您如何看待养育子女?儿童保护团队凝聚力面临的挑战

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES Child Abuse Review Pub Date : 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1002/car.2858
Dora Pereira
{"title":"您如何看待养育子女?儿童保护团队凝聚力面临的挑战","authors":"Dora Pereira","doi":"10.1002/car.2858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Child protection work requires professionals to manage the different perspectives regarding intervention aims and strategies associated with different personal, academic and organisational backgrounds. Parenting assessment is a determinant task for intervention and for children's future where universal or automatic criteria remain unavailable. This study aimed to explore and characterise the existing agreement (and disagreement) between child protection workers on statements related to judgements on parenting. A total of 325 Portuguese social workers participated in the study, mostly with a background in social work and psychology and more than six years of experience in child protection. Professionals were required to distribute 50 sentences in a scoring sheet (Q-sort methodology) with 11 points. The results were interpreted through the matrix of operationalisation of minimally adequate parenting. Three main answer strands revealed different <i>focuses</i> in sorts' configurations: the child, the procedures and the child's ecology. The clear difference between the factors could contribute to maintaining the child protection system as an adversarial one, and not as an effectively cooperative system. To promote team cohesiveness and intervention success, and to reinforce professionals' wellbeing and resilience, metacommunication on parenting assessment criteria is proposed as a determinant strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47371,"journal":{"name":"Child Abuse Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What do you Think about Parenting? Challenges to Cohesiveness in Child Protection Teams\",\"authors\":\"Dora Pereira\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/car.2858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Child protection work requires professionals to manage the different perspectives regarding intervention aims and strategies associated with different personal, academic and organisational backgrounds. Parenting assessment is a determinant task for intervention and for children's future where universal or automatic criteria remain unavailable. This study aimed to explore and characterise the existing agreement (and disagreement) between child protection workers on statements related to judgements on parenting. A total of 325 Portuguese social workers participated in the study, mostly with a background in social work and psychology and more than six years of experience in child protection. Professionals were required to distribute 50 sentences in a scoring sheet (Q-sort methodology) with 11 points. The results were interpreted through the matrix of operationalisation of minimally adequate parenting. Three main answer strands revealed different <i>focuses</i> in sorts' configurations: the child, the procedures and the child's ecology. The clear difference between the factors could contribute to maintaining the child protection system as an adversarial one, and not as an effectively cooperative system. To promote team cohesiveness and intervention success, and to reinforce professionals' wellbeing and resilience, metacommunication on parenting assessment criteria is proposed as a determinant strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child Abuse Review\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child Abuse Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/car.2858\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Abuse Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/car.2858","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

儿童保护工作要求专业人员处理与不同个人、学术和组织背景相关的干预目标和策略方面的不同观点。在缺乏通用或自动标准的情况下,亲职评估对干预措施和儿童的未来具有决定性作用。本研究旨在探讨和描述儿童保护工作者之间在有关养育判断的声明方面存在的一致意见(和不同意见)。共有 325 名葡萄牙社会工作者参与了这项研究,他们大多具有社会工作和心理学背景,并有六年以上的儿童保护工作经验。专业人员需要在一张 11 分的评分表(Q-sort 方法)上填写 50 个句子。调查结果通过 "最低限度的适当养育 "的操作矩阵进行解释。三个主要答题环节揭示了分类配置的不同侧重点:儿童、程序和儿童生态。这些因素之间的明显差异可能会导致儿童保护系统仍然是一个对抗性的系统,而不是一个有效合作的系统。为了促进团队的凝聚力和干预的成功,并加强专业人员的福利和复原力,建议将关于养育评估标准的元交流作为一项决定性战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What do you Think about Parenting? Challenges to Cohesiveness in Child Protection Teams

Child protection work requires professionals to manage the different perspectives regarding intervention aims and strategies associated with different personal, academic and organisational backgrounds. Parenting assessment is a determinant task for intervention and for children's future where universal or automatic criteria remain unavailable. This study aimed to explore and characterise the existing agreement (and disagreement) between child protection workers on statements related to judgements on parenting. A total of 325 Portuguese social workers participated in the study, mostly with a background in social work and psychology and more than six years of experience in child protection. Professionals were required to distribute 50 sentences in a scoring sheet (Q-sort methodology) with 11 points. The results were interpreted through the matrix of operationalisation of minimally adequate parenting. Three main answer strands revealed different focuses in sorts' configurations: the child, the procedures and the child's ecology. The clear difference between the factors could contribute to maintaining the child protection system as an adversarial one, and not as an effectively cooperative system. To promote team cohesiveness and intervention success, and to reinforce professionals' wellbeing and resilience, metacommunication on parenting assessment criteria is proposed as a determinant strategy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Child Abuse Review
Child Abuse Review Multiple-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Child Abuse Review provides a forum for all professionals working in the field of child protection, giving them access to the latest research findings, practice developments, training initiatives and policy issues. The Journal"s remit includes all forms of maltreatment, whether they occur inside or outside the family environment. Papers are written in a style appropriate for a multidisciplinary audience and those from outside Britain are welcomed. The Journal maintains a practice orientated focus and authors of research papers are encouraged to examine and discuss implications for practitioners.
期刊最新文献
An analysis of child safeguarding cases managed by National Governing Bodies of sport across England and Wales The intersection of child protection and healthcare: Paediatric social admissions Proactive and reactive sibling aggression and their mediating effects on the relationship between exposure to parental violence and adulthood intimate partner violence perpetration Does money motivate prospective foster parents? Are responses from high vs. low-income towns different? Evidence from Google advertising A thematic analysis of the involvement of children and families in Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews in England
×
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