Introduction

Everything around us is potentially information; it affects everything we do. Information is often assumed to mean the same thing to everyone, so there is little discussion about what is actually is, and why and when it matters. Social actors tend to assume that what is information for one person is also information for another. Pollner (1987) argued that we all make a fundamental assumption that we will see the same things, if placed in the same position. In many ways, and in whatever social setting, information ‘is what it says on the tin’; any enquiry into its definition would be for a specific purpose, such as the requirement of further delineation for dictionary purposes. However, if we stop and ask what information ‘really’ means, the answer is more difficult than perhaps first anticipated. Despite the term ‘information’ being in usage for over 600 years (making an early appearance in one of Chaucer's tales between 1372 and 1386 (Schement and Rubins, 1993, p 177)), this does not make the question any easier to answer – something this chapter’s opening quote alludes to.

In this chapter, I do not seek to establish a working definition of what information is, but rather build a critical analysis of ‘information’ in the context of child protection practice. More specifically, my critical analysis of information sharing is located in the context of ‘referrals’ as a particular kind of information. In practice terms, understanding referral information remains an important area of enquiry, given the yearly increases in referral figures while resources for protecting vulnerable children steadily diminish. Between 2013 and 2014, 657,800 referrals were received by children's social care services – a 7% increase on the number of referrals received between 2010 and 2011, and an 11% increase on 2012–13 figures (Stevenson, 2015). By drawing on referrals as a particular type of information from a theoretical position, I aim to offer a ‘destabilised’ picture of information-sharing practices that challenges objectivist policy dictates.