EVALUATING THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCING APPROACH IN A FIRST NATIONS CONTEXT:

Author(s):  
Joan Glode ◽  
Fred Wien
2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J Asscher ◽  
Sharon Dijkstra ◽  
Geert Jan JM Stams ◽  
Maja Deković ◽  
Hanneke E Creemers

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-371
Author(s):  
Rosalie N Metze ◽  
Tineke A Abma ◽  
MH Kwekkeboom

Summary Family Group Conferencing as deployed in child care might be useful in elderly care to strengthen older adults’ social networks and self-mastery. When Family Group Conferencing was implemented for older adults in the Netherlands, social workers were reluctant to refer. To discover reasons for this reluctance, we examined social workers’ views and attitudes concerning Family Group Conferencing for their clients. Findings In an initial exploratory study, we distributed a survey among social workers who worked with older adults and were informed about Family Group Conferencing, followed by three focus groups of social workers with and without Family Group Conferencing experience. We also held semi-structured individual interviews with social workers and an employee of the Dutch Family Group Conferencing foundation. The respondents were positive about Family Group Conferencing, but hesitant about referring their older clients. Reasons were: they were already working with their clients’ social networks; they feared losing control over the care process; and they wondered how they could motivate their clients. They also reported that their clients themselves were reluctant, because they seemed to fear that Family Group Conferencing would lose them self-mastery, and they did not want to burden their social networks. Applications Our findings indicate that implementing Family Group Conferencing in elderly care is a complicated and slow process, partly because social workers have little experience with Family Group Conferencing. To facilitate social workers it might be necessary to offer them more guidance, in a joint process with the Family Group Conferencing foundation. One might also experiment with alterations to the Family Group Conferencing model, for example, by focusing less on family networks and more on reciprocity.


Author(s):  
Mary Mitchell

Abstract Much has been written over the past thirty years within the international social work literature on Family Group Conferencing as a process of decision making. Yet, the theories that frame our understanding of how Family Group Conferencing contributes towards family outcomes are less distinct. This article makes an original contribution to this literature by proposing the use of recognition theory as a beneficial lens for understanding the Family Group Conferencing process. The recognition theory contends that social relations acknowledge and validate personal existence and are pivotal to identify formation; a just society is therefore one where everyone gets due recognition. A retrospective qualitative study will be used to exemplify how Family Group Conferencing can create the conditions within which participants can experience different forms of recognition: care; respect; solidarity and, as such, experience a level of social justice (or not). It is argued that recognition within the Family Group Conferencing process can influence the identity and relationships of those involved in social work services. This article has significance beyond those with an interest in Family Group Conferencing as the recognition theory can shed light on the nature of relationships in social work practice more generally.


Author(s):  
Hayley Boxall ◽  
Anthony Morgan ◽  
Kiptoo Terer

Zootaxa ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3616 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. WILLIAMS

Williams (1969) published a list of the family-group names in the Coccoidea (scale insects) recognised at that time. The present paper supplements this earlier list and includes all nominal genera that have had family-group names based on them, including those in the earlier paper, in case it is not readily available to some workers. Nominal genera and their family-group names are listed alphabetically in catalogue form. There are now 49 families generally recognised in the scale insects, of which 16 are only known as fossils. Furthermore, 180 nominal genera have now had family-group names based on them. As stated in the 1969 list, all categories in the family group are deemed to be of co-ordinate status in nomenclature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document