re

th e se

c la

im s

p la

u si

b le

/v ia

b le

/c re

d ib

le ?

H o

w d

o I

ju d

g e

th e

w o

rt h

in e ss

o f

th e se

id e a s?

P u

b li

c /O

p e n

to sc

ru ti

n y

S y

st e m

a ti

c

O ft

e n

te x

t- b

a se

d

A d

v a n

c in

g tr

u th

c la

im s

R o o

te d

in sp

e c ifi

c in

te ll

e c tu

a l

tr a d

it io

n s

R e se

a rc

h fi

n d

in g

s/ e v

id e n

c e

T h

e o

ri e s

(e .g

. a p

p li

e d

h u

m a n

d e v

e lo

p m

e n

t, c h

a n

g e ,

le a rn

in g

)

P e rs

p e c ti

v e s

a n

d p

a ra

d ig

m s

(e .g

. c ri

ti c a l,

fe m

in is

t, p

o st

m o

d e rn

)

C o

m m

u n

a l/

D ia

lo g ic

C o

-c o n

st ru

c te

d k

n o

w le

d g

e

L o

c a l

k n

o w

le d

g e (s

)

C o

m m

u n it

y w

is d

o m

K n

o w

le d

g e -m

a k

in g

W h

a t

in te

rp re

ta ti

o n

s a re

w e

m a k in

g to

g e th

e r?

W h

a t

a re

th e

im p

li c a ti

o n

s o

f th

e se

w a y

s o

f li

st e n in

g /

ta lk

in g

?

W h a t

c u lt

u ra

l/ tr

a d it

io n a l

st o ri

e s

m ig

h t

h a v e

re le

v a n

c e ?

C o n

st ru

c te

d w

it h

o th

e rs

D e v

e lo

p e d

in d

ia lo

g u e

C o ll

e c ti

v e

S e d

im e n

te d

C o

-g e n

e ra

te d

lo c a l

k n

o w

le d

g e (s

)

C u

lt u

ra l

st o

ri e s

a n

d ri

tu a ls

C o m

m u n it

ie s

o f

p ra

c ti

c e

In te

ll e c tu

a l

tr a d

it io

n s

C ri

ti c a

l

E x p o se

s re

la ti

o n s

o f

p o w

e r

L o

c a te

s k

n o

w le

d g

e in

so c ia

l, c u lt

u ra

l, p o li

ti c a l

a n d

h is

to ri

c a l

c o

n te

x ts

Q u e st

io n s

th e

‘‘ g iv

e n n e ss

’’ o

f so

c ia

l fa

c ts

a n

d re

a li

ty

W h

o se

in te

re st

s a re

b e in

g se

rv e d

?

W h

a t

so c ia

l, c u

lt u

ra l,

h is

to ri

c a l,

a n

d p

o li

ti c a l

fo rc

e s

h a v

e c o

n tr

ib u

te d

to th

e e m

e rg

e n c e

o f

th is

is su

e ?

W h

o se

v o

ic e s

h a v

e b

e e n

si le

n c e d

?

C o m

m it

te d

to so

c ia

l ju

st ic

e

Q u

e st

io n

s th

e g

iv e n

s o

r st

a tu

s q

u o

E x p o se

s a sy

m m

e tr

ic a l

re la

ti o n s

o f

p o w

e r

C ri

ti c a l

a n

a ly

si s

o f

p ra

c ti

c e

d is

c o

u rs

e s

A rt

ic u la

ti o

n o

f so

c ia

l g

ro u

p m

e m

b e rs

h ip

/l o c a ti

o n

R e c o g n it

io n

o f

sy st

e m

ic fo

rm s

o f

o p

p re

ss io

n a n

d p

ri v

il e g

e

234 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

T a b

le 1

c o

n ti

n u

e d

K n

o w

in g

K e y

q u

e st

io n

s C

o m

m o

n c h

a ra

c te

ri st

ic s

E x

a m

p le

(s )

P h il

o so

p h ic

a l/

E p is

te m

o lo

g ic

a l/

E th

ic a l

U n

d e rs

ta n

d in

g s

o f

h u

m a n

n a tu

re /r

e a li

ty

N a tu

re o

f k

n o

w le

d g

e

U n

d e rs

ta n

d in

g s

o f

ri g

h t

a n

d w

ro n

g

W h a t

is h u m

a n

n a tu

re /r

e a li

ty ?

