参与性和前瞻性:基于权利的儿童替代照料实时记录管理

IF 0.8 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Records Management Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069
Joanne Evans, Moira Paterson, Melissa Castan, Jade Purtell, Mya Ballin
{"title":"参与性和前瞻性:基于权利的儿童替代照料实时记录管理","authors":"Joanne Evans, Moira Paterson, Melissa Castan, Jade Purtell, Mya Ballin","doi":"10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This study aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This article aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people. It investigates this concept using the Australian context as a critical case study to highlight some of the current limitations in Australian Alternative Care systems in the way recordkeeping rights are represented in existing regulatory frameworks and monitored in practice. This paper will argue for the need for systemic transformations in child protection and information legislation and regulatory systems to better represent and enact alternative care recordkeeping rights.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>This analysis of the legislative provisions for participation in recordkeeping and access to records of Care experiences against the Australian Charter of Lifelong Rights in Childhood Recordkeeping in Out-of-Home Care reveals a number of limitations. While the direct provision of rights to access records and the strengthening of principles of participation in some of the jurisdictions are welcome, it illustrates how the risk-oriented focus of the legislation on child protection investigations and substantiations encodes opaque recordkeeping practices and works against the provision of the full suite of childhood recordkeeping rights envisaged by the charter. Furthermore, without provisions for systemic and dynamic oversight, those with Care experiences are left to pursue individual outcomes against significant bureaucratic odds.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>In line with international recognition that active participation and proactive provision of rights are a protective factor, this article contends that governance frameworks need to be proactively designed to respect and enact recordkeeping rights, along with requiring mechanisms for real-time monitoring and oversight if the records problems of the past are not to be perpetuated.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>The study’s proposal for the need for a real-time, rights-based recordkeeping governance seeks to address the systemic recordkeeping problems that have been identified in research and public inquiry related to Alternative Care systems in Australia as well as in the UK.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\n<p>Adopting a governance model that prioritises real-time, rights-based principles will ultimately impact how the Alternative Care system approaches records and their value in the processes of care.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Placing real-time rights-based governance at the foundation of a reimagining of the Alternative Care recordkeeping model offers the potential to create a system that places rights in recordkeeping and ethics of care at its core. This has highly transformative potential for the overall Alternative Care system and its relationship with children in out-of-home care.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":20923,"journal":{"name":"Records Management Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory and proactive: real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance for the alternative care of children\",\"authors\":\"Joanne Evans, Moira Paterson, Melissa Castan, Jade Purtell, Mya Ballin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>This study aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>This article aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people. It investigates this concept using the Australian context as a critical case study to highlight some of the current limitations in Australian Alternative Care systems in the way recordkeeping rights are represented in existing regulatory frameworks and monitored in practice. This paper will argue for the need for systemic transformations in child protection and information legislation and regulatory systems to better represent and enact alternative care recordkeeping rights.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>This analysis of the legislative provisions for participation in recordkeeping and access to records of Care experiences against the Australian Charter of Lifelong Rights in Childhood Recordkeeping in Out-of-Home Care reveals a number of limitations. While the direct provision of rights to access records and the strengthening of principles of participation in some of the jurisdictions are welcome, it illustrates how the risk-oriented focus of the legislation on child protection investigations and substantiations encodes opaque recordkeeping practices and works against the provision of the full suite of childhood recordkeeping rights envisaged by the charter. Furthermore, without provisions for systemic and dynamic oversight, those with Care experiences are left to pursue individual outcomes against significant bureaucratic odds.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\\n<p>In line with international recognition that active participation and proactive provision of rights are a protective factor, this article contends that governance frameworks need to be proactively designed to respect and enact recordkeeping rights, along with requiring mechanisms for real-time monitoring and oversight if the records problems of the past are not to be perpetuated.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\\n<p>The study’s proposal for the need for a real-time, rights-based recordkeeping governance seeks to address the systemic recordkeeping problems that have been identified in research and public inquiry related to Alternative Care systems in Australia as well as in the UK.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\\n<p>Adopting a governance model that prioritises real-time, rights-based principles will ultimately impact how the Alternative Care system approaches records and their value in the processes of care.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Placing real-time rights-based governance at the foundation of a reimagining of the Alternative Care recordkeeping model offers the potential to create a system that places rights in recordkeeping and ethics of care at its core. This has highly transformative potential for the overall Alternative Care system and its relationship with children in out-of-home care.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":20923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Records Management Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Records Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Records Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rmj-11-2023-0069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计/方法/途径 本文旨在论证基于权利的实时记录管理,以此作为儿童和青少年替代性照料记录管理中多重权利的监管和系统化的新基础。本文以澳大利亚为关键案例研究背景,对这一概念进行了调查,以强调澳大利亚替代性看护系统目前在记录保存权利在现有监管框架中的体现方式以及在实践中的监督方式方面存在的一些局限性。本文将论证对儿童保护和信息立法及监管制度进行系统改革的必要性,以更好地体现和颁布替代性照料记录权。研究结果对照《澳大利亚家庭外照料中儿童记录保存终身权利宪章》,对参与记录保存和获取照料经历记录的立法规定进行分析,揭示了一些局限性。虽然在一些司法管辖区直接规定了查阅记录的权利并加强了参与原则,这一点值得欢迎,但它说明了以风险为导向的立法如何将重点放在儿童保护调查和证实上,从而导致不透明的记录保存做法,并不利于提供《宪章》所设想的一整套儿童记录保存权利。此外,由于没有系统和动态监督的规定,那些有 "关爱 "经历的人只能在官僚主义的巨大阻力下寻求个人的结果。研究局限/启示根据国际公认的积极参与和主动提供权利是一种保护因素的观点,本文认为,如果要使过去的记录问题不再延续,就需要主动设计治理框架,以尊重和颁布记录权,同时要求建立实时监测和监督机制。实践意义本研究提出需要一种实时的、以权利为基础的记录管理,旨在解决在澳大利亚和英国与替代性护理系统相关的研究和公众调查中发现的系统性记录问题。社会影响采用一种优先考虑实时、基于权利原则的治理模式,将最终影响替代性护理系统如何处理记录以及记录在护理过程中的价值。这对整个替代性照料系统及其与家庭外照料儿童之间的关系具有极大的变革潜力。
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
Participatory and proactive: real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance for the alternative care of children

