Introduction

In Chapter Four, professional information need and information-related behaviours illustrated limitations of understanding information practices in child protection solely in terms of ‘information sharing’ and its focus on systems and purpose. A key consideration that emerged was not how professionals get better at sharing information, but rather what prompts them to do it at all. Conversely, political responses to past failings in communication and information sharing have been formulated through infrastructure reforms. Officialdom's implicit assumption has largely centred on failures in terms of both professional compliance (the actions – or inaction – of professionals) and effectiveness of protocols, procedures and information technologies. For example, the tragic death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly brought into sharp focus the deficiencies of the integrated children's system (ICS), and its contributions to the failings in the high-profile ‘Baby P’ case; criticisms included deadline pressures introduced by ICS, as well as excessive time needed to complete forms on the system (Wastell and White, 2014, p 144). Since the death of Peter Connelly, more sophisticated discussions (initiated by the Social Work Task Force in 2009) have taken place, urging the government to review not only the design of the ICS, but all areas of child protection practice (Wastell, 2011). Eileen Munro's review of child protection in 2011 prompted a change in direction from such received ideas, although arguably little has changed with regard to the rise in managerialism in practice (Stevenson, 2015). Professional compliance still remains at the centre of debate when things go wrong, and a child dies. Similarly, when things go wrong in healthcare, explanations for failings are framed in terms of a lack of staff compliance (Creedon, 2005) or the result of too much professional discretion and autonomy (Harrison, 1999). Thus, remedial responses that professionals need to get better at information sharing by complying more closely with more stringent procedures send out the wrong messages to managers, professionals and the public alike. From this perspective, professionals (and the public) are led to believe (with a degree of confidence) that if they behave in prescribed ways, children can be protected from harm. Thus, formal ways to perform organisational tasks are made the official indicator for measuring changes in practice, rather than trying to understand complexity of practice (Iedema et al, 2009).