Advertisement

Dominant Research on Child Neglect and Dialogic Practices: when the Voice of Families is Translated or Ignored

  • Vicky LafantaisieEmail author
  • Jean-Charles St-Louis
  • Annie Bérubé
  • Tristan Milot
  • Carl Lacharité
Article

Abstract

Reflecting upon research on child neglect, this article focuses on the importance (or lack thereof) given to the views of families in neglect situation within this field. Based on an analysis of recent studies in the field of neglect, it aims to document how mainstream research excludes the experiences and points of view of parents and children. We pursue two objectives: 1) to describe mainstream research practices by identifying the theoretical and methodological traits that underlie the production of knowledge; 2) to explore the gap between the knowledge produced by traditional research and the experience of parents. To meet these goals, we used an approach inspired by institutional ethnography (Smith 2005) to analyze how neglect is treated in scientific discourse. The article thus highlights different characteristics of this discourse, which can be seen as an “individualizing” reading of the problem. The dominant framework leads to a normalizing\standardizing approach based on the evaluation and correction of behaviors deemed “inappropriate”. We then contrasts the attributes of mainstream research with the speeches of parents who have participated in a neglect intervention program. By showing some blind spots of mainstream research practices, our analysis wish to carry further the reflection on the ways knowledge production may better reflect the perspectives of marginalized people.

Keywords

Child neglect Mainstream research Qualitative analysis Institutional ethnography 

Notes

References

  1. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 8(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubert, E. (2012). Le positivisme dans la prévention de la récidive: quand la “science” nourrit le contrôle social. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 1, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2009). The profile and progress of neglected and abused children in long-term foster care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(7), 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baribeau, C., & Royer, C. (2012). L’entretien individuel en recherche qualitative : usages et modes de présentation dans la Revue des sciences de l’éducation. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 38(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battiste, M. (2000). Introduction: Unfolding the lessons of colonization. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. xvi–xxx). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Behl, L. E., Conyngham, H. A., & May, P. F. (2003). Trends in child maltreatment literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, S. (2011). Through a Foucauldian Lens: A genealogy of child abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blais, L. (2006). Savoir expert, savoirs ordinaires: qui dit vrai? Vérité et pouvoir chez Foucault. Sociologie et Sociétés, 38(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourassa, L., Lacharité, C., & Miron, J.-M. (2011). Contribution de l’ethnographie à la recherche en psychologie : regard critique et perspective épistémologique. Revue québécoise de psychologie, 32(2), 215–231.Google Scholar
  10. Boutin, G. (2006). Les paradigmes de la recherche en sciences humaines: deux traditions épistémologiques. In D. G. Boutin (Ed.), L’entretien de recherche qualitatif (pp. 9–19). Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, L. A., & Strega, S. (Eds.). (2005). Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, M., & Gregor, F. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Walnut Creek: Altamira.Google Scholar
  13. Connell-Carrick, K. (2003). A critical review of the empirical literature: Identifying correlates of child neglect. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(5), 389–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornu, L. (2009). Normalité, normalisation, normativité: Pour une pédagogie critique et inventive. Le Télémaque, 2(39), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five approaches. London : Sage publications.Google Scholar
  16. Daniel, B. M., & Taylor, J. (2006). Gender and child neglect: Theory, research and policy. Critical Social Policy, 26(2), 426–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeMontigny, G. (1995). Social working: An ethnography of front line practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deveau, J. L. (2009). Examining the institutional Ethnographer’s toolkit. Socialist Studies/Études socialistes, 4(2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dijkers, M. (2015). What is a scoping review? KT Update, 4(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  20. Dorvil, H., & Mayer, R. (2001). Les approches théoriques. In H. Dorvil & R. Mayer (Eds.), Problèmes sociaux, Tome 1 Théories et méthodologies (pp. 15–29). Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  21. Feyerabend, P. (1979). Contre la méthode: esquisse d’une théorie anarchiste de la connaissance. Paris: Éditions du seuil.Google Scholar
  22. Fontaine, D., & Nolin, P. (2012). Study of “hot” executive functions in a sample of parents who have been accused of physical abuse or neglect. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (2003). “Society must be defended”. Lectures at the Collège de France (pp. 1975–1976). New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  24. Gingras, M.-A., & Lacharité, C. (2009). Trois perspectives sur la personne, la famille et le changement. In C. Lacharité & J.-P. Gagnier (Eds.), Comprendre les familles pour mieux intervenir: Repères conceptuels et stratégies d’action (pp. 129–154). Montréal: Gaétan Morin, Chenelière Éducation.Google Scholar
  25. Gonzalez, P. & Malbois, F. (2013). L’ethnographie institutionnelle de Dorothy E. Smith ou le tranchant critique d’une sociologie pragmatique. Online: http://www.espacestemps.net/articles/lethnographie-institutionnelle-de-dorothy-e-smith/. Accessed Apr 2014.
  26. Groulx, L.-H. (1998). Sens et usage de la recherche qualitative en travail social. In J. Poupart, L.-H. Groulx, R. Mayer, J.-P. Deslauriers, A. Laperrière, & A. P. Pires (Eds.), La recherche qualitative: Diversité des champs de pratiques au Québec (pp. 1–46). Montréal: Gaëtan Morin.Google Scholar
  27. Hecker, T., Boettcher, V. S., Landolt, M. A., & Hermenau, K. (2019). Child neglect and its relation to emotional and behavioral problems: A cross-sectional study of primary school-aged children in Tanzania. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan, S. J., Pelcovitz, D., & Labruna, V. (1999). Child and adolescent abuse and neglect research: A review of the past 10 years. Part I: Physical and emotional abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(10), 1214–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lacharité, C. (2011). Approche participative auprès des parents en situation d’autorité. Dans M. Boutanquoi (Ed.). Interventions sociales auprès des familles en situation de précarité (pp. 63–72). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  30. Lacharité, C. (2014a). Programme d’aide personnelle, familiale et communautaire : PAPFC2 Guide de programme. (revised edition). Trois- Rivières, QC: CEIDEF/UQTR.Google Scholar
  31. Lacharité, C. (2014b). Transforming a wild world: Helping children and families to address neglect in the province of Quebec, Canada. Child Abuse Review, 23, 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lacharité, C. (2015). Participation des parents et services de protection de l’enfance. Les Cahiers du CEIDEF (p. 1). CEIDEF/UQTR: Trois-Rivières, QC.Google Scholar
  33. Lacharité, C. (2018). L’ethnographie institutionnelle: une approche critique de la recherche sur les rapports entre les personnes et les institutions. In Les Cahiers du CEIDEF (Vol. 6). Trois-Rivières, QC: CEIDEF/UQTR.Google Scholar
  34. Lacharité, C., & Goupil, É. (2013). Les familles à problèmes multiples: intervention socio-éducatives et enjeux éthiques. In G. Bergonnier-Dupuy, H. Join-Lambert, & P. Durning (Eds.), Traité d’éducation familiale (pp. 425–442). Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  35. Lacharité, C., et al. (2005). Programme d’aide personnelle, familiale et communautaire: Nouvelle génération. Trois-Rivières: GRIN/UQTR.Google Scholar
