CHILD ABUSE IDENTIFICATION AND
REPORTING GAME
created by
Charles L. McGehee, Ph. D.
Professor of Sociology
Central Washington University
Child Abuse Identification and Reporting Game
Copyright 1977, 1980, 1995 by Charles L. McGehee
Address correspondence to:
Charles L. McGehee
Department of Sociology
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, WA 98926 USA
Tel: 509-963-2005
Fax: 509-963-1308
E-mail: chasm@cwu.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OBJECT OF THE GAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
EQUIPMENT PROVIDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
GAME ONE: SCHOOL-AGE CHILD. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
GAME TWO: PRE-SCHOOL CHILD. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
GAME THREE: INFANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
TRAINER'S INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
OBJECT OF THE GAME
Identification of injuries of children and the
decision to report suspected abuse are two of the most
difficult problems professionals and the general public
are confronted with. This game is designed to facilitate
developing skills of identification and insights into the
problems experienced by persons in various social roles
when confronting the decision to report child abuse.
Although child abuse may seem to many to be a matter
of objective fact, it is far from it. While there may be
a certain amount of objective evidence associated with
much child abuse, the key elements of the processes of
identification and reporting lie in the abstract realm of
inference, imputation, suspicion and fear. Whether
injuries are identified correctly or incorrectly as child
abuse depends not only on the objective information
available to the observer, but also on such factors as
the observer's relationship to the child and parents in
question, his stake in the neighborhood and community,
his vested interests in his occupation, his perceptions
of himself and his future, his fear of the law, and a
host of other considerations which are frequently
regarded as "irrational." These factors, however, are
very real to all of us. They cannot be dismissed as
irrational on irrelevant merely because they are
difficult to understand or may contribute to the harm of
an innocent child or the false accusation of an innocent
parent. They are the substance of our social and
psychological existence, and, as such, must be dealt with
on their own terms.
Moreover, these problems cannot be eliminated simply
by leaving the matter in the hands of "the experts," for
the experts upon which we have come to depend for so many
decisions have emerged all to frequently being woefully
ill-prepared to make such decisions, as well as
demonstrating more human frailties than we care to
acknowledge.
In this game, the participants are confronted with an
injured child. Each person having contact with the child,
given the nature of the information he has about the
injuries, his knowledge of the child, his common sense
knowledge of the world in general, and the
vulnerabilities associated with his particular role, is
compelled to make a decision about reporting the child's
injuries. He must decide in his own mind if the injuries
are child abuse, and, if so, whether he will "go out on
a limb" and report his suspicions to the Child Protective
Service (CPS). If reported, it is then up to the CPS
worker to investigate the allegations and to make a final
determination if the injuries were the result of (1)
nature, (2) accident, (3) self-injury, (4) intentional
injury by another who is not the parent or
parent-substitute, or (5) intentional injury by a parent
or parent-substitute that is, child abuse. If it is
indeed child abuse, the CPS worker must decide what
course of action to take, such as, whether to attempt to
prosecute the parent(s), attempt a treatment strategy,
monitor the family, let the matter drop, etc.
The game can end in two ways: (1) when no one will
report the injuries to CPS, or (2) when reported the CPS
worker has made a final decision about the nature of the
case.
As in real life, the outcomes may be good or bad.
Abuse may be correctly reported as abuse, and non-abuse
may rightly not be reported at all. On the other hand,
genuine abuse may not be reported while non-abuse may be
reported and treated as abuse.
It is to be hoped that playing this game will
contribute to the participants gaining a measure of skill
and self-confidence that will permit them a degree of
freedom from total dependency on cadres of "experts" in
the field. If such freedom is to be gained, it will come
from the realization that the skills in question here
involve, in reality, little more than basic logic and an
appreciation of human relationships. There is no mystery
which is beyond the grasp of ordinary people.
EQUIPMENT PROVIDED
1 pink "age" die for infants
1 blue "age" die for pre-school children
2 green "age" dice for school-age children
1 white "sex" die
1 gray "abuse" die
1 yellow "medical history" die
1 orange "babysitter's knowledge" die
1 tan "neighbor's knowledge" die
1 lavender "teacher's knowledge" die
1 packet "injury" cards for pre-school and school-age
children
1 packet "injury" cards for infants, birth to 2 years of
age.
1 packet school-age child's "vulnerability" cards
1packet pre-school child's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet parent's "vulnerability"cards
1 packet doctor's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet teacher's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet school principal's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet neighbor's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet babysitter's "vulnerability" cards
1 packet Child Protective Service (CPS) worker's
"vulnerability" cards
Instructions
Top
GAME ONE: SCHOOL-AGE CHILD
Age, 6 to 15 years
THE PLAYERS
This game may be played by 7-8 persons. The roles are:
Child
Parent(s): The role or roles of one or both parents
may be played with both parents living
together. A single parent may also be
played or a single parent living with a
lover. This is at the option of the
players.
Neighbor
Teacher
School Principal
Doctor (family physician)
Child Protective Service (CPS) worker
Note: In the event additional players are present and
it is not feasible to reduce the size of the group by
splitting it up, accommodate the additional players by
adding neighbors.
EQUIPMENT
2green "age" dice)
1white "sex" die ) give to parent(s)
1 gray "abuse" die)
1tan "neighbor's knowledge" die - give to neighbor
1lavender "teacher's knowledge" die - give to teacher
1yellow "medical history" die -- give to doctor
Injury cards for school-age child - give to parent(s)
Vulnerability cards for school-age child, parent(s),
neighbor, teacher, doctor, and CPS worker.
INSTRUCTIONS
1.Assign roles to players by shuffling the
vulnerability card packets, placing them face down and
allowing players to draw one at random. The packet drawn
becomes the role to be played. Distribute the remaining
injury cards and the dice as stated above.
In this game, players' information about the situation
is basically derived from drawn cards and thrown dice.
The information, therefore, will be minimal, and,
consequently, the participants must make up details of
the story to follow.
The parent(s) determines the sex and the age of the
child by throwing the white "sex" die and the green "age"
dice. The numbers on the two "age" dice are added
together to make the age of the child. These results are
noted on a piece of paper.
3.The parent(s) and child draw an injury card
from the packet. They may see only the visible injuries
and may not look inside the card at the invisible
injuries. (Note: Only the doctor is able to see the
invisible injuries.)
4.The parent(s) and the child are the only ones
who know for sure how the injuries occurred. They step
aside from the group for a moment and roll the gray
"abuse" die. The outcome of the roll of this die is
recorded on a piece of paper for future reference. Given
the outcome of the roll of the die, the parent(s) and the
child must together create an account of how the injuries
occurred. This account must accurately reflect the
injuries described on the injury card which was drawn.
This account then becomes the objective "truth" of the
injury in terms of which the success of later decision
will be judged. No one else is told what is written on
the paper at this point.
5.The parent(s) and child return to the group and
draw three "vulnerability" cards from their respective
packets and keep them for future use.
6.ROUND ONE
Round one begins when the parent(s) must decide
whether to go to the doctor with the child. The parent(s)
must take into account the nature and extent of the
child's injuries and the parent's(s') vulnerabilities
when making this decision.
After the parent has decided whether to go to the
doctor, but before going to the doctor (if that was the
decision), the child's visible injuries are seen by the
neighbor and the teacher (in order for each to have a
turn in the game.) The neighbor draws three vulnerability
cards and rolls the tan "neighbor's knowledge" die for
special information about the child only a neighbor might
know. The teacher also draws three vulnerability cards
and rolls the purple "teacher's knowledge" die for
information about the child only a teacher might know.
Both the neighbor and the teacher must decide whether
they will report the injuries to CPS. They may talk to
the parent(s) and child who may or may not cooperate
but they may not talk to each other.
The teacher should consult with the principal, whose
sole source of information about-the matter is the
teacher. The principal must decide whether to support and
encourage the teacher, and the teacher must decide
whether to follow the advice or orders of the principal
or disregard him/her and act independently. Each must
consider the facts of the matter and his/her
vulnerabilities in making this decision.
