1 Introduction

Social workers have limited time to address topics that are important to children and that are relevant to assessing children's needs, useful in supportive or therapeutic processes and vital in intervention follow-ups. In Britain, social workers spend approximately 20% of their working hours in direct face-to-face contact with children and families (BASW 2018; CCN 2022). Child welfare social workers in Sweden spend even less time—only 2% of their time—in direct contact with children (Grefve 2016). These statistics indicate that social workers inevitably prioritize one conversational direction over another, as they simply do not have enough time to address every aspect that might be relevant to explore. As noted in a recent literature review on children's and young people's participation in child welfare: ‘the possibilities for children and young people to express their views remain restricted’ (McCafferty and Mercado, 2024, 1092).

To mitigate the risk of overlooking important issues and to further safeguard children's well-being and safety, it is essential that social workers create conditions that encourage children's unprompted talk, allowing them to express their views freely. By facilitating children's unprompted talk, social workers can help ensure that vital conversations are taking place. According to Vis (2011), failing to include children's views may reduce the chances of discovering and speedily addressing abuse and neglect. Consequently, helping children change or protect aspects of their lives necessitates an understanding of their perception of their situation (IFSW 2018).

Furthermore, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) states that children capable of expressing their views have the right to do so freely in all matters affecting them. Thus, facilitating children's unprompted talk is important for safeguarding children's well-being and safety, as well as upholding children's intrinsic right to express their views freely.

However, what ‘unprompted talk’ or ‘expressing views freely’ means, or should mean, in practice, remains a subject of contention (cf. Skauge et al. 2021). Common ideals associate this with being able to open up and share personal experiences without fear of negative consequences (Sagen et al. 2013) and using conversational spaces as one desires (e.g., Cook and Monk 2020). Other perspectives compromise children's right to express themselves freely by arguing that it is conditioned by their capabilities and, thus, contingent on their chronological age and adults' assessments of their maturity (UNCRC 1989; Porter 2020).

Nonetheless, a growing body of research stresses that an individual's capability to express themselves is not necessarily contingent on their chronological age or maturity but rather on contextual, relational and interactional factors (e.g., Aronsson and Hundeide 2002; Lamb and Brown 2006; Cederborg 2010; Sagen et al. 2013; Edman et al. 2024). That interactional factors influence children's well-being, safety and expressions was a starting point for this study. It implies that how social workers communicate significantly affects whether and how children express their views.

In this article, ‘unprompted talk’ and ‘expressing views freely’ entails adding content or taking an initiative in the dialogue without being explicitly invited to do so (Edman et al. 2022; cf. Gerwing and Healing 2017). Children's unprompted talk can be described in terms of ‘child-initiated actions’ that stand apart from responses that align with questions and imperative prompts, including open invitations to talk (e.g., ‘What would you like to talk about today?’). However, this is not to argue that such conversational contributions and the ensuing responses are insignificant or that unprompted talk is independently constructed by the child. Rather, it underscores that if social workers do not also use their communication skills to facilitate children's more unprompted talk, what is important to children could remain unarticulated, thereby compromising the quality of their work and children's right to express themselves freely in matters affecting them.

1.1 Aim and Research Question

The present study is part of a larger research project on children's involvement in child and family social work dialogues (e.g., Edman 2024; Edman et al. 2024) and builds on an operationalization of children's involvement developed within this research project (Edman et al. 2022). In this project, involvement is used as an open-ended starting point synonymous with participation.

Specifically, this study seeks to identify and characterize conditions for children's unprompted talk in child and family social work dialogues. The primary research question is: Which conversational contributions facilitate children's unprompted talk, allowing them to express their views freely in child and family therapy sessions?

In this study, ‘conversational contribution’ refers to what social workers do as part of their dialogues with children. ‘Dialogue’ is defined as a jointly achieved conversation between two or more interlocutors. In the context of child and family social work, dialogues are also known as institutional talks, that is, formalized dialogues where at least one of the participants is a representative of a social institution and conducts the talk as part of their profession (Boyd and Ericsson 2015; Linell 2022). ‘Child and family therapy sessions’ are a type of institutional talk (Drew and Heritage 1992) that aims to improve children's well-being by strengthening relationships (e.g., Robbins et al. 2016; cf. Danby et al. 2015) and paying attention to experiences, behaviours, thoughts and feelings (e.g., Benjamin et al. 2011). Therapy sessions may precede and play a decisive role in the initiation of child welfare investigations, contribute to ongoing assessments and serve as a follow-up intervention. Consequently, how child and family therapy sessions unfold is pivotal both within the therapeutic context and to the broader child welfare framework.

2 Pathways to Children's Unprompted Talk

To date, it appears that there is a lack of social work research focusing on practices that contribute to children's unprompted talk in child and family social work dialogues. However, social work research on similar topics and research in allied fields provide some insights (cf., Morris et al. 2016; Kennan et al. 2018).

For instance, Palacios et al. (2023) advocate for creative and culturally responsive counselling interventions, such as spoken word, as effective means for children to express themselves. Similarly, in their research on the therapeutic relationship in child psychotherapy, Núñez et al. (2021) found that practitioners' adoption of a child-centred stance, incorporating playfulness and using the child's language, was associated with children's unprompted talk. These results align with the proposed importance of supporting children to be involved in social work dialogues on their own terms (Edman et al. 2024).

Moreover, Ovenstad et al. (2022) explored the relationship between youth involvement, alliance and outcome in trauma-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy. Their study suggests that children tolerate increased emotional distress and that they speak more elaborately when they understand the importance of discussing emotionally challenging experiences. Though not empirically verified, it is plausible that when social workers effectively convey the importance of talking to them, it encourages children's free expressions about personal experiences (cf. Ovenstad et al. 2022; Edman et al. 2024).

Weiste and Peräkylä (2013), who analysed differences and similarities in the use of formulations in audio-recorded cognitive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis sessions, observed that the clients typically respond with minimal confirmations to formulations that closely align with their initial descriptions. Additionally, they noted that more radical transformations of the clients' narratives facilitate greater elaborations. Their study indicates that formulations (a formulation is defined as an ‘utterance that functions to provide a display of what the listener has understood by furnishing the gist of the previous contribution’; Gerwing and Healing 2017, 20; Heritage and Watson 1979) do not only change what has already been said but also influence what comes next.

In their interview study on qualities enabling adolescents to express themselves freely in psychotherapy, Sagen et al. (2013) identified five themes: (1) children received full and genuine attention from the professional, (2) children did not have to take care of and/or be responsible for the professional, (3) children felt accepted and valued by the professional, (4) the professional stayed with the child through emotionally painful moments and (5) the professional said or showed something about themselves. The authors underscored that themes 2 and 5 could potentially conflict—what a practitioner shares with a child must never result in the child taking responsibility for the practitioner's emotions. Adding to the complexity, Cook and Monk (2020), in their study on children's experiences of power relations in person-centred counselling sessions, found that the degree to which children valued learning about their practitioner, and the point at which this developed into the child feeling responsible for the practitioner, varied among different children. They also found that counselling sessions where practitioners adopted a nondirective approach and kept the relationship with the child separate from the child's other relationships, resulted in children being less restrained and, thus, more prone to utilize the counselling space as they wished. The same authors also reported that while some children valued suggestions from practitioners on how they could express themselves, others did not.

Additional insights are provided by Cederborg's (2010) guidelines for interviewing children and a study by Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al. (2019) on factors that influence children's verbal input in research interviews. Cederborg suggests repeating the last words of a child's utterance and using attending responses (cf. Gerwing and Healing 2017), such as m-hm and uh-huh. Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al. (2019) highlight the significance of supportive and confidence-boosting encouragements. They associate expressions such as ‘Wow, well done!’ and ‘This is very interesting’ with richer responses from the children. Conversely, closed-ended questions were found to elicit the least amount of storytelling (Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al. 2019, 4).

A study on physicians' communication strategies in paediatric diabetes consultations (Gustafsson 2014) comments on the effectiveness of avoidance strategies, such as refraining from criticizing or blaming clients (Ryn and Heaney 1997). These strategies created an atmosphere where children and their guardians utilized the conversational space freely. Thus, Gustafsson introduces the notion that creating an atmosphere conducive to free expression involves not only what one does, but also what one avoids doing. An anonymous researcher discussing the lessons they learned from long-term telephone psychoanalysis touched on a similar topic: silence (Anonymous 2011). The author characterized the psychoanalyst's silence as ‘quiet understanding and empathic attunement in a safe, containing environment’, and, at times, as ‘emotionally distant and disengaged’ (p. 824), thereby highlighting the nuanced nature of this communicative element. The author published the article anonymously, thus advocating the freedom to express oneself without fear of potential familial or professional repercussions. Their reasoning aligns with what Sagen et al. (2013) proposed, namely, speaking freely entails sharing personal experiences without worrying about potential negative consequences.

