• No results found

Facing Barriers to Report. A qualitative study of professionals’ experience on the process of reporting child maltreatment

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Facing Barriers to Report. A qualitative study of professionals’ experience on the process of reporting child maltreatment"

Copied!
46
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

FACING BARRIERS TO REPORT

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PROFESSIONALS’

EXPERIENCE ON THE PROCESS OF

REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT

Adam Petrisson

Petrisson, A. Facing barriers to report. A qualitative study of professionals’ experience on the process of reporting child maltreatment. Degree project in

Criminology,30 högskolepoäng. Malmö University: Faculty of health and society,

Department of Criminology, 2014.

Keywords: Child abuse, Maltreatment, Neglect, Reporting, Social services,

Abstract

Previous research has shown that children suffering from abuse, neglect or maltreatment before turning 18 are significantly associated with several measurements of delinquency, such as self-reported and official incidence of arrest, offending frequency, violent crimes and drug-use. Thus, reducing child maltreatment can be seen as a crime prevention strategy. In Sweden, certain professionals have a mandatory responsibility to report child maltreatment to authorities. Previous research has shown that professionals often fail to report to authorities. This thesis aims at deepen the knowledge and understanding of the process of reporting and adopts a qualitative approach, interviewing school personnel about their experience, and their perceived barriers to report. The

(2)

thesis mirrors in many aspects what have been found in previous research. The analysis found four main categories, education, experience of the social services,

fear of consequences of making a report and reporting routine. The results

indicate that school personnel are not sufficiently educated on child maltreatment or how to report it, have negative experience of the social services, holds fear about various aspects of reporting and deploy reporting routines that might not facilitate reporting. The implications drawn from this thesis is that school personnel need to be educated to facilitate reporting, but also that reporting routines need to be altered in order to increase reporting. Further, schools and the social services need to collaborate to a greater extent than today.

(3)

UPPLEVDA

ANMÄLNINGSHINDER

EN KVALITATIV STUDIE OM

SKOLPERSONALENS UPPLEVELSER AV

ANMÄLNINGSPROCESSEN NÄR BARN FAR

ILLA

Adam Petrisson

Petrisson, A. Upplevda anmälningshinder. En kvalitativ studie av skolpersonalens upplevelser av anmälningsprocessen när barn far illa. Degree project in

Criminology,30 högskolepoäng. Malmö University: Fakulteten för hälsa och

samhälle, kriminologiska institutionen, 2014.

Nyckelord: barn, skola, barn som far illa, anmälning, socialtjänst

Abstrakt

Tidigare forskning har visat att barn som far illa innan 18 års ålder är signifikant mer associerade med ett flertal olika mått på kriminalitet, t.ex. självrapporterad kriminalitet, officiella arresteringar, brottsfrekvens, våldsbrott samt

droganvändning. Att reducera antalet barn som far illa kan därför ses som brottsförebyggande åtgärd. I Sverige har vissa yrkesprofessionella en lagstadgad skyldighet att anmäla till socialtjänsten vid misstanke om barn som far illa. Tidigare forskning har visat att yrkesprofessionella ofta misslyckas med att

(4)

anmäla till myndigheter. Den här studien tar sikte på att fördjupa kunskapen och förståelsen av anmälningsprocessen. Den här studien använder kvalitativ analys och intervjuar skolpersonal om deras upplevelser av anmälningsprocessen. Intervjuerna analyseras genom kvalitativ innehållsanalys. Resultaten av denna studie återspeglar den tidigare forskningen i många aspekter. Analysen resulterade i fyra olika kategorier; utbildning, erfarenhet av socialtjänsten, rädsla för

konsekvenser av att anmäla och anmälningsrutin. Vidare visar resultaten att

skolpersonalen inte är tillräckligt utbildade om barn som far illa eller hur man ska anmäla det, att man har negativa erfarenheter av socialtjänsten, har rädsla för konsekvenserna av en anmälan samt att man har en rutin som inte underlättar anmälningsprocessen. Konklusionen av dessa resultat är att utbildningen bör förbättras samt att anmälningsrutinen bör förändras för att säkerställa att fler misstankar om barn som far illa når socialtjänsten i form av en anmälan. Vidare bör skolan och socialtjänsten samarbeta i en högre utsträckning än vad som sker idag.

(5)

Introduction   6  

Purpose  and  research  questions   7  

Definitions   7  

Mandatory  reporting  in  Sweden   8  

The  role  of  social  services  in  relation  to  children  and  youths   9  

Ethical  considerations   10  

Background   10  

Lack  of  knowledge   11  

General  fear  of  reporting   14  

Disbelief  in  social  services   16  

Method   18   Methodological  limitations   18   Trustworthiness   20   Participants   21   Data-­‐collection   22   Data-­‐analysis   22   Results   23   Education   23  

Experiences  of  the  social  services   25   Fear  of  consequences  of  making  a  report   28  

Reporting  routine   31  

Discussion   34  

Conclusion   40  

(6)

INTRODUCTION

In 1962, Kempe et. al. published their influential work on child abuse, claiming that society has to get better at diagnosing and thus prevent child abuse. Since then, criminologists have further investigated the impact of child abuse and neglect and have found that child maltreatment in various forms invites negative behavioral consequences (Thornberry et. al, 2010; Mesky et. al, 2012; Walsh & Farrell, 2008). Research has shown that children suffering from abuse and neglect before turning 18 are significantly associated with several measurements of delinquency, such as self-reported and official incidence of arrest, offending frequency, violent crimes and drug-use (Mersky et. al., 2012; Thornberry et. al, 2010).

