Introduction

The previous chapter explored compliance with information-sharing rules and requirements through interviews with professionals. Attention was drawn to professionals’ concerns in establishing a ‘full’ picture of a child's life by connecting the ‘right pieces’ of information, as if completing a jigsaw puzzle. This chapter examines ‘jigsaw’ practices observed and documented in day-to-day child protection work. Empirical data used in this chapter highlights that there is something of a mismatch between the conceptual, jigsaw metaphor and jigsaw practices that operate on the ground. Conceptually, the ‘jigsaw’ engenders notions of ‘connectedness’ or ‘interlocking’ pieces, and in this respect, the metaphor is found to cohere with practices. However, where the abstract metaphor falls short is in the notion of a ‘finite’ or ‘full’ picture that is achievable sui generis. Inevitably, and as shown in Chapter Three, the ‘full’ picture’ will always be situated in and subject to ongoing revision, meaning that the ‘full’ picture’ confounds objectivist policy dictates in its suggestion that it has a stable meaning. Indeed, what I will show in this chapter is quite the contrary: when practices are scrutinised through post hoc interview accounts from various professionals, the very stability of jigsaw pieces themselves is drawn into question.

The political resonance of securing a ‘full’ picture

The notion of securing a ‘full’ picture is pervasive within child protection discourse, and is clearly manifest in official policy guidance. Securing a ‘full’ picture is said to be achieved only through multi-agency working, as outlined in the progress report following the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly in the London Borough of Haringey:

The prevailing message in high-profile inquiry reports into child deaths, including that of Peter Connelly, is that if a ‘full’ picture of the children's lives had been ascertained by professionals such tragedies may have been prevented.