Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:01:37.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptualisations of Family and Social Work Family Practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2018

Ingunn Studsrød ,
Ingunn T. Ellingsen ,
Carolina Muñoz Guzmán  and
Sandra E. Mancinas Espinoza
Ingunn Studsrød
Affiliation:
University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway E-mail: [email protected]
Ingunn T. Ellingsen
Affiliation:
University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway E-mail: [email protected]
Carolina Muñoz Guzmán
Affiliation:
Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile E-mail: [email protected]
Sandra E. Mancinas Espinoza
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social workers all around the world work with families and family complexity in their everyday practice. In this article, we present findings from a cross-national study exploring how social workers in child welfare conceptualise ‘family’, and how they relate to ‘family’ in their practice. Data presented is taken from focus groups with twenty-eight social workers from Chile, Mexico and Norway. The findings reveal that in Chilean, Mexican, and Norwegian social work, the conceptualisation of family has expanded over time, acknowledging various family forms and displays, and an increased orientation towards networks regardless of biological ties. However, differences were found, particularly in the way professionals view extended family, perspectives on family intervention, and the position of children in the family. Practical implications will be discussed.

Keywords

Child protectionchild welfare workcross-contextual researchfamily decision makingwelfare system
Type
Themed Section on Families, Social Work and the Welfare State: Where Contemporary ‘Family’ Meets Policy and Practice
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 637 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arcos, E., Muñoz, L. A., Sanchez, X., Vollrath, A., Gazmuri, P. and Baeza, M. (2013) ‘Effectiveness of the comprehensive childhood protection system for vulnerable mothers and children’, Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 21.Google Scholar
Berg, B. L. and Lune, H. (2012) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Berrick, J., Dickens, J., Pösö, T. and Skivnes, M. (2017) ‘A cross-country comparison of child welfare systems and workers' responses to children appearing to be at risk or in need of help’, Child Abuse Review, 26, 4, 305–19.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3, 2, 77–101.Google Scholar
Cabiati, E. (2015) ‘The need for participative interventions in child protection: perspectives from Nuevo Leòn State’, Social Sciences, 4, 2, 393–420.Google Scholar
CRC (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.Google Scholar
Diario Oficial de la Federación (2010) Ley para la Protección de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes, Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.Google Scholar
Diario Oficial de la Federación (2013) Ley de Asistencia Social, Cámara de Diputados del H. Congresode la Unión, Estados Unidos Mexicanos.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, H. and Kröger, T. (2010) Social Work and Child Welfare Politics through Nordic Lenses, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fuentes, C. (2007) Protecting the Child: Civil Society and the State in Chile, Institute of Development Studies, Web Version September 2007, https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/protectingthechildv41.4final.doc, [accessed 03.03.2018].Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., Parton, N. and Skivenes, M. (2011) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hantrais, L. (2004) Family Policy Matters: Responding to Family Change in Europe, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Htun, M. (2009) ‘Life, liberty, and family values: church and state in the struggle over Latin America's social agenda’, in Hagopian, F. (ed.), Religious Pluralism, Democracy and the Catholic Church in Latin America, Indiana: Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
INEGI (2015) Niñas, niños y adolescentes Estado de México © Derechos Reservados Gobierno del Estado de México Palacio del Poder Ejecutivo, Lerdo poniente No. 300, Toluca, Estado de México.Google Scholar
Kriz, K. and 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, 11, 1862–70.Google Scholar
Maclure, R. (2014) ‘Introduction children's rights in Latin America: constraints and possibilities’, International Journal of Childrens Rights, 22, 235–39.Google Scholar
Marcus, B. (2004) Growth without Equity: Inequality, Social Citizenship, and The Neoliberal Model Of Development in Chile, Dissertation, Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin, US, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/2238/marcusbc97012.pdf?sequence=2 [accessed 12.04.2018].Google Scholar
Martínez, G. (2006) El Estado de Bienestar Mexicano, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa.Google Scholar
Morris, K., White, S., Doherty, P. and Warwick, L. (2017) ‘Out of time: theorizing family in social work practice’, Child and Family Social Work, 22, S3, 51–60.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C., Fisher, C. and Chía, E. (2013) ‘Lineamientos estratégicos para modelos 115 de cuidado alternativo dirigidos a niños/as menores de seis años bajo protección estatal’, in Centro de Políticas Públicas (eds.), Concurso de Políticas Públicas “Propuestas para Chile”, Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 115–50.Google Scholar
Nygren, L. and Oltedal, S. (2015) ‘Constructing a vignette for comparative family research’, Journal of Comparative Social Work, 10, 1.Google Scholar
Nygren, L., White, S. and Ellingsen, I. T. (2018) ‘Investigating welfare regime typologies: paradoxes, pitfalls and potentialities in comparative social work research’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000167.Google Scholar
OECD Economic Surveys: Chile (2015) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-chile-2015_eco_surveys-chl-2015-en [accessed 27.11.2017].Google Scholar
Portilla, O. (2005) ‘Política social: del Estado de Bienestar al Estado Neoliberal, las fallas recurrentes en su aplicación’, Espacios Públicos, agosto, 100–16.Google Scholar
Quiroga, M. G. and 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, 422–30.Google Scholar
Statistics Norway (2016) ‘Familier og husholdninger 1 januar 2016’, https://ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/familie [accessed 22.03.2017].Google Scholar
Statistics Norway (2017) ‘Tabell: 09073: Barn 0–22 år med barnevernstiltak i løpet av året, per 31.12.016’, https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selecttable/hovedtabellHjem.asp?KortNavnWeb=barneverng&CMSSubjectArea=sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet&checked=true [accessed 01.04.2017].Google Scholar
Ursin, M., Oltedal, S. and Muñoz, C. (2016) ‘Recognizing the ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ in child protection cases’, Child and Family Social Work, 22, 2, 932–41.Google Scholar