Risks and representations: Creating consensus narratives about risk with pregnant women involved with child protection systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and Scotland

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Ariane Critchley, Emily Keddell
{"title":"Risks and representations: Creating consensus narratives about risk with pregnant women involved with child protection systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and Scotland","authors":"Ariane Critchley, Emily Keddell","doi":"10.1177/02610183231215231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social work aspires to empowerment ideals, including taking a ‘non-expert’ position of professional curiosity, and validating the perspectives of people in contact with services. Yet in child protection, social workers are involved in practice that refutes the views and opinions of people and are positioned by their role as an identifier of abuse and risk manager. Social workers and people who are subject to child protection services can be locked into meaning battles regarding the effect of parental behaviour and the representation of risks to children. These negotiations over meanings are especially difficult in the pre and perinatal period, where who controls the representation of the baby's voice or best interests is fundamental to decision outcomes. Using Fricker's concept of ‘testimonial injustice’ as an analytical lens, this article draws on studies in two different contexts: Aotearoa New Zealand and Scotland, to examine the implications of the intense mediation of meanings that affect child protection practice. We find that concepts relating to the importance of mothering, love for children, and extended family relationships were sources of mother's disagreements with professional views of risk, but that through qualified agreement or advocacy from community workers, a shared risk narrative could be constructed.","PeriodicalId":47685,"journal":{"name":"Critical Social Policy","volume":"580 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231215231","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social work aspires to empowerment ideals, including taking a ‘non-expert’ position of professional curiosity, and validating the perspectives of people in contact with services. Yet in child protection, social workers are involved in practice that refutes the views and opinions of people and are positioned by their role as an identifier of abuse and risk manager. Social workers and people who are subject to child protection services can be locked into meaning battles regarding the effect of parental behaviour and the representation of risks to children. These negotiations over meanings are especially difficult in the pre and perinatal period, where who controls the representation of the baby's voice or best interests is fundamental to decision outcomes. Using Fricker's concept of ‘testimonial injustice’ as an analytical lens, this article draws on studies in two different contexts: Aotearoa New Zealand and Scotland, to examine the implications of the intense mediation of meanings that affect child protection practice. We find that concepts relating to the importance of mothering, love for children, and extended family relationships were sources of mother's disagreements with professional views of risk, but that through qualified agreement or advocacy from community workers, a shared risk narrative could be constructed.
风险与表述:与新西兰奥特亚罗瓦和苏格兰儿童保护系统中的孕妇建立关于风险的共识叙事
社会工作渴望实现赋权的理想,包括采取 "非专家 "的专业好奇立场,验证与服务接触者的观点。然而,在儿童保护工作中,社会工作者所参与的实践却驳斥了人们的观点和意见,并将自己的角色定位为虐待行为的识别者和风险管理者。社工和接受儿童保护服务的人可能会陷入关于父母行为的影响和儿童面临风险的表述的意义之争。在产前和围产期,这些关于意义的争论尤其困难,因为在产前和围产期,谁能代表婴儿的声音或最大利益是决定结果的关键。本文以弗里克的 "证词不公正 "概念为分析视角,借鉴了两种不同背景下的研究:本文以新西兰奥特亚罗瓦和苏格兰两个不同背景下的研究为基础,探讨了影响儿童保护实践的激烈意义调解所产生的影响。我们发现,与母亲的重要性、对孩子的爱和大家庭关系有关的概念是母亲与专业人员对风险看法产生分歧的根源,但通过有条件的同意或社区工作者的倡导,可以构建一个共同的风险叙事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信