Dr Alison Parkes from the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit at the University of Glasgow highlights findings from a recent study exploring the impact of support for parents on children’s well-being.
Many parents with young children need extra help from time to time, in the form of financial aid, childcare or emotional support. Although it is well known that support can relieve parenting stress, it is less clear whether support for parents has a measurable impact on children’s well-being. Our study[i] of 2600 families living in Scotland found a link between the availability of support for mothers during the early years and children’s later mental wellbeing.
In order to be able to discount other possible explanations for the association found, the study controlled for a range of other factors related to both low levels of family support and poor child outcomes. Even after allowing for other factors such as family poverty and lone parenthood, we found lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems among school-age children whose mothers had been able to access support during their child’s early years.
The study examined mothers’ perceptions of the availability of support via two different channels: informal social support networks from friends and relatives, and support from health and social work professionals. There is universal provision of professional support for parents in the UK (for example, from health visitors and via GPs), as well as a range of support services targeted at vulnerable parents. Nonetheless, families often perceive barriers to service access and engagement. These only partly relate to low awareness or practical problems. Importantly, they also reflect parents’ perceptions that available support is inadequate to meet their needs, and fears about interference and stigma.
In exploring the ways in which support for mothers improved children’s wellbeing, the study found that professional support and social networks acted differently. Greater access to help from health and social work professionals was associated with more positive parenting, which in turn reduced the risk of children developing behavioural and emotional problems. Good social support from friends and relatives did not affect parenting so directly. However, the positive effects of social support on mothers’ greater economic security and mental wellbeing led in turn to more positive parenting, which then benefited children.
The study also looked at whether support helped to protect children’s wellbeing when families were under particular strain. Access to professional support channels had the strongest buffering effect. Among families with good access to professional support, the study found a weaker impact of less positive parenting on children’s emotional difficulties, when compared with families who found it difficult to access such help. A smaller buffering effect was found for social support. Here, the impact of family money problems on children’s emotional difficulties was weaker among families with strong social networks, compared with families who lacked this type of support. Collectively, our findings point to the value of professional services and social networks in strengthening children’s resilience to adversity.
In conclusion, our study findings underline the importance of good social support networks for all families with young children, as well as the need to ensure good access to health and welfare services through building greater parental awareness and trust.
Further details can be found in the following open access publication (forthcoming): Alison Parkes and Helen Sweeting (2018) Indirect, and Buffering Effects of Support for Mothers on Children's Socioemotional Adjustment, Journal of Family Psychology
[i] This study used the Growing Up in Scotland first birth cohort, a nationally representative sample of families with children born between June 2004 and May 2005. For more information, see https://growingupinscotland.org.uk/
Showing posts with label parents and parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parents and parenting. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 June 2018
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Supporting children and families in early childhood: When does community action let the Government off the hook?
CRFR Associate Researcher, Dr Kate McAlpine works in Tanzania at the intersection between good governance, technology and children’s rights. In this post she reflects on the key findings from a qualitative study that evaluated the impacts of Children in Crossfire’s[i] programme of integrated child development interventions for children in the early years.
In Tanzania too many people live hand to mouth, as deep and shallow poverty exist side by side. The prevailing belief is that children unite a family, but that they should defer to adults. Until recently young children have been considered by the Government to be the responsibility of the family and not a group that warrants any services beyond health care.
The main concern of the programme we evaluated was to mitigate the effects of poverty on children’s developmental outcomes, and to do so by increasing young children’s access to early years education. The programme did this by equipping community volunteers to run community based early years centres; and establishing micro-finance funds for women to help finance the centres.
Using a narrative approach that sought out people’s stories; we inquired about parents’ and early years educators’ internal capacities to protect and nurture children. We also investigated the attitudes and behaviours of the Local Government Authorities with regards to investing in services for young children; and sought out changes in familial and community relationships. The interviews were coded and analysed using the classic grounded theory method.
We discovered that individuals who have been touched by the programme are now ready to parent. But, punitive parenting continues to be prevalent in the communities. Parents and local leaders who were interviewed believe that the early years educators are “true teachers” even though they have learnt on the job. Parents hear that the early years services are good; their children want to attend; and then parents see their child thrive.
Notably, community members are self-organizing to undertake development initiatives that benefit children. Unexpectedly, social capital has been strengthened as a result of the establishment of community managed micro funds that were initially intended to provide funding to the early years centres.
The success of the programme raises wider questions about the planning and financing of social services when communities have initiated their own services. The programme had a working assumption that the early years centres would be legitimized via a process of Government supervision, regulation, and resourcing. However, the minimum standards for centres that were developed by the Government are not fit for purpose. This is because they frame quality in terms of infrastructure and processes, and ignore standards around safety. Nor, is the Government fully invested in resourcing the regulation of early years centres.
Many community members see the value of contributing to early years education, and ward officials recognise that early years and child protection services need financing. But, this does not translate into revenue. Planning to resource services is a completely different thing from delivering services, and children’s services continue to be treated as a matter of charity.
Long-standing systemic impact for young children can only be achieved if neighbourhood leaders (both public servants and elected officials) self-identify as agents of change; if a social consensus emerges that services for children need to be resourced by the government; and finally if citizens and leaders learn how to navigate the Government mechanisms for participatory planning and budgeting, and consistently put pressure on the government to resource children’s services.
The full research report can be downloaded at http://www.doingtherightthing.co/publications/
[i] Children in Crossfire is an Irish International NGO that furthers early years education and development in Tanzania. https://www.childrenincrossfire.org/
References
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
McAlpine, K & Omesa, Njeri (2017) A Qualitative Evaluation of the Impacts of a Programme of Integrated Child Development in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Children in Crossfire.
In Tanzania too many people live hand to mouth, as deep and shallow poverty exist side by side. The prevailing belief is that children unite a family, but that they should defer to adults. Until recently young children have been considered by the Government to be the responsibility of the family and not a group that warrants any services beyond health care.
The main concern of the programme we evaluated was to mitigate the effects of poverty on children’s developmental outcomes, and to do so by increasing young children’s access to early years education. The programme did this by equipping community volunteers to run community based early years centres; and establishing micro-finance funds for women to help finance the centres.
Using a narrative approach that sought out people’s stories; we inquired about parents’ and early years educators’ internal capacities to protect and nurture children. We also investigated the attitudes and behaviours of the Local Government Authorities with regards to investing in services for young children; and sought out changes in familial and community relationships. The interviews were coded and analysed using the classic grounded theory method.
We discovered that individuals who have been touched by the programme are now ready to parent. But, punitive parenting continues to be prevalent in the communities. Parents and local leaders who were interviewed believe that the early years educators are “true teachers” even though they have learnt on the job. Parents hear that the early years services are good; their children want to attend; and then parents see their child thrive.
Notably, community members are self-organizing to undertake development initiatives that benefit children. Unexpectedly, social capital has been strengthened as a result of the establishment of community managed micro funds that were initially intended to provide funding to the early years centres.
The success of the programme raises wider questions about the planning and financing of social services when communities have initiated their own services. The programme had a working assumption that the early years centres would be legitimized via a process of Government supervision, regulation, and resourcing. However, the minimum standards for centres that were developed by the Government are not fit for purpose. This is because they frame quality in terms of infrastructure and processes, and ignore standards around safety. Nor, is the Government fully invested in resourcing the regulation of early years centres.
Many community members see the value of contributing to early years education, and ward officials recognise that early years and child protection services need financing. But, this does not translate into revenue. Planning to resource services is a completely different thing from delivering services, and children’s services continue to be treated as a matter of charity.
Long-standing systemic impact for young children can only be achieved if neighbourhood leaders (both public servants and elected officials) self-identify as agents of change; if a social consensus emerges that services for children need to be resourced by the government; and finally if citizens and leaders learn how to navigate the Government mechanisms for participatory planning and budgeting, and consistently put pressure on the government to resource children’s services.
The full research report can be downloaded at http://www.doingtherightthing.co/publications/
[i] Children in Crossfire is an Irish International NGO that furthers early years education and development in Tanzania. https://www.childrenincrossfire.org/
References
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
McAlpine, K & Omesa, Njeri (2017) A Qualitative Evaluation of the Impacts of a Programme of Integrated Child Development in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Children in Crossfire.
Thursday, 14 April 2016
Evaluating the Young Mothers’ Service using contribution analysis: lessons learned
From 2014 to 2015, CRFR's co-director Sarah Morton and PhD student Cara Blaisdell worked with West Lothian Council’s Early Intervention Team to develop a framework for evaluating their suite of services, using contribution analysis. In this blog post, Cara reflects on their work with one of these services - the Young Mothers’ Service. This is a keyworking programme in West Lothian that supports pregnant and parenting women under the age of 25.
What is contribution analysis?
In a contribution analysis approach, evaluators identify the outcome that a service hopes to improve, and develop a ‘theory of change’ about how the service will bring about that improvement (Better Evaluation 2015). This theory is expressed visually, in the form of a results chain showing how each stage of the project links to the next. Our CRFR briefing on the project goes into more detail about how we used contribution analysis in this evaluation. Other resources on contribution analysis are linked to at the end of this post.
What were the results of the evaluation?
The evaluation showed positive results about how the keyworkers supported the young women. Feedback from young mothers indicated that they found their keyworkers supportive and had improved confidence:
‘They took everything I was going through into consideration.’
‘I’m very much more confident by myself and all the support I needed was met’.
‘Don’t think I’d be where I am today without my keyworker’s help. Thanks a lot!’
‘I’m very much more confident by myself and all the support I needed was met’.
‘Don’t think I’d be where I am today without my keyworker’s help. Thanks a lot!’