The neighbor, teacher and principal may all discuss
the matter with the parent(s) and child who may or may
not be cooperative. Only the teacher and principal may
discuss the matter among themselves, however.
If the parent decides not to go to the doctor and
neither the neighbor, teacher nor principal choose to
report the matter to CPS, the game ends with the matter
untreated and unreported. The neighbor, teacher and
principal then tell their reasons for not reporting. The
doctor is permitted to see the "invisible" injuries which
he/she reports to the group. The parent(s) and child then
tell what "really" happened and the parent's(s') reasons
for not going to the doctor. Group discussion then
follows concerning the appropriateness of the responses,
possible consequences, and alternatives.
If the parent(s) goes to the doctor, round one ends
and round two begins. If the neighbor, teacher or
principal reported to CPS and the parent(s) did not go to
the doctor, round two is by-passed and round three is
started immediately.
7.ROUND TWO
Round two begins when the parent(s) goes to the
doctor. The parent(s) show the doctor the injury card and
informs him/her of the age and sex of the child. The
doctor sees not only the visible injuries but also the
invisible ones (inside card.) The doctor rolls the yellow
"medical history" die to determine if the child has any
medical history which helps understand the injuries. The
doctor conducts his/her examination of the child and
interviews the parent(s) and the child in order to come
to a conclusion about the cause of the injuries. The
parent(s) and child may tell the "truth" or they may lie.
They may tell the same-story or they may contradict each
other.
The doctor draws three vulnerability cards but does
not show them to the rest of the participants. The doctor
must now decide, given his/her conclusions about the
injuries and taking into considerations his/her
vulnerabilities, whether to report the injuries to CPS.
If he/she decides not to report, the game ends. The
doctor then tells his/her reasoning behind the decision.
The parent(s) and child tell the "true" cause of the
injuries and group discussion then follows concerning the
appropriateness of the doctor's decision, possible
consequences and alternatives.
If the doctor decides to report the injuries to CPS,
round three begins.
8.ROUND THREE
Round three begins when the CPS worker receives a
report from the doctor, the neighbor, the teacher, or the
principal. The CPS worker draws three vulnerability cards
from the packet. The CPS worker then interviews the
person or persons reporting concerning their knowledge of
the situation, and, in the case of the doctor, his/her
special findings. Remember, the CPS worker knows only
what the persons in question will tell him/her in spite
of what may have been discussed in "public" during the
course of the game. Considering the nature of the
information and his/her vulnerabilities, the CPS worker
must decide whether to conduct an investigation of the
parent(s). If not, the game ends and the CPS worker tells
his/her reasons for not investigating the matter, the
parent(s) and child tell the "true" causes of the
injuries, and group discussion follows.
If the CPS worker decides to investigate, he/she
interviews the parent to inform him/her of the report,
view and talk to the child if possible, and hear the
parent's(s') story. Once again, the parent(s) and child
may tell the "truth" or they may lie. They may tell the
same story or they may contradict each other.
If the report came directly from either the neighbor,
the teacher, or the principal but not the doctor, the CPS
worker may interview the doctor, assuming the parent(s)
went to the doctor; or the worker may order the child to
be examined by the doctor in the event the parent(s) did
not or will not take the child. In general, any party not
reporting the matter may also be interviewed by the CPS
worker during the course of the investigation. They may
or may not be cooperative.
The CPS worker must then decide if a case of child
abuse has occurred, and, if so, what to do about it. This
decision must be made taking into account the facts of
the matter and his/her vulnerabilities. When the CPS
worker has made this decision, the game ends. The worker
announces the decision and the reasoning behind it, the
parent(s) and child tell what "really" happened, and
group discussion follows concerning the appropriateness
of the CPS worker's action, possible consequences and
alternatives.
The game may be repeated by changing roles among the
participants, rolling the dice anew and drawing new
cards.