Relatedly, the importance of meeting in a location and in a constellation where children feel safe to self-disclose has also been documented in studies on children's participation in family law proceedings (Eriksson and Näsman 2008), interprofessional collaboration (Husby Dahlø et al. 2018) and child and family therapy sessions (Edman et al. 2024). Previous research has also shown that who is present in a session can influence whether and how the child exercises involvement (encompassing unprompted talk (Edman et al. 2022)). For instance, Diaz et al. (2018) concluded that allowing children to bring a friend or family member to important meetings supported them in making their voices heard. Conversely, Seim and Slettebø (2017), Eriksson and Näsman (2008) and Edman et al. (2024) argued that the presence of family members may inhibit a child from speaking their mind. Thus, social work dialogues need to be fine-tuned and continuously adjusted (cf. Winter et al. 2017; Cook and Monk 2020; Edman et al. 2024).

While the aforementioned studies offer insights into possible pathways to children's unprompted talk, it is important to note that this was not their primary objective, nor was speaking freely interactionally defined. Notably, several scholars have specifically urged researchers to detangle practitioner behaviours that facilitate beneficial involvement (e.g., Ovenstad et al. 2022), as well as child-friendly communication skills (e.g., Höjer et al. 2022).

3 Data and Analytic Procedure

3.1 Data Collection

To generate results with practical utility and relevance to daily work, the project described here has strived to get as close to practice as possible without interfering with it. Since the presence of a camera or a researcher observing in situ inevitably influences practice (Bavelas and Gerwing 2011; Bavelas 2021), I prioritized collecting extant recordings of social work dialogues. Because social workers who practise child and family therapies in social services and mental health care settings frequently record their work as part of their everyday routine (e.g., as part of the workplace culture or supervision), their recordings can be seen as evidence of how social work dialogues are conducted independently of research.

The data collection procedure—also detailed elsewhere (Edman et al. 2022; Edman et al. 2024; Edman 2025)—involved contacting individual social workers, associations of child and family therapies and workplaces where session recordings were an established practice. To further facilitate recruitment, the research project was also announced on digital platforms for clinical social workers. The study includes the workplaces and social workers who first indicated interest in taking part. The social workers selected which children, parents and/or guardians would be informed about the study and invited to participate. The following criteria were provided as the basis for their decision: The children should be 7–17 years old, the participants should be able to understand the study's purpose, they should not need interpreters, and the social workers should determine that neither learning about the study nor taking part in it would result in social or psychological harm (e.g., anxiety or retaliation).

The children, parents and/or guardians were informed about the study only after the sessions had concluded (with one exception, where the social worker inadvertently informed them beforehand). This approach ensured that if a social worker noticed that a child had difficulties understanding them and therefore suspected that they would also have difficulty giving informed consent, that child was neither informed nor included in the study.

Because the sessions were recorded independently of this study, it can be assumed that the research project had no influence on the children's behaviour during the sessions. While most of the social workers were aware of the research project at the time of recording, they were not specifically informed about this study's focus on identifying and characterizing conversational contributions that facilitated children's unprompted talk.

3.2 Data and Participants

The dataset consists of 22 extant audiovisual recordings of child and family therapy sessions conducted as part of regular services at social services departments and children's mental health clinics. All practitioners were social workers. The recordings included 23 children (ages 9–17), 9 parents and 11 social workers. These 22 recordings represent 20 unique cases, with some children appearing in multiple recordings. For instance, a child may be recorded both in an individual session and in a session with a parent. Each session included one to three children, and each social worker provided one to three recordings. The recordings spanned 30–90 min and were made during September 2019 to January 2022. Most of the recordings captured face-to-face dialogues, one exception being a session mediated via video conference technology.

3.3 Method of Analysis: A Six-Step Procedure

The recordings were analysed using microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue (MFD) (Bavelas et al. 2016). Key components in MFD include direct analysis of recordings (e.g., not relying on audio files or transcripts) and maintaining synchronization between ongoing analyses and the recordings. Consistent with MFD, the analytic procedure involved the following six steps:

Step 1. I randomly split the 22 recordings into two sets, with 16 in one set and 6 in the other (Bavelas et al. 2016, on cross-validation). I reserved the smaller set for Step 6 and used the larger set to identify and characterize conversational contributions that facilitated the children's unprompted talk.

Step 2. I reviewed the 16 recordings in the larger set and located the children's unprompted talk directly within the recordings. My decisions were informed by a parent study that operationalized children's involvement (Edman et al. 2022). More specifically, the analysis focused on two subdimensions of directive involvement: ‘taking an initiative’ and ‘adding [topical] content’ (cf. Gerwing and Healing 2017). The following transcribed examples illustrate children's unprompted talk. The first example begins with the child (Ch) stating that their parent's tone bothers them (Edman et al. 2024, 60).