Other results from the evaluation showed:
- A high level of take-up of the service, with only one young mother declining when the service was offered
- Young mothers experienced reduced depression and anxiety
- 10 children removed from the Child Protection Register
- Mothers were more aware of support that was available to them—for example, help with accessing benefit entitlements, help with finding a secure place to live, or attending local parenting groups for peer support
- Eight mothers were supported to enter full-time employment, with 14 others working toward this goal
- All young mothers were approached about experiences of domestic and sexual abuse—revealing a 75% prevalence rate. Support was offered in partnership with the Domestic and Sexual Assault Team.
What did we learn about using contribution analysis?
- Working collaboratively with keyworkers and the service manager put the emphasis on learning through evaluation, rather than external judgement.
- The service manager and keyworkers said that the evaluation prompted useful reflections about their work.
- Training in contribution analysis and ongoing support were important.
- Collecting quantitative data was straightforward, but it was more challenging to compile qualitative data in a systematic way.
- We needed to work within the constraints of high workloads.
- We needed to offer multiple routes for service users to give feedback, including finding ways to take into account the informal feedback that arose from relationships between young mothers and keyworkers.
For more about this evaluation, and further reflections on what we learned about using contribution analysis, see CRFR Briefing 79: Evaluating the Young Mothers’ Service using contribution analysis: lessons learned.
Additional (open access) resources about contribution analysis: John Mayne, who developed the approach, has written a short briefing about contribution analysis. Sarah Morton, who has developed a specialism in contribution analysis at CRFR, has spoken and blogged about her experience with the approach. There are also useful literature reviews available from Better Evaluation and IRISS.
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
Helping parents help children: do we know what works for children with long-term health conditions?
How easy is it for parents of children with long-term health conditions to make sure treatment plans are followed? Alina Morawska, from the Parenting and Family Support Centre at the University of Queensland explores some of the factors that influence the successful management of chronic conditions and asks what can be done to better support parents?
Can parents and the way they deal with their children’s behaviour actually make kids’ sick? Of course, this is a simplistic question and thankfully we have moved beyond the days of parentectomy(1), when removal of parents was thought to be an appropriate treatment action for chronically ill children. Yet, there is also no doubt that what parents do and how parents and children relate greatly matter to all children.
In population health terms, the question of how we can help families of children with chronic illnesses is an extremely important problem to consider. Childhood chronic health conditions, such as asthma, eczema and diabetes are common, and rates are on the rise around the world(2). It is estimated that up to a quarter of Australian children are diagnosed with long term health conditions, and while most are not life threatening they bring considerable burden for children, families and communities.
Most chronic health conditions require ongoing medical care and management. The burden of this care largely falls on parents. Parents are ultimately responsible for ensuring that children apply their eczema creams, that they take regular blood glucose readings or that they have their asthma reliever with them when they go to school. While some treatment actions are relatively straightforward, others are quite complex and require considerable knowledge and practice to implement correctly – something parents have had little preparation or training for.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that children generally don’t understand the long term benefits of treatment. As most of us have experienced at some point in our lives, treatments can be unpleasant, uncomfortable or painful. Thus, treatment requires the parent to get the child to do something they don’t want to do essentially because their parent asks. This of course mirrors any other parent-child interactions where parent and child goals and motivations differ – cleaning up rooms, completing homework, limits on screen time – however the child’s resistance and refusal to cooperate in the context of illness management is particularly problematic. Parents and children need to be able to communicate well in a positive, supportive and loving context in order effectively and correctly undertake the treatment. Over time, the transfer of responsibility for illness management from parent to child is best done when both parent and child are working together and communicating well. If the parent finds the task of getting their child to take their medication too hard, too stressful and too overwhelming they may simply give up.
Do parents really give up and not persist with their child’s prescribed management plan? We know that non-adherence with treatment and prevention is around 50% and can be as high as 75%(3). Is this just because children refuse to take medication and parents give up? Of course not; there are many reasons for non-adherence, simply forgetting being at the top of the list. But parents do say that their child’s resistance to treatment plays a role in non-adherence(4).
Non-adherence is a well-recognised problem, yet to date interventions to improve adherence, which have largely focused on education, have not been particularly effective(5). It is also the case that the effects of psychosocial parenting and family interventions on outcomes including parenting, mental health, and child illness symptoms have been limited(6). Notably, the majority of studies to date have not targeted parenting practices specifically and those that have, have had mixed outcomes.
So what should we do? How should we help parents?
Our paper(7) outlines the links between parenting and child behaviour and makes recommendations for the development and testing of parenting interventions in the context of childhood chronic health conditions. We also make some suggestions for how parenting intervention might be used to support parents, but of course whether such programs are effective is still largely an open question. We hope that research at our Centre and the work of many others around the world will be able to provide some guidance on what works and what doesn’t in the near future.
The Journal of Child Health Care has kindly made the article, on which this blog is based, open access until 2 May 2015. Please read the full article: Parenting interventions for childhood chronic illness: a review and recommendations for intervention design and delivery.
About the Triple P programme
The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program is owned by The University of Queensland. The University, through its main technology transfer company, UniQuest Pty Ltd, has licensed Triple P International Pty Ltd to publish and disseminate the program worldwide. Royalties stemming from published Triple P resources are distributed in accordance with the University’s intellectual property policy and flow to the Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, and contributory authors. No author has any share or ownership in Triple P International Pty Ltd. Alina Morawska is an author of various Triple P resources.
Contact Alina: alina@psy.uq.edu.au at the Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, University of Queensland
References
1. Robinson, G., 1972, The story of parentectomy. The Journal of Asthma Research, 9: p. 199-205.
2. Van Cleave, J., Gortmaker, S.L., and Perrin, J.M., 2010, Dynamics of obesity and chronic health conditions among children and youth. JAMA, 303(7): p. 623-30.
3. Morton, R.W., Everard, M.L., and Elphick, H.E., 2014, Adherence in childhood asthma: the elephant in the room. Arch Dis Child, 99(10): p. 949-53.
4. Burgess, S.W., Sly, P.D., Morawska, A., Cooper, D.M., and Devadason, S.G., 2008, Assessing adherence and factors associated with adherence in young children with asthma. Respirology, 13: p. 559–563.
5. Dean, A.J., Walters, J., and Hall, A., 2010, A systematic review of interventions to enhance medication adherence in children and adolescents with chronic illness. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 95(9): p. 717-723.
6. Law, E.F., Fisher, E., Fales, J., Noel, M., and Eccleston, C., 2014, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Parent and Family-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents With Chronic Medical Conditions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(8): p. 866-886.
7. Morawska, A., Calam, R., and Fraser, J., 2015, Parenting interventions for childhood chronic illness: A review and recommendations for intervention design and delivery. Journal of Child Health Care 19(1): p. 5-17.
Can parents and the way they deal with their children’s behaviour actually make kids’ sick? Of course, this is a simplistic question and thankfully we have moved beyond the days of parentectomy(1), when removal of parents was thought to be an appropriate treatment action for chronically ill children. Yet, there is also no doubt that what parents do and how parents and children relate greatly matter to all children.
In population health terms, the question of how we can help families of children with chronic illnesses is an extremely important problem to consider. Childhood chronic health conditions, such as asthma, eczema and diabetes are common, and rates are on the rise around the world(2). It is estimated that up to a quarter of Australian children are diagnosed with long term health conditions, and while most are not life threatening they bring considerable burden for children, families and communities.
Most chronic health conditions require ongoing medical care and management. The burden of this care largely falls on parents. Parents are ultimately responsible for ensuring that children apply their eczema creams, that they take regular blood glucose readings or that they have their asthma reliever with them when they go to school. While some treatment actions are relatively straightforward, others are quite complex and require considerable knowledge and practice to implement correctly – something parents have had little preparation or training for.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that children generally don’t understand the long term benefits of treatment. As most of us have experienced at some point in our lives, treatments can be unpleasant, uncomfortable or painful. Thus, treatment requires the parent to get the child to do something they don’t want to do essentially because their parent asks. This of course mirrors any other parent-child interactions where parent and child goals and motivations differ – cleaning up rooms, completing homework, limits on screen time – however the child’s resistance and refusal to cooperate in the context of illness management is particularly problematic. Parents and children need to be able to communicate well in a positive, supportive and loving context in order effectively and correctly undertake the treatment. Over time, the transfer of responsibility for illness management from parent to child is best done when both parent and child are working together and communicating well. If the parent finds the task of getting their child to take their medication too hard, too stressful and too overwhelming they may simply give up.
Do parents really give up and not persist with their child’s prescribed management plan? We know that non-adherence with treatment and prevention is around 50% and can be as high as 75%(3). Is this just because children refuse to take medication and parents give up? Of course not; there are many reasons for non-adherence, simply forgetting being at the top of the list. But parents do say that their child’s resistance to treatment plays a role in non-adherence(4).
Non-adherence is a well-recognised problem, yet to date interventions to improve adherence, which have largely focused on education, have not been particularly effective(5). It is also the case that the effects of psychosocial parenting and family interventions on outcomes including parenting, mental health, and child illness symptoms have been limited(6). Notably, the majority of studies to date have not targeted parenting practices specifically and those that have, have had mixed outcomes.
So what should we do? How should we help parents?
Our paper(7) outlines the links between parenting and child behaviour and makes recommendations for the development and testing of parenting interventions in the context of childhood chronic health conditions. We also make some suggestions for how parenting intervention might be used to support parents, but of course whether such programs are effective is still largely an open question. We hope that research at our Centre and the work of many others around the world will be able to provide some guidance on what works and what doesn’t in the near future.
The Journal of Child Health Care has kindly made the article, on which this blog is based, open access until 2 May 2015. Please read the full article: Parenting interventions for childhood chronic illness: a review and recommendations for intervention design and delivery.
About the Triple P programme
The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program is owned by The University of Queensland. The University, through its main technology transfer company, UniQuest Pty Ltd, has licensed Triple P International Pty Ltd to publish and disseminate the program worldwide. Royalties stemming from published Triple P resources are distributed in accordance with the University’s intellectual property policy and flow to the Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, and contributory authors. No author has any share or ownership in Triple P International Pty Ltd. Alina Morawska is an author of various Triple P resources.