I argue that preventing and reducing children suffering from maltreatment can be an early crime preventing strategy, since children that are exposed to maltreatment are more likely to become involved in criminal activity later in life than others (Mersky et. al., 2012; Thornberry et. al, 2010). More specifically, it may fall under what Farrington and Welsh refers to as developmental prevention, since it targets risk factors (Farrington & Welsh, 2008). Crime is one of the most costly potential outcomes of child maltreatment (Currie & Tekin, 2011). Preventing and reducing effects of child maltreatment can have major benefits for society giving the extensive damage for later functioning that maltreatment seems to have (Thornberry et. al, 2010). In order for social services to intervene and prevent child maltreatment, they need to be aware of who is being subjected to maltreatment. The obvious question then becomes, who is to report child maltreatment to the social services? Research points to the importance of mandated reports of child abuse and neglect. Schoolteachers have been widely considered as a key group of potential reporters of child maltreatment (Abrahams et. al, 1992). They make day-to-day observations and interactions with children (Sundell, 1997). School personnel who are obligated by the law to report suspiciousness of child maltreatment have often been found not to do so (Sundell, 1997; Kenny, 2001). Studies have shown that professionals (i.e. teachers or child care personnel) find it difficult to successfully report child maltreatment to the social services. For example, Webster et. al. (2005) found that underreporting of child maltreatment exists among one third of the teachers. There seems to be barriers to report that weakens the preventive power of mandatory reporting.

(7)

Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this thesis is to advance the knowledge and understanding of what makes mandated reports so difficult to make, which has been shown in numerous studies (Abrahams et al, 1992; Sundell, 1997; Kenny & McEachern, 2002; Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004). Most of the research reviewed in this thesis is quantitative. In addition, they are for a great part fairly descriptive. There is a need to advance the understanding of this issue. An understanding that I argue is more achievable through a qualitative approach. School personnel play a crucial role when it comes to preventing child maltreatment (Abrahams et al, 1992). Understanding what school personnel find difficult in order to report child maltreatment can generate a better basis on which policy makers can make changes to facilitate such reports. Such barriers to report are currently standing in the way between social services that want and can help and children who needs help. Maybe, intervening in childhood may save a child from a life of crime or other negative developmental outcome (Mersky et. al., 2012; Thornberry et. al, 2010).

Research questions

What are the respondents’ perceptions and experiences of the process of making a report on child maltreatment?

Are there any difficulties in the process of making a report on child maltreatment, and if so, what are those?

Definitions

The definition of a child seems to be quite clear according to Swedish law. A child is defined as every human being under the age of 18 (Socialtjänstlagen, 1 kap, 2§). In Sweden, it is not uncommon to use terms such as children and youths in various documents from different authorities. It is used to stress that it is not only younger children that is being talked about. There is however no clear definition of what constitutes child maltreatment. Sometimes it is described as children whose needs are not being met within the family (Rikspolisstyrelsen & Socialstyrelsen, 2007). Further, it is described as children being subjected to physical and psychological abuse, sexual violence and physical and psychological neglect (Prop. 2002/03:53). Elsewhere, it is described as children and youths with a social destructive behavior such as drug addiction or criminality (SOSFS

(8)

1997:15). The law does not specify what kind of scenario a child has to be subjected to in order for a report to the social services may be justified, I will therefore, during the course of this thesis use the broad notion of child maltreatment. I think that a broad notion such as child maltreatment best captures the essence of the law. If one were to use a more narrower concept, such as child abuse, one would running the risk of missing other types of maltreatment that are also reportable to the social services.

The literature that has been reviewed during the course of this thesis uses a wide range concepts that might fit under the notion of child maltreatment. For example, some uses child abuse (Abrahams et. al, 1992), others may use child abuse and neglect (Sundell, 1997; Walsh & Farrel, 2008), and some may use child sexual abuse (Goldman, 2007). They all do, however, fit under the notion of child maltreatment and all of them are by Swedish law, reportable to the social services.

Mandatory reporting in Sweden

Chapter 14 § 1 SoL states that various authorities and professionals active within those authorities are bound by law to immediately report to the social services if they obtain knowledge about or suspect child maltreatment. Such authorities include those who work with children and youths. In a handbook for active professionals, the social services write that a suspicion about child maltreatment does not have to be confirmed before reporting. The reporter does not have to speculate about causes of signs of maltreatment. Those are things that is hard not to whey in when considering to report child maltreatment to the social services. Lack of concrete signs or clear evidence of what it is being suspected are things that might influence individuals decision not to report. Some professionals might be hesitant because they are not sure if what is being suspected is serious enough to be reported. Many adopt the notion of “wait and see” (socialstyrelsen, 2004). The strategy of “wait and see” might only worsen situations. It delays help that is needed from child protective services and further puts the child at serious risk. A report on child maltreatment can be perceived as distrust against the parent or the parents. Reporting to authorities can be misinterpreted for other forms of reporting, for example, the reporting of a crime. However, when reporting suspiciousness of child maltreatment, one is not making claims or accusations

(9)

against the family, one is only reporting observations that may point to a child in need of support from society (socialstyrelsen, 2004).

The role of social services in relation to children and youths

The fifth chapter of the social service legislation regulates certain regulations for different groups, such as children and youths. §1 states that the social services are working;

- towards that children and youths will grow up under safe and good circumstances.

- in close co-operation with the home support an all around personal development, a good physical and social development amongst children and youths.

- to pursue outreach programs and other prevention to prevent maltreatment of children and youths.

- actively to prevent misuse of alcohol beverages, other intoxicating or addictive subtances and perform-enhancing drugs among children and youths.

- together with other social institutions notice and prevent children and youths to be in circumstances that might be harmful on them.

- with close attention follow the development in children and youths that has displayed signs of unfavorable development

- in close co-operation with the home making sure that children and youths at risk of an unfavorable development are getting the protection and the support they need and, if it is in the best interest of the child or the youth, care and nurture outside the own home.

- towards making sure that in their care for children and youths, they provide the special support and help that might be needed after decisions about care, living conditions or adoption.

- towards making sure that in their care for children and youths, they provide the special support and help that might be needed after caring and nurturing outside the home has stopped (SoL, §1, 5 chapter).