W h

a t

c o

u n

ts a s

k n

o w

le d

g e ?

W h

o se

k n

o w

le d

g e

c o

u n

ts ?

W h

a t

is th

e g

o o

d a n

d ri

g h

t th

in g

to d

o ?

C o

n c e rn

e d

w it

h tr

u th

, re

a so

n ,

k n

o w

le d

g e

R o

o te

d in

sp e c ifi

c in

te ll

e c tu

a l

a n

d h

is to

ri c a l

tr a d

it io

n s

A ss

u m

p ti

o n

s a b

o u

t th

e n

a tu

re o

f k

n o

w le

d g e

(e .g

. o

b je

c ti

v it

y ,

su b

je c ti

v it

y )

W o

rl d v

ie w

E th

ic a l

d e li

b e ra

ti o

n

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 235

123

can pick-and-choose their favourite ‘‘way of knowing’’ as a way of justifying their own

idiosyncratic and unexamined approach to practice.

By proposing a tentative language and a set of questions for thinking about various ways

of knowing, the hope is that CYC practitioners can begin appreciating the possibility for

multiple ways of reading and seeing the world. Deftly navigating between general prin-

ciples and concrete particulars to respond to the situation at hand, being able to rely on

intellectual traditions and imagination to respond freshly and creatively when faced with

the novel or the unknown, having an emotional investment in how things turn out – these

are the characteristics of a wise and discerning practitioner according to Nussbaum (1990).

Describing this quality as a special form of perception, she writes, ‘‘Perception, we might

say, is a process of loving conversation between rules and concrete responses, general

conceptions and unique cases, in which the general articulates the particular and is in turn

further articulated by it’’ (p. 95). By challenging CYC practitioners to articulate what and how they know, and by supporting them to begin clarifying their own epistemological stance based on self-understanding, practical wisdom and experience, theoretical, artistic,

empirical, philosophical, constructivist and critical theories and ideas, a richer, more

open—and importantly a more problematic—view of everyday practice is possible.

Doing

In addition to the multiple types and ways of knowing in CYC work, there are a number of

specific skills (ways of doing) that contribute to ethical, self-aware, responsive and

accountable practice. Table 2 summarizes some of these skills and competencies. Even

though knowing, doing, and being are being analyzed separately for the purposes of

explicating this framework, it is important to remember that there is a great deal of overlap

and praxis is the enactment of all three.

The upper half of Table 2 describes the specialized skills and competencies that are

understood to be foundational for competent practice in CYC as identified by the North

American Certification Project (Mattingly and Stuart 2002). CYC work involves inter-

vening with individual children, youth and families and their social environments. This requires skills in professionalism, direct client care, program planning, social justice

advocacy, plus an ability to strengthen social environments and analyze social policies.

In addition to developing specific competencies in each of these content areas, CYC

practitioners also need to be especially skilled in their critical thinking, reflection and

analytical skills. Thus the skills of noticing/attending, interpreting/making meaning, col-

laborating/deliberating, acting/self-reflecting, and articulating/justifying have been

separated out for particular attention and are described in the lower half of Table 2. Many of

these critical thinking skills overlap with the different forms of knowing introduced earlier.

Being

Much has been written about the special and unique personal and relational qualities that

distinguish CYC work from other helping and caring professions (Anglin 1999; Fewster

1990). Many of these qualities represent the active expression and embodiment of values

and virtues as well as ways of being in the world. Often, these values and relational

qualities are difficult to teach to new practitioners, in part because these qualities cannot be

easily ‘‘pinned down’’ with words. As overall ethical orientations and habits of mind

236 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

Table 2 Some ways of thinking about doing in child and youth care

Specialized professional CYC skills

Domain CYC competency a

Example

Professional identity and conduct

Professionalism Professional/ethical conduct and work habits

Professional boundaries

Facilitation of others’ learning

Ability to give and receive feedback

Direct client care and engagement

Applied human development

Communication and relationship

Developmental practice

Needs assessment

Client engagement and communication

Therapeutic change skills

Group facilitation

Family support

Program planning, implementation and evaluation

Developmental practice

Community-capacity building

Program design

Identification of indicators of progress

Program evaluation

Social justice advocacy Applied human diversity Diversity competency

Identifying systemic barriers and forms of oppression

Inclusive practices

Strengthening social environments and social policies

Community-capacity building

Social policy

Community capacity building

Social support enhancement

Policy analysis/critique

Critical thinking and reflection skills

Domain Key questions

Noticing and attending What am I noticing?