Contact Alina: alina@psy.uq.edu.au at the Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, University of Queensland
References
1. Robinson, G., 1972, The story of parentectomy. The Journal of Asthma Research, 9: p. 199-205.
2. Van Cleave, J., Gortmaker, S.L., and Perrin, J.M., 2010, Dynamics of obesity and chronic health conditions among children and youth. JAMA, 303(7): p. 623-30.
3. Morton, R.W., Everard, M.L., and Elphick, H.E., 2014, Adherence in childhood asthma: the elephant in the room. Arch Dis Child, 99(10): p. 949-53.
4. Burgess, S.W., Sly, P.D., Morawska, A., Cooper, D.M., and Devadason, S.G., 2008, Assessing adherence and factors associated with adherence in young children with asthma. Respirology, 13: p. 559–563.
5. Dean, A.J., Walters, J., and Hall, A., 2010, A systematic review of interventions to enhance medication adherence in children and adolescents with chronic illness. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 95(9): p. 717-723.
6. Law, E.F., Fisher, E., Fales, J., Noel, M., and Eccleston, C., 2014, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Parent and Family-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents With Chronic Medical Conditions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(8): p. 866-886.
7. Morawska, A., Calam, R., and Fraser, J., 2015, Parenting interventions for childhood chronic illness: A review and recommendations for intervention design and delivery. Journal of Child Health Care 19(1): p. 5-17.
Tuesday, 10 February 2015
The brain, the family and the state
Does it help if parents receive advice on how to raise their children?
Or does it make them more confused, trying to find their way through all the information?
These are some of the questions being asked in a CRFR project looking at how ideas from brain sciences are being used in policies relating to parenting and family life. The child’s brain has come to be a hot topic, and whether or not parents are aware of the origins of the advice they receive, brain science is being increasingly used to shape professional practice: from the content of parenting courses, to initiatives to encourage singing and reading with your baby, through to legislation targeting children and families.
Many parents may be able to recall, for example, advice given on the importance of cuddling their children – which stems from evidence that affection aids the development of infant’s brains. What once were perhaps seen as ‘soft’ topics are now being backed up by what is often seen as ‘hard’ science. Brain science is, today, playing an important role in reshaping the relationship between parents and the state.
We have almost completed the first part of our project, looking at how brain science is used in policy and how this relates to any changes in policy priorities and aims. We have also interviewed a number of very engaged and enthused policy-makers, who are involved in different ways in making ‘Scotland the best place to grow up’. One finding is that, whilst the brain sciences seem to have clearly played a role in policies for parenting and care, they are at the same time talked about very tentatively – policymakers are keen to highlight what they don’t know (yet), as well as what they feel certain of.
But what about parents? We are now interested in hearing what advice parents receive on parenting, and what they think about the role of brain science in this advice. Do they value it, do they use it, or do they ignore it? Upcoming interviews with families will help to shed light on how parents view these policy-backed messages, and the impact this type of advice has on their own parenting approaches.
If you are interested in learning more about this project please contact Tineke Broer (tineke.broer@ed.ac.uk). If you are a parent/carer of a child from 0-3 and would like to be interviewed for this project, please also get in touch.
Or does it make them more confused, trying to find their way through all the information?
These are some of the questions being asked in a CRFR project looking at how ideas from brain sciences are being used in policies relating to parenting and family life. The child’s brain has come to be a hot topic, and whether or not parents are aware of the origins of the advice they receive, brain science is being increasingly used to shape professional practice: from the content of parenting courses, to initiatives to encourage singing and reading with your baby, through to legislation targeting children and families.
Many parents may be able to recall, for example, advice given on the importance of cuddling their children – which stems from evidence that affection aids the development of infant’s brains. What once were perhaps seen as ‘soft’ topics are now being backed up by what is often seen as ‘hard’ science. Brain science is, today, playing an important role in reshaping the relationship between parents and the state.
We have almost completed the first part of our project, looking at how brain science is used in policy and how this relates to any changes in policy priorities and aims. We have also interviewed a number of very engaged and enthused policy-makers, who are involved in different ways in making ‘Scotland the best place to grow up’. One finding is that, whilst the brain sciences seem to have clearly played a role in policies for parenting and care, they are at the same time talked about very tentatively – policymakers are keen to highlight what they don’t know (yet), as well as what they feel certain of.
But what about parents? We are now interested in hearing what advice parents receive on parenting, and what they think about the role of brain science in this advice. Do they value it, do they use it, or do they ignore it? Upcoming interviews with families will help to shed light on how parents view these policy-backed messages, and the impact this type of advice has on their own parenting approaches.
If you are interested in learning more about this project please contact Tineke Broer (tineke.broer@ed.ac.uk). If you are a parent/carer of a child from 0-3 and would like to be interviewed for this project, please also get in touch.
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Supporting Dads in the context of gender inequality
Sarah Morton, CRFR Co-Director, and Gil Viry, CRFR Associate Researcher and Chancellor's Fellow in Sociology at University of Edinburgh
There is a lot of recent interest in supporting dads. However, this focus on just one gender of parents poses some interesting questions and challenges in the context of ongoing gender inequality.
Dads often feel that general parenting services, like parent and toddlers, or parenting classes are not aimed at them and may feel excluded from these services. But young mums, older mums, women from ethnic minorities, same-sex mothers or women with disabilities might also feel that services are not ‘for them’. This is not only about gender.
Dads are getting more involved in family responsibilities than in the past – that’s a great step forward, but it’s not yet a revolution (see Giddeon Burrows blog). In most households (though not all), women continue to do the vast majority of childcare and housework. In particular, women fit their employment around the perceived needs of their husband and children more often than do men. This is one main reason why women account for 75% of part-time workers in Scotland.[i]
Because of this, it is likely that early years services, like parent and toddler groups will have more women than men using them. Services focus on those who need them, and the vast majority of those caring for young children on a day to day basis are women. Of course services should, where appropriate, make particular efforts to include all kinds of parents.
Whilst men are getting more involved with kids at home, they tend to focus on the fun things, and less on the hard work of caring, feeding, cleaning, doing the washing and ensuring children eat healthily and get enough sleep[ii].
Men face discrimination at work when asking for parental leave because we perpetuate the ‘father as breadwinner’ model. We need to tackle this, but not in isolation. Women still struggle to get their basic rights at work when pregnant, including not getting sacked, and face a barrage of assumptions and obstacles in their role as parents. Employed women are overrepresented among clerical workers, personal service workers (including care) and sales staff. This perpetuates gender stereotypes that caring and serving others (also within the home) are female tasks. All these issues are interrelated so that that they need to be addressed together.
Good parenting matters, but also good co-parenting – that is how parents coordinate and cooperate in their parenting roles – that benefits children’s wellbeing. Mutual support and good communication between both parents is likely to create a supportive environment within the whole family. High-quality co-parenting is also fundamental in the event of a separation or divorce. Fathers who were significantly committed to their co-parenting role before the separation are more likely to stay actively engaged in their children’s lives after the separation. In this situation, mothers are also more likely to trust and promote fathers having frequent contact with their children.
In most families, it is desirable that fathers are involved with their families and children, but it is also important to acknowledge that a number of fathers are destructive, abusive and violent forces in family life. In these situations, fathers often do more harm than good for children’s wellbeing.
However the broader evidence on parenting is unclear about gender. Most research on parents focuses on mothers by default rather than intention as mothers as the main carers are usually more available to researchers to provide details of family life[iv] When research does look at fathers there is often no comparable data on mothers, so it is hard to identify a 'father' effect.
For separated families we know that good relationships both between parents and between fathers and children (in particular high support, responsive fathering and non-coercive control) are fundamental to children's wellbeing[v]. Some children regret not being in touch with absent fathers, other children feel coerced into continuing contact with fathers who are causing them distress (see Morrison, 2009).
In any case, tackling gender inequality within the home and at the workplace requires actions and changes from both genders.
If we are offering services to solely dads or mums, we need to be careful that they do not reinforce gender stereotypes and perpetuate gender inequalities. The following questions may act as a guide:
If we want to move to a world where mothers and fathers are enabled to do the best for their children and families, gender-specific services need address inequalities. In imagining a Scotland that is the best place in the world to grow up, shouldn't any parent get the support they need to fulfil their role to the best of their ability regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social background?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] http://www.closethegap.org.uk/content/gap-statistics/
[ii] Growing Up in Scotland 2008 Chapter 7 'Parenting Styles and Parenting Responsibilities' in: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212225/0056476.pdf
[iii] Bromley (2009) Growing up in Scotland: the impact of children’s early activities on cognitive development. Edinburgh Scottish Government
[iv] http://aboutfamilies.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/aboutfamilies_gaps-in-research-all-topics.pdf
[v] Mooney, A Oliver C and Smith M (2009) Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-being. London DCSF
There is a lot of recent interest in supporting dads. However, this focus on just one gender of parents poses some interesting questions and challenges in the context of ongoing gender inequality.
Dads often feel that general parenting services, like parent and toddlers, or parenting classes are not aimed at them and may feel excluded from these services. But young mums, older mums, women from ethnic minorities, same-sex mothers or women with disabilities might also feel that services are not ‘for them’. This is not only about gender.
Dads are getting more involved in family responsibilities than in the past – that’s a great step forward, but it’s not yet a revolution (see Giddeon Burrows blog). In most households (though not all), women continue to do the vast majority of childcare and housework. In particular, women fit their employment around the perceived needs of their husband and children more often than do men. This is one main reason why women account for 75% of part-time workers in Scotland.[i]
Because of this, it is likely that early years services, like parent and toddler groups will have more women than men using them. Services focus on those who need them, and the vast majority of those caring for young children on a day to day basis are women. Of course services should, where appropriate, make particular efforts to include all kinds of parents.
Whilst men are getting more involved with kids at home, they tend to focus on the fun things, and less on the hard work of caring, feeding, cleaning, doing the washing and ensuring children eat healthily and get enough sleep[ii].
Men face discrimination at work when asking for parental leave because we perpetuate the ‘father as breadwinner’ model. We need to tackle this, but not in isolation. Women still struggle to get their basic rights at work when pregnant, including not getting sacked, and face a barrage of assumptions and obstacles in their role as parents. Employed women are overrepresented among clerical workers, personal service workers (including care) and sales staff. This perpetuates gender stereotypes that caring and serving others (also within the home) are female tasks. All these issues are interrelated so that that they need to be addressed together.
Good parenting matters, but also good co-parenting – that is how parents coordinate and cooperate in their parenting roles – that benefits children’s wellbeing. Mutual support and good communication between both parents is likely to create a supportive environment within the whole family. High-quality co-parenting is also fundamental in the event of a separation or divorce. Fathers who were significantly committed to their co-parenting role before the separation are more likely to stay actively engaged in their children’s lives after the separation. In this situation, mothers are also more likely to trust and promote fathers having frequent contact with their children.
In most families, it is desirable that fathers are involved with their families and children, but it is also important to acknowledge that a number of fathers are destructive, abusive and violent forces in family life. In these situations, fathers often do more harm than good for children’s wellbeing.
What does the evidence say?
Evidence shows children need at least one loving and attentive parent. Having two parents helps to share this difficult and time-consuming task, but there is no clear evidence that the gender of either of these matters to children's outcomes[iii].However the broader evidence on parenting is unclear about gender. Most research on parents focuses on mothers by default rather than intention as mothers as the main carers are usually more available to researchers to provide details of family life[iv] When research does look at fathers there is often no comparable data on mothers, so it is hard to identify a 'father' effect.
For separated families we know that good relationships both between parents and between fathers and children (in particular high support, responsive fathering and non-coercive control) are fundamental to children's wellbeing[v]. Some children regret not being in touch with absent fathers, other children feel coerced into continuing contact with fathers who are causing them distress (see Morrison, 2009).
In any case, tackling gender inequality within the home and at the workplace requires actions and changes from both genders.
Initiatives for just one gender of parent
What are we trying to achieve in developing and funding work aimed specifically at dads or mums? Do we want to get men more involved with their children? Or are we interested in getting men to play a full role in family life and share half of the homecare tasks enabling women to achieve greater equality in public life? Or is the aim that any parent should feel supported and enabled in their role regardless of gender?If we are offering services to solely dads or mums, we need to be careful that they do not reinforce gender stereotypes and perpetuate gender inequalities. The following questions may act as a guide:
- Why are we offering services to a specific gender, rather than parents? Are there specific barriers we seek to overcome? For example, antenatal services must focus on women, or support for absent parents should be thinking mainly about dads.
- What is the aim of the gender specific service? Is it addressing inequalities issues or perpetuating them? For example, do services for mums emphasise attachment, whilst those for dads emphasise having fun with their kids? To tackle inequalities do services for men need to emphasise their role within the home, whilst those for women help them find employment?
- Are services for dads ensuring that they are not aiding coercive and violent fathers to continue to control their partners post separation, or enabling contact that children do not want?
- Are all parenting services building on the evidence that strong relationships between parents is a key factor in children's outcomes, rather than focusing separately on mums or dads relationships with their children?
- When we deliver gender-specific services for parents, do we avoid gender stereotyping? Are gender specific groups and organisations careful about the language they use to talk about men and women to avoid reaffirming gender-based assumptions (like men are not skilful at childcare, or women are naturally more caring?)
- Are we careful when talking about gender-specific parenting not to offend and upset children who have different family structures due to bereavement, separation, adoption, assisted conception or lone parenthood or same sex parenting?
If we want to move to a world where mothers and fathers are enabled to do the best for their children and families, gender-specific services need address inequalities. In imagining a Scotland that is the best place in the world to grow up, shouldn't any parent get the support they need to fulfil their role to the best of their ability regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social background?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] http://www.closethegap.org.uk/content/gap-statistics/
[ii] Growing Up in Scotland 2008 Chapter 7 'Parenting Styles and Parenting Responsibilities' in: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212225/0056476.pdf
[iii] Bromley (2009) Growing up in Scotland: the impact of children’s early activities on cognitive development. Edinburgh Scottish Government
[iv] http://aboutfamilies.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/aboutfamilies_gaps-in-research-all-topics.pdf
[v] Mooney, A Oliver C and Smith M (2009) Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-being. London DCSF
Monday, 6 October 2014
Teenage parents: moral problem, social problem or no problem at all?
Dr Sally Brown from Durham University recently visited CRFR to present a seminar on her qualitative research with teenage mothers and mothers-to-be. She recounts her findings in this blog.
Many people will be familiar with headlines and newspaper stories about the UK having high teenage pregnancy rates; they may be less familiar with recent statistics showing that rates have fallen dramatically and are now at their lowest since records began. Indeed, when Tony Blair made his famous comment about teenage pregnancy leading to “blighted lives and shattered futures” in 1999, teenage pregnancies were at their lowest for 30 years. Nevertheless, teenage pregnancy, and teenage parenting, are still perceived as problematic, either a moral problem or a social problem, or possibly a combination of both. The paper I gave recently at CRFR focusses on whether teenage parenting is a problem, and if so, who sees it as such. Hilary Graham and Elizabeth McDermott have shown how quantitative research on teenage pregnancy and parenting highlights the “problem” side of the argument, demonstrating that teenage parenting is a route to social exclusion, whereas qualitative research shows the opposite, that it can be a route to social inclusion.
My paper is based on qualitative interviews with teenage mothers and mothers-to-be from different generations, from one who had her baby in 1955, through those who had their children 15-20 years ago, to some who had their babies in 2013. What was interesting in the interviews was how almost all of them talked about the shock of being pregnant, being upset, and being scared of telling their parents, but happy about having a baby. Almost as if the pregnancy and the baby were two different entities, the parents talked about having “wanted more” for their daughters, but also about the joy of new life being brought into their family, and how they were looking forward to, or enjoying being, grandparents. The context of these young women becoming mothers, then, is a context where they are part of a loving family where a baby, although unexpected, is welcomed. Some of the young women described situations where they had been estranged from their parents, or grown up in very challenging circumstances, and the baby in these situations had brought families back together.
It seems, then, that there is a mismatch between the way policy-makers, politicians and the media view teenage pregnancy, and the way the families experiencing it view it. From a policy point of view, teenage pregnancy still leads to blighted lives, and life on benefits. For young parents whose college careers were interrupted by pregnancy, there was a determination to go back to studying; for those who had been unsure of where they were going in life, a baby provided an incentive to get qualifications and a good job. Instead of pillorying young parents, we should be supporting them to make the best of their lives for themselves and their babies, which is, after all, what they said they wanted to do.
Many people will be familiar with headlines and newspaper stories about the UK having high teenage pregnancy rates; they may be less familiar with recent statistics showing that rates have fallen dramatically and are now at their lowest since records began. Indeed, when Tony Blair made his famous comment about teenage pregnancy leading to “blighted lives and shattered futures” in 1999, teenage pregnancies were at their lowest for 30 years. Nevertheless, teenage pregnancy, and teenage parenting, are still perceived as problematic, either a moral problem or a social problem, or possibly a combination of both. The paper I gave recently at CRFR focusses on whether teenage parenting is a problem, and if so, who sees it as such. Hilary Graham and Elizabeth McDermott have shown how quantitative research on teenage pregnancy and parenting highlights the “problem” side of the argument, demonstrating that teenage parenting is a route to social exclusion, whereas qualitative research shows the opposite, that it can be a route to social inclusion.
My paper is based on qualitative interviews with teenage mothers and mothers-to-be from different generations, from one who had her baby in 1955, through those who had their children 15-20 years ago, to some who had their babies in 2013. What was interesting in the interviews was how almost all of them talked about the shock of being pregnant, being upset, and being scared of telling their parents, but happy about having a baby. Almost as if the pregnancy and the baby were two different entities, the parents talked about having “wanted more” for their daughters, but also about the joy of new life being brought into their family, and how they were looking forward to, or enjoying being, grandparents. The context of these young women becoming mothers, then, is a context where they are part of a loving family where a baby, although unexpected, is welcomed. Some of the young women described situations where they had been estranged from their parents, or grown up in very challenging circumstances, and the baby in these situations had brought families back together.
It seems, then, that there is a mismatch between the way policy-makers, politicians and the media view teenage pregnancy, and the way the families experiencing it view it. From a policy point of view, teenage pregnancy still leads to blighted lives, and life on benefits. For young parents whose college careers were interrupted by pregnancy, there was a determination to go back to studying; for those who had been unsure of where they were going in life, a baby provided an incentive to get qualifications and a good job. Instead of pillorying young parents, we should be supporting them to make the best of their lives for themselves and their babies, which is, after all, what they said they wanted to do.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Facing the facts about fathers and childcare
Gideon Burrows, author of Men Can Do It! The real reason dads don't do childcare, on the importance of facts, not wishful thinking
When it comes to parenting there are our own truths and there are indisputable facts.
Bed time routines, weaning techniques, re-useable or disposable nappies, whether to allow sweets or not; these are our own truths, developed out of the hard slog of simply bringing up children.
The fundamental mistake most of us make is assume our own truth should be applied as a general way to go about things: I do a strict bedtime routine with my kids, lots of my friends do too, therefore it's the correct way to go about things.
It was this attitude I encountered when my book on shared parenting was published. It concludes that men don't do anywhere near the amount of childcare – either in or out of working hours – that we've previously assumed.
I received a number of emails and social media messages from parents who said what I'd written was wrong. They'd shared parenting equally, some of their friends did too, so I must be making it all up to get a reaction.
Of course some families share parenting equally and those parents are likely to have friends who do things a bit like them.
What they were doing was applying their personal experience, and assuming it was generally true across all parenting. The sad, but real immutable truth is that parenting isn't anywhere near equal in the UK.
According to dispassionate numbers from the Office for National Statistics, the number of men becoming full-time stay-at-home dads has only increased by 6,000 men over the last ten years, compared with 44,000 fewer stay at home mums.
The number of men switching to part-time work has increased by a minuscule three percentage points, and is matched by only a similar increase in women going part time. The proportion of women working full time hasn't changed at all in a whole decade.
Outside of working hours, the same pattern emerges. Far from men taking up the cudgels of childcare in great numbers, women still do twice as many hours of childcare and related chores outside of working hours as men do. That has barely changed in a decade too.
These are facts, not personal truths.
It is these well researched immutable truths that should inform personal, political and academic practices on parenting, and particularly policy making, not a few parents' personal experiences posted as comments on newspaper websites.
Even the director of a fatherhood think-tank wrote to challenge my claim that women are paid more than men, before children are born: “I seriously doubt that's true”.
It made me sad to send her the spreadsheet from the National Office for Statistics that shows, very clearly, exactly that. Surely, they at least should have their facts straight?
Unfortunately, we're not even close to allowing immutable truth to influence policy.
UK government policy on parental leave, for example, has been set according to a generalised assumption that men want to take more time off, and work more flexibly, to be with their children.
Yet the simple, statistic-backed facts support the opposite conclusion: men aren't yet using even close to the wiggle room they already have.
Only 1,600 men have taken the legal right they've had for over two years to share of 26 week's parental leave with their partner. Over that same period, around 1.5 million babies have been born. One in three dads don't even take their full traditional legal entitlement to two weeks' paternity leave.
So why is the government creating more of what parents are showing by their practice they don't want, even if they say they do?
The answer is that what I call the 'new fatherhood myth' makes a good story. It gets the media excited and it makes us all feel good about how equal we are.
It prevents us facing up to the more unpalatable truth that progress towards parental equality is still painfully slow, and certainly nowhere near as far along as we'd thought.
All of which prevents personal and political action that – as my book illustrates, and the facts and research have clearly shown - would really create better outcomes for our children, for parents and for the workplace.
Gideon Burrows is author of Men Can Do It! The real reason dads don't do childcare (ngo.media, 2013). Visit www.mencandoit.co.uk to buy in paperback, or on Kindle.
When it comes to parenting there are our own truths and there are indisputable facts.
Bed time routines, weaning techniques, re-useable or disposable nappies, whether to allow sweets or not; these are our own truths, developed out of the hard slog of simply bringing up children.
The fundamental mistake most of us make is assume our own truth should be applied as a general way to go about things: I do a strict bedtime routine with my kids, lots of my friends do too, therefore it's the correct way to go about things.
It was this attitude I encountered when my book on shared parenting was published. It concludes that men don't do anywhere near the amount of childcare – either in or out of working hours – that we've previously assumed.
I received a number of emails and social media messages from parents who said what I'd written was wrong. They'd shared parenting equally, some of their friends did too, so I must be making it all up to get a reaction.
Of course some families share parenting equally and those parents are likely to have friends who do things a bit like them.
What they were doing was applying their personal experience, and assuming it was generally true across all parenting. The sad, but real immutable truth is that parenting isn't anywhere near equal in the UK.
According to dispassionate numbers from the Office for National Statistics, the number of men becoming full-time stay-at-home dads has only increased by 6,000 men over the last ten years, compared with 44,000 fewer stay at home mums.
The number of men switching to part-time work has increased by a minuscule three percentage points, and is matched by only a similar increase in women going part time. The proportion of women working full time hasn't changed at all in a whole decade.
Outside of working hours, the same pattern emerges. Far from men taking up the cudgels of childcare in great numbers, women still do twice as many hours of childcare and related chores outside of working hours as men do. That has barely changed in a decade too.
These are facts, not personal truths.
It is these well researched immutable truths that should inform personal, political and academic practices on parenting, and particularly policy making, not a few parents' personal experiences posted as comments on newspaper websites.
Even the director of a fatherhood think-tank wrote to challenge my claim that women are paid more than men, before children are born: “I seriously doubt that's true”.
It made me sad to send her the spreadsheet from the National Office for Statistics that shows, very clearly, exactly that. Surely, they at least should have their facts straight?
Unfortunately, we're not even close to allowing immutable truth to influence policy.
UK government policy on parental leave, for example, has been set according to a generalised assumption that men want to take more time off, and work more flexibly, to be with their children.
Yet the simple, statistic-backed facts support the opposite conclusion: men aren't yet using even close to the wiggle room they already have.
Only 1,600 men have taken the legal right they've had for over two years to share of 26 week's parental leave with their partner. Over that same period, around 1.5 million babies have been born. One in three dads don't even take their full traditional legal entitlement to two weeks' paternity leave.
So why is the government creating more of what parents are showing by their practice they don't want, even if they say they do?
The answer is that what I call the 'new fatherhood myth' makes a good story. It gets the media excited and it makes us all feel good about how equal we are.
It prevents us facing up to the more unpalatable truth that progress towards parental equality is still painfully slow, and certainly nowhere near as far along as we'd thought.
All of which prevents personal and political action that – as my book illustrates, and the facts and research have clearly shown - would really create better outcomes for our children, for parents and for the workplace.
Gideon Burrows is author of Men Can Do It! The real reason dads don't do childcare (ngo.media, 2013). Visit www.mencandoit.co.uk to buy in paperback, or on Kindle.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
Contested Cohabitation Rights
Following recent debates on inheritance rights for cohabiting couples, we welcome this guest blog from Samantha Callan and Linda McKie, authors of Understanding Families: a Global Introduction:
"One of the aims of our recently published book, Understanding Families: a Global Introduction, was to introduce readers to many of the academic and popular debates that swirl around the subject of family life in the twenty-first century. Chapter Five considered the diversity of couple relationships accorded social legitimacy in many minority world contexts – yet attitudes remain complex and contested. We explained how marriage has become deinstitutionalised: less governed by the social norms that provide a framework for behaviour, and increasingly concerned with the quality of the relationship.
The US demographer Andrew Cherlin points out, somewhat paradoxically, that in many countries there is a contrary trend of relationships such as cohabitation becoming more institutionalized. In the United States, states are taking steps towards granting cohabiting couples married couples’ rights and responsibilities. Canada has erased legal distinctions between marrieds and unmarrieds (heterosexual or same-sex) who have lived together for more than a year and French Civil Solidarity Pacts give registered couples most of the rights and responsibilities of those who have wed after three years of the pact being signed.
This trend towards institutionalising relationships which are considered to be, intrinsically, more informal continues to excite heated discussion. Last month the United Kingdom House of Lords debated a Private Members Bill on the subject of inheritance rights for cohabitants in cases of intestacy (where someone dies without leaving a will). Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a respected law reformer, proposed in the Bill that a surviving cohabitant would automatically be entitled to the same share that a bereaved spouse would receive if they and the deceased had had a child together and had lived in the same household as if they were married or in a civil partnership for two years; if the relationship was childless the qualifying period would be five years.
Protagonists on both sides claimed the moral high ground of preserving choice in making their arguments: Lord Lester stated that a decision not to get married should not lead to legal disadvantage while Baroness Deech passionately defended citizens’ rights not to be governed by the law if they had decided against or simply not made the explicit commitment of marriage. Among other sources she quoted extensively and perhaps counter-intuitively from Guardian blogs on the subject. The most humorous paragraph in the debate undoubtedly being, “They move the goalposts so that despite not being married, you can still get your wallet nicked.”
The Hansard transcript does better justice to the complexity of the surrounding arguments but does not make the outcome of the debate explicit. Although the Government Minister did not oppose the continuing passage of the Bill into the Committee Stage, the ‘strong reservations’ he expressed on its behalf mean that it will languish in the procedural doldrums and get nowhere. Many issues of family law meet the same fate in the UK and other Parliaments, precisely because of their personal and contested nature. Many (but not all) judges, legal practitioners and media commentators clamour for the certainty of black letter law. But it is precisely the lack of a clear public consensus that makes this particularly dangerous territory for politicians in many jurisdictions to stray into – and likely to remain so."
Monday, 22 October 2012
Parenting and Support
Given the recent launch of the Scottish Government's National Parenting Strategy, we asked About Families project manager, Karen Mountney to highlight some of the key findings from the latest report looking at how families seek and experience support from family, friends and formal services.
"We know that parents manage better when they have sufficient and effective support. Social support can buffer the effect of stresses and difficulties which can arise from being a parent or other areas of life such as relationship conflict or financial difficulties, and help to bolster parents’ self-esteem and sense of efficacy. In terms of formal support, effectively engaging parents with support services and interventions is recognised as a key factor in successfully resolving problems and effecting positive change in families’ lives. However, those parents who are most in need of services, including those who lack support from family and friends, are often the least likely to access them.
Key findings from the report include:
"We know that parents manage better when they have sufficient and effective support. Social support can buffer the effect of stresses and difficulties which can arise from being a parent or other areas of life such as relationship conflict or financial difficulties, and help to bolster parents’ self-esteem and sense of efficacy. In terms of formal support, effectively engaging parents with support services and interventions is recognised as a key factor in successfully resolving problems and effecting positive change in families’ lives. However, those parents who are most in need of services, including those who lack support from family and friends, are often the least likely to access them.
Key findings from the report include:
- What support is for: how families define their own problems or needs can be different from service providers’ definitions. People weigh up the costs and benefits of seeking support, and using professional family support is sometimes felt or seen as failing by some parents.
- Family and friends: parents see support from family and friends as the natural first port of call. However this can be variable and can bring its own problems. Not wanting to impose, considering grandparents too infirm to care for children, lack of money, negative attitudes from families, having complex support requirements, and life events such as separation are all important factors in the level of support available.
- Barriers to using services: families can face a range of practical, material, social and cultural barriers to accessing and engaging with services. Families affected by disability, those from minority ethnic communities, and fathers, can face particular barriers.
- Family context: parents generally want to receive help if it is appropriate to their needs. Most barriers to engaging with services are not of parents’ making; numerous factors, such as stress, poverty, ill-health, and social isolation, can combine to undermine parents’ involvement in services.
- What do we know about supporting parents and families? Much of the existing research on engaging parents in formal services is from the perspective of service providers rather than those using services. Evaluations of services often assess attendance and completion rates rather than outcomes for parents and families. There is little research which explores the characteristics or perspectives of non-service users. It is not clear how social support can be best enhanced for those parents who need it. Most research relating to parenting and support focuses on white, non-disabled, women. Generally, different family forms are not referred to."
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Developing evidence into action
Our About Families project has developed an innovative 'evidence to action' process which supports voluntary and statutory organisations to use research when they are developing services. Topics are selected with project partners, based on the challenges facing the parents they work with. We gather and present the evidence and then work with the organisations to create and implement action plans to develop services based on this evidence. The involvement of service users is a central element to this approach.
Key findings from our reports have been published in previous blogs (Is Scotland the best place to bring up children; Two-thirds of families worse off compared to last year) and are available from our website (www.aboutfamilies.org.uk), but as we progress we wanted to share some examples of what we and our partners have achieved during the 'action' phase.
The About Families evidence topics:
Heart to Heart provide confidential support to men and women who have been affected by divorce or separation. About Families worked with Heart to Heart to help them develop services which were more responsive to the needs of parents who have experienced relationship difficulties. We worked specifically on developing a toolkit which volunteers and staff at Heart to Heart will use to support parents. Together, we developed an online survey to gain more understanding about the views and experiences of parents and held a focus group with parents who had used Heart to Heart services. We took the key themes which came out of this work, issues such as anger, communication, forgiveness, anxiety and looking forward, to link them to the key findings from 'Together and Apart: Supporting families through change', within the toolkit.
Mentor
Mentor provides support to kinship carers and their families in Edinburgh and the Lothians. About Families worked with Mentor UK to explore how the evidence from 'Parenting teenagers: relationships and behaviour' and from 'Together and apart: supporting families through change' related to kinship care families. We discussed the key findings with families to learn how they relate to their experiences, and to explore coping strategies. A booklet was produced - each section within the booklet is based on research findings and explores the findings in relation to kinship care, as well as giving example coping strategies for Mentor volunteers to share with the families they work with.
Scottish Book Trust
The Scottish Book Trust early years programme delivers 'Bookbug', Scotland's national book gifting programme. The Trust is currently rolling out an assertive outreach programme to reach vulnerable children and families and those living in the most deprived communities across Scotland. About Families worked with Scottish Book Trust and You First to explore how evidence from 'Parenting on a low income' could help develop training for practitioners working with vulnerable families. Young parents were asked to reflect on Bookbug, as well as to talk about some of the key findings from the report. They discussed issues such as, the lack of choice facing families living on a low income; stigmatisation; the practical difficulties in accessing services; not knowing what is available or what to ask for; being labelled as inadequate parents. As a result of considering these issues and finding out the views of young parents, the Scottish Book Trust has developed the training they give to professionals working in local communities.
For more information on the About Families project please contact Karen Mountney, k.mountney@ed.ac.uk
Key findings from our reports have been published in previous blogs (Is Scotland the best place to bring up children; Two-thirds of families worse off compared to last year) and are available from our website (www.aboutfamilies.org.uk), but as we progress we wanted to share some examples of what we and our partners have achieved during the 'action' phase.
The About Families evidence topics:
- Parenting teenagers: relationships and behaviour
- Together and apart: supporting families through change
- Parenting on a low income
- Parenting and support (to be published end October 2012)
Heart to Heart provide confidential support to men and women who have been affected by divorce or separation. About Families worked with Heart to Heart to help them develop services which were more responsive to the needs of parents who have experienced relationship difficulties. We worked specifically on developing a toolkit which volunteers and staff at Heart to Heart will use to support parents. Together, we developed an online survey to gain more understanding about the views and experiences of parents and held a focus group with parents who had used Heart to Heart services. We took the key themes which came out of this work, issues such as anger, communication, forgiveness, anxiety and looking forward, to link them to the key findings from 'Together and Apart: Supporting families through change', within the toolkit.
Mentor
Mentor provides support to kinship carers and their families in Edinburgh and the Lothians. About Families worked with Mentor UK to explore how the evidence from 'Parenting teenagers: relationships and behaviour' and from 'Together and apart: supporting families through change' related to kinship care families. We discussed the key findings with families to learn how they relate to their experiences, and to explore coping strategies. A booklet was produced - each section within the booklet is based on research findings and explores the findings in relation to kinship care, as well as giving example coping strategies for Mentor volunteers to share with the families they work with.
Scottish Book Trust
The Scottish Book Trust early years programme delivers 'Bookbug', Scotland's national book gifting programme. The Trust is currently rolling out an assertive outreach programme to reach vulnerable children and families and those living in the most deprived communities across Scotland. About Families worked with Scottish Book Trust and You First to explore how evidence from 'Parenting on a low income' could help develop training for practitioners working with vulnerable families. Young parents were asked to reflect on Bookbug, as well as to talk about some of the key findings from the report. They discussed issues such as, the lack of choice facing families living on a low income; stigmatisation; the practical difficulties in accessing services; not knowing what is available or what to ask for; being labelled as inadequate parents. As a result of considering these issues and finding out the views of young parents, the Scottish Book Trust has developed the training they give to professionals working in local communities.
For more information on the About Families project please contact Karen Mountney, k.mountney@ed.ac.uk
Monday, 30 July 2012
Families, Relationships and Societies, issue 2
Eagerly awaited by many of us at CRFR, issue 2 of Families, Relationships and Societies has just been published. Many of the articles draw on the rich accounts of qualitative research, and themes of relationships and parenting dominate.Access to the journal is free for 2012 by emailing tpp-frs-trial@bristol.ac.uk.
Taking the relationships theme, Julie Carter explores theories of commitment from a female perspective in her interviews with young women aged 19-30 years. Lester Coleman and colleagues outline an academic and voluntary sector collaboration seeking to enhance relationship support for 'mixed' couples and families. And lastly, Ciara O'Dwyer and colleagues are interested in how grandparents cope with relationship breakdown among their adult children.
Parenting is another strong theme. Rhiannon Evans and Sally Holland make an important contribution by positioning their research on child protection within the context of 'troublesome' families - policy areas which are typically dealt with seperately. The authors suggest that many protective activities are carried out by communities labelled as 'troublesome'. Issues of child safety are similarly picked up in research by Anna Conolly and Jenny Parkes. Their work has gathered the experienes of young people's living in areas affected by high youth crime in relation to their parents' strategies to keep them safe.
Jeni Harden and colleagues present a very different aspect of parenting, exploring how parents negotiate paid work and care responsibilities. The authors emphasise the inevitable flexibility that emerges in boundaries between work and home, for example in relation to how time is managed and negotiated.
Sandra Cunning and colleagues shift the focus to evaluation, presenting a case-study of a Canadian mental health agency where evidence-based practices were implemented as part of a significant organsiational change process.
While Artur Steinerowski and Mike Woolvin present findings from an action research project in rural Scotland to reflect on the challenges and opportunities to support older people to establish social enterprises.
The Open Space article this month is from our own Sarah Morton and close collaborators David Phipps and Sandra Nutley to ask how research can be used to influence family services and policies. The article begins by outlining the growth in academic understanding of reserach use and offers some emerging lessons about reserach use can be improved. It continues by relating experiences of CRFR's work over the last 10 years and also experiences from the Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Unit at York University in Toronto, Canada.
Visit the contents page by clicking here to access all the articles.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Learning from children affected by parental alcohol problems
An estimated 65,000 children in Scotland are living with parental or carer alcohol misuse. New doctoral research from Louise Hill has explored the experiences and support needs of this hidden group of children.
The research found that while children and young people had extensive knowledge about alcohol and the impact it can have on family life and health, talking about their experiences was incredibly difficult. There was particular concern about sharing any knowledge outside of the family and careful decisions made when seeking help or support - be it formal or informal.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the children and young people experienced a roller-coaster of emotions: anxious, frightened, upset, angry, sad, with many speaking of being worried about the safety of their parents. But, many children spoke about their love for their family and loyalty to their parents, and all chldren shared their parents' optimism that they would be able to stop drinking in the future.
There are important policy and research implications to be drawn from this reserach, particularly providing confidential safe spaces for children and young people to share their worries and concerns, and in ensuring that all children affected have a right to access upport services regardless of their parents' engagement in treatment services.
A summary of Louise's PhD findings were published in a recent CRFR briefing: Listening to and learning from children and young people affected by parental alcohol problems.
Louise has also made a short video podcast talking about her research. View it on the IRISS website by clicking here.
The research found that while children and young people had extensive knowledge about alcohol and the impact it can have on family life and health, talking about their experiences was incredibly difficult. There was particular concern about sharing any knowledge outside of the family and careful decisions made when seeking help or support - be it formal or informal.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the children and young people experienced a roller-coaster of emotions: anxious, frightened, upset, angry, sad, with many speaking of being worried about the safety of their parents. But, many children spoke about their love for their family and loyalty to their parents, and all chldren shared their parents' optimism that they would be able to stop drinking in the future.
There are important policy and research implications to be drawn from this reserach, particularly providing confidential safe spaces for children and young people to share their worries and concerns, and in ensuring that all children affected have a right to access upport services regardless of their parents' engagement in treatment services.
A summary of Louise's PhD findings were published in a recent CRFR briefing: Listening to and learning from children and young people affected by parental alcohol problems.
Louise has also made a short video podcast talking about her research. View it on the IRISS website by clicking here.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Monday, 2 April 2012
Informing the Parenting Strategy
CRFR recently facilitated a meeting at the Scottish Government to help inform the development of the Parenting Strategy.
Through conversations with Scottish Government staff we saw an opportunity to highlight research from our Associate Director, Professor Claire Wallace of Aberdeen University and Associate Researcher Dr Jeni Harden, which we felt made an important contribution to our knowledge on parenting in Scotland. Professor Lynn Jamieson, a co-Director at CRFR also presented findings from Growing Up in Scotland, the national longitudinal study of children's experiences from across the country.
Prof Claire Wallace, University of Aberdeen
Work-Care Synergies Project
This project has provided a comparative analysis of parenting in Europe, looking at the quality of life for parents in different European countries and the strategies adopted by parents in managing work and care in different national contexts. The team has also developed a typology based on a policy analysis of work and care for families with young children in different European counties. The research ran from 2010-2011.
The project found that parenting policy varied across Europe. There was convergence in the progress of women's rights but women still do the majority of domestic chores. Men are contributing more, but the general trend across all countries was that men are more involved in childcare, not domestic chores. This results in a lot of pressure on women to manage professionally while also taking primary responsibility for the upkeep of the household and childcare. The project identified barriers facing men in getting time off work to look after children: both in terms of paternity policies and with colleagues not taking them seriously after taking the decision to focus more on parenting. There were five strategies that working families use to help with childcare that there shared by all countries included in the research: using flexible working arrangements where available, taking on shift work to share responsibility between both parents, relying on formal care and using informal care support from grandparents and others where possible.
The project found that parenting policy varied across Europe. There was convergence in the progress of women's rights but women still do the majority of domestic chores. Men are contributing more, but the general trend across all countries was that men are more involved in childcare, not domestic chores. This results in a lot of pressure on women to manage professionally while also taking primary responsibility for the upkeep of the household and childcare. The project identified barriers facing men in getting time off work to look after children: both in terms of paternity policies and with colleagues not taking them seriously after taking the decision to focus more on parenting. There were five strategies that working families use to help with childcare that there shared by all countries included in the research: using flexible working arrangements where available, taking on shift work to share responsibility between both parents, relying on formal care and using informal care support from grandparents and others where possible.
For more information please contact Claire at claire.wallace@abdn.ac.uk
Dr Jeni Harden,
This project explored how families achieve a work life balance over time, drawing on the changing experiences and perceptions of families with primary school-aged children. Both parents and children were involved in the research, providing their different perspectives, as well as exploring the processes of negotiation between parents and children in addressing issues raised. The project is a qualitative longitudinal study with fourteen families in Scotland
The project identified a number of themes relating to parental responsibility that impact on families ability to achieve a work-life balance:
The project identified a number of themes relating to parental responsibility that impact on families ability to achieve a work-life balance:
- Parents faced competing demands on their time relating to their responsibilities as parents and employees. This is experienced through the difficulties of synchronising work and family life and results in a sense of harriedness, of feeling constantly busy, tired and stressed. Parents expressed feelings of guilt and anxiety about not being able to give 100% to either work or family.
- Challenges of keeping clear boundaries between work and home, particularly when parents are working from home or 'catching up' on work at home.
- Children do support parents by complying with routines, helping with chores, looking after themselves and younger siblings.
- Negotiating changes in responsibility for children as they get older, particularly when they move to secondary school
- Helping children to understand work as part of everyday life is often justified by financial gains.
Growing Up in Scotland is a major longitudinal research study following the lives of over 10,000 children across Scotland from infancy through to the teenage years. Parenting is one of a number of topics covered in the study, with the data able to tell us how parents in Scotland are parenting, what factors influence parenting and parenting practices, and how parenting affects childrens' outcomes. Some of the findings include:
The National Parenting Strategy aims to highlight the value and importance of parenting, recognising the wide range of influences on growing children - mums, dads, grandparents and the wider family, foster, kinship and adoptive parents. The Government has asked partner organisations to engage with parents and others with a parenting role across Scotland, seeking their views of what would help them to be the best parents they can be for their children. They will then gather views from practitioners through the consultation on the Children's Services Bill, with a view to publishing the strategy later in 2012.
For more information please contact Clare.Collin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
- The support provided by grandparents should not be underestimated, with many grandparents involved in childcare or babysitting on a regular basis.
- Social support networks are very important in the lives of families with young children.
- Most mothers have contact with professionals, although young mothers, particularly lone mothers in low income groups are most wary of asking for help from professionals.
- Early parenting approaches and experiences have an impact on social, emotional and behavioural development at age 5.
- Children living in low-income households are doing home-learning activities like reading and singing less frequently, which impacts on cognitive development. They are also less likely to visit places like farms and museums.
The National Parenting Strategy aims to highlight the value and importance of parenting, recognising the wide range of influences on growing children - mums, dads, grandparents and the wider family, foster, kinship and adoptive parents. The Government has asked partner organisations to engage with parents and others with a parenting role across Scotland, seeking their views of what would help them to be the best parents they can be for their children. They will then gather views from practitioners through the consultation on the Children's Services Bill, with a view to publishing the strategy later in 2012.
For more information please contact Clare.Collin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Monday, 26 March 2012
Two-thirds of families worse off compared with last year
Coinciding with this year’s budget announcement, research
suggests nearly two-thirds of families find paying their bills is harder now
than it was a year ago.
A third of households with children said they had suffered a
significant downturn in their finances over the last 12 months, a sharper
decline in fortune than homes with no children.
The survey was commissioned by Parenting Across Scotland,
who are working with the University’s Centre for Research on Families and
Relationships and Capability Scotland as part of the About Families
partnership.
More than a thousand individuals in Scotland
One third (32 per cent) of households with children found it
a lot more difficult, significantly more than households without children (24
per cent), said the survey by TNS-BMRB.
The About Families partnership has produced a new report,
Parenting On A Low Income. It found that specific family types, such as single
parents and large families, are at most risk of sliding into poverty.
The report found that two-thirds of families affected by
disability (64 per cent) said that the additional costs related to living with
a disability impacted family life and increased stress.
Researchers found that cutting back harms parenting, there
is little evidence that low income families mismanage their money, and most
people living below the poverty line do not live in deprived areas.
The report calls for more affordable childcare to be made
available.
Sarah Morton, Co-Director of the Centre for Research on
Families and Relationships, said:
“We know that the experience of living in poverty is
overwhelmingly negative and has a range of
impacts on families, including damage to health and well-being and restricted
opportunities. Current and future changes to welfare are
forecast to increase child poverty,
as well as poverty amongst families affected by disability. By gathering
research evidence on this topic we hope that those delivering services
will be better able to reflect on how living on low incomes affects family life
and well-being, and develop effective ways to support parents to manage the
many stresses it brings.”
Alison Clancy, Project Officer for
Parenting Across Scotland, said:
“Undoubtedly
the economic downturn and welfare changes are having an adverse affect on
family finances. This survey finds that
the scale of the challenge faced by families in Scotland Scotland
For more information about the project and to download the
research reports please visit www.aboutfamilies.org.uk
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
GUS inform Scottish Parliament enquiries
Findings from the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study were presented to the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee enquiries into preventative spending. GUS is a major longitudinal research project that tracks the lives of several groups of Scottish children through their early years and beyond. To date, over 15,000 children have been included in the study, which means that around one in 10 children born in Scotland in the specified years (2002-03; 2004-05 and 2010-11) have been included in the study.
GUS was invited to give evidence as part of the committee’s on-going consideration of preventative spending. The study is uniquely placed to provide understanding of the influence of children's early circumstances and experiences from a specifically Scottish perspective.
The transcript is available from: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=6901&mo
Monday, 5 March 2012
Enduring love?
Professor Lynn Jamieson, Co-Director at CRFR spoke at the launch of the Enduring Love project in January. As an affiliate organisation we thought it would be a good opportunity to give this very interesting research project and their questionnaire a plug!
Complete the questionnaire and find out more at: http://www8.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/enduringlove/
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Relationships still matter to Scotland’s new parents
Sarah Morton, CRFR Co-director and Lynn Jamieson, CRFR Co-director
New Registrar General figures released last week show that for the first time in Scotland more than half of babies were born to unmarried parents. Interestingly we are not the first part of the UK to reflect this change, with Wales reaching this point in 1993.
The news has been greeted with the predictable ringing of hands about the state of the family and concern about the plight of children born into these kinds of families. But what does this figure tell us about the root of these concerns - whether or not children are being born into stable, loving, long-term relationships?
Most of the 50.1 % of children in the headlines will be born into couple households where the couple are living together unmarried, rather than being born to solo mothers. The Registrar General’s report shows that the proportion of births registered only in the mothers name is just 6% and has remained fairly constant for over twenty years. Since 1995 a record has been kept of whether an unmarried mother and father registering a birth live at the same address. According to Scottish Government figures, as the proportion of married parents has shrunk so there has been an equivalent increase in births to parents living together. In 2007, 32% of births are jointly registered to parents living at the same address, 11% to parents at separate addresses and 6% by mothers alone.
It is now normal for most couples in Scotland to live together before they get married, and attitude surveys show that only a very small proportion of the population make any moral distinction between living together as couple and marriage. It may be that living together is seen as a sensible ‘testing’ of a relationship before making a fuller commitment. Or developing a sexual relationship and living together may have become ways of getting to know a partner and have become new conventional milestones in the process of constructing a long-term and perhaps life-long partnership.
