全球护理去机构化,没有公共资金的求助和社会工作者的自我照顾

Q2 Social Sciences
R. Sen
{"title":"全球护理去机构化,没有公共资金的求助和社会工作者的自我照顾","authors":"R. Sen","doi":"10.1080/09503153.2022.2059956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We begin this edition with Elizabeth Harlow’s article on global ‘deinstitutionalisation’ – the move away from residential child care provision and the development of foster care in its place. Drawing on attachment theory and research on out-of-home care, Harlow’s argument suggests the advantages of family-based care. While Harlow’s argument is generally supportive of the development of fostering systems in the global south, it also reports on some of the organisational and procedural challenges involved and acknowledges questions about whether the greater use of fostering may be viewed as the imposition of Western thinking and practices, ill-suited to local cultures and practices of care. Tuhinul Islam and Leon Fulcher’s article is a response to Harlow’s. Their article highlights concerns about the difficulties in transferring research knowledge from the global north to the global south. It also argues that particular welfare and funding arrangements in some developing countries mean that deinstitutionalisation may neither be viable, nor free up resources, in the ways claimed by those who favour this policy agenda. In conclusion they argue for greater recognition of cross-cultural and religious differences when the development of fostering systems is being considered. Koyrun Begum and colleagues offer reflections about the implementation of the No Recourse Early Action Model (NOREAM) initiative in one local authority in England to help families subject to ‘no recourse to public funds’ policies. These policies have imposed strict restrictions on the social and welfare rights of migrants in the UK who are subject to immigration controls, but have largely fallen beneath the radar of the social work profession’s attention, despite the excellent work of some committed organisations and individuals. Begum and colleagues explore how the NOREAM has been designed with the","PeriodicalId":35184,"journal":{"name":"Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Global Deinstitutionalisation of Care, No Recourse to Public Funds and Self-Care for Social Workers\",\"authors\":\"R. Sen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09503153.2022.2059956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We begin this edition with Elizabeth Harlow’s article on global ‘deinstitutionalisation’ – the move away from residential child care provision and the development of foster care in its place. Drawing on attachment theory and research on out-of-home care, Harlow’s argument suggests the advantages of family-based care. While Harlow’s argument is generally supportive of the development of fostering systems in the global south, it also reports on some of the organisational and procedural challenges involved and acknowledges questions about whether the greater use of fostering may be viewed as the imposition of Western thinking and practices, ill-suited to local cultures and practices of care. Tuhinul Islam and Leon Fulcher’s article is a response to Harlow’s. Their article highlights concerns about the difficulties in transferring research knowledge from the global north to the global south. It also argues that particular welfare and funding arrangements in some developing countries mean that deinstitutionalisation may neither be viable, nor free up resources, in the ways claimed by those who favour this policy agenda. In conclusion they argue for greater recognition of cross-cultural and religious differences when the development of fostering systems is being considered. Koyrun Begum and colleagues offer reflections about the implementation of the No Recourse Early Action Model (NOREAM) initiative in one local authority in England to help families subject to ‘no recourse to public funds’ policies. These policies have imposed strict restrictions on the social and welfare rights of migrants in the UK who are subject to immigration controls, but have largely fallen beneath the radar of the social work profession’s attention, despite the excellent work of some committed organisations and individuals. Begum and colleagues explore how the NOREAM has been designed with the\",\"PeriodicalId\":35184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2022.2059956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2022.2059956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们从伊丽莎白·哈洛关于全球“去机构化”的文章开始——从寄宿儿童保育提供和寄养寄养的发展中走出来。根据依恋理论和对家庭外护理的研究,哈洛的论点表明了以家庭为基础的护理的优势。虽然哈洛的论点总体上支持发展中国家的寄养制度,但它也报告了一些组织和程序上的挑战,并承认了一些问题,即更多地使用寄养是否可能被视为西方思想和实践的强加,不适合当地的文化和护理实践。Tuhinul Islam和Leon Fulcher的文章是对Harlow文章的回应。他们的文章强调了对将研究知识从全球北方转移到全球南方的困难的关注。它还认为,在一些发展中国家,特殊的福利和资金安排意味着去机构化可能既不可行,也不会像那些支持这一政策议程的人所声称的那样释放资源。总之,他们认为,在考虑发展寄养制度时,应该更多地认识到跨文化和宗教差异。Koyrun Begum及其同事对英国一个地方当局实施“无追索权早期行动模式”(NOREAM)倡议的情况进行了反思,该倡议旨在帮助受“无追索权公共基金”政策影响的家庭。这些政策对受移民管制的英国移民的社会和福利权利施加了严格的限制,但尽管一些坚定的组织和个人做了出色的工作,但这些政策在很大程度上没有受到社会工作专业的关注。Begum和他的同事们探索了NOREAM是如何被设计出来的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Global Deinstitutionalisation of Care, No Recourse to Public Funds and Self-Care for Social Workers
We begin this edition with Elizabeth Harlow’s article on global ‘deinstitutionalisation’ – the move away from residential child care provision and the development of foster care in its place. Drawing on attachment theory and research on out-of-home care, Harlow’s argument suggests the advantages of family-based care. While Harlow’s argument is generally supportive of the development of fostering systems in the global south, it also reports on some of the organisational and procedural challenges involved and acknowledges questions about whether the greater use of fostering may be viewed as the imposition of Western thinking and practices, ill-suited to local cultures and practices of care. Tuhinul Islam and Leon Fulcher’s article is a response to Harlow’s. Their article highlights concerns about the difficulties in transferring research knowledge from the global north to the global south. It also argues that particular welfare and funding arrangements in some developing countries mean that deinstitutionalisation may neither be viable, nor free up resources, in the ways claimed by those who favour this policy agenda. In conclusion they argue for greater recognition of cross-cultural and religious differences when the development of fostering systems is being considered. Koyrun Begum and colleagues offer reflections about the implementation of the No Recourse Early Action Model (NOREAM) initiative in one local authority in England to help families subject to ‘no recourse to public funds’ policies. These policies have imposed strict restrictions on the social and welfare rights of migrants in the UK who are subject to immigration controls, but have largely fallen beneath the radar of the social work profession’s attention, despite the excellent work of some committed organisations and individuals. Begum and colleagues explore how the NOREAM has been designed with the
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
Practice
Practice Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
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