Purpose

This study aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people.

Design/methodology/approach

This article aims to make the case for real-time rights-based recordkeeping governance as a new foundation for the regulation and systemisation of multiple rights in recordkeeping for the Alternative Care of children and young people. It investigates this concept using the Australian context as a critical case study to highlight some of the current limitations in Australian Alternative Care systems in the way recordkeeping rights are represented in existing regulatory frameworks and monitored in practice. This paper will argue for the need for systemic transformations in child protection and information legislation and regulatory systems to better represent and enact alternative care recordkeeping rights.

Findings

This analysis of the legislative provisions for participation in recordkeeping and access to records of Care experiences against the Australian Charter of Lifelong Rights in Childhood Recordkeeping in Out-of-Home Care reveals a number of limitations. While the direct provision of rights to access records and the strengthening of principles of participation in some of the jurisdictions are welcome, it illustrates how the risk-oriented focus of the legislation on child protection investigations and substantiations encodes opaque recordkeeping practices and works against the provision of the full suite of childhood recordkeeping rights envisaged by the charter. Furthermore, without provisions for systemic and dynamic oversight, those with Care experiences are left to pursue individual outcomes against significant bureaucratic odds.

Research limitations/implications

In line with international recognition that active participation and proactive provision of rights are a protective factor, this article contends that governance frameworks need to be proactively designed to respect and enact recordkeeping rights, along with requiring mechanisms for real-time monitoring and oversight if the records problems of the past are not to be perpetuated.

Practical implications

The study’s proposal for the need for a real-time, rights-based recordkeeping governance seeks to address the systemic recordkeeping problems that have been identified in research and public inquiry related to Alternative Care systems in Australia as well as in the UK.

Social implications

Adopting a governance model that prioritises real-time, rights-based principles will ultimately impact how the Alternative Care system approaches records and their value in the processes of care.

Originality/value

Placing real-time rights-based governance at the foundation of a reimagining of the Alternative Care recordkeeping model offers the potential to create a system that places rights in recordkeeping and ethics of care at its core. This has highly transformative potential for the overall Alternative Care system and its relationship with children in out-of-home care.

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
Records Management Journal
Records Management Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: ■Electronic records management ■Effect of government policies on record management ■Strategic developments in both the public and private sectors ■Systems design and implementation ■Models for records management ■Best practice, standards and guidelines ■Risk management and business continuity ■Performance measurement ■Continuing professional development ■Consortia and co-operation ■Marketing ■Preservation ■Legal and ethical issues
期刊最新文献
Records management compliance: a case study of Kuwait’s College of Basic Education Strategy for auditing investigation records and information: a case study of records and information management in the Royal Malaysian Police Electronic records management amidst the seismic shift in the dynamic infosphere Insights into the current state of electronic health records adoption and utilisation in Tanzanian public primary healthcare facilities: a survey study Use of records management systems in Tanzania public sector organisations
×
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