Some cohabitees will go on to get married, and might indeed have intended to get married before having children. Perhaps the economic downturn will have put marriage plans on hold, especially with some experts claiming that the average cost of a wedding tops £20,000. A study by Jamieson and colleagues of married and cohabiting couples in their twenties living in Fife showed that many were in stable committed relationships but were not very concerned about their marital status. A very small minority were in the category that would have had ‘shotgun’ weddings in the past – their unplanned pregnancy had lead to them cohabiting and seeking to cement their relationship.
As there is no way to officially record co-habitation, it is difficult to research. We can record divorce rates but there is no official recording of cohabitation breakdown rates so there are no figures to compare. The British Household Panel survey asks people about their relationship status and follows them over time, and it is only through this kind of longitudinal data that we can unpick the facts. This type of data has been used to argue that cohabiting relationships are more fragile than married relationships. However, studies by Kamp Dush and Wu comparing relationship breakdown of cohabitees who marry before and after having children has also found no difference. Therefore, there is a continuing debate about whether or not cohabitees with children are more likely to separate than married couples, especially when we take other factors into account.
Looking across the decades since the 1970s, we know that the more well-off have always been more likely to marry and remain married. Less wealthy people may not have the resources for the wedding they would like, and less financial security contributes to relationship breakdown. When marriage was still the most common form of couple relationship, research has shown that the poorer were more likely to experience relationship breakdown and those who were poor and married very young were the most at risk.
If we translate these trends into today’s figures, there is very little change in what matters about the relationship status of Scotland’s new parents. Most babies will be born into as stable families as before, but just over half without the official stamp of marriage. Most new parents will be setting out to nurture and sustain their family unit. Whether or not they are married, a small proportion will separate as the children grow up. The Growing Up in Scotland study, a longitudinal study annually following infants, shows that in the course of their early years, between the first and second years of the study, more children gained a father in their household because of the partnering of a lone mother than experience the loss of a father. In the majority of new partnerships, it is the biological parents who have started to live together. The new figures reflect that marriage is a declining trend, but not that relationships no longer matter.
For further information about the Growing up in Scotland study, see the Growing Up In Scotland website.
For further information about other research cited in this blog please see the reference page.
New Registrar General figures released last week show that for the first time in Scotland more than half of babies were born to unmarried parents. Interestingly we are not the first part of the UK to reflect this change, with Wales reaching this point in 1993.
The news has been greeted with the predictable ringing of hands about the state of the family and concern about the plight of children born into these kinds of families. But what does this figure tell us about the root of these concerns - whether or not children are being born into stable, loving, long-term relationships?
Most of the 50.1 % of children in the headlines will be born into couple households where the couple are living together unmarried, rather than being born to solo mothers. The Registrar General’s report shows that the proportion of births registered only in the mothers name is just 6% and has remained fairly constant for over twenty years. Since 1995 a record has been kept of whether an unmarried mother and father registering a birth live at the same address. According to Scottish Government figures, as the proportion of married parents has shrunk so there has been an equivalent increase in births to parents living together. In 2007, 32% of births are jointly registered to parents living at the same address, 11% to parents at separate addresses and 6% by mothers alone.
It is now normal for most couples in Scotland to live together before they get married, and attitude surveys show that only a very small proportion of the population make any moral distinction between living together as couple and marriage. It may be that living together is seen as a sensible ‘testing’ of a relationship before making a fuller commitment. Or developing a sexual relationship and living together may have become ways of getting to know a partner and have become new conventional milestones in the process of constructing a long-term and perhaps life-long partnership.
Some cohabitees will go on to get married, and might indeed have intended to get married before having children. Perhaps the economic downturn will have put marriage plans on hold, especially with some experts claiming that the average cost of a wedding tops £20,000. A study by Jamieson and colleagues of married and cohabiting couples in their twenties living in Fife showed that many were in stable committed relationships but were not very concerned about their marital status. A very small minority were in the category that would have had ‘shotgun’ weddings in the past – their unplanned pregnancy had lead to them cohabiting and seeking to cement their relationship.
As there is no way to officially record co-habitation, it is difficult to research. We can record divorce rates but there is no official recording of cohabitation breakdown rates so there are no figures to compare. The British Household Panel survey asks people about their relationship status and follows them over time, and it is only through this kind of longitudinal data that we can unpick the facts. This type of data has been used to argue that cohabiting relationships are more fragile than married relationships. However, studies by Kamp Dush and Wu comparing relationship breakdown of cohabitees who marry before and after having children has also found no difference. Therefore, there is a continuing debate about whether or not cohabitees with children are more likely to separate than married couples, especially when we take other factors into account.
Looking across the decades since the 1970s, we know that the more well-off have always been more likely to marry and remain married. Less wealthy people may not have the resources for the wedding they would like, and less financial security contributes to relationship breakdown. When marriage was still the most common form of couple relationship, research has shown that the poorer were more likely to experience relationship breakdown and those who were poor and married very young were the most at risk.
If we translate these trends into today’s figures, there is very little change in what matters about the relationship status of Scotland’s new parents. Most babies will be born into as stable families as before, but just over half without the official stamp of marriage. Most new parents will be setting out to nurture and sustain their family unit. Whether or not they are married, a small proportion will separate as the children grow up. The Growing Up in Scotland study, a longitudinal study annually following infants, shows that in the course of their early years, between the first and second years of the study, more children gained a father in their household because of the partnering of a lone mother than experience the loss of a father. In the majority of new partnerships, it is the biological parents who have started to live together. The new figures reflect that marriage is a declining trend, but not that relationships no longer matter.
For further information about the Growing up in Scotland study, see the Growing Up In Scotland website.
For further information about other research cited in this blog please see the reference page.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Parents, children and discipline - why the environment in which families live is still important
When CRFR launched a new research briefing this week - focussing on various aspects of parenting amongst families two and four year olds- the part that was picked up particularly by the press concerned smacking. The briefing was based on the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study, conducted by the Scottish Centre for Social Research, which involves annual interviews with parents of young children. (see www.growingupinscotland.org) .
The study showed that the majority of parents don’t believe that smacking does much good but by the time their child approached four, a third of them had been smacked. An earlier piece of Scottish government commissioned research explored parents attitudes to smacking in more detail demonstrating parents in Scotland often hold a range of views. (See Disciplining children: Research with parents in Scotland).
Smacking is sometimes seen as a necessary ‘last resort’, and many parents acknowledge that this reflects their weakness and need in the moment of anger, rather than a genuine attempt to discipline their child. Also those who think of smacking as sometimes useful, qualify this by referring to a very narrow age group, typically aged 3 to 8 years old. (See Brownlie and Anderson, writing in the journal Childhood vol 13, 2006, pages 479-498).
So it seems that most parents are either against or ambivalent about smacking. Might this ambivalence actually extend to other forms of disciplining – such as raising your voice and the now popular ‘naughty step’? Do these also sometimes reflect parents’ reactions to their child’s behaviour as much as the actual ‘naughty’ behaviour itself?
If disciplining children becomes simply expressing dominance – ‘do as I say or else’ - then that seems to be a more limited message than many parents would wish to be giving when bringing up their children.
Other research shows clearly that we have to acknowledge differences between families, particularly in terms of relative advantage and disadvantage. Although it seems that all parents say they have the same aim of wanting their children to become responsible for themselves and to behave decently towards others, the ways this might be achieved might differ. Parents’ views about children’s obedience to authority might mean that for some, getting children to ‘do as you’re told’ remains a fact of life – but in a context of disadvantage or even danger, this might be an understandable attempt to keep children safe. For others, particularly parents who are relatively privileged, the resources to help a child to ‘realise their potential’ might obviate the need for immediate obedience to a parental demand. (see Gillies, V. 2005 'Raising the "Meritocracy" Parenting and the Individualization of Social Class'. Sociology 39: 835-853)
Certainly parents will have different views about the need for children’s obedience to authority, with some being more authoritarian than others, but these have to be understood in the context of the very different lives and resources that families have.
The study showed that the majority of parents don’t believe that smacking does much good but by the time their child approached four, a third of them had been smacked. An earlier piece of Scottish government commissioned research explored parents attitudes to smacking in more detail demonstrating parents in Scotland often hold a range of views. (See Disciplining children: Research with parents in Scotland).
Smacking is sometimes seen as a necessary ‘last resort’, and many parents acknowledge that this reflects their weakness and need in the moment of anger, rather than a genuine attempt to discipline their child. Also those who think of smacking as sometimes useful, qualify this by referring to a very narrow age group, typically aged 3 to 8 years old. (See Brownlie and Anderson, writing in the journal Childhood vol 13, 2006, pages 479-498).
So it seems that most parents are either against or ambivalent about smacking. Might this ambivalence actually extend to other forms of disciplining – such as raising your voice and the now popular ‘naughty step’? Do these also sometimes reflect parents’ reactions to their child’s behaviour as much as the actual ‘naughty’ behaviour itself?
If disciplining children becomes simply expressing dominance – ‘do as I say or else’ - then that seems to be a more limited message than many parents would wish to be giving when bringing up their children.
Other research shows clearly that we have to acknowledge differences between families, particularly in terms of relative advantage and disadvantage. Although it seems that all parents say they have the same aim of wanting their children to become responsible for themselves and to behave decently towards others, the ways this might be achieved might differ. Parents’ views about children’s obedience to authority might mean that for some, getting children to ‘do as you’re told’ remains a fact of life – but in a context of disadvantage or even danger, this might be an understandable attempt to keep children safe. For others, particularly parents who are relatively privileged, the resources to help a child to ‘realise their potential’ might obviate the need for immediate obedience to a parental demand. (see Gillies, V. 2005 'Raising the "Meritocracy" Parenting and the Individualization of Social Class'. Sociology 39: 835-853)
Certainly parents will have different views about the need for children’s obedience to authority, with some being more authoritarian than others, but these have to be understood in the context of the very different lives and resources that families have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)