监管儿童保护:竞争第三方的动机姿态

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Valerie Braithwaite, Mary Ivec
{"title":"监管儿童保护:竞争第三方的动机姿态","authors":"Valerie Braithwaite,&nbsp;Mary Ivec","doi":"10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Child protection reform has been difficult, despite evidence that practice should be more child-centred, respectful and responsively inclusive of family and communities. An Australian survey of 387 third parties working with statutory child protection authorities revealed widespread support for reform, but significant opposition to child protection authorities. Only police aligned themselves with child protection authorities. Welfare and family workers were most likely to have defiant postures of resistance and disengagement and to criticize child protection authorities for their bureaucratic ritualism, poor accountability, low trustworthiness and social exclusion. Lawyers and special service providers shared some of these criticisms, while health and educational professionals remained neutral. System reform is likely to grind to a halt when essential third parties are adopting oppositional positions. Principle-led communities of practice that are multidisciplinary and community-inclusive may offer the best hope for cutting through reform gridlock and broadening and deepening capabilities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45526,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Criminology","volume":"17 4","pages":"425 - 448"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policing Child Protection: Motivational Postures of Contesting Third Parties\",\"authors\":\"Valerie Braithwaite,&nbsp;Mary Ivec\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Child protection reform has been difficult, despite evidence that practice should be more child-centred, respectful and responsively inclusive of family and communities. An Australian survey of 387 third parties working with statutory child protection authorities revealed widespread support for reform, but significant opposition to child protection authorities. Only police aligned themselves with child protection authorities. Welfare and family workers were most likely to have defiant postures of resistance and disengagement and to criticize child protection authorities for their bureaucratic ritualism, poor accountability, low trustworthiness and social exclusion. Lawyers and special service providers shared some of these criticisms, while health and educational professionals remained neutral. System reform is likely to grind to a halt when essential third parties are adopting oppositional positions. Principle-led communities of practice that are multidisciplinary and community-inclusive may offer the best hope for cutting through reform gridlock and broadening and deepening capabilities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"425 - 448\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-022-09374-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

儿童保护改革一直很困难,尽管有证据表明,实践应该更加以儿童为中心,尊重和响应家庭和社区。澳大利亚对387个与法定儿童保护机构合作的第三方进行的一项调查显示,人们普遍支持改革,但反对儿童保护机构的呼声很高。只有警察与儿童保护部门结盟。福利和家庭工作者最有可能表现出反抗和脱离的姿态,并批评儿童保护当局的官僚主义、问责不力、可信度低和社会排斥。律师和特别服务提供者也提出了一些批评,而卫生和教育专业人员则保持中立。当重要的第三方采取反对立场时,体制改革可能会陷入停顿。以原则为主导的多学科、包容社区的实践社区,最有可能打破改革僵局,扩大和深化能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policing Child Protection: Motivational Postures of Contesting Third Parties

Child protection reform has been difficult, despite evidence that practice should be more child-centred, respectful and responsively inclusive of family and communities. An Australian survey of 387 third parties working with statutory child protection authorities revealed widespread support for reform, but significant opposition to child protection authorities. Only police aligned themselves with child protection authorities. Welfare and family workers were most likely to have defiant postures of resistance and disengagement and to criticize child protection authorities for their bureaucratic ritualism, poor accountability, low trustworthiness and social exclusion. Lawyers and special service providers shared some of these criticisms, while health and educational professionals remained neutral. System reform is likely to grind to a halt when essential third parties are adopting oppositional positions. Principle-led communities of practice that are multidisciplinary and community-inclusive may offer the best hope for cutting through reform gridlock and broadening and deepening capabilities.

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
Asian Journal of Criminology
Asian Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Electronic submission now possible! Please see the Instructions for Authors. For general information about this new journal please contact the publisher at [welmoed.spahr@springer.com] The Asian Journal of Criminology aims to advance the study of criminology and criminal justice in Asia, to promote evidence-based public policy in crime prevention, and to promote comparative studies about crime and criminal justice. The Journal provides a platform for criminologists, policymakers, and practitioners and welcomes manuscripts relating to crime, crime prevention, criminal law, medico-legal topics and the administration of criminal justice in Asian countries. The Journal especially encourages theoretical and methodological papers with an emphasis on evidence-based, empirical research addressing crime in Asian contexts. It seeks to publish research arising from a broad variety of methodological traditions, including quantitative, qualitative, historical, and comparative methods. The Journal fosters a multi-disciplinary focus and welcomes manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, criminal justice, law, sociology, psychology, forensic science, social work, urban studies, history, and geography.
×
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