Where is my attention drawn?

What is my initial account of what is happening?

Interpreting and making meaning

What are my hunches about what is going on?

What role is my own history and experience playing?

How is my language/description affecting what I see?

What are some of my working truths or tentative conclusions?

Collaborating and deliberating with others

Who will I talk with/listen to about this?

How can I enlarge my perspective about this?

Am I willing to shift my position in light of new information?

Do I need to revise my account of what is happening?

What sense are we making together?

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 237

123

(Eisikovits and Beker 2001) these ‘‘ways of being’’ are typically not conducive to being

counted and measured.

Some authors have relied on metaphors to convey the uniqueness of CYC work. For

example, Krueger (2004) likens youth work to a modern dance. Others have suggested that

being in child care is a ‘‘journey into self’’ (Fewster 1990). Writing about the need to re-

conceptualize practice in the broader field of evaluation, Schwandt (2002) following Rorty,

advances the idea of the practitioner as ‘‘strong poet;’’ a metaphor that resonates with CYC

practice very well:

…the ability to deliberate well rests on the habit of attentiveness or interpretive perspicuity by which one recognizes what is at stake in a particular situation. This is

a kind of insight, an awareness of the morally relevant features of a situation. This

ability might be spoken of as the poetics of practical reason, for it invokes images of a creative, inventive, imaginative mind; one with an ability to decipher a situation

(emphasis in original, p. 53).

What he and other writers are suggesting is that wise practice is inextricably linked to

qualities of discernment, engagement, and imaginative reflection; reflecting an overall

stance of ‘‘being with’’ as opposed to ‘‘doing to.’’ Thus, the issue of ‘‘knowing how to be’’

is a critically important feature of praxis and figures prominently in becoming an ethical,

self-aware, responsive, accountable CYC practitioner. Table 3 summarizes some of the

types and ways of being in CYC. Many of these ways of being are the expression of

specific moral values, ethical commitments, and orientations to the world.

Knowing, Doing and Being in Context

Child and youth care (CYC) work always takes place within a broad context of intersecting

influences, some of which we are directly aware (e.g. agency mandates or client needs) and

some of which seem more remote or less directly connected to our everyday work with

children, youth and families (e.g. government policies, funding decisions or social and

historical forces). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory, which highlights the inter-

acting and reciprocal role of multiple influences on children’s development, occupies a

central place in most conceptions of CYC practice.

Table 2 continued

Specialized professional CYC skills

Acting and self-reflecting

What choices do I have?

What is my decision/action?

What are the intended and unintended consequences of my actions?

What have I learned for next time?

Articulating and justifying

What are my reasons for acting this way?

On what grounds (e.g. ethical, legal, empirical, professional) have I taken this action?

How will I articulate my reasons in public?

How will I practice accountability?

a These CYC competencies include those developed by the North American Certification Project (NACP)

(Mattingly and Stuart 2002), and those identified by the School of Child and Youth Care. These compe- tencies continue to be defined and debated in the field and will likely evolve over time

238 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

T a

b le

3 S

o m

e w

a y

s o

f th

in k

in g

a b

o u

t b

e in

g in

c h

il d

a n d

y o

u th

c a re

O ri

e n ta

ti o n

C h a ra

c te

ri st

ic s

K e y

q u e st

io n s

M in

d fu

l a n

d se

lf -

a w

a re

A c ti

v e

a n

d in

te rp

re ti

v e

O n

g o

in g

se lf

-r e fl

e c ti

o n

a n

d m

o n

it o

ri n

g

R e c o

g n

it io

n o

f th

e in

fl u

e n c e

o f

o n

e ’s

o w

n h

is to

ry o

n c u

rr e n t

p ra

c ti

c e

A c c e p ta

n c e

o f

o n e ’s

o w

n li

m it

s

W h

a t

is it

a b

o u

t th

is c li

e n

t th

a t

re m

in d

s m

e o

f m

y o

w n

e x

p e ri

e n c e ?

