重新定义保护因素,以应对弱势儿童的风险

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Social Work Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1177/14680173221142761
G. Heron, C. Lightowler
{"title":"重新定义保护因素,以应对弱势儿童的风险","authors":"G. Heron, C. Lightowler","doi":"10.1177/14680173221142761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quality and robustness of childcare professionals’ thinking about protective factors is crucial to interventions with vulnerable children. Yet, protective factors in childcare are under-conceptualized in policy and practice and have been overshadowed by the concept of risk. This study uses discourse analysis to examine how childcare professionals discuss protective factors in response to risk and in a way that demonstrates critical thinking. Findings Data was collected from 30 consultation meetings, which involve a total of 109 professionals. The consultation meetings focus on the assessment of a child who presents a serious risk of harm to others and who are themselves at risk. The findings suggest that professionals do discuss protective factors in response to risk, however, it occurs on a ratio of approximately one to nine, which suggests a level of separation in the way these terms are conceptualized in practice. Application It is suggested that a professional construct of “protective factors versus risk,” which is applied with critical thinking, will offer a more robust way of conceptualizing the support provided to vulnerable children. While professionals have to analyze risk in terms of what is wrong, it is equally crucial to include protective factors in a strategy for it to work. A starting point is for professionals to re-construct protective factors and risk and apply it with critical thinking to core elements of social work practice, such as assessments, multi-disciplinary meetings and the verbal communications with service users.","PeriodicalId":47142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work","volume":"23 1","pages":"205 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconceptualizing protective factors in response to risk with vulnerable children\",\"authors\":\"G. Heron, C. Lightowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14680173221142761\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The quality and robustness of childcare professionals’ thinking about protective factors is crucial to interventions with vulnerable children. Yet, protective factors in childcare are under-conceptualized in policy and practice and have been overshadowed by the concept of risk. This study uses discourse analysis to examine how childcare professionals discuss protective factors in response to risk and in a way that demonstrates critical thinking. Findings Data was collected from 30 consultation meetings, which involve a total of 109 professionals. The consultation meetings focus on the assessment of a child who presents a serious risk of harm to others and who are themselves at risk. The findings suggest that professionals do discuss protective factors in response to risk, however, it occurs on a ratio of approximately one to nine, which suggests a level of separation in the way these terms are conceptualized in practice. Application It is suggested that a professional construct of “protective factors versus risk,” which is applied with critical thinking, will offer a more robust way of conceptualizing the support provided to vulnerable children. While professionals have to analyze risk in terms of what is wrong, it is equally crucial to include protective factors in a strategy for it to work. A starting point is for professionals to re-construct protective factors and risk and apply it with critical thinking to core elements of social work practice, such as assessments, multi-disciplinary meetings and the verbal communications with service users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Work\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"205 - 220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173221142761\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173221142761","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

儿童保育专业人员对保护因素的思考的质量和稳健性对弱势儿童的干预至关重要。然而,在政策和实践中,儿童保育中的保护因素概念化不足,并被风险概念所掩盖。本研究使用话语分析来研究儿童保育专业人员如何讨论保护因素以应对风险,并以一种展示批判性思维的方式。数据收集自30次咨询会议,涉及109名专业人员。协商会议的重点是评估对他人构成严重伤害风险的儿童和本身处于危险中的儿童。研究结果表明,专业人士确实讨论了应对风险的保护因素,然而,这一比例约为1:9,这表明在实践中,这些术语的概念化方式存在一定程度的分离。作者建议,运用批判性思维构建“保护因素与风险”的专业概念,将为向弱势儿童提供的支持提供更有力的概念化方法。虽然专业人士必须从错误的角度分析风险,但同样重要的是,要在策略中包括保护因素,以使其发挥作用。首先,专业人员要重新构建保护因素和风险,并以批判性思维将其应用于社会工作实践的核心要素,如评估、多学科会议和与服务使用者的口头交流。
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
Reconceptualizing protective factors in response to risk with vulnerable children
The quality and robustness of childcare professionals’ thinking about protective factors is crucial to interventions with vulnerable children. Yet, protective factors in childcare are under-conceptualized in policy and practice and have been overshadowed by the concept of risk. This study uses discourse analysis to examine how childcare professionals discuss protective factors in response to risk and in a way that demonstrates critical thinking. Findings Data was collected from 30 consultation meetings, which involve a total of 109 professionals. The consultation meetings focus on the assessment of a child who presents a serious risk of harm to others and who are themselves at risk. The findings suggest that professionals do discuss protective factors in response to risk, however, it occurs on a ratio of approximately one to nine, which suggests a level of separation in the way these terms are conceptualized in practice. Application It is suggested that a professional construct of “protective factors versus risk,” which is applied with critical thinking, will offer a more robust way of conceptualizing the support provided to vulnerable children. While professionals have to analyze risk in terms of what is wrong, it is equally crucial to include protective factors in a strategy for it to work. A starting point is for professionals to re-construct protective factors and risk and apply it with critical thinking to core elements of social work practice, such as assessments, multi-disciplinary meetings and the verbal communications with service users.
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
Journal of Social Work
Journal of Social Work SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Work is a forum for the publication, dissemination and debate of key ideas and research in social work. The journal aims to advance theoretical understanding, shape policy, and inform practice, and welcomes submissions from all areas of social work.
期刊最新文献
Bilateral Terson Syndrome Secondary to Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysm Rupture Associated With Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Social work at the end of life: Humanization of the process Social work scope of practice with Parkinson's disease: A qualitative study Online learning experiences of social work students in India Environmental factors’ influence on criminal legal involvement for people with serious mental illness
×
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