Top
GAME TWO: PRE-SCHOOL CHILD
Age, 2 « to 5 years
THE PLAYERS
This game may be played by 6-7 persons. The roles
are:
Child
Parent(s): The role or roles of one or both parents
may be played with both parents living
together. A single parent may also be
played or a single parent living with a
lover. This is at the option of the
players.
Neighbor
Babysitter or day-care worker
Doctor (family physician)
Child Protective Service (CPS) worker
Note: In the event additional players are present and
it is not feasible to reduce the size of the group by
splitting it up, accommodate the additional players by
adding neighbors.
EQUIPMENT
1blue "age" die )
1white "sex" die ) give to parent(s)
1gray "abuse" die)
1tan "neighbor's knowledge" die -- give to neighbor(s)
1orange "babysitter's knowledge" die -- give to
babysitter
1yellow "medical history" die - give to doctor
Injury cards for pre-school child -- give to parent(s)
Vulnerability cards for pre-school child, parent(s),
neighbor, babysitter, doctor and CPS worker.
INSTRUCTIONS
1.Assign roles to players by shuffling the
vulnerability card packets, placing them face down and
allowing players to draw one at random. The packet drawn
becomes the role to be played. Distribute the remaining
injury cards and the dice as stated above.
In this game, players' information about the situation
is basically derived from drawn cards and thrown dice.
The information, therefore, will be minimal, and,
consequently, the participants must make up details of
the story to follow.
2.The parent(s) determines the sex and the age of
the child by throwing the white "sex" die and the "blue"
age die. The results are noted on a piece of paper.
3.The parent(s) and the child draw an injury card
from the packet. They may see only the visible injuries
and may not look inside the card at the invisible
injuries. (Note: Only the doctor is able to see the
invisible injuries.)
4.The parent(s) and the child are the only ones
who know for sure how the injuries occurred. They step
aside from the group for a moment and roll the gray
"abuse" die. The outcome of the roll of this die is
recorded on a piece of paper for future reference. Given
the outcome of the roll of the die, the parent and child
must together create an account of how the injuries
occurred. This account must accurately reflect the
injuries described on the injury card which was drawn.
This account then becomes the objective "truth" of the
injury in terms of which the success of later decisions
will be judged. No one else is told what is written on
the paper at this point.
5.The parent(s) and child return to the group and
draw three "vulnerability" cards from their respective
packets and keep them for future use.
6.ROUND ONE
Round one begins when the parent(s) must decide
whether to go to the doctor with the child. The parent(s)
must take into account the nature and extent of the
child's injuries and the parent's(s') vulnerabilities
when making this decision.
After the parent has decided whether to go to the
doctor, but before going to the doctor (if that was the
decision), the child's visible injuries are seen by the
neighbor and the babysitter (in order for each to have a
turn in the game.) The neighbor draws three vulnerability
cards and rolls the tan "neighbor's knowledge" die for
special information about the child only a neighbor might
know. The babysitter also draws three vulnerability cards
and rolls the orange "babysitter's knowledge" die for
special information about the child which only a
babysitter might know. Both the neighbor and the
babysitter must decide whether they will report the
injuries to CPS. They may talk to the parent(s) and child
who may or may not cooperate but they may not talk
to each other.
If the parent(s) does not take the child to the doctor
and neither the neighbor nor the babysitter report the
injuries to CPS, the game ends with the matter untreated
and unreported. The neighbor and babysitter tell their
reasons for not reporting. The doctor is permitted to
see the "invisible" injuries which he/she reports to the
group. The parent(s) and child then tell what "really"
happened and the parent's(s') reasons for not going to
the doctor. Group discussion then follows concerning the
appropriateness of the responses, possible consequences,
and alternatives.
If the parent goes to the doctor, round one ends and
round two begins. If the neighbor or babysitter reported
to CPS and the parent did not go to the doctor, round two
is by-passed and round three (see number 8) is started
immediately.
