Private and public families
Social workers’ views on children’s and parents’ position in Chile, England, Lithuania and Norway
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v14i1.235Keywords:
private family, public family, children’s position, parent’s position, family policy regimes, child welfare workers’ discretion, familia privada, familia pública, posición de los hijos, posición de los padres, regímenes de políticas familiares, discrecionalidad de los trabajadores sociales de bienestar infantilAbstract
English
Social workers around the world work with families and family complexities in their everyday practice. In this cross-national study, we explore social workers’ family intervention practices related to family definitions and functions, and how social workers balance children’s and parents’ rights and social policies in the proper context. Data derives from focus group interviews with child welfare workers from Norway, Lithuania, Chile and England based on discussions of a common fictitious complex family case (vignette). The four countries chosen for this comparative study are examples of four different welfare systems/regimes. The findings related to this broad area of caring topics are related to how the dimensions of a ‘private’ and a ‘public’ family manifest in social work in the four countries. Social workers in Chile and Lithuania refer to the idea of the private family, while their Norwegian counterparts lean more to the public family. English social workers combine public and private family conceptions in their focus groups, reflecting a system that is partly de-familialized.
Spanish
Familias públicas y privadas. La visión de los trabajadores sociales sobre la posición de hijos y padres en Chile, Inglaterra, Lituania y Noruega.
Los trabajadores sociales en todo el mundo lidian con familias y sus complejidades en su práctica cotidiana. En este estudio de comparación internacional exploramos las prácticas de intervención en familias de trabajadores sociales en relación con sus definiciones y funciones, así como los modos en que los trabajadores sociales equilibran los derechos de padres e hijos y las políticas sociales en el contexto apropiado. Los datos provienen de entrevistas grupales con trabajadores sociales de servicios de bienestar infantil en Noruega, Lituania, Chile e Inglaterra, basadas en la discusión acerca de un caso común ficticio de familia compleja (viñeta). Los cuatro países seleccionados para este estudio comparativo ejemplifican cuatro regímenes o sistemas de bienestar. Los resultados relativos a esta amplia área del tema del cuidado tienen que ver con cómo las dimensiones de “familia privada” y “familia pública” se manifiestan en el trabajo social de estos cuatro países. Los trabajadores sociales de Chile y Lituania hacen referencia a la idea de la familia privada, mientras sus colegas noruegos se inclinan más hacia la familia pública. Los trabajadores sociales ingleses apuntan hacia una combinación de las concepciones de familia pública y privada en sus grupos focales, reflejando un sistema que es parcialmente de-familiarizado.
References
Aidukaite, J. (2006). Reforming family policy in the Baltic States: The views of the elites. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39, 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2005.09.004
Aidukaite, J., Bogdoanova, N., & Guogis, A. (2012). Gerovės valstybės kūrimas.Lietuvoje: Mitas ar realybė? Vilnius: Lietuvos socialinių tyrimų centras.
Aspalter, C. (2011). The development of ideal-typical welfare regime theory. International Social Work, 54(6), 735-50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872810393765
Barn, R., & Kirton, D. (2015). Child Welfare and Migrant Families and Children: A Case Study of England. In M. Skivenes, R. Barn, K. Križ & T. Pösö (Eds.), Child Welfare Systems and Migrant Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernotas, D., & Guogis, A. (2006). Globalizacija, socialinė apsauga ir Baltijos šalys. Vilnius & Kaunas: Mykolas Romeris University.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bijleveld, G. G., Dedding, C. W., & Bunders‐Aelen, J. F. (2015). Children's and young people's participation within child welfare and child protection services: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Child & Family Social Work, 20(2), 129-138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12082
Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2019). Workplace support of fathers' parental leave use in Norway, Community, Work & Family, 22(1), 43-57
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1472067
Burns, K., Pösö, T., & Skivenes, M. (Eds.) (2016). Child welfare removals by the state: A cross-country analysis of decision-making systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190459567.001.0001
Cherlin, A. J., & Calhoun, C. J. (2010). Public and private families: An introduction, 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Costello, S. (2003). Families: Reconstructing social work practices. In J. Allan, B. Pease & L. Briskman (Eds.), Critical social work: An introduction to theories and practices. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2012). Innledning; Velferdsstatens familier. In A.L. Ellingsæter & K. Widerberg (Eds.), Velferdsstatens familier. Nye sosiologiske perspektiver. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Franzoni, J. M. (2008). Welfare regimes in Latin America: Capturing constellations of markets, families, and policies. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(2), 67-100.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00013.x
Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child Protection Systems. International trends and orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.001.0001
Grimshaw, D., & Rubery, J. (2012). The end of the UK's liberal collectivist social model? The implications of the coalition government's policy during the austerity crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(1), 105-126.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ber033
Hantrais, L. (2004). Family policy matters: Responding to family change in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t893wm
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L., Bekhouche, Y, & Zahidi, S. (2014). The global gender gap index 2014. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Križ, K., & Skivenes, M. (2013). Systemic differences in views on risk: A comparative case vignette study of risk assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California). Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1862-1870.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.001
Križ, K., & Skivenes, M. (2017). Child welfare workers' perceptions of children's participation: A comparative study of England, Norway and the USA (California). Child & Family Social Work, 22, 11-22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12224
Kuronen, M., Lahtinen, P., Forsberg, H., & Kröger, T. (2010). Supporting families: The role of family work in child welfare. Social work and child welfare politics. Through Nordic lenses, 65-81.
https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781847424068.003.0005
Lister, R. (1994). 'She has other duties' - Women, citizenship and social security. In S. Baldwin, & J. Falkingham (Eds.), Social security and social change. Hemel Hemstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Lohmann, H., & Zagel, H. (2016). Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1), 48-65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928715621712
Lyngstad, R. (2015). Different welfare system - same values? How social work educators in Norway, Chile and Argentina comprehend core social work and social policy issues. Social Sciences, 4(1), 239-259.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4010239
MSSL (2016/2017). Ministry for Social Security and Labour, http://www.socmin.lt/lt/seima-ir-vaikai/seimos-politika.html [Accessed 20.11.2017].
Nygren, K., Naujaniené, R., & Nygren, L. (2018) The Notion of Family in Lithuanian and Swedish Social Legislation. Social Policy & Society, 17(4): 651-663.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746418000192
Pascall, G. (1997). Women and the family in the British welfare state: The Thatcher/Major legacy. Social Policy & Administration, 31(3), 290-305.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00057
Pösö, T., Skivenes, M., & Hestbæk, A-D. (2014). Child protection systems within the Danish, Finnish and Norwegian welfare states-time for a child centric approach?, European Journal of Social Work, 17(4), 475-490.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2013.829802
Quiroga, M. G., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2014). 'In the name of the children': Public policies for children in out-of-home care in Chile. Historical review, present situation and future challenges. Children and youth services review. 44, 422-430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.009
Riggs, D. W., Bartholomaeus, C., & Due, C. (2016). Public and private families: A comparative thematic analysis of the intersections of social norms and scrutiny. Health Sociology Review, 25(1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2015.1135071
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol. 20). Sage Publications.
Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57-87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
Walsh, F. (Ed.) (2012). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. Guilford Press.
Walsh, J., & Mason, W. (2018). Walking the walk: Changing familial forms, government policy and everyday social work practice in England. Social Policy and Society,17(4), 603-618.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746418000209
Wyness, M. (2014). Children, Family and the state: Revisiting public and private realms. Sociology, 48(1), 59-74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512467712