Making Scotland an ACE informed nation: continuing the conversation - an event summary

CRFR co-director Dr Emma Davidson summarises the key themes emerging from our recent seminar reflecting on the emergent ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and resilience agenda in Scotland.

We began a conversation on ACEs and resilience in December 2017 at the seminar, ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’, where Dr Eric Carlin and myself voiced our concerns that the dominant narrative on resilience could obscure inequalities; penalising individuals by making them responsible for their own wellbeing. Since then, we have witnessed the mounting influence of ACE and resilience-focused policy in Scotland. It is now even more important to provide a space in which popular rhetoric on ACEs and resilience can be constructively and respectfully critiqued.

Our event on 6^th November 2018 aimed to reignite that process. We welcomed three speakers: Dr Amy Chandler, Dr Cara Blaisdell and Laura Wright, each of whom talked from their perspective of their own field of research.

Amy’s presentation (which you can watch here) examined the potentially counter-productive ways ACEs are used in research on suicide and self-harm. Early experiences, Amy noted, are undeniably important in shaping later risks of, or experiences with, suicide and self-harm. However, there is a tendency to rely on a mechanical or ‘addictive’ analysis, with a correlation drawn between early adversity and later problems. The work of explaining what these correlations actually mean, or understanding the mechanisms behind them, are less well developed. Drawing on her own research, Amy highlighted that this focus can mean that interpretation and meaning is omitted – what do adverse experiences mean and feel like to different people, at different times? And how are social and political conditions implicated in this? Also absent, Amy suggested, is the role of agency. The popular narrative of resilience plays into the long standing stigmatisation of mental health problems as being associated with weakness. This way of thinking about resilience implies that those experiencing self-harm and suicide are not resilient.  The reverse can in fact be true, with the practice of self-harm being evidence of extreme resilience in extreme circumstances.

Dr Cara Blaisdell’s work picked up on this critique within an early years setting (read Cara’s new blog here). She highlighted the potential for the ACE agenda in Scotland to reinforce what Tuck (2009) refers to as a ‘damage narrative’. Rather than holding those in power to account, these narratives can reinforce particular ideas about children and society: where the ‘poor’ child is a site of damage to self and society; where professional labels children and seek to ‘fix’ them; and where structures of oppression remain unchallenged and unchanged. Cara’s made the acute observation ‘what you focus on is what grows’. This is not a denial that bad things happen, but rather an acknowledgement that deficit based models can label, provoke normative ideas (of family, of parenting, of childhood). Ultimately deficit models stigmatise, and they leave little room for the complex meaning making emphasised by Amy as being so crucial.

Our final speaker was Laura Wright who raised what is an under-acknowledged issue within ACEs – and that is the role and status of children’s rights. Scotland is, noted Laura, a country recognised as a global leader in children’s meaningful participation. This work is supported by multiple organisations, initiatives (we are now coming to the end of the Year of Youth People) and legislation (i.e. Children and Young People (Scotland_ Act 2014). A tension, nonetheless, remains between participation and protectionism – with the latter superseding the former. The implications of this, argues Laura, requires exploration. At present, children and young people have not been given the opportunity to meaningfully participate in discussions about what is included or excluded from the list of ‘adverse childhood experiences’. Indeed, at an individual level, adults are completing checklists for children and young people, and using this to make decisions about possible interventions. What, asked Laura, does such an approach look like, and how it is given meaning by children and young people? Critically, how can a plan designed to be child-centred, like Getting it Right for Every Child, better engage children and young people in active conversations about their own well-being?

There is – as Laura concluded – no magic bullet. However, the speakers agreed that the way forward is not simply to shift from asking ‘what’s wrong with you’, to ‘what happened to you’. Rather, what is required is a move towards a strengths approach which asks what is right with you, your family, your community and your society. On a practical and pragmatic note, more reflection and time needs to be spent on how complex ideas – such as meaning, context and interpretation – be meaningfully incorporated in institutional structures and practices already under incredible pressure.

We intend to continue these conversations and look forward to seeing you at our forthcoming events. There are four more seminars planned for 2019. Each will consider ACEs and resilience through a different conceptual lens. These are: 

·        ACEs and foetal & infant development

·        ACEs, resilience and gender

·        Resilience in the Majority World

·        ACEs and resilience in Scottish schools

We will be announcing dates for these seminars in the New Year. Please subscribe to the CRFR website for updates on this, and CRFR’s other events and research activities.

Further links

Drs Emma Davidson and Eric Carlin reflect on their CRFR Informal Seminar ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’.
Resilience – continuing the conversation

CRFR Associate PhD student Ariane Critchley provides her thoughts on resilience in response to the recent CRFR Seminar ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’ given by Eric Carlin and Emma Davidson.
How resilient do we want our children and young people to be?

Dr Caralyn Blaisdell from the University of Strathclyde continues our discussion on the theme of resilience and how this term is being used, with specific reference to early years.  
Resilience in early years – continuing the conversation

ACE Awareness,damage narratives and social justice in early years practice: personal andprofessional reflections

Laura Wright, University of Edinburgh talks about engaging children in the ACE agenda.

ACE Aware Nation: Engaging Children in the Conversation

Hunger matters

Jessie Gunson (Flinders University, South Australia) kindly gave a CRFR informal seminar during her recent visit to Scotland. In this blog, Jessie and colleagues Megan Warin and Vivienne Moore (University of Adelaide, South Australia) recount the seminar and give us some insight into their recent research.