W h

a t

b ia

se s

a m

I b

ri n

g in

g to

th is

si tu

a ti

o n

?

D o

I h

a v

e so

m e

o f

m y

o w

n ‘‘

u n

fi n

is h

e d

b u

si n

e ss

’’ to

a tt

e n

d to

?

H o w

d o

I m

a k e

se n se

o f

m y

o w

n re

a c ti

o n s

to th

is c li

e n t

in th

is in

st a n c e ?

W h a t

o th

e r

in te

rp re

ta ti

o n s

a re

p o ss

ib le

?

R e la

ti o

n a l

a n

d c o

ll a b

o ra

ti v

e B

a se

d o

n tr

u st

, p

re se

n c e ,

c o

n n

e c ti

o n

a n

d m

u tu

a li

ty

A c ti

v e ly

w o

rk s

to m

in im

iz e

th e

p o

w e r

d if

fe re

n ti

a l

C o ll

a b

o ra

ti v

e g

o a l-

se tt

in g

H o

w c a n

I jo

in w

it h

th is

c h

il d

, y

o u

th o

r fa

m il

y ?

H o

w c a n

I c o -c

re a te

a c li

m a te

b a se

d o

n m

u tu

a li

ty a n

d tr

u st

?

H o

w w

il l

I d

ra w

fr o

m th

e c li

e n

t’ s

st re

n g th

s a n

d p

e rs

p e c ti

v e s?

W h

o c a n

I ta

lk w

it h

/l is

te n

to a b

o u

t m

y re

a c ti

o n

s?

C u

ri o

u s

a n

d o

p e n

R o o

te d

in a

p o

st u

re o

f ‘‘

n o

t k

n o

w in

g ’’

H o

n o

u rs

c li

e n

t k

n o

w le

d g

e a n

d e x

p e rt

is e

E m

p h

a si

s o

n u

n d

e rs

ta n

d in

g

H o

w d

o e s

th is

c h

il d

, y

o u

th o

r fa

m il

y se

e a n

d m

a k

e se

n se

o f

th e

w o

rl d

?

H o

w c a n

I st

a y

o p

e n

to th

e ir

e x

p e ri

e n c e

a n d

w a y

s o

f u

n d

e rs

ta n

d in

g ?

W h

o se

v ie

w o

f re

a li

ty is

b e in

g p

ri v

il e g

e d

?

R e sp

e c tf

u l

S u p p o rt

fo r

th e

in te

g ri

ty ,

d ig

n it

y a n d

se lf

-d e te

rm in

a ti

o n

o f

a ll

c li

e n

ts

E n

g a g in

g c li

e n

ts a s

p e rs

o n

s, n

o t

la b

e ls

H o w

d o

m y

a c ti

o n s

a n d

w o rd

s c o n v e y

m y

b e li

e f

in th

e fu

n d a m

e n ta

l d

ig n

it y

o f

th is

p e rs

o n

?

H o w

c a n

I sp

e a k

o u t

a g a in

st th

e p ra

c ti

c e

o f

re d u c in

g h u m

a n

b e in

g s

to la

b e ls

o r

d ia

g n o se

s?

S tr

e n

g th

s- o

ri e n

ta ti

o n

E a c h

c h

il d

, y

o u

th a n d

fa m

il y

h a s

st re

n g th

s a n d

re so

u rc

e s

th a t

c a n

b e

m o b

il iz

e d

P ro

te c ti

v e

fa c to

rs e x

is t

w it

h in

in d

iv id

u a ls

a n

d sy

st e m

s/ e n v

ir o

n m

e n

ts

W h

a t

sp e c ifi

c st

re n

g th

s o

r u

n iq

u e

p e rs

p e c ti

v e s/

k n

o w

le d

g e (s

) d

o e s

th is

c h il

d ,

y o

u th

o r

fa m

il y

b ri

n g

to th

is p

ro b

le m

o r

is su

e ?

