Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

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

  • Ingunn Studsrød (a1), Ingunn T. Ellingsen (a2), Carolina Muñoz Guzmán (a3) and Sandra E. Mancinas Espinoza (a4)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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.
Berg, B. L. and Lune, H. (2012) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston: Pearson.
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.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3, 2, 77101.
Cabiati, E. (2015) ‘The need for participative interventions in child protection: perspectives from Nuevo Leòn State’, Social Sciences, 4, 2, 393420.
CRC (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
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.
Diario Oficial de la Federación (2013) Ley de Asistencia Social, Cámara de Diputados del H. Congresode la Unión, Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Forsberg, H. and Kröger, T. (2010) Social Work and Child Welfare Politics through Nordic Lenses, Bristol: Policy Press.
Franzoni, J. M. (2008) ‘Welfare regimes in Latin America: capturing constellations of markets, families, and policies’, Latin American Politics and Society, 50, 2, 67100.
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].
Gilbert, N., Parton, N. and Skivenes, M. (2011) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hantrais, L. (2004) Family Policy Matters: Responding to Family Change in Europe, Bristol: Policy Press.
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.
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.
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.
Maclure, R. (2014) ‘Introduction children's rights in Latin America: constraints and possibilities’, International Journal of Childrens Rights, 22, 235–39.
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].
Martínez, G. (2006) El Estado de Bienestar Mexicano, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
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, 5160.
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.
Nygren, L. and Oltedal, S. (2015) ‘Constructing a vignette for comparative family research’, Journal of Comparative Social Work, 10, 1.
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.
Portilla, O. (2005) ‘Política social: del Estado de Bienestar al Estado Neoliberal, las fallas recurrentes en su aplicación’, Espacios Públicos, agosto, 100–16.
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.
Statistics Norway (2016) ‘Familier og husholdninger 1 januar 2016’, https://ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/familie [accessed 22.03.2017].
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].
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Policy and Society
  • ISSN: 1474-7464
  • EISSN: 1475-3073
  • URL: /core/journals/social-policy-and-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed