Listen to this
Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect
Samuel Johnson, 1751
Relational Child and Youth Care practice (Garfat et al, 2018) evolved from the field’s continuing focus on relationship. Yet, as we are learning everyday, there are important differences between relationship-based practice and relational CYC practice (Garfat, 2008). As Fewster (2001) said, there is a difference between having a relationship and being in relationship. Relational CYC practice involves ‘being in relationship’ with other. And ‘being in relationship’ suggests there is a space, a place, called relationship; not a ‘thing to have’ but a ‘place to be’, a place we call the ‘in-between between us’ (Garfat, 2008).
Relational Child & Youth Care practice is an approach to Child & Youth Care which is centered on the interpersonal interactions, in a context of acceptance and wonder, between self and other with an intense focus on the characteristics of the space which is the in-between between us (Garfat, 2008). This is markedly different than a relationship-based approach in which the focus is on the characteristics of the participants themselves (e.g., I am the worker, she is the client). In relational practice the worker is constantly wondering about the characteristics of the in-between and the elements of context (e.g., the balance of power, location, history, etc.) which are impacting on the interactions that create this in-between between us. For example, as Munroe says, the worker’s engagement, “cannot be looked at as being reciprocal without understanding how this power dynamic is being deployed” (Munroe, 2021, p. 39) and experienced. As Gharabaghi (2014, p. 8) stated, relational practice “shifts the focus from the actors engaged in some form of interaction to the experience of interacting regardless of the specific actors”. In focusing on the in-between, the worker attends to the experience of self of both participants with the intention of co-creating an in-between of safety and trust where the other (and, often the worker) is willing and able to take the risk to try new ways of being in their world.
In relational practice the worker sees I to I with the other, encountering each other in direct perception and shared felt experience (Austin & Halpin, 1987). The worker begins the process of engagement by “responding to and initiating bids to connect in ways that benefit and support others in their own growth” (Freeman, 2019, p. 4). With the goal of inviting the other to engage in the in-between, it is there that we find transformative potential (Modlin & Phelan, 2021) and context for healing. With an ongoing focus on needs of other and self, interpretation, and contextual awareness, and in the co-created conditions of acceptance, safety, and engagement, the in-between becomes what Mann-Feder called the place of ‘us’ (1999). It is here, in this space, where ‘connected experiencing’ (Garfat, 1998) and the co-creation of relational reality (Peterson, 1988) occur. Here, mutual influence is sought and experienced as “meaning emerges within the ‘space between’ the individual, family, or community” (Bellefeuille and Jamieson 2008, p. 38).
Relational practice, whether it be in direct care interventions, in training, in education, or any other encounter, is an ongoing process of interactions within which the worker is constantly wondering, in a context of self-reflection and active self-awareness, ‘how will what I am doing, or thinking of doing, impact on the in-between between us?’ For, as Maier (1992) stated, the in-between is constantly recreated by mutual interactions between self and other.
As the engagement with other continues, the helper lets their own needs recede (Phelan, 2023) and focuses more on those of the other. Once safety and trust are established, the worker gradually introduces the idea that there may be different, more satisfying, and perhaps less painful ways for the other to act in their world. While doing so the worker maintains their focus on the in-between, engaging to support it in continuing to be a place of safety and trust, and now, too, as a place of greater awareness, learning and risk-taking. The constant focus on the characteristics of the in-between between us, ensures that there is an ongoing emphasis on co-creating a context of development and change, while supporting the growth of personal autonomy, decision making, and agency of the other and the power between worker and other becomes more balanced. Throughout, the worker maintains a position of curiosity, security, and support as the other experiments with adopting a different perspective and way of being. The in-between becomes even more of a co-created space where each is impacted by the encounter with the other.
Relational Child and Youth Care interactions, based on the characteristics of contemporary Child and Youth Care Practice, attend constantly to the co-constructed, reciprocal in-between of self and other. It is a CYC way of being in the world and being in relationship. As Fewster (2005, p. 3). said, relational practice “is not only a very different perspective; it is a different pathway, across a very different terrain, in search of a very different destination”.
It is this which, for us, distinguishes relational practice from the more traditional relationship-based practice.
References
Austin, D. and Halpin, W. (1987). Seeing "I" to "I": A phenomenological analysis of the caring relationship. Journal of Child Care, 3,3. pp. 37-42.
Bellefeuille, G. & Jamieson, D. (2008). Relational-centred planning: A turn toward creative potential and possibilities, In G. Bellefeuille, and F. Ricks, (Eds) Standing on the Precipice: Inquiry into the Creative Potential of Child and Youth Care Practice, (35-72), Alberta, Canada: MacEwan Press.
Fewster, G. (2001). Getting there from being here. Retrieved from https://cyc-net.org/CYC-Online /cycol-0201-fewster.html
Fewster, G. (2005). I don’t like kids. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 18 (3),3-5.
Freeman, J. (2019). What are we really doing? CYC-Online , 249, 3-4.
Gharabaghi, K. (2014). Relationships and relational practice. CYC-Online , 185, 6-9.
Garfat, T. (1998). The effective child and youth care intervention: A phenomenological inquiry. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 12 (1&2), 5-178.
Garfat, T. (2008). The interpersonal in-between: An exploration of relational child and youth care practice. In G. Bellefuille & F. Ricks (Eds), 7-34. Standing on the Precipice: Inquiry into the Creative Potential of Child and Youth Care Practice. Edmonton: MacEwan Press.
Garfat, T., Freeman, J, Gharabaghi, K. & Fulcher, L. (2018). Characteristics of a relational Child & Youth Care Approach (Revised). CYC-Online , 236, pp7-46).
Johnson, S (12 Mar. 1751). Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect. The Rambler, No. 103.
Maier, H. (1992). Rhythmicity: A powerful force for experiencing unity and personal connections. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 8, 7-13.
Mann-Feder, V. R. (1999). You/me/us: Thoughts on boundary management in child and youth care. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 13(2), 93-98.
Modlin, H. & Phelan, J. (2021). Relational CYC practice, a singular approach. In In H. Modlin, J. Freeman, C. Gatiens & T. Garfat (Eds.) Relational Child & Youth Care in Action, 201-212. Cape Town: The CYC-Net Press.
Munroe, T. (2021). A (re)formulation of enriching relational practices with critical anti-black racism advocacy and perspectives in schools. In H. Modlin, J. Freeman, C. Gaitens & T. Garfat (Eds.) Relational Child & Youth Care in Action, p.29-45. Cape Town: The CYC-Net Press.
Peterson, R. (1988). The collaborative metaphor technique: Using Ericsonian (Milton H.) techniques and principles in child, family and youth care work. Journal of Child Care, 3(4), 11-27.
Phelan, J. (2023, in press). Relationship, relational and CYC professional growth: Relational Practice explored further.