7.ROUND TWO
Round two begins when the parent(s) goes to the
doctor. The parent(s) show the doctor the injury card and
informs him/her of the age and sex of the child. The
doctor sees not only the visible injuries but also the
invisible ones (inside card.) The doctor rolls the yellow
"medical history" die to determine if the child has any
medical history which helps understand the injuries. The
doctor conducts his/her examination of the child and
interviews the parent(s) and the child in order to come
to a conclusion about the cause of the injuries. The
parent(s) and child may tell the "truth" or they may lie.
They may tell the same story or they may contradict each
other.
The doctor draws three vulnerability cards but does
not show them to the rest of the participants. The doctor
must now decide, given his/her conclusions about the
injuries and taking into consideration his/her
vulnerabilities, whether to report the injuries to CPS.
If he/she decides not to report, the game ends. The
doctor then tells his/her reasoning behind the decision.
The parent(s) and child tell the "true" cause of the
injuries and group discussion then follows concerning the
appropriateness of the doctor's decision, possible
consequences and alternatives.
If the doctor decides to report the injuries to CPS,
round three begins.
8.ROUND THREE
Round three begins when the CPS worker receives a
report from the doctor, the neighbor or the babysitter.
The CPS worker draws three vulnerability cards from the
packet. The CPS worker then interviews the person or
persons reporting concerning their knowledge of the
situation and, in the case of the doctor, his/her special
findings. Remember, the CPS worker knows only what the
persons questioned will tell him/her in spite of what may
have been discussed in "public" during the course of the
game. Considering the nature of the information and
his/her vulnerabilities, the CPS worker must decide
whether to conduct an investigation of the parent(s). If
not, the game ends and the CPS worker tells his/her
reasons for not investigating the matter, the parent(s)
and child tell the "true" cause of the injuries, and
group discussion follows.
If the CPS worker decides to investigate, he/she
interviews the parent to inform him/her of the report,
view and talk to the child if possible, and hear the
parent's(s') story. Once again, the parent(s) and child
may tell the "truth" or they may lie. They may tell the
same story or they may contradict each other.
If the report came directly from either the neighbor
or the babysitter but not the doctor, the CPS worker may
interview the doctor, assuming the parent went to the
doctor; or the worker may order the child to be examined
by the doctor in the event the parent(s) did not or will
not take the child. In general, any party not reporting
the matter may also be interviewed by the CPS worker
during the course of the investigation. They may or may
not be cooperative.
The CPS worker must then decide if a case of child
abuse has occurred, and, if so, what to do about it. This
decision must be made taking into account the facts of
the matter and his/her vulnerabilities. When the CPS
worker has made this decision, the game ends. The worker
announces the decision and the reasoning behind it, the
parent(s) and child tell what "really" happened, and
group discussion follows concerning the appropriateness
of the CPS worker's action, possible consequences and
alternatives.
The game may be repeated by changing roles among the
participants, rolling the dice anew and drawing new
cards.
Top
GAME THREE: INFANT
Age, Birth to 2 years
THE PLAYERS
This game may be played by 3-4 persons. The roles are:
Parent(s): The role or roles of one or both parents
may be played with both parents living
together. A single parent may also be
played or a single parent living with a
lover. This is at the option of the
players.
Doctor (family physician)
Child Protective Service (CPS) worker
EQUIPMENT
1pink "age" die
1white "sex" die give to parent(s)
1gray "abuse" die)
1yellow "medical history" die give to doctor
Injury cards for Infant, ages birth to 2 years give to
parent(s)
Vulnerability cards for parent(s), doctor, and CPS worker
INSTRUCTIONS
1.Assign roles to players by shuffling
vulnerability card packets, placing them face down and
allowing players to draw one at random. The packet drawn
becomes the role to be played. Distribute the remaining
injury cards and the dice as stated above.
In this game, players' information about the situation
is basically derived from drawn cards and thrown dice.
The information, therefore, will be minimal and,
consequently, the participants must make up details of
the story to follow.
2.The parent determines the sex and age of the
child by throwing the white "sex" die and the pink "age"
die. The results are noted on a piece of paper.
3.The parent(s) draw an injury card from the
packet. The parent(s) may see only the visible injuries
and may not look inside at the invisible injuries. (Note:
only the doctor is able to see the invisible injuries.)