Example 1

Ch: It's the tone [how the parent talks] that bothers me a lot.

Sw: Yes ok (nods) you are sensitive to the tone.

Ch: I'm not sensitive, everyone notices the tone.

In the third utterance, the child challenges the social worker's (Sw) interpretation by stating that they are not sensitive and emphasizing that ‘everyone notices the tone’. While the social worker helped facilitate this response, they did not explicitly prompt it. The second example begins with the social worker interrupting the child's parent (Pt).

Example 2

Pt: And and

Sw: So, I'm thinking (turns their chair so that they only face the child), what difference does it make for you, to hear your parent say what they are saying now, that they want you to feel at home at their place?

Ch: Hmm, I do not care, and I want to add that it is how they handled the divorce that I'm upset about.

In the third utterance, the child initiates a topic (how their parents handled the divorce upsets them) without having been explicitly prompted to. That is, instead of answering the social worker's question, the child expresses themself freely.

Step 3. I traced and followed the 189 instances of children's unprompted talk located in Step 2 and made tentative assessments about which conversational contributions seemed decisive for these instances. It involved carefully examining the sequences preceding each instance of unprompted talk to detect patterns of similarity and difference. For instance, when I noticed that social workers' formulations often preceded children's unprompted talk, I compiled my annotations of these formulations in a separate tier synchronized with the recording. I replayed these instances till I observed what distinguished them from other types of formulations and utterances. This procedure prompted me to observe how gently they challenged the children's perspectives and experiences.

Step 4. I described the identified conversational contributions. During this phase of the analysis, I balanced fine-grained descriptions with a level of abstraction that ensured the results were both grounded in the data and transferable to other settings.

Step 5. I sought disconfirming evidence by investigating whether the identified and described conversational contributions were also common in sequences where children's unprompted talk was scarce.

Step 6. I conducted a cross-validation check by examining whether the tentative results also fit the six recordings I had set aside in Step 1. This cross-validation process demonstrated that the identified conversational contributions were applicable beyond the initial dataset.

3.4 Ethical Statement

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the research project in August 2019. The data collection was sanctioned by local boards and legal departments at the social services departments and the mental health clinics where the sessions were recorded. All social workers and children aged 15 and above gave their written consent. Parents provided their consent either in writing or orally (documented in the audiovisual recordings). In accordance with Swedish ethical guidelines, which aim to protect children under the age of 15 from the responsibility of making consent decisions, the legal guardians of younger children gave written approval for their children's participation, and none of the participating children objected to these approvals.

4 Results

The analysis points to five conversational contributions that facilitate children's unprompted talk, allowing them to express their views freely: (1) challenging, (2) appreciating, (3) elaborating, (4) providing space and (5) advocating (Figure 1). As illustrated by the cogwheel in Figure 1, the conversational contributions sometimes worked in unison, enhancing each other's functions.

4.1 Challenging

When the social workers gently challenged the children's experiences and perspectives, it seemed to facilitate the children's unprompted talk. Consider Excerpt A, where a child, one of their parents and their social worker are discussing the child's dislike of physical intimacy. Prior to the excerpt, the child had expressed that they find hugs uncomfortable. At line 1, the social worker proposes that the child's dislike is due to individual differences among people.

Excerpt A.

1 Sw: And that's where we are different as people.

2 Ch: But I've always really liked hugs from everyone, from

3: friends, from everyone and now it easily becomes very

4: much too much. And you cannot really understand it if

5: you have not experienced what I've experienced.

At lines 2–5, the child is adding topical content that is not explicitly asked for. That is, the child expresses that they are not a person who dislikes hugs. Rather, they have come to dislike hugs due to certain experiences they have had.

In Excerpt B, the child has just responded to a series of questions about their relationship with their mother. At line 1, the social worker concludes, ‘So you and your parent are actually on the same page’, implying that both the child and their parent believe that it is important to confide in each other. Following the social worker's conclusion, the child expresses their view freely:

Excerpt B.

1 Sw: So you and your parent are actually on the same page.

2 Ch: Erm, but sometimes when you are maybe not happy,

3: they want to know what it is and I do not want to say and

4: then she tries to force me to tell and then there’s a fight.

