“父母倡导”作为一种意识形态准则:LGBTQ父母参与残疾服务

IF 2.3 Q1 SOCIAL WORK
M. Gibson
{"title":"“父母倡导”作为一种意识形态准则:LGBTQ父母参与残疾服务","authors":"M. Gibson","doi":"10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What does the work that LGBTQ parents do to find resources for their disabled children reveal about the social organization of services? This article presents findings from an institutional ethnography study based on interviews with 15 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) parents and six key community informants in Toronto, Canada. The analysis focused on the work parents did to engage with disability service systems on behalf of their children, and the ways in which families’ social privilege and/or marginalization affected their experiences. Particular attention was paid to the ways in which “parent advocacy” was taken up, responded to, and critiqued in these interviews. “Parent advocacy” was found to operate as what Dorothy Smith has called an “ideological code” (Smith 1999), offloading systemic responsibilities onto parents, shielding inequities, and promoting individualized competition between service users. This study suggests that the systemic organization that makes “parent advocacy” necessary also renders parents’ relative privilege or marginality central to what their children receive.","PeriodicalId":44255,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Progressive Human Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Parent Advocacy” as an Ideological Code: LGBTQ Parents Engage with Disability Services\",\"authors\":\"M. Gibson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT What does the work that LGBTQ parents do to find resources for their disabled children reveal about the social organization of services? This article presents findings from an institutional ethnography study based on interviews with 15 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) parents and six key community informants in Toronto, Canada. The analysis focused on the work parents did to engage with disability service systems on behalf of their children, and the ways in which families’ social privilege and/or marginalization affected their experiences. Particular attention was paid to the ways in which “parent advocacy” was taken up, responded to, and critiqued in these interviews. “Parent advocacy” was found to operate as what Dorothy Smith has called an “ideological code” (Smith 1999), offloading systemic responsibilities onto parents, shielding inequities, and promoting individualized competition between service users. This study suggests that the systemic organization that makes “parent advocacy” necessary also renders parents’ relative privilege or marginality central to what their children receive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Progressive Human Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Progressive Human Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Progressive Human Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2018.1543996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:LGBTQ父母为残疾儿童寻找资源所做的工作揭示了服务的社会组织?本文介绍了一项机构民族志研究的结果,该研究基于对加拿大多伦多15名女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者和/或酷儿(LGBTQ)父母和六名关键社区线人的采访。分析的重点是父母为子女参与残疾服务系统所做的工作,以及家庭的社会特权和/或边缘化对他们经历的影响。在这些采访中,人们特别关注“家长倡导”的处理、回应和批评方式。“家长倡导”被发现是多萝西·史密斯所说的“意识形态密码”(Smith,1999年),将系统性责任推卸给家长,保护不公平现象,并促进服务用户之间的个性化竞争。这项研究表明,使“父母倡导”成为必要的系统性组织也使父母的相对特权或边缘性成为他们孩子所获得的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Parent Advocacy” as an Ideological Code: LGBTQ Parents Engage with Disability Services
ABSTRACT What does the work that LGBTQ parents do to find resources for their disabled children reveal about the social organization of services? This article presents findings from an institutional ethnography study based on interviews with 15 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) parents and six key community informants in Toronto, Canada. The analysis focused on the work parents did to engage with disability service systems on behalf of their children, and the ways in which families’ social privilege and/or marginalization affected their experiences. Particular attention was paid to the ways in which “parent advocacy” was taken up, responded to, and critiqued in these interviews. “Parent advocacy” was found to operate as what Dorothy Smith has called an “ideological code” (Smith 1999), offloading systemic responsibilities onto parents, shielding inequities, and promoting individualized competition between service users. This study suggests that the systemic organization that makes “parent advocacy” necessary also renders parents’ relative privilege or marginality central to what their children receive.
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The only journal of its kind in the United States, the Journal of Progressive Human Services covers political, social, personal, and professional problems in human services from a progressive perspective. The journal stimulates debate about major social issues and contributes to the development of the analytical tools needed for building a caring society based on equality and justice. The journal"s contributors examine oppressed and vulnerable groups, struggles by workers and clients on the job and in the community, dilemmas of practice in conservative contexts, and strategies for ending racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, and discrimination of persons who are disabled and psychologically distressed.
×
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