H o

w c a n

I w

o rk

to m

o b

il iz

e /c

a ll

fo rt

h th

is k

n o

w le

d g e ?

W h

a t

a re

so m

e fe

a tu

re s

in th

e so

c ia

l e n

v ir

o n

m e n

t o

r c o

m m

u n

it y

th a t

c a n

fu rt

h e r

p ro

m o te

c li

e n t

c o m

p e te

n c e

a n d

w e ll

-b e in

g ?

C a ri

n g

a n

d re

sp o

n si

v e

E m

o ti

o n

a ll

y in

v e st

e d

‘‘ B

e in

g w

it h

’’ v

e rs

u s

‘‘ d o

in g

to ’’

H u

m a n

c o

n n

e c ti

o n

E m

p a th

y ,

w a rm

th a n

d g

e n

u in

e n

e ss

M o

ra l

e n g

a g

e m

e n

t

H o

w a m

I c o

n v

e y in

g c a re

a n d

c o

m p

a ss

io n

th ro

u g

h m

y p

re se

n c e ?

H o

w w

il l

I re

c o

g n

iz e

w h

e n

I a m

n o

lo n g

e r

p ra

c ti

c in

g fr

o m

a p

la c e

o f

c a re

?

W h

a t

sp e c ifi

c a c ti

o n

s d

o I

n e e d

to ta

k e ?

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 239

123

T a

b le

3 c o

n ti

n u e d

O ri

e n ta

ti o n

C h a ra

c te

ri st

ic s

K e y

q u e st

io n s

H o

li st

ic S

e e s

th e

‘‘ w

h o

le c h

il d

o r

y o

u th

’’ in

c o

n te

x t

C o n c e rn

e d

w it

h th

e e m

o ti

o n a l,

p h y si

c a l,

sp ir

it u a l

a n d

in te

ll e c tu

a l

g ro

w th

a n

d d

e v

e lo

p m

e n

t

A m

I se

e in

g th

e ‘‘

w h o

le c h

il d

’’ o

r ju

st h

is /h

e r

sy m

p to

m s

o r

b e h

a v

io u

rs ?

H o

w d

o e s

m y

in v

o lv

e m

e n t

w it

h th

is c h

il d

, y

o u

th o

r fa

m il

y a ff

e c t

o th

e r

a re

a s

o f

th e ir

li fe

?

In c lu

si v

e a n

d p

a rt

ic ip

a to

ry S

u p p

o rt

s th

e e m

e rg

e n c e

o f

th e

c h il

d /y

o u

th v

o ic

e

A c ti

v e ly

w o

rk s

to in

v o

lv e

c h

il d

re n

, y

o u

th a n

d fa

m il

ie s

in d

e c is

io n

- m

a k in

g

W h

o se

v o

ic e s

a re

b e in

g h

e a rd

?

W h

o se

v o

ic e s

a re

b e in

g si

le n

c e d

?

H o w

c a n

I in

c re

a se

y o u th

p a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

in th

is d e c is

io n -m

a k in

g p ro

c e ss

?

S it

u a ti

o n

a ll

y im

m e rs

e d

R e c o

g n

iz e s

th e

p a rt

ic u

la ri

ti e s

o f

p la

c e

a n d

c o

n te

x t

A tt

u n

e d

to lo

c a l

n o

rm s

W h a t

is g o in

g o n

in th

is p a rt

ic u la

r m

o m

e n t?

W h a t

a re

so m

e o f

th e

m o st

sa li

e n t

fe a tu

re s

to a tt

e n d

to ?

H o w

is m

y d e c is

io n

a ff

e c te

d b y

th is

p la

c e

o r

se tt

in g ?

S o

c ia

l ju

st ic

e a d

v o

c a c y

a n

d a c c o u

n ta

b il

it y

R e c o

g n

iz e s

sy st

e m

ic b

a rr

ie rs

to fu

ll a n

d e q u

it a b

le p

a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

In w

h a t

w a y

s d

o I

e n jo

y c e rt

a in

u n

e a rn

e d

b e n

e fi

ts (p

ri v

il e g e )

a s

a re

su lt

o f

m y

so c ia

l g

ro u

p m

e m

b e rs

h ip

(e .g

. g

e n

d e r,

e th

n ic

it y

, a b

il it

y ,

se x

u a l

o ri

e n

ta ti

o n

, c la

ss )?