5 Sw: They're like trying to push you,

6 Ch: Yeah

7 Sw: to say what it is.

8 Ch: (nodding)

The excerpt also contains a contrasting example at lines 5–8. This short sequence illustrates that when social workers' conversational contributions resonated more fully with the children's experiences and perspectives, the children tended to respond more briefly and less freely (e.g., ‘Yeah’ at line 6 and ‘nodding’ at line 8). Similarly, when the social workers' interpretations significantly diverged from the children's views—rather than gently challenging them—the children tended to respond with emphatic rejections (e.g., ‘No way!’) rather than contributing a more elaborate unprompted response.

4.2 Appreciating

The children expressed their views freely more often in sessions where the social workers displayed appreciation for their input, for instance, by emphasizing the significance of what the children shared or by encouraging the children to elaborate. The children's unprompted talk were not limited to the moments immediately following such appreciations. They also seemed to enhance the likelihood that the children would express their experiences and perspectives more freely throughout the session. In other words, the flow of the dialogue was not solely determined by utterances in close proximity to each other.

To illustrate, in Excerpt C, the child shares a recipe that they created, to which the social worker responds appreciatively with ‘Yes, and you are creative!’ and ‘Yes, and you are good at it’. Although the child's input is not directly related to the purpose of their meeting, the social worker still displayed appreciation for their contribution.

Excerpt C.

1 Ch: I can cook a lot of food.

2 Pt: Mm

3 Ch: I do not need a recipe to cook.

4 Sw: Okay

5 Ch: I've come up with a sauce that's great for pasta, it's

6: just tomato sauce, cream, herbs and bacon. So easy

7 Sw: (inhales and raises their hands and puts them together)

8 Ch: and so tasty.

9 Sw: Yeah, and you are creative!

10 Ch: Yeah, I'm very creative.

11 Sw: Yes, and you are good at it.

Rather than disregarding, merely agreeing with or recycling parts of the child's utterance before proceeding, the social worker displays appreciation by adding the affirmations ‘you are creative’ and ‘you are good at it’, preceded by the appreciative gesture at line 7, which visibly anticipates and aligns with the ensuing praise. These kinds of interactions appeared to facilitate the child's involvement, increasing the probability that the child would express their views more freely in other parts of the conversation that were more closely linked to the therapeutic topic.

In Excerpt D, the child expresses a desire for their parent to be more open to their perspective. The social worker responds appreciatively by explicitly validating the child's input at lines 2–4:

Excerpt D.

1 Ch: / … /open to my perspective.

2 Sw: Open to your perspective, yeah (leans forward, initiates

3: eye contact and extends their right arm towards the child

4: with palm facing up)

5 Ch: I think that would have made a big change in my

6: relationship with them/ … /

At lines 5–6, the child responds to the social worker's displayed appreciation by adding topical content that is not explicitly prompted.

4.3 Elaborating

The analysis suggests that when the social workers used elaborate language—such as hypothetical reasoning, metaphorical analogies, and gestural demonstrations—the children responded in similar ways. This pattern of interaction is demonstrated in Excerpt E. Here, the child, one of the child's parents and their social worker are discussing how the child manages their schoolwork and extracurricular activities. The child has just shared that they got good grades on a recent maths test, which the social worker elaborates on at lines 1, 3, 5 and 7–10. Subsequently, the child expresses their view freely at lines 11–13 and 15–18.

Excerpt E.

1 Sw: And there you have it again [sort of] that when

2 Ch: [Mm]

3 Sw: you know what to do and what you have to deal with,

4 Pt: (nodding)

5 Sw: then it becomes easier for you and then you manage,

6 Pt: Mm

7 Sw: and it's excellent! It's not that you are having a really

8: hard time, because then you sort it out and can, like,

9: focus, and everything falls into place (snaps fingers),

10: no problem.

11 Ch: And that's sort of why I want to do gymnastics,

12: because I know a lot of people who do gymnastics, or

13: have done,

14 Sw: Mm

15 Ch: and they say that almost all the exercises have clear

16: instructions, what to do, so it suits people with a

17: diagnosis or have difficulty concentrating or something

18: like that.

Based on the results thus far, it appears that gently challenging children's experiences and perspectives and displaying appreciation for children's input, coupled with the use of rich and elaborate language, may yield significant support for children's unprompted talk.

Excerpt F further illustrates how rich elaborations preceded children's unprompted talk.

Excerpt F.

1 Sw: So, if this (talking to the social worker) would help,

2: your mood would be more like a wave motion

3: (makes a wave movement with their arms), rather than

4: something like this (moves their arms up and down).