  36. Lacharité, C., Éthier, L. S., & Nolin, P. (2006). Vers une théorie écosystémique de la négligence envers les enfants. Bulletin de psychologie, 59, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lafantaisie, V. (2017). Recherches et interventions en négligence : Comment expliquer l’exclusion du point de vue des familles dans ces espaces institutionnels (thèse de doctorat non publiée). Québec: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.Google Scholar
  38. Lafantaisie, V., Milot, T., & Lacharité, C. (2015). L’organisation sociale des connaissances sur les situations de négligence envers l’enfant au Québec. Revue Dialogue Familles & couples, 207, 71–81.Google Scholar
  39. Lapierre, S., Krane, J., Damant, D., & Thibault, J. (2008). Négligence à l’endroit des enfants et maternité : Un regard féministe. In C. Parent, S. Drapeau, M. Brousseau, & E. Pouliot (Eds.), Visages multiples de la parentalité (pp. 361–384). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. LeBossé, Y., & Dufort, F. (2001). Le pouvoir d’agir (empowerment) des personnes et des communautés : une autre façon d’intervenir. In F. Dufort & J. Guay (Eds.), Agir au cœur des communautés: La psychologie communautaire et le changement social (pp. 7–31). Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
  42. Lefever, J. B., Howard, K. S., Lanzi, R. G., Borkowski, J. G., Atwater, J., Guest, K. C., et al. (2008). Cell phones and the measurement of child neglect the validity of the Parent-child activities interview. Child Maltreatment, 13(4), 320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69), 1–9.Google Scholar
  44. Manly, J. T., Oshri, A., Lynch, M., Herzog, M., & Wortel, S. (2013). Child neglect and the development of externalizing behavior problems associations with maternal drug dependence and neighborhood crime. Child Maltreatment, 18(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Massé, R. (1990). Évaluation critique de la recherche sur l’étiologie de la violence envers les enfants. Santé Mentale au Québec, 15(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Masson, P. (2012). Évaluations psychosociales: Culture du positivisme et enjeux éthiques. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 25(1), 224–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCoy, L. (2008). Institutional ethnography and constructionism. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 701–714). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. Milot, T., Éthier, L. S., & St-Laurent, D. (2009). La négligence envers les enfants. In M.-È. Clément & S. Dufour (Eds.), La violence à l’égard des enfants en milieu familial (pp. 113–126). Anjou: Éditions CEC.Google Scholar
  49. Parada, H. (2004). Social work practices within the restructured child welfare system in Ontario: An institutional ethnography. Canadian social work review, 21(1), 67–87.Google Scholar
  50. Potts, K., & Brown, L. (2005). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 255–286). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro, M. (2004). Methods and nations. Cultural governance and the indigenous subject. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, D. E. (1987). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 86–94). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, D. E. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, D. E. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  56. Springett, J., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). Issues in participatory evaluation. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes: second edition (pp. 199–220). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  57. Staal, I. I., Hermanns, J. M., Schrijvers, A. J., & van Stel, H. F. (2013). Risk assessment of parents’ concerns at 18 months in preventive child health care predicted child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(7), 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stewart, C., Kirisci, L., Long, A. L., & Giancola, P. R. (2015). Development and psychometric evaluation of the child neglect questionnaire. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(19), 3343–3366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swift, K. J. (1995). Manufacturing “bad mothers”: A critical perspective on child neglect. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sylvestre, A., & Mérette, C. (2010). Language delay in severely neglected children: A cumulative or specific effect of risk factors? Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(6), 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tanner, K., & Turney, D. (2003). What do we know about child neglect? A critical review of the litterature and its application to social work practice. Child and Family Social Work, 8, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Turmel, A. (2012). Enfant normal et enfance normalisée : réflexion sur un infléchissement. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 1, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turney, D. (2000). The feminizing of neglect. Child and Family Social Work, 5, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turney, D. (2005). Who cares? The role of mothers in cases of child neglect. In B. M. Taylor & J. Daniel (Eds.), Child neglect: Practice issues for health and social care (pp. 249–262). Londres: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  65. Vandermiten, J., Hamby, S., David-Ferron, C., Kacha-Ochana, A., Merrick, M., Simon, T. R., et al. (2017). Rates of neglect in a national sample: Child and family characteristics and psychological impact. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wanlin, P. (2007). L’analyse de contenu comme méthode d’analyse qualitative d’entretiens : une comparaison entre les traitements manuels et l’utilisation de logiciels. Recherches qualitatives, 3, 243–272.Google Scholar
  67. Ward, H. & Rose, W. (Eds.) (2002). Approaches to Needs Assessment in Childrens’ Services. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  68. Williams, S. E. (2017). Redrawing the line: An exploration of how lay people construct child neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 68, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolock, I., & Horowitz, B. (1984). Child maltreatment as a social problem: The neglect of neglect. Theory & Review, 54(4), 530–542.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Psychoéducation et de PsychologieUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Département de SociologieUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Département de PsychoéducationUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada
  4. 4.Département de PsychologieUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada

Personalised recommendations