T a k

e s

re sp

o n

si b

il it

y fo

r re

c o g

n iz

in g

a n

d a d

d re

ss in

g fo

rm s

o f

o p

p re

ss io

n a n

d p

ri v

il e g

e H

o w

m ig

h t

th e se

p ri

v il

e g

e s

b e

u n

w it

ti n

g ly

b li

n d

in g

m e

to c e rt

a in

c li

e n

t re

a li

ti e s?

W h

a t

w il

l I

d o

a b

o u

t th

is ?

H o w

a m

I p ra

c ti

c in

g a c c o u n ta

b il

it y ?

240 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model can also be adapted and applied to under-

standing the complexity of CYC practice. It is typically represented through concentric

circles. In order to move away from the idea that contextual influences on practice are

isolated, discrete dimensions (which is one of the limitations of using the concentric circles

model), the metaphor of a web is being introduced here to depict the active, intersecting,

embedded, shifting and asymmetrical qualities of everyday practice. Figure 2 illustrates a

number of common social forces and institutional influences that taken together, create the

complex and dynamic context for a praxis-based (knowing, doing and being) approach to

CYC.

Such a view of CYC work enables us to ‘‘see’’ the number and range of potential

influences on our practice (Nutley and Davies 2002) and the metaphor of the web provides

one way of illustrating these multiple, intersecting and reciprocal influences. Community

influences include local knowledge, understandings and expectations, the local service

delivery context and media influences. Interpersonal influences recognize the relational

character of everyday CYC practice, including relationships with and expectations of

children, youth and families; relationships with peers, colleagues, mentors and supervisors;

and relationships with community members and other service providers. Organizational

influences refer to local workplace norms, policies and resources, agency mandates and

professional routines. Sociocultural influences include social, cultural and historical fac-

tors, including relations of power. Political/institutional influences include government

legislation and policies; funding decisions; discourses of professionalism and practice;

post-secondary training and professional associations; and regulatory bodies.

Finally, we are all caught in this web together and there is no such thing as standing

apart to ‘‘see the world as it really is’’ (McKee Sellick et al. 2002). Ultimately, this

conceptualization is designed to highlight the centrality of praxis (knowing, doing and

being), while simultaneously recognizing the inter-subjective, contingent, and context

dependent character of everyday CYC work.

Fig. 2 Knowing, doing and being in a web of influences

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 241

123

Implications for Professional Education and Practice

As an educational resource, this approach offers students a glimpse into the complexity of

the work, highlights its active and relational character, activates curiosity and reflexive

practice through posing generative questions, and it provides an initial language for dis-

cussing and analyzing a variety of practice narratives and encounters. For example,

students can be invited to analyze their own experience working with a child, youth or

family (or reflect on prepared cases), using the questions in the tables as a guide for

thinking about how and what they know and what the source and history of some of these

ways of knowing, doing and being might be.

As an analytical tool, this framework builds on and extends existing conceptualizations

of CYC practice. Specifically it may be of benefit to researchers who are interested in

studying everyday CYC practice from a perspective that recognizes the contingent quality

and inherent unpredictability of practice and who are interested in studying how practi-

tioners understand and make sense of this complexity in their everyday work. For example,

when faced with the dilemmatic aspects of practice, which ideas, theories, actions and

values do CYC practitioners favour? What is the history of these ideas? What intellectual

traditions are being sustained? What are the consequences of framing and responding to

practice challenges and dilemmas in these ways (Gergen 2000)?

Child and youth care (CYC) practice, much like nursing, teaching and social work, is

characterized by diverse ways of knowing, interpersonal relationships, practical obliga-

tions, value-laden decisions and complex ethical challenges, all of which take place within

a complex context of sociopolitical, historical, cultural and institutional forces (Nutley and

Davies 2002; Taylor and White 2000; Tarlier 2005). The conceptual framework being

presented here attempts to convey a realistic and lively view of practice; one that chal-

lenges traditional ‘‘knowledge transfer’’ views of practice. It is predicated on a belief that

by critically reflecting on our intellectual traditions and ways of knowing we are practising

an important form of accountability.