4.The parent(s) and the child are the only ones
who know for sure how the injury was caused. However,
since an infant child cannot speak to the matter, the
parent is the only one who can.
The parent steps aside from the rest of the group for
a moment and rolls the gray "abuse" die. The outcome of
this roll is noted on a piece of paper for future
reference. Given the outcome of the roll, the parent must
then create an account of how the injury occurred. This
account is recorded on a piece of paper also. This
account must accurately reflect the injuries described on
the injury card which was drawn. This account then
becomes the objective "truth" of the injury in terms of
which the success of later decisions will be judged. No
one else is told what is written on the paper at this
point.
5.The parent(s) returns to the group and draws
three "vulnerability" cards from the pack and keeps them
for future use.
6.ROUND ONE
Round one begins when the parent must decide whether
to go to the doctor with the child. The parent must take
into account the nature and the extent of the injuries,
and the parent's vulnerabilities when making this
decision.
If the parent decides not to go to the doctor, the
game ends with the matter untreated and unreported. The
parent then tells the group the "true" causes of the
injuries, his/her vulnerabilities and reasons for not
having gone to the doctor. The doctor then is given the
"invisible" aspects of the injury card which he/she
reveals to the participants. Group discussion then
follows concerning the appropriateness of the
parent's(s') responses, possible consequences and
alternatives.
If the parent(s) decides to go to the doctor, round
one ends and round two begins.
7.ROUND TWO
Round two begins when the parent goes to the doctor.
The parent(s) shows the doctor the injury card and
informs him/her of the age and sex of the child. The
doctor sees not only the visible injuries but also the
invisible ones (inside card. The doctor rolls the yellow
"medical history" die to determine if the child has any
medical history which helps understand the injuries. The
doctor conducts his/ her examination of the child, and
interviews the parent(s) in order to come to a conclusion
about the cause of the injuries. The parent(s) may tell
the "truth" or he/she/they may lie.
The doctor draws three vulnerability cards but does
not show them to the rest of the participants. The doctor
must now decide, given his/her conclusion about the
injuries and taking into consideration his/her
vulnerabilities, whether to report the injuries to CPS.
If he/she decides not to report, the game ends. The
doctor then tells his/her reasoning behind the decision.
The parent(s) tells the "true" cause of the injuries and
group discussion follows concerning the appropriateness
of the doctor's decision, possible consequences, and
alternatives.
If the doctor decides to report the injuries to the
CPS worker, round three begins.
8.ROUND THREE
Round three begins when the CPS worker receives a
report from the doctor. The CPS worker draws three
vulnerability cards from the pack, but does not show them
to anyone else. The CPS worker then interviews the doctor
about his/her special findings. Note: the CPS worker only
knows what the doctor tells him/her in spite of what may
have been discussed in "public" in the course of the
game. Considering the nature of the information from the
doctor and his/her vulnerabilities, the CPS worker must
decide whether to conduct an investigation of the parent.
If not, the game ends, the CPS worker tells his/her
reasons for not investigating the matter, the parent(s)
tells the "true" causes of the injuries and group
discussion follows.
If the CPS worker decides to investigate, he/she then
interviews the parent to inform him/her of the report,
view the child and hear the parent's(s') story. The
worker must then decide if a case of child abuse has
occurred, and, if so, what to do about it. This decision
must be made taking into account the facts of the matter
as well as his/her vulnerabilities. When the CPS worker
has made this decision, the game ends. The group is told
the decision and the reasoning behind it, the parent(s)
tells what "really" happened and group discussion follows
concerning the appropriateness of the response, possible
consequences and alternatives.
The game may be repeated by changing roles among the
participants, rolling the dice anew and drawing new
cards.
Top
TRAINER'S INSTRUCTIONS
The "Child Abuse Identification and Reporting Game" is
adaptable to many teaching situations and interest
groups. It may be played in three forms, one for those
interested in working with infants, one for
pre-schoolers, and one for school-age children. Since the
structure of the social environment of each age child
varies both in number and type of person involved with
the child not to mention type of harm that may come to
it a great number of different interests may be met
through the game. The game provides virtually endless
variations which can serve to develop skills of inquiry
and decision-making of a deep nature.