(10)

Ethical considerations

The thesis idea was sent to the ethical committee, which had no objection to the thesis, since it did not aimed for collecting sensitive data. However, ethical consideration must not stop at getting clearance from the ethics committee. The participants in this thesis, whom are explained in more details below, work within the school. Individuals working in schools in Sweden have a legal obligation to report suspicions of child maltreatment. Asking those individuals about their reporting habits etc. might be perceived as me questioning their ability as a professional or their capability to follow the law. Such considerations must be taken into account when getting closer to the participants. One must ask oneself the question of how, or in what way one could make this issue as small as possible for the participants? Along with the request to become a participant in this thesis, there was additional information about the thesis. The information included the purpose and aims of the thesis, but also what it meant to become a participant. Especially that those participants were anonymous. That information was also given to the participant in the physical meeting prior to the interview, both orally and on paper. I also allowed time for any questions that the participants might have had. Explaining all of that, and especially the anonymity, hopefully made the participants aware of that I was not interested in them as an individual but only interested in what they had to say, what they had to share and what experiences they have had in their role as a professional. Additionally, it meant that I avoided asking questions that implied lack of responsibility, or questions that imply lack of professionalism. That is not only ethically questionable, but also irrelevant for this thesis.

BACKGROUND

The previous research in this section is primarily international. It is worth noting that the legislation varies across nations, but are fairly the same. It is also worth noting that the research reviewed in this section stem from different periods of time and that legislations change over time. When reading the previous research in the field, three main concepts could be derived. The research in the field seems to be clustered around these three concepts. I thus present them below.

(11)

Lack of knowledge

If school teachers are to successfully fulfill their role as mandatory reporters of child maltreatment, they need to not only to be able to recognize signs of maltreatment, they also need to be aware of relevant laws and school-specific procedures. A study from Queensland, Australia, included 81 student-teachers attending Queensland university. All of the participants were completing their final semester of a Bachelor of Education (Primary School). Their knowledge and attitudes towards sexual abuse and its mandatory reporting were examined using a questionnaire (Goldman, 2006). The results show that a vast majority of the students, 90%, felt that primary school teachers have an important role to play in addressing the issue of sexual abuse. Over 80% agrees that they should continue recording their observations after making a report. The students appeared to be less confident about a number of other aspects that relates to child sexual abuse. Only 58% claimed that they understood what happened when a child was sexually abused and only 22% agreed that they would be able to identify signs of sexual abuse. About 20% agreed that they understood Educations Queensland´s Policy and Procedures for mandatory reporting. About 60% of the teachers understood their role in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. Only 37% felt confident in playing their part in the reporting process of child sexual abuse. Only about 26% felt that they were prepared for their role as mandatory reporters of child sexual abuse (Goldman, 2006).

Abrahams et al. (1992) analyzed a nationwide survey of teachers from 40 school districts in 29 randomly selected counties. The survey explores teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about child abuse and its prevention. 568 elementary and middle school teachers responded to the survey. According to the survey, the vast majority of the teachers were receiving minimal education on identifying and reporting suspected cases of child maltreatment. About half of the respondents reported that their schools provided in service workshops to some extent. About 60% of the teachers reported that the education provided for them was insufficient and that it was not enough information (Abrahams et. al 1992). Almost 74% of the sample reported that they had suspected a child as being abused or neglected at one time or another. 90% of those indicated that they reported the case. But where, and to whom such cases was reported to vary across teachers. They were commonly made to other school system personnel, for example, the principal, a

(12)

social worker or a nurse. Only about 23% of the teachers indicated reporting directly to the child protective services. If that is a reflection of school policies, the rationale behind it seems to be somewhat unclear (Abrahams et al. 1992). The survey used in the study was specifically designed to ask teachers about their perceived barriers to report. Almost two thirds of the teachers (65%) claimed that a significant obstacle were the lack of sufficient knowledge on detecting signs of abuse and neglect and of reporting such cases (Abrahams et al. 1992).

Beck et al (1994) also found issues with knowledge. About 20% of the teachers claimed that they were unsure of the definition of abuse. Many were unaware of the correct reporting procedure. Many teachers incorrectly indicated that the reporting procedure was to first consult with other school personnel, for example the principal, before filing the report. Moreover, the authors found that sexual abuse were more likely to be reported, since the signs of it are more visible than non-physical abuse or neglect (Beck et al, 1994). Such a conclusion is also discussed by Wilson and Gettinger (1989). What appears to be linked to reporting are the conditions surrounding the incident per se, more specifically, the type of abuse. Physical abuse is more likely to be reported than emotional abuse or neglect (Wilson & Gettinger, 1989).

Kenny (2001) found several similar problems that might prohibit professionals to report child maltreatment. Among those were the fact that many teachers felt unaware of reporting procedures and thus felt unprepared to report maltreatment cases. Kenny (2001) also found that the longer teachers work, the more likely they are to make reports of child maltreatment. The study also found ethnical differences in reporting frequency. Crenshaw et. al (1995) found that similar difficulties were reported. Only 9.6% of the respondents felt very well prepared to recognize and report child abuse. 50.9% felt fairly prepared. Almost 27% felt that they were barely adequate and 13% considered themselves as poorly or not at all prepared to deal with child abuse. Webster et al. (2005) found that underreporting amongst their sample of 480 teachers was associated with the characteristics of the teacher. Teachers with less education were associated with underreporting.

In a study of 200 teachers in the United States, almost 60% reported lack of knowledge about signs of maltreatment and lack of knowledge concerning

(13)

reporting procedures. Very few, about 13%, were aware of the reporting procedure in their school which suggest that the have not been educated on the job (Kenny, 2004). Sundell (1997) also found that knowledge seem to be somewhat of a problem. A questionnaire was sent out to 112 nursery schools and to a random sample of 43% of the 167 family day-care centers in three suburbs of Stockholm. When discussing explanations to why the degree of reporting seem to be low, Sundell states that some of the nursery school directors did not fully understand, or were not aware of the mandatory reporting procedure. Less than half of the respondents in the study reported that they were aware of that they were required by law to report child maltreatment. Sundell (1997) also reported that 37% of the respondents stated that they did not file a report because they were uncertain that the child actually was maltreated. 49% stated that they waited for the problem to be solved by a parent or others (Sundell, 1997). There are a few different explanations to these data according to Sundell (1997). One of them might simply be that school personnel are unaware of, or do not fully understand the mandatory reporting procedure.

A survey on experiences of child abuse reporting was obtained from 116 middle and high school counselors and principals across the United States. Although many of the counselors and the principals had filed a report at least once, these professionals claim that they felt not able to accurately identify signs of child maltreatment (Kenny & McEachern, 2002).