 

When we think of the relationship between hunger and poverty we often conjure in our mind images from famine and overseas aid campaigns. If we are asked to think of a picture of a child who is hungry, that child would more than likely appear as thin. This child we imagine as having ‘not enough’ food. Childhood obesity, on the other hand, (indeed obesity in general) is commonly presented as being a case of ‘too much’. Too much ‘junk food’, too many calories, too many fizzy drinks. However, our recent research with children, carried out in Adelaide and funded by a Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation grant, has prompted us to think about:

• the ‘unspoken’ possibility of being both hungry and obese,
• how this impacts on children’s lives, and
• what implications this might have for public health interventions.

Children from low socio-economic backgrounds have been made a significant priority in Australian government obesity interventions. Such programmes tend to focus on promoting change in food and exercise practices. In our research we carried out qualitative, ethnographic research with children aged 10-14 to explore their understanding of obesity in relation to a large government-funded obesity prevention programme in South Australia. We found that central to children’s experiences of food, particularly in low socio-economic settings, is how they cope with hunger, both practically and more conceptually.

Our two key findings were:

• Short term management of hunger is more important for children and their carers than long term health agendas.
• Hunger is stigmatised, therefore children who are obese are at risk of being doubly marginalised in their day-to-day lives.

Children living in low socio-economic settings experience ‘food insecurity’ where food supplies and availability are precarious and unpredictable. In our research we found that the financial vulnerability of families (for example, through unemployment, low income, or sudden changes in circumstance) meant that children experienced significant fluctuations in both their ability to access food and, therefore, their feelings of hunger. Managing hunger on a day-to-day basis was tactically imperative for children themselves, as well as for the carers and community workers that they engaged with.

 

 Children and their carers knew what the ‘healthy lifestyle’ messages were, and how these had been presented as choosing salads and fruit over fast food, and riding or walking to school instead of going in the car. However, in community settings such as after-school clubs, where the food was supplied by hunger-relief agencies, first priority was given to making sure children did not go hungry, with emphasis on healthy eating a less urgent concern.

 

The children at the centre of our study occupied a somewhat ironic position in that they were simultaneously being targeted by a major obesity intervention and by hunger relief initiatives. The children we spoke to described mixed feelings, including unease and disgust when they talked about having to eat food supplied by such agencies. They were clearly aware of where their food was coming from, and how this marked them out as ‘poor’.

 

Our findings show how restricted and constrained food choices are for children who are living in poverty, leaving little space for children (or parents and community staff for that matter) to make ‘healthy choices’ and active selections, and putting extra emphasis on the adult carers to negotiate and encourage children to eat what is available.

 

Our research shows that public health interventions need to more closely address the relationship between social and physiological causes of obesity. The dominant messages of ‘energy in versus energy out’ and ‘healthy choices’ do not take into account the urgent, day-to-day issues that take priority when living in low-socioeconomic settings. If we only see obesity in terms of excess – too much food, then we cannot understand why hunger and obesity can coexist.

 

For more information please contact Jessie Gunson by email.

 

 

 

 

 

Creating Good Lives and Decent Societies

GLADS - Good Lives and Decent Societies, is one of five projects funded under the 2014 Scottish Universities Insight Institute wellbeing programme. A collaboration between academics, policy makers and practitioners, here Marie-Amelie Viatte and Christine McMellon take time to describe what is being discussed.

Development has historically focused on reducing poverty and gaining financial wealth, as measured by GDP. This, however, raises questions about what it is that makes life worth living and presents several problems:

• It implies that acquiring wealth will necessarily improve people's quality of life, and yet there is extensive evidence that, at least after basic needs are met, money is not necessarily one of the key determinants of happiness.
• Economic growth can have a directly negative impact on wellbeing as it often leads to pollution and the depletion of resources.
• Events which can have a negative impact on wellbeing - such as natural disasters, crime and divorce, can sometimes increase GDP.

The GLADS seminar series provides an opportunity to take stock of what has been said on wellbeing, what has been said about measuring wellbeing, and what it means for policy and practice. Wellbeing is an important concept across disciplines, but meaningful conversations can be challenging and it is important to be clear about whether we are referring to the same things when we use terms such as 'wellbeing', 'quality of life' and 'happiness'. Wellbeing is related to both individual lives and broader social issues. It is relevant across time and is at the core of many of the issues, such as education, health, and governance, being addressed in policy and practice settings. GLADS is focusing on three themes: health; place and space; and welfare and employment.

The Scottish Government, like other countries, is trying to move away from from a narrow, GPD-based definition of development, to a more holistic approach - setting indicators within a National Performance Framework, Scotland Performs, to measure the progress of Government in 'creating a more successful country'. GLADS is facilitating discussion around these issues, bringing together key people to look at the connections between these issues and explore strategies to tackle them.

The first event took place in February 2014, to define wellbeing and open up discussion on how to assess wellbeing. It attracted presentations from The University of Edinburgh, Scottish Government, The Office for National Statistics, OECD and Oxfam Scotland. Copies of the presentations are available on the website.

The second event is taking place on 14 and 15 May. It focuses on the practice promoting wellbeing. If you are interested in being part of the discussion and contributing to GLADS please take a look at the website and register online. 

Read the GLADS blog and follow us on twitter @ScotGLADS #gladsmay