It is, however, important for the trainer to recognize
that this game will not substitute for prior elementary
instruction in three areas: (1) forensic science,
especially the logic of bruises, burns and broken bones,
(2) the legal system, especially local child abuse
reporting laws, and (3)social role analysis and the
problems of role conflict and strain. The game has been
designed with the assumption that the students have
already been exposed to some problems of these areas. (A
few hours in each area should suffice.) For example, It
is assumed that part of the prior instruction has been to
produce the student with enough basic instruction in the
logic of injuries and their relation to verbal accounts
that they know how a burn resulting from immersion in hot
liquid differs in appearance from one resulting from
thrown or poured liquid, or how the mark of a flexible
belt differs in appearance from that of a stiff stick.
There are a number of prepared curricula available,
such as the "WE CARE" curriculum (DHEW) with accompanying
filmstrips, which are good preparation. It is also
suggested that the trainer accumulate an assortment of
sticks, straps, pots, pans, etc., for practical
demonstration. Students grasp the issues very quickly
when given practical demonstrations. It is not expected
that the student be medically, legally or clinically
competent in any sense in order to play the game. He or
she need only be conversant with the issues in a very
general sense.
The trainer may find students unwilling or uneasy
about playing the role of "experts", such as physicians
or social workers, explaining the problem in terms such
as, "I don't know what they do. I'm no doctor or social
worker." It will be the task of the trainer to modify the
mystique of medicine present in the popular consciousness
enough to allow a layman to play the role. The game is
not structured in a technically sophisticated manner.
Moreover, it must also be realized that the issues in
identification are not usually such that medical
sophistication, and only medical sophistication, is the
key to identification. Similarly, the role of the social
worker will be easier to play to the extent that the
trainer has been able to "demystify" the role by
developing an awareness in the student that
identification and development of courses of action are
no means always, or even usually, easy merely because one
hold an official position or has an advanced degree. A
brief description of treatment programs, their goals,
structure, and problems will be helpful in this regard.
The trainer should take pains to point out that
difficulty of identification, limited explanatory models
of child abuse, and legal and bureaucratic constraints
all act to make the social worker more human than laymen
may care to think.
The trainer should also remember that the game is only
suggestive. It is up to the players to fill in the
details of the story using their own imaginations. The
story, even though a product of imagination, must
nonetheless be real, that is, the details must coincide
with what real people might do. There may be a tendency
for players to ask whether they are allowed to ask
certain questions or whether they must answer certain
questions. Remember, in real life any question may be
asked and, similarly, any question need not be answered.
Of course, real people may draw certain inferences from
any question asked and any question refused or answered
evasively. That is simply part of the problem.
Real people are, likewise, not always pleasant to each
other, particularly under such circumstances. They also
do not always tell the truth and sometimes contradict
themselves. Parent and child, even though they know the
"truth" of the matter may contradict each other. This may
occur for a variety of reasons even though the injury was
quite accidental.
The trainer may also have to remind the players of
their vulnerabilities from time to time, since the
players may want to deny the reality of the
vulnerabilities. It is not unusual, for example, for a
player to deny that "what the neighbors think" is a real
consideration merely because he believes it ought not be
the case. The problem the game presents is for the player
to deal with the vulnerabilities by deciding whether he
will accept the risk of the consequences of them and
report the child abuse anyway. The trainer should attempt
to insure that this confrontation with the possible
unpleasant personal consequences is made and not avoided
through denial.
While an effort has been made to design the injury
cards in such a way that the internal ("invisible")
injuries are consistent with the external ("visible")
injuries, the trainer should also insure that the "true"
story accounting for the injury be such that the injury,
both external and internal, could actually have caused
it. In this regard, the trainer should proof the account
before the game begins and after having looked at the
invisible injuries which are usually seen only by the
physician.
Return to home page