In a qualitative study, Walsh and Farrell (2008) found that although the eight teachers that were included in the study were not sufficiently trained, they did not lack knowledge. They held and deployed knowledge by using their knowledge of early childhood as a basis. This knowledge of early childhood was obtained in pre-service teachers education programs, what they had read or heard about in literature or in popular culture, discussions with colleagues and gleaned from self-directed professional education sessions. When there were gaps in their knowledge, the teachers reported that they adapted what they already knew and search information, advice and reassurance from those whom they regarded as being a reliable and well informed (Walsh & Farrell, 2008). The families and children that were in their care were also regarded as an important source of knowledge, providing them with valuable experience of know-how. The teachers

(14)

knowledge that guided them where mainstream education did not, was therefore a synthesis of practically driven sources oriented to their teaching context (Walsh & Farrell, 2008).

Crowell and Levi (2012) studied how community based mandated reporters understood and interpreted the notion of reasonable suspicion, which were are the standard threshold for mandated reporting of child abuse. They found a wide variability in the thresholds they identified for what constitutes reasonable

suspicion among the respondents. A noteworthy finding was that teachers and

day-care personnel identified significantly higher thresholds for what counts as reasonable suspicion compared to others, such as social workers, school counselors, administrators or nurses. The authors expected that the longer periods of time that classroom teachers or day-care personnel have for interacting with children compared to social workers, school counselors, administrators or nurses, would lead to lower thresholds for reporting. They note that it is possible that the greater exposure to instances of possible abuse actually prompts individuals to set a higher threshold to avoid reporting large number of incidents.

General fear of reporting

In the study by Abrahams et. al (1992), almost 63% of the teachers indicated that fear of legal ramifications for false allegations influence their reporting behavior. Teachers (52%) also felt a general fear about the consequences of child abuse reports, for example, reprisal against the child or causing damage to the parent-teacher and the parent-teacher-child relationship. Teachers (45%) were also concerned about parental denial and disapproval of reports and further, teachers (35%) were also concerned about inferring in the parent-child relationship as well as inferring in family privacy (35%). There were also some concerns that one would not get the right support from the community or school when making such allegations (24%) as well as not getting support from the school board or the principal (14%) (Abrahams et. al, 1992). According to Abrahams et al. (1992), this points to several shortcomings in the training and support available for teachers when it comes to child abuse and neglect reporting and prevention.

Similar results were found in a study by Beck et al (1994). Of their sample of 216 teachers, they found that 16% of the teachers in primary school indicated that they

(15)

had suspected child abuse but failed to report it. When they were asked about their reasons for withholding a report of child abuse, almost 80% indicated that the lack of evidence was the most common reason. 40% of the teachers indicated that they believed that a report of child abuse would be negative for the child or the family.

Kenny (2001) found that the most common reason not to report to social services is the fear of making an inaccurate report. In the study by Kenny (2004), most teachers (56%) believed that the family could sue them if they made a report based on false premises. Kenny (2001) notes that it seems that the fear of making a false report outweighs the desire to follow standards in protecting children. Some professionals also reported that they estimated the consequences of a report before they decided on how to act upon suspicions of child maltreatment. Further, some explained that they refrained to report because of negative experiences from earlier reports (Sundell, 1997).

One interesting thing, noted by Wilson & Gettinger (1989) was that their respondents were asked to rate 10 different reasons reflecting the degree to which it affected their decision to report or not. The data showed that effect on the child received the highest rating for reporting, and the second highest rating for not reporting. It seem to be clear, according to this study, that the effect of reporting or not reporting on the child´s welfare is an important consideration when making the decision to report or not to report (Wilson & Gettinger, 1989). In their survey, respondents were faced with fictional abuse scenarios. Although these scenarios were clearly reportable, those who chose not to report it did so in what they believed to be the best interest of the child. Likewise, those who did report it also did so because they felt it would be the most beneficial thing for the child (Wilson & Gettinger, 1989). In the study by Sundell (1997), the size of the nursery school was found to be related to the rate of report. In small schools or day-care centers, there were fewer children that were suspected of being maltreated. Childcare that involves a closer emotional relationship between personnel and both the child and the parents, as in smaller schools or day-care centers, might be an impediment to report. A close relationship can create a feeling of an unacceptable violation of trust and confidentiality, which in turn could be an obstacle or a barrier to report suspected cases (Sundell, 1997).

(16)

Disbelief in social services

In the study by Beck et al (1994), almost 25% of the teachers claimed that they lacked confidence in child protective services. When faced with vignette cases in the study by Kenny (2001), many teachers stated that they would report to school administrations, despite their belief that school administrations were not very supporting. Kenny notes that when deferring the responsibility to report, it is less likely to be reported and maltreatment are more likely to continue, placing the child in severe risk. There appears to be a diffusion of responsibility. Further, the second most common reason not to report was the feeling that social services do not offer any help to maltreated children (Kenny, 2001). In the study by Kenny (2004), many of the teachers, about 76%, reported that the school administration would not support them if they were to make a report of child abuse (Kenny, 2004). In the study by Sundell (1997), it is reported that 55% claimed to be satisfied with their contact with the child protective services, the rest were largely dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction was to a large extent due to the lack of feedback provided by the child protective services. All together, 63% of the personnel were sure that the child was maltreated, but were reluctant to report their suspicions to the authorities (Sundell, 1997).