5 Ch: Because there's a lot going on at school and my

6: mood prevents me from doing my schoolwork and

7: stuff and mostly because I'll be finishing ninth grade

8: next year and I'd really like to do my schoolwork.

9 Sw: Ahh you really want to do your schoolwork.

10 Ch: Yeah.

The social worker enriches their utterance by visualizing their formulation using co-speech gestures at lines 3–4, to which the child replies at lines 5–8 by both adding topical content and initiating a topic (what is important to them). The excerpt also contains a contrasting example at lines 9–10, in which the social worker's brief formulation is simply confirmed, thus corroborating the proposed function of the conversational contribution ‘challenging’.

4.4 Providing Space

In sessions where the social workers cultivated environments that allowed children both the time and the opportunity to express their views without interruptions, the children initiated more topics and added more content. Providing space was, for instance, achieved by redirecting focus from parents to children and keeping notes out of the children's line of sight. Excerpt G illustrates this latter technique. Throughout the excerpt, the social worker takes notes while looking down at their notepad, which is positioned out of the child's line of sight.

Excerpt G.

1 Ch: But the only thing is that I need my medicine, my

2: life is actually really great and stuff, but sometimes

3: my life really sucks.

4 Sw: So right now life is great.

5 Ch: It depends on which mood swings you, you have,

6: each day, how you are doing sort of, yeah sure I’ve felt

7: really bad these months and I’m feeling sort of bad

8: now, but I still have a smile on my face, because I do

9: not want to show others that I’m feeling bad because I

10: do not like when others feel bad for you and put their

11: energy into that, because they do not know how, know

12: how, I feel.

The excerpt presents a contrast with sequences where the social workers' notes were visible to the children, either displayed on a whiteboard or presented on a large piece of paper placed in front of them. When the notes were visible to the children, the children's conversational contributions mirrored the pace and content of what the social workers were writing. For example, when the social worker asked a child to describe their family while simultaneously drawing each family member on a whiteboard and writing down their names, the child named each family member in sync with the social worker's writing, staying focused on the writing and only continuing to speak when the social worker lifted their pen.

The child's unprompted talk also partially coincided with the social worker's disaligned formulation at line 4, which works as a gentle challenge. Thus, the identified conversational contributions (in this case, ‘providing space’ and ‘challenging’) sometimes worked in unison, thereby reinforcing each other's functions.

Excerpt H offers another example of how the social workers facilitated the children's unprompted talk. In this excerpt, the parent is sharing their perspectives on issues at home, extending far beyond the transcript. At lines 11–14, the social worker interrupts the parent by shifting their position to face only the child and asking the child a question.

Excerpt H.

1 Pt: I want them to feel at home at my place.

2 Sw: Mm

3 Pt: They picked out a couch that they liked, I bought it,

5 Sw: Mm

6 Pt: erm, they think we should have a kitchen table,

7 Sw: Mm

8 Pt: I'll buy that too.

9 Sw: Mm mm

10 Pt: And [and]

11 Sw: [So, I'm thinking] (turns their chair so that they

12: only face the child), what difference does it make for

13: you, to hear your parent say what they are saying now,

14: that they want you to feel at home at their place?

15 Ch: Hmm, I do not care, and I want to add that it is how

16: they handled the divorce that I'm upset about.

The child seizes the opportunity that the social worker provides at lines 11–14 and expresses their view at lines 15–16. Rather than merely responding to the social worker's question, they initiate a new topic (how their parents handled the divorce upsets them) without having been explicitly prompted to.

4.5 Advocating

In sessions where the social workers advocated for children by encouraging them to voice their experiences and perspectives and ensuring that they were heard, the children demonstrated a greater tendency to express their view.

In Excerpt H above, the social worker advocates for the child's perspective by providing an opportunity for the child to express themself. At line 11, the social worker intervenes during the parent's lengthy utterance, redirecting the focus back to the child. Once again, the conversational contributions sometimes complement each other (in this case, ‘advocating’ and ‘providing space’), thus reinforcing their respective functions.

Excerpt I provides another example of advocating for children's perspectives. Here, the child expresses their desire to spend more time with their parent. At line 12, the social worker synthesizes what the child has said while turning to the parent.

Excerpt I.

1 Ch: I would love to do more stuff, but I do not have the

2: energy for it.