…our accountability to the people we serve will come not from efforts to prove the authority of our knowledge, nor from efforts to dismantle it and prove it groundless.

It will come instead from a more reflective and dialogic engagement with our

knowledge, and with the people served through it-an engagement that seeks con-

stantly to problematize our knowing, to probe and critique it, to trace its origins and

assumptions, and explore its implications, to open it to inquiry and transformation

(McKee Sellick et al. 2002; p. 493).

Clearly CYC work is more than just learning some theories, adopting some attitudes, and

mastering some skills that can be applied in a straightforward, unproblematic manner when

the time is right. Instead, CYC practice, like most human caring professions, is charac-

terized by choices and dilemmas, ambiguities, ethical tensions, and competing sets of

interests about what constitutes good and right action and our models need to reflect this

messiness and complexity, while still providing a constructive way forward (Nutley and

Davies 2002; Schon 1983; Taylor and White 2000). We need more approaches and con-

ceptual tools that can accommodate the dilemmas, uncertainties, and paradoxes of practice

while also supporting the development of reflexive, critically conscious, praxis-oriented

practitioners. It is my hope that the ideas presented here offer a step in this direction.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Dr. Roy Ferguson for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

242 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123

References

Anglin, J. (1992). What exactly is child and youth care work? The International Child and Youth Care Network, 14, 1–3.

Anglin, J. (1999). The uniqueness of child and youth care: A personal perspective. Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(2), 143–150.

Artz, S. (1994). Feeling as a way of knowing: A practical guide to working with emotional experience. Toronto, ON: Trifolium Books.

Bates, R. (2005). A search for synergy: The child and youth care educated child protection worker. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34(2), 99–110.

Beker, J. (2001). Towards the unification of the child care field as a profession. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40(6), 355–362.

Bohman, J., Hiley, D., & Shusterman, R. (1991). The interpretive turn. In D. Hiley, J. Bohman, & R. Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science and culture (pp. 1–14). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carr, W. (1987). What is an educational practice? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 21(2), 163–175. Corney, T. (2004). Values versus competencies: Implications for the future of professional youth work

education. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(4), 513–527. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Minority directions in the majority world: Threats, possibilities.

In G. Dahlberg, P. Moss, & A. Pence (Eds.), Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives (pp. 159–186). London: Falmer Press.

Denholm, C. (1990). Canadian child and youth care 1979–1989. Youth Studies, 9(2) 51. Denholm, C. J., Ferguson, R. V., & Pence, A. R. (1983). The scope of professional child care in British

Columbia. In C. Denholm, R. Ferguson, & A. Pence (Eds.), The scope of professional child care in British Columbia (pp. 1–7). Victoria, B.C.: University Of Victoria.

Dorazio-Migliore, M., Migliore, S., & Anderson, J. (2005). Crafting a praxis-oriented culture concept in the health disciplines: Conundrums and possibilities. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 9(3), 339–360.

Eisikovits, Z., & Beker, J. (2001). Beyond professionalism: The child and youth care worker as craftsman. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(6), 415–434.

Ferguson, R. (1991). Umbrellas to onions: The evolution of an interactive model for child and youth care education. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 5(2), 11–23.

Ferguson, R., & Anglin, J. (1985). The child care profession: A vision for the future. Child Care Quarterly, 14, 85–102.

Fewster, G. (1990). Being in child care: A journey into self. Binghampton, NY: The Haworth Press. Fishman, D. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology. New York: New York University Press. Freedman, J. & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities.

New York: W.W. Norton. Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Garfat, T. (2003). Working with families: Developing a child and youth care approach. Child & Youth

Services, 25(1/2), 7–37. Garfat, T. (2004). Meaning-making and intervention in child and youth care practice. Scottish Journal of

Residential Child Care, 3(1), 9–16. Gergen, K. (2000). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage Publications. Goldberger N., Tarule J., Clinchy B., & Belenky M. (Eds.). (1996). Knowledge, difference, and power:

Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities through action

research. In N. Denzin, &Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43– 64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoskins, M. L. (1996). Constructivism and child and youth care practice: Visions for the 21st century. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 11(4), 83–93.