Vulliamy and Sullivan (2000) wanted to investigate if reluctance to report exists among medical staff also. The results indicated that there were many factors that influenced reporting. Their degree of comfort in the reporting process was very important to their ultimate decision to report. The results also showed that the staff felt comfortable for the most part, but were disappointed with the lack of follow-up or feedback from the child protective services (Vulliamy & Sullivan, 2000). Other research has shown that professionals will be reluctant to report child abuse when they are not aware of the outcome of such a report (Sundell, 1997). Vulliamy and Sullivan (2000) stress that exchange theory might be a way to understand how reporting behavior can be facilitated. The exchange of information is a crucial part if reporting is to be increased. Ongoing collaboration between professionals and the child protective services is more likely to enhance information sharing. If social workers do not provide feedback information to the reporters, the reporters are likely to be unaware of the advantages of making a report. When this exchange becomes mutual and collaboration takes place, children may be safer as a result (Vulliamy & Sullivan, 2000). The work of

(17)

different social services can sometimes overlap each other. In a Swedish study using focus groups, this was more closely investigated. As an analytical framework, researchers used organization theory. They identified 3 different organizations covered by the law of mandatory reporting, early child-care services (BVC), pre-school (förskola) and the social services to which respective organizations are to report child maltreatment. The concept of organization field is used to differentiate organizations which goals are closely related. It is not always clear who is the legitimate executor of specific task. Prevention of child maltreatment can be seen as such a task, where the responsibility of different organizations is not always clear. In some obvious cases, for example when a child displays clear signs of physical assault, there might be domain consensus about who is the legitimate executor of such a task. In other more diffuse cases, for example when a child displays sign that might point to declining health, there might be domain conflicts about which organization that has the responsibility to act in such a case. In other words, there might arise a confusion of whom is doing what (Backlund et. al, 2012). If for example, a school curator is in contact with a depressed child, he or she might be confident that the local health service of the school can support the child. The social services on the other hand, might stress the importance to report in order for them to investigate if the depression stems from child maltreatment of poor family environment. The curator might have negative experiences of reporting similar cases in the past due to the social services choosing to not act upon the report, resulting in a weaker relationship to the child and the curator. Based on such an argument, it is not hard to se how

domain conflicts can have a close relationship to the tendency not to report to

social services (Backlund et. al, 2012).

To sum up, previous research points to three reoccurring issues for reporters of child maltreatment. The research point to a lack of knowledge possessed by mandated reporters. Reporters received minimal education and often felt unprepared to deal with, or to report child maltreatment. Many were also unaware of correct reporting procedure (Abrahams et al, 1992; Goldman, 2006; Beck et al, 2004). Further, reporters held fear of various things in relation to the process of filing reports to authorities. Such fears could be about the consequences of making reports on child maltreatment, for example the ramifications it would have for the teacher-child or the teacher-parent relationship (Abrahams et al, 1992).

(18)

One could also fear that a report could be negative for the child or for its family (Beck, et al, 2004). Negative experience from earlier reports could also affect the decision to make future report (Sundell, 1997). Finally, reporters seemed to have a general disbelief in the social services. Beck, et al, 2004, notes that many teachers claimed that they lacked confidence in the child protective services. Many were dissatisfied with previous contacts with authorities and further, many felt a lack of feedback after a report had been made (Sundell, 1997). Kenny (2001) notes that teachers would rather report to other school personnel than directly to the authorities.

METHOD

This thesis adopts a qualitative approach in order to more closely examine the experiences of teachers´ in relation to the area of interest. Semi-structured interviews were used in order to gather data. There are several reasons to why qualitative approaches were used in this thesis. First, the majority of the research in this particular field mainly consists of quantitative studies (Sundell, 1997; Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004; Kenny & McEachern, 2002; Abrahams et. al, 1992; Wilson & Gettinger, 1989; Beck et. al, 1994). Second, unlike quantitative methodology, qualitative methodology seeks to answer what and not how often. Rather than adopting a reductionist view on the subject in order to measure and count the prevalence or occurrence of events, qualitative methods adopts a more holistic perspectives which in a better way preserves the complexities of human behavior (Lakshman et. al, 2000). As shown previously in the background section, there has been a major focus on answering the question of how often. Although we benefit from the quantification of aspects of social the world, there are however some situations or aspects of the social world that are inevitable beyond the scope of quantitative methods and are better investigated using qualitative methods (Lakshman et. al, 2000). Qualitative researching methods provide access to potentially crucial information which otherwise might be overlooked, such information can yield essential understanding. Qualitative methods are hence a supplement and a complement to the understandings revealed by quantitative methods. Qualitative methods are also a beneficial source of hypothesis for future research (Lakshman et. al, 2000).

Methodological limitations

The unstructured nature of qualitative methods yields an issue when it comes to replication. One of the most important tools in a qualitative study is the researcher

(19)

itself, meaning that the data gathered or observed stem from the interest and intuition of him or her. Qualitative data are unstructured in its nature. And the interpretation of those is highly dependent upon the character of the researcher. The results of a qualitative study might be impossible to apply in a bigger context. The results may be impossible to generalize to other individuals or settings (Bryman, 2008). In this thesis, the participants has not been chosen by random sampling, which many considers to be the most important factor if results are to be generalized (Bryman, 2008). The interviews were carried out in the workplace of the participant and that has given rise to some issues. First, I could not impose for too long in the daily work of the participant. To many principals had denied me access to schools referring to the lack of time for school personnel. I had an unofficial time limit. It meant that I had to shorten interviews in order to get access to schools. In some ways, longer interviews may have left me with a fuller material. One could consider phone interviews or even questionnaires. Phone interviewing would have displayed virtually the same issues and questionnaires would not have been able to give the deep understanding of the phenomena that is to be studied. However, the participants did get to choose when and where they wanted to conduct the interview. Not once did I have to stop interviewing because the lack of time or because the participant had to leave. It meant that I was given time to cover the topics I had in mind.

The process of transcribing the interviews into text is relatively unexplored. One might think that this is the most rigor process of the qualitative approach. It seems easy and that there does not exits rooms for errors. The reality is however more complex. Transcribers often have difficulties capturing words that are spoken, turning them into written words. The way one speaks does not resemble the written word at all. Spoken sentences often lack in structure. People often speak in run-on sentences (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Further, two people having a conversation often speak at the same time, often blurring ones words out. This forces the transcriber to make judgment calls. Changing sentences by insertion of a comma, or a period might change the meaning of the entire sentence. The most experienced researchers deal with these difficulties by listening to the recorded interview while reading the transcriptions at the same time to ensure accuracy (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). This approach was adopted in this thesis to further ensure accuracy.

