Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:45:19.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Intervention and Evidence-Based Policy and Practice: Framing and taming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2015

Rosalind Edwards ,
Val Gillies  and
Nicola Horsley
Rosalind Edwards
Affiliation:
Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Southampton E-mail: [email protected]
Val Gillies
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths College, University of London E-mail: [email protected]
Nicola Horsley
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths College, University of London E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we highlight some critical matters in the way that an issue is framed as a problem in policymaking and the consequent means of taming that problem, in focussing on the use and implications of neuroscientific discourse of brain claims in early intervention policy and practice. We draw on three sets of analyses: of the contradictory set of motifs framing the state of ‘evidence’ of what works in intervention in the early years; of the (mis)use of neuroscientific discourse to frame deficient parenting as causing inequalities and support particular policy directions; and of the way that early years practitioners adopt brain claims to tame the problem of deficient parenting. We argue that using expedient brain claims as a framing and taming justification is entrenching gendered and classed understandings and inequalities.

Keywords

Early interventionbrain scienceevidence-basedparentingsocial inequalities
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, G. (2011a) Early Intervention: The Next Steps – An Independent Report to Her Majesty's Government, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Allen, G. (2011b) Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings – The Second Independent Report to Her Majesty's Government, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. and Axford, N. (2014) ‘Giving children a better start in life: from science to policy and practice’ (guest editorial), Journal of Children's Services, 9, 2, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JCS-04-2014-0025 [accessed 22.01.2015].Google Scholar
Bruer, J. T. (1999) The Myth of the First Three Years: A New Understanding of Early Brain Development and Lifelong Learning, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2003) ‘Death to critique and dissent? The policies and practices of New Managerialism and of “evidence-based practice”’, Gender and Education, 15, 1, 91–103.Google Scholar
Edwards, R., Gillies, V. and Horsley, N. (2016, forthcoming) Early Intervention: Who's ‘Saving’ Children and Why, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B., Morris, K. and White, S. (2013) ‘A marriage made in hell: early intervention meets child protection’, in Wastell, D., White, S. and Lorek, A. (eds.), The Child's Timeframe – a Neuro Scientific Perspective, London: 14 Grays Inn Square, pp. 30–44.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2012) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, 3rd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, S. (2004) Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain, Hove: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. (2003) ‘Framing and taming “wicked” problems’, in Lin, V. and Gibson, B. (eds.), Evidence-Based Health Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 298–310.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. and Russell, J. (2009) ‘Evidence based policy making: a critique’, Perspectives on Biology and Medicine, 52, 2, 304–18.Google Scholar
Gregg, D. (2010) Family Intervention Projects: A Classic Case of Policy-Based Evidence, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2001) ‘Some questions about evidence-based practice in education’, in Pring, R. and Thomas, G. (eds.), Evidence-Based Practice in Education, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 133–49.Google Scholar
HM, Government (2013) What Works: Evidence Centres for Social Policy, London: Cabinet Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136227/What_Works_publication.pdf [accessed 28.07.14].Google Scholar
Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A. and Hertzman, C. (2007) Early Child Development: Powerful Equalizer [emphasis in original title], Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
Kinsley, C. H. and Franssen, R. A. (2010) ‘The pregnant brain as a revving race car: mothers-to-be get better at recognizing emotions’, Scientific American, 19 January, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnant-brain-as-racecar/ [accessed 28.07.2014].Google Scholar
Leadsom, A., Field, F., Burstow, P. and Lucas, C. (2013) 1001 Critical Days: The Importance of the Conception to Age Two Period, http://www.andrealeadsom.com/downloads/1001cdmanifesto.pdf [accessed 28.07.2014].Google Scholar
Macvarish, J., Lee, E. J. and Lowe, P. K. (2014) ‘The “first three years” movement and the infant brain: a review of critiques’, Sociology Compass, 8, 6, 792–804.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (2012) ‘Neuroscience fiction’, The New Yorker, 30 November, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/neuroscience-fiction?currentPage=all [accessed 28.07.2014].Google Scholar
Marston, G. and Watts, R. (2003) ‘Tampering with the evidence: a critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3, 3, 143–63.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. (2003) ‘Forward via the past? Evidence-based practice as strategy in social work’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3, 3, 123–42.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999) ‘Inventiveness in politics’, Economy and Society, 28, 3, 470–86.Google Scholar
Rose, N. and Abi-Rached, J. (2013) Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind, New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitz, S. and Höppner, G. (2014) ‘Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 546, journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00546/pdf [accessed 28.07.2014].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K. (2013) Beyond Evidence-Based Policy in Public Health: The Interplay of Ideas, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Solesbury, W. (2001) Evidence Based Policy: Whence It Came and Where It's Going, Working Paper 1, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, London: Queen Mary University of London, http://www.lgsp.uz/old/publications/option_paper_training/ebp_when_it_came_and_where_it_is_going_eng.pdf [accessed 23.7.2014].Google Scholar
Trinder, L. (2000) ‘Introduction: the context of evidence-based practice’, in Trinder, L. with Reynolds, S. (eds.), Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, G. (2010) ‘Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse’, Women's Studies International Forum, 33, 3, 253–63.Google Scholar
Wastell, D. and White, S. (2013) ‘Blinded by neuroscience: social policy, the family and the infant brain’, in Wastell, D., White, S. and Lorek, A. (eds.), The Child's Timeframe – a Neuro Scientific Perspective, London: 14 Grays Inn Square, pp. 12–29.Google Scholar
Westminster Social Policy Forum (2013) Early Intervention: Joining Up Services, Targeting Support and the Role of the Foundation, London: Westminster Forum.Google Scholar