Renegotiating power in adult safeguarding: the role of advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The increased involvement of adults at risk in the safeguarding process has become a prominent issue within English safeguarding policy. However, there is evidence to suggest that actual levels of involvement are still low. The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a PhD study in relation to the benefits of advocacy in supporting this involvement in adult safeguarding for older people. Design/methodology/approach Participants in the study included advocates and social workers who had experience of working with older people through the safeguarding process within two North East England local authorities. A critical realist approach through in-depth interviews was taken with all the participants. Findings The research findings in relation to the benefits of advocacy in supporting older people going through safeguarding processes are reported. The practical limitations and factors which help and hinder advocacy support within the process are also considered. The theoretical implications for power, empowerment, and advocacy are also explored. Research limitations/implications A key limitation of this research is that it did not include older people who had been through safeguarding amongst the participants. Practical implications Key implications for practice and policy are discussed. Originality/value The paper provides an overview and critique of empowerment in adult safeguarding and the role that advocates play in promoting this key principle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".