(20)

Trustworthiness

There are different dimensions of trustworthiness when it comes to qualitative content analysis. Graneheim & Lundman (2004) points to three different aspects of trustworthiness, Credibility, dependability and transferability. Credibility refers to the confidence in how well data and processes of analysis address the focus of the study. Selection of focus includes selection of context, selection of participants and selection of approach to gathering data. Choosing participant with different experiences increases the possibility to shed light on the research question from different aspects. To increase reliability, the researcher must demonstrate a link between the results and the data. That’s why it is important to describe the process of analysis in as much detail as possible when reporting the results of the study. That will also include a detailed description of the context, selection and characteristics of the participants and data collection (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Of importance to credibility is the method of data collection and also the amount of data that is being collected. Another aspect of credibility is the selection of meaning unit. Meaning units can be too broad, making them difficult to manage since they might contain various meanings. If they are too narrow one is running the risk of fragmentation. In both such cases, there is a risk of loosing meaning during the condensation and the coding process. To facilitate judging of credibility, one can illustrate how meaning units, condensations and coding are made (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The question of credibility also deals with how to judge similarities within, and differences between categories. One way to deal with this is to show representative quotations from the transcribed interviews. Quotations and citations can also be used to make it easier for readers to follow the process of inquiry through demonstrations of the interpretations of the findings. Authentic citations can be used to increase trustworthiness of the research by pointing out to readers where and from what original data categories are formulated (Patton, 1990).

Another aspect of trustworthiness is dependability. When data collections are extensive or extends over a longer period of time, there is a risk of inconsistency during the data collection phase. It is on the one hand important to question the same areas for all participants, but on the other hand, qualitative data collection such as interviewing can benefit from its unstructured nature. It is an evolving process during which interviewers acquire new insights into the research area that

(21)

might prompt follow-up questions or narrowing the focus of the topic that is being dealt with within an interview (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

Trustworthiness also includes transferability. It deals with the question of how well the findings can be transferred to different settings. It is essentially a question of describing details such as contexts, selection and characteristics of the participants, data collection and the process of analysis (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

Participants

This thesis adopts a non-random sampling approach. Schools that were fairly close to me were chosen. This sampling method was used due to a number of different reasons. First, it seemed as the most appropriate sampling approach considering the relatively short time frame in which this thesis is being conducted. Second, since this thesis adopts a qualitative approach, the aim was not to generalize the results. Third, this method of sampling gave me a chance of selecting schools with clear contact information to principals and other school personnel. It meant that the process of contacting participants could move forward at ease and at a greater speed. In addition, choosing schools in close proximity also meant less traveling, resulting in less time and cost spent. In total, 14 schools were chosen and an E-mail with information about the study along with a request to contact the school personnel was sent to the principal at each school. Five out of the 14 principals contacted did not respond to this E-mail in any way. Five principals denied me access and four principals responded yes to the request.

Personnel at four schools were contacted. In total, 40 individuals were contacted by E-mail containing information about the thesis and a request to become a participant. Of those 40 individuals, 24 did not respond at all to this request. Six individuals responded yes to the request and 10 responded with a no. The six interviewed participants were distributed among four different schools. The participants had between 1.5 -34 years of experience of teaching or working in schools. Of the six interviewed participants, five were female and one male. One of the interviewed participants worked at a school in the center of a bigger city. Two worked at a school in a small city and three worked in two different rural areas fairly close to the smaller city. None of the participants claimed to have had much formal training regarding reporting procedure or other forms of dealing with

(22)

children showing signs of maltreatment during their basic education. One of the participants had been further educated and received somewhat education on the matter.

Data-collection

Semi-structured interviews have been used to collect the data. An interview guide was created containing specified questions. The semi-structured design allows for freedom and for the researcher to ask questions that have risen during the interview. This will give the researcher a better chance to deepen the answers given by the respondents (May, 1997). Further, the semi-structured interview is described as being flexible on one hand, but yet sufficiently structured to address specific aspects of ones research questions (Galetta, 2013). The interviews were carried out on different occasions during the early spring of 2014. The timespan between interviews allowed for some reflection about the interview-guide, when and where the interview took place and also how respondents reacted to the different questions. This allowed me to enhance my interviewing technique, optimizing it as time went on. The iterative nature of qualitative research allows for changes in the interview guide. Since data collection and data analysis coincides one can learn which questions that are not effective in elicitation the necessary information, thus dropping such questions and develop new ones (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). The timespan between interviews allowed for me to work in this manner. The interviews took place at the respondents’ workplace, in a lonely, quiet place that the respondents chose themselves. Prior to the interview, respondents were once more given information about the thesis. They were then asked if they agreed to the interview being recorded. Informed consent was then obtained from all of the respondents. The duration of the interview varied between 30-50 minutes. The interviews went on fluently and at times strayed away from the interview guide with many follow-up questions about various topics the participants were talking about. The interview was set up to be semi-structured, but at times seemed more to be on the unstructured side. Although, actions were taken in order to cover roughly the same areas over all of the six interviews. All of the six interviews were recorded and later transcribed. Data-analysis

Qualitative content analyses were used in order to analyze the semi-structured interviewing transcripts. The interview transcripts were read through thoroughly several times in order to obtain a sense of the whole. Then the text was divided

(23)

into meaning units. Meaning units can be seen as a constellation of words, sentences or paragraphs. It is a part of the transcribed interview that relate to the same central meaning. The meaning units were then condensed. Condensation refers to a process in which the meaning unit is shortened, but still contains the original core or meaning (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The condensed meaning unit was then labeled with a code. These codes were then compared based on similarities and differences and sorted into categories. These categories are the main results of the interviews. They are the common themes or topics that are talked about in the interviews.

RESULTS

The analysis found four main categories, all containing sub-categories. Those main categories are, as displayed in the figure below, education, experiences of

the social services, fear of consequences of making a report and reporting routine.

The four main categories and their sub-categories are further presented and discussed below.

Education

The stories of the respondents regarding education were very consistent. They were all dissatisfied with the education they had received at the different universities in Sweden. They all claimed to have been briefly informed about the legal duties when it comes to mandatory reporting. They had been taught that the mandatory reporting exists and must be followed, but they had never been taught

Education  

Limited  education  

Real  life  education  

Experiences  of   the  social  services  

Concern  for   feedback   Negative   experience   Positive   experience   The  clash  of  

authorities  

Fear  of   consequences  of   making  a  report  

Breaking  trust   General  concern   Reporting  routine   The  principal   protection   General  reporting   routine   Kollegial  support   Willingness  to   report  the  truth  

rather  than   suspicions  

(24)

how to work in practice. One of the respondents who hade been working in schools for 11 years, and as a teacher for five years were very clear about this;

I: When you received your education to become a teacher, did you feel that the education prepared you for the difficulties of working and reporting child maltreatment?