3 Sw: Okay

4 Ch: It was like the other day, I thought, ‘now I've done all

5: the dishes, now I can cook something’, but then they

6: did not want to eat because it was too late,

7 Sw: Mm

8 Ch: and then I just got really unmotivated to cook.

9 Pt: It was this Friday, right?

10 Ch: Yeah, I wanted to make pizza or something.

11 Pt: But I said that you were more than welcome to do

12 Sw: But they wanted you to join them (looks at the parent).

13 Ch: Mm, I do not wanna eat by myself.

The social worker's utterance at line 12 (a positive reframing) directly precedes the child's unprompted talk at line 13. However, it is important to note that any type of advocating early on in sessions correlated with the children's unprompted talk later on. In other words, and similar to the conversational contribution ‘elaborating’, the children's unprompted talk did not rely solely on utterances in close proximity to each other.

5 Discussion

This study introduces and characterizes five conversational contributions that function as interconnected cogwheels, collectively facilitating what I term ‘conversational democracy’, rooted in the democratic principle of individuals' right to freely express their thoughts and opinions without fear of negative consequences (cf. Sagen et al. 2013). The conversational contributions—(1) challenging, (2) appreciating, (3) elaborating, (4) providing space and (5) advocating—may be used to facilitate ‘conversational democracy’, thereby safeguarding the well-being and safety of both children and their families. Moreover, they uphold and foster children's intrinsic right to express their views freely in all matters that affect them.

Supported by previous research, the analysis suggests that children's unprompted talk is, at least partially, determined by social workers' conversational contributions (cf. Aronsson and Hundeide 2002; Lamb and Brown 2006; Cederborg 2010; Sagen et al. 2013; Edman et al. 2022, 2024). Further, expanding on Lundy's (2007) conceptualization of Article 12 (UNCRC 1989), facilitating children's unprompted talk should be part of a broader involvement process. Put differently, that children express their views freely is not the final goal—what children express also needs to be listened to and acted upon (cf. UNCRC Article 12; Heimer et al. 2018). While this study focuses on the conversational contributions that facilitate children's unprompted talk, it is important to recognize that it also requires adults to meaningfully consider and respond to what children express.

5.1 Consistencies and Inconsistencies With Past Studies

The identified conversational contributions occasionally worked in unison, reinforcing each other's functions (e.g., Excerpts G and H). This multifunctionality aligns with established findings on conversational contributions (e.g., Linell and Markova 1993; Schegloff 2007; Bavelas et al. 2017), as well as prior research on facilitating children's participation and/or involvement (cf. Lundy 2007; Edman et al. 2024).

While Weiste and Peräkylä's (2013) analytical focus differed from that of this study, their findings indicate that children provide minimal affirmations when formulations closely match their initial statements and elaborate more when formulations involve greater transformation. This pattern parallels my results, where children expressed themselves more freely when social workers gently challenged their perspectives (e.g., Excerpt A, line 1; Excerpt B, line 1), compared to instances where social workers fully aligned with their viewpoints (e.g., Excerpt B, lines 5 and 7).

Previous studies have also indicated that displaying appreciation for children's input (cf. Sagen et al. 2013; Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al. 2019) facilitates children's unprompted talk or, at the very least, rich responses. Similar to the present study, earlier research on children's participation and/or involvement has emphasized the importance of providing children with space to express their views (e.g., Lundy 2007; Kennan et al. 2019; Edman et al. 2024). Taking notes and keeping them out of the children's line of sight (as in Excerpt G) created a conducive space for the children to express their views freely. This may be explained by how it offered a zone in which the children were less observed and more protected from the intensity that direct eye contact can bring (cf. Winnicott and Kanter 1996; Edman et al. 2024). Further, when notes were hidden from the children, they were likely less prone to be distracted by what the social worker was writing, thus enabling them to stay focused on their experiences and perspectives and not adapt to the writing.

Lamb and Brown (2006), referencing Fivush and Shuknat (1995), acknowledged children as apprentices who learn how to talk in a specific setting through their dialogues with adults in the same setting. In this light, social workers' use of elaboration not only provided children with content to respond to but also modelled expectations for more detailed responses. Similarly, when the social workers displayed appreciation for the children's input—regardless of the therapeutic relevance (e.g., Excerpt C)—the children supposedly learned that their input is valued, thereby fostering openness in discussing sensitive topics like abuse and neglect.

The results also corroborate research indicating that who is present in a session can both support and inhibit whether and how children speak (e.g., Eriksson and Näsman 2008; Seim and Slettebø 2017; Diaz et al. 2018; Edman et al. 2024). The necessity of continuously fine-tuning and adjusting the identified conversational contributions is evident (cf. Winter et al. 2017; Cook and Monk 2020; Edman et al. 2024, 2025). Thus, the results may serve as a counterbalance to the overstandardized work culture prevalent in services addressing children's needs (e.g., Munro 2011; Ponnert and Svensson 2011; Stige et al. 2021), and as a contribution to the broader scholarly debate on balancing standardization and evidence-based research with the skills of the social workers (e.g., Sletten and Ellingsen 2020).

