Risks and benefits of post-separation parenting apps: perceptions of family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand

Genevieve M. Heard, Michelle A. Irving, Bruce M. Smyth, J. Payne, Glenn Althor
{"title":"Risks and benefits of post-separation parenting apps: perceptions of family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand","authors":"Genevieve M. Heard, Michelle A. Irving, Bruce M. Smyth, J. Payne, Glenn Althor","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mobile phones have become an essential part of modern family life. Their proliferation has been accompanied by a diverse range of apps, including apps for separated parents. Family law professionals are increasingly being asked about post-separation parenting apps by clients. Yet the empirical evidence about their potential benefits and risks is sparse. The present study draws on qualitative data from an online survey of 344 family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand about their attitudes to co-parenting apps. Three broad potential benefits of co-parenting app functions were identified: accountability, convenience and containment. Drawing on a realist evaluation framework, we find that the same app functions were identified as posing a variety of potential risks, including technology-facilitated abuse, depending on context. We argue that family law professionals need a good understanding of the potential benefits and risks of co-parenting apps, along with the contextual factors that can determine outcomes.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"143 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Mobile phones have become an essential part of modern family life. Their proliferation has been accompanied by a diverse range of apps, including apps for separated parents. Family law professionals are increasingly being asked about post-separation parenting apps by clients. Yet the empirical evidence about their potential benefits and risks is sparse. The present study draws on qualitative data from an online survey of 344 family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand about their attitudes to co-parenting apps. Three broad potential benefits of co-parenting app functions were identified: accountability, convenience and containment. Drawing on a realist evaluation framework, we find that the same app functions were identified as posing a variety of potential risks, including technology-facilitated abuse, depending on context. We argue that family law professionals need a good understanding of the potential benefits and risks of co-parenting apps, along with the contextual factors that can determine outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分居后育儿应用程序的风险和好处:澳大利亚和新西兰家庭法专业人士的看法
手机已经成为现代家庭生活中不可或缺的一部分。它们的激增伴随着各种各样的应用程序,包括为分居父母设计的应用程序。越来越多的客户向家庭法律专业人士询问离婚后的育儿应用。然而,关于它们的潜在利益和风险的经验证据很少。目前的研究利用了澳大利亚和新西兰344名家庭法专业人士对共同抚养应用程序的态度的在线调查的定性数据。他们确定了共同抚养孩子的应用程序功能的三大潜在好处:问责制、便利和遏制。根据现实主义评估框架,我们发现相同的应用程序功能被确定为构成各种潜在风险,包括技术促进的滥用,具体取决于环境。我们认为,家庭法专业人士需要很好地了解共同抚养应用程序的潜在好处和风险,以及可能决定结果的背景因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law is concerned with social and family law and policy in a UK, European and international context. The policy of the Editors and of the Editorial Board is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to which academics and professionals working in the social welfare and related fields may turn for guidance, comment and informed debate. Features: •Articles •Cases •European Section •Current Development •Ombudsman"s Section •Book Reviews
期刊最新文献
‘Bound’ by grief post-adoption: can the artist’s book assist mothers to tell their stories? A functional approach to defining family in the High Court ‘This is counterproductive’: the design of local welfare assistance schemes in England The sharia inquiry, religious practice and muslim family law in britain Registering births: What’s care got to do with it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1