P1: No.

I: Nothing? Can you explain in more detail?

P1: No, the only thing you received was that it is your obligation to report, no matter what. That’s what you received.

Other respondents had similar experiences. One respondent, a teacher with eight years of working experience, further explained what she felt her education was missing;

I: What did you miss, you said that you back then already felt that something were missing during your education?

P2: Well, what should you report? When should you report? What…to whom am I going to turn to? How does it work?

Another respondent with 1.5 years of teaching experience had similar experience about her education to become a teacher;

P3: I cannot remember when we discussed it, if it were in relation to a course or something. But I believe that the education of factors other than pedagogy and didactics was pretty bad.

Although the respondents did not perceive the basic education as a good source of information on how to work with and to report child maltreatment, there seemed to be other sources where information on how to deal with these matters were taken. The respondents had to go elsewhere for information after they had gone through their basic education. One of the respondents went on her own to educate herself;

(25)

P2: We talked about it, but no. I bought a book by myself about mandatory reporting and confidentiality.

Another way of learning was by learning from other teachers and their experience, a form of social informal education. Several respondents had similar stories. One of them said;

P5: Well, you gain a little bit of experience, you hear from older colleagues and you sort of get trimmed into the work, in a way.

One respondent had a clear example of how this exchange of information could manifest itself. She explained that after her formal education to become a teacher she worked in a school with an instructor. This instructor became a source of information that she had not received through formal education. She said;

P2: I had an instructor, we had a student that repeatedly wet his pants. And my instructor told me that such a behavior could be a sign of sexual abuse.

Another source of information could be personal experience. One respondent had personal experience of other people being subjected to forms of maltreatment. That experience opened her eyes to signs of maltreatment. Unlike education, this experience taught her how maltreatment can be detected. She said;

P4: I have some personal experience, and it is only through that experience I have had contact with the social services. And thanks to that, I have become…you react to bruises and such…

Experiences of the social services

The respondents’ experience with the social services was for the most part negative, with exceptions. A lot of what the respondents talked about that concerned the social services had to do with the notion of feedback i.e., information regarding a reported case. All of the respondents wanted more feedback from the social services. Some of them pointed out that the lack of feedback could be partly because of confidentiality principles at the social

(26)

services. But all of the respondents insisted on the need for more feedback on reported cases.

P2: It would have been nice with feedback from the social services, but they have their legislations…

I: Yes…in what way would that be nice?

P2: It would have been nice to know what happened for the sake of the child, in order to be able to support the child here at school.

Another respondent had a similar view on why feedback was important;

P3: It is important to know what happened after a report in order to relate to the family or the student.

But feedback was not only important in order to relate to the student or to support the student at school. Feedback also seemed to have an importance on a personal level for some teachers. Some of the respondents simply wanted to know if they made the right decision or not when the made a report. And also, if the reported suspicion was in fact true.

I: So, do you feel that it is important with feedback after you have reported to the social services?

P1: Yes, yes

I: Why is it important?

P1: The feeling of knowing if I did the right thing or not. To know if this big step actually led somewhere. I think that’s very important, I think that’s very important.

The request for communication did however not stop at wanting feedback after a reported case. Respondents also talked about the need to have a good communication with the social services on a regular basis to facilitate reports. Some talked about the social services as having mostly closed doors. And also, at one point, the social services were referred to as a faceless mass. One respondent talked about the need for better communication prior to a report:

(27)

P3: You want someone to knock around with, but that’s not possible because you are then requested to file a report. Maybe you’ll want someone to knock around with before making the decision to file a report.

Another part of the experience with the social services was the negative experience. The negative experiences was not only due to directly contact with the social services in their duty as a teacher, but also from personal experiences in the past. In those cases where the negative experience were due to experiences in their role as a teacher, the experiences were about the treatment they received from the social services after a report. For example, one respondent talked about being called to a meeting by the social services after making a report;

I: Tell me about this meeting?

P1: Yes, the social services almost made me account for, why have you filed a report? I don’t think that’s the kind of questions they should be asking because it is my duty to file a report […] We feel that they want to make us account for making reports even considering that the law is clear about that we should file reports. It leads to people not wanting to file reports, it does not lead anywhere.

In other regards, negative experience could also stem from the personal life. One respondent had personal experiences of the ineffectiveness of the social services, which in turn had led to negative view on the social services. One would expect that a supporting and helping organization such as the social services would be associated with improving circumstances for children in need of help. One would expect that filing a report would be accompanied by a belief that the circumstances will improve for the child. However, the experience of one respondant showed quite the opposite. She said;

P1: My personal feeling is that it may not always, it may not always improve the situation. It depends…it is hard to explain…[…] I was subjected to maltreatment as a child. My parents were alcoholic, and it became worse when that was discovered…for me.

(28)

Experience of the social services was not exclusively negative. Positive experience was generated through parents who had been in contact with, and received help from the social services. The positive experience for parents generated a positive view on the social services for the respondents.

P5: They have helped many parents, oh my god. They have done home visitations, they have been very good. I can tell you that they are a great help for many families.

A part of the experience with the social services was the experience of the two authorities (school and the social services) not being on the same page, the clash of authorities. There was a sense of that the two authorities did not work together, almost as if they were two fellow runners turning over the baton at a relay race. Sometimes respondents reported being confused over whom was expected to do what.

P5: That you don’t really know. They do not know what we are doing, and we do not really know what they are doing

This lack of cooperation, and not knowing could manifest itself in a way that was describes as frustrating by a respondent. The two authorities could posses’ valuable information for each other, and not be aware of it.