Hoyle, E., & John, P. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. Cambridge, UK: Cassell. Krueger, M. (1997). Using self, story and intuition to understand child and youth care work. Child & Youth

Care Forum, 26(3), 153–161. Krueger, M. (2004). Youthwork as modern dance. Child & Youth Services, 26(1), 3–24. Maier, H. (2001). Should child and youth care go the craft or professional route? A comment on the

preceding article by Zvi Eiskovits and Jerome Beker. Child and Youth Care Forum, 30(6), 435–440.

Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244 243

123

McKee Sellick, M., Delaney, R., & Brownlee, K. (2002). The deconstruction of professional knowledge: Accountability without authority. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83(5/6), 493–498.

Mattingly, M. (1995). Developing professional ethics for child and youth care work: Assuming responsi- bility for the quality of care. Child and Youth Care Forum, 24(6), 379–391.

Mattingly, M. & Stuart, C. (2002). The North American Certification Project: Competencies for professional child and youth work practitioners. Journal of Child and Youth Work, 17, 16–49.

Nakkula, M., & Ravitch, S. (1998). Matters of interpretation: Reciprocal transformation in therapeutic and developmental relationships with youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nelson, G., Poland, B., Murray, M., & Maticka-Tyndale, E. (2004). Building capacity in community health action research: Towards a praxis framework for graduate education. Action Research, 2(4), 389–408.

Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2002). Making a reality of evidence-based practice. In H. Davies, S. Nutley, & P. Smith (Eds.), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (pp. 317–350). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Pence, A. (1987). Child care’s family tree: Toward a history of the child and youth care profession in North America. Child and Youth Care Quarterly, 16(3), 151–161.

Pendlebury, S. (1995). Reason and story in wise practice. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 50–65). New York: Teachers College Press.

Peters, D., & Kelly, C. (1982). Principles and guidelines for child care personnel preparation programs. Child Care Quarterly, 11(3), 37–51.

Phelan, J. (2005). Child and youth care education: The creation of articulate practitioners. Child & Youth Care Forum, 34(5), 347–355.

Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ricks, F. (1989). Self-awareness model for training and application in Child and Youth Care. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 4(1), 33–41.

Ricks, F., & Bellefeuille, G. (2003). Knowing: The critical error of ethics in family work. Child & Youth Services, 25(1/2), 117–130.

School of Child and Youth Care. (2005). Values. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from http://www.cyc.uvic.ca/about/values.php#values

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schwandt, T. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Skott-Myhre, H. (2003). Radical youthwork: Creating and becoming everyone. In T. Strong, & D. Pare

(Eds.), Furthering talk: Advances in the discursive therapies. (pp. 217–232). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Smith, M. (1999). Praxis: An introduction to the idea plus an annotated notebook. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.htm#praxis

Stacey, K. (2001). Achieving praxis in youth partnership accountability. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(2), 208–231.

Stuart, C., & Carty, B. (2006). The role of competence in outcomes for children and youth: An approach for mental health. Ontario Ministry for Children and Youth Services. Toronto, ON: Ryerson University.

Tarlier, D. (2005). Mediating the meaning of evidence through epistemological diversity. Nursing Inquiry, 12(2), 126–134.

Taylor, C., & White, S. (2000). Practising reflexivity in health and welfare: Making knowledge. Buck- ingham, UK: Open University Press.

Ungar, M. (2004). A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple realities among at- risk children and youth. Youth & Society, 35(3), 341–365.

Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routledge.

VanderVen, K. (1991). How is child and youth care work unique—and different—from other fields? Journal of Child and Youth Care, 5(1), 15–19.

VanderVen, K. (in press). If theory and practice were the same—then what? A new approach to designing professional education. In S. Ravitch & M. Nakkula (Eds.), Teaching, learning and doing: Interdisci- plinary approaches to educational inquiry and professional development.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

244 Child Youth Care Forum (2007) 36:225–244

123