5.2 Implications for Practice

It is reasonable to assume that different aspects of the identified conversational contributions may serve varying purposes and functions across different settings (cf. Linell 2022). That open-ended questions tend to elicit more information from a child in forensic interviews (e.g., Lamb and Brown 2006) but not necessarily in therapeutic contexts (cf. Sliedrecht et al. 2016; Linell 2022; Eriksson 2024), lends support to this potential implication. Similarly, in child services investigations, the role of notetaking often differs from that in supportive and therapeutic dialogues. While ‘challenging’, ‘appreciating’, ‘elaborating’, ‘providing space’ and ‘advocating’ are transferable to different settings, their precise content should be fine-tuned depending on the context and the specific nature of each interaction. Providing space, for instance, is applicable across a range of institutional talks, but the detailed execution may need to be tailored to and throughout each conversation. Thus, concealing notes from a child's view during an investigation may not actually provide space for the child to express themselves freely; rather, it could provoke resistance or wariness. Understanding and adapting the content of the conversational contributions based on situated processes is crucial.

When multiple children participate in the same session, the dynamics become even more complex (Edman 2024; cf. Simmel 1902a, 1902b; Bülow 2012). Each child may experience what is spoken about differently, leading to diverse perspectives on the same event. Consequently, a formulation that ‘gently challenges’ one child might validate another. This further underscores the need for continuous fine-tuning and contextual adaptation of the identified conversational contributions (cf. Bromark et al. 2023).

Ensuring the transferability of the results—particularly in the complex and sensitive context of child protection, as well as in settings involving multiple children—requires that social workers combine the results with their professional judgement, emotional attunement and context-sensitive practical knowledge (cf. Bornemark 2020). This has critical implications for practice, as it suggests that standardized procedures should not be used at the expense of professional judgement and adaptability (cf. Danby et al. 2015; Bromark et al. 2023; Eriksson 2024). The five overarching conversational contributions are hopefully specific enough to offer meaningful guidance and flexible enough to accommodate the constantly evolving and dynamic nature of child and family social work dialogues.

5.3 Methodological Issues and Future Research Directions

Several strengths and limitations should be considered when interpreting and evaluating the results. A key strength of this study is its practice-near approach—by analysing extant audiovisual recordings of practice conducted as part of regular services, this study examined social work practice in a way that minimizes research interference (cf. Labov 1972; Bavelas and Gerwing 2011). The practice-near dataset preserves the integrity of real-life practice, offering insights into how social work is actually carried out. The study thereby contributes to the growing but still relatively limited body of research on social workers' communication in direct practice (cf. Forrester et al. 2020) and expands knowledge on how child and family social work is carried out (e.g., Ferguson 2016; Winter et al. 2017; Ruch et al. 2020; Salkauskiene and Marshall 2025). Using audiovisual recordings also preserved the conversational details, enhancing ecological validity (cf. Cicourel 1982) and, as a result, contributing to bridging the gap between research and practice (Midgley 2004; Denvall and Skillmark 2021).

The dataset consists of 22 recordings of child and family therapy sessions, and the analysis aimed to balance fine-grained descriptions of sequences within these recordings with a level of abstraction ensuring that the empirically grounded results are applicable to other settings. The five overarching conversational contributions that facilitate children's unprompted talk are general enough to provide meaningful guidance in a variety of social work settings, while their content (e.g., examples A–I) remains adaptable to the evolving and dynamic nature of social work practice (cf. Morrison 2016; Kennan et al. 2018). To further enhance the transferability and relevance of the results, future research could expand the scope by exploring additional types of social work dialogues and broadening the inclusion criteria to encompass, for example, children under the age of seven and interpreted sessions.

While this study identified conversational contributions that facilitated children's unprompted talk, it remains unclear whether these contributions directly prompted it and what their long-term impact might be on children's well-being and the effectiveness of interventions. Future research could employ mixed methods to assess the strength and consistency of these effects. Importantly, facilitating children's unprompted talk is not the ultimate goal—what children express must also be acknowledged and acted upon (cf. UNCRC Article 12; Lundy 2007; Heimer et al. 2018). Future studies should, therefore, examine how children's unprompted talk is, or could be, meaningfully considered in practice.