P5: I think that authorities must co-operate better so that one does not have to do double work. There already exist judgments of knowledge for children within the school. And those are official records; it is just a matter of collecting them. But the social services created their own document for it. Such things can be very frustrating. That’s more of a practical thing so…

Fear of consequences of making a report

The fear of consequences of making a report consisted of two main themes. One were a more general fear of negative consequences that could follow a report, and one were the fear of breaking the trust to both parents and the child. It had happened that the child said something about their home environment that made

(29)

the teacher suspicious and later filed a report based on what the child said. It could feel as if the respondent violated the teacher-student trust by using the statement of the child to stir up the environments surrounding the child;

I: Is there something else that could be difficult, besides the parent-teacher relationship? Is there something that could be…what about the relationship to the children?

P2: Well sure, the relationship to the children after a report has been filed, and the child might notice that a lot of strange things are happening. I know the first time, the parents tore up heaven and earth because of the report and made it to a lot bigger deal than we did here at school […] it became weird for the child because the child didn’t know and became sad because of…what just happened? I only said one little thing and all of this happened?[…] you know, the trust between the teacher and the child felt like…it broke. […] it is still difficult but I think it is the relationship to the child, it can feel as if I had betrayed their trust.

It was not just trust concerning the child that was discussed during the interviews. One could also ruin the trust towards the family or the parents.

I: When you have this close contact with the parents, do you feel that it is easier or harder to file a report to the social services?

P5: […] It can be harder if you have a close contact and have built up a trust to one another. Then comes the report. That’s not everything, it could be sensitive.

Respondents talked about troubled children and their family as if they worked together in some cases to solve issues. And when discussions with the parents did not change the circumstances for the child, a report was inevitable. In some cases, this could be devastating for the teacher-family relationship. Respondents could be working hard to build up a good healthy relationship with the parents, only to see it get smashed to pieces when the respondent fulfilled their duty to report.

(30)

P3: I know from experience that I have fought to gain trust from the family. I can work with a family, with the child. Then I file a report, and nothing happens. The only thing that is going to happen is that the doors to this family will be closed. Thereby I will be taking several steps backward in my work. And then you would think twice before filing a report again.

But fear of consequences were not just limited to the breaking of trust. There were also more general concerns. Some of those concerns were about the feeling that filing a report might add to the problems that children and families would tend to have. There were some concerns that a family in distress, or a dysfunctional family could be more damaged due to a report;

P4: It could end up really wrong. Especially when you know that it will be hard on them. You don’t want to add problems by filing a report if parents are in the middle of a difficult divorce…

There were however concerns and fear that did not involve the child or the parent directly, but more concerns and fears for the respondents’ sake. Respondents working in the smaller communities seemed to have some concerns about rumors spreading in the community. They said that there is a possibility that you might meet the parents outside of the school and that this encounter could be quite awkward. Although there were fears among respondents concerning the reactions of parents to a report, they seemed to be intensified in smaller communities;

I: Yes, right. Do you, do you think that one has a fear about the reactions of the parents? Is that one of the fears that one could have? P4: Yes, I really believe so, especially in small communities like this one. You are going to bump in to that parent at the grocery store later…

There were other general concerns that were related to advantages of filing reports, or more precisely, the disadvantages of doing so. Some respondents had serious doubt about filing a report since they did not believe that it would end up

(31)

being positive for the child. Some described it almost as if it were a cost-benefit calculation, where the scale almost every time tipped to the decision not to report. Nothing good will come out of it. Or even, bad things will come out of it. Concerns were also raised about feelings of trespassing the private sphere that is family. And doing so with a report based on things that might not be true.

Reporting routine

The mandatory legislation in Sweden dictates that both authorities and individuals working within those authorities must report to the social services without delay when suspicions arise that a child are being maltreated. The respondents gave an almost identical description of the reporting routine used at their schools. The respondent observed something that could be seen as suspicious and then notified other school personnel and the principal at a regular meetings held every week. The decision to report were taken together and the principal then filed the report to the social services. Alternatively, the respondent observed something that could be interpreted as suspicious child maltreatment and then notified the principal who then decided to file the report. No one reported that they in person had contacted the social services to file a report. I call this the principal protection. That job was signed to their boss, the school principal. The respondents were very clear on that this routine was necessary and good. When asked why, patterns started to emerge;

I: If you suspect something, and as you say, you go to your boss…do you think that this is an important function? that you do not yourself call the social services to file a report?

P5: yes, I think…I wouldn’t say that it’s easier, but it is a sense of safety…that the boss files, well, you are on the report as a contact person for additional information, but the boss signs the report. If there would arise an issue, you could always ask the parents to contact my boss.

Another respondent had a very similar view on this matter;

P2: If parents get upset or something, they would always turn to the

principal first hand. And I wouldn’t be the one standing in the line of fire.

(32)

Other respondents felt that it was the responsible of administration and leader staff of the school to deal with upset parents;

P3: It has to be that way because we who are working on the floor should not have to be held responsible. Angry parents and upset feelings, those are things that we should be letting the school leaders deal with.

The reporting routine creates a sense of safety. Respondents felt comfort in having their boss signing the report. The principal acted as a kind of a shield against whatever reactions a report might bring about.

In some cases, the respondents discussed the possibility of skipping the normal routines. If the normal routines were to discuss the situation of a child in the weekly meeting, it could be skipped over and the respondent could go straight away to his or her boss to make sure a report were filed. This could happen in cases were the respondent had no doubts about whether or not the child had been subjected to maltreatment. This could also happen if it were agreed upon in a weekly meeting that a report should not be filed;

P2: If it were to be decided in a meeting that a report would not be filed, and I really think a report should be filed, I could go around them and go directly to my boss to demand a report.

P4: First, I probably would have talked to my colleagues, am I the only one who is experiencing this? Or does anyone else feel the same way? And regardless if they would have said no, I do not experience the same as you, and I wouldn’t feel good about it, if I had felt that the matter is serious, then I would probably have a talk with my boss. And she would have to make the decision.

In the process of making a report, from the suspicious thoughts about a child, to making the decision that a report to the social services is needed, the support from colleagues were important for all of the respondents. They found their colleagues to be a great support and help during the difficult process of discovering that a

(33)

child are being subjected to maltreatment. Collegial support could also be about working together in order to make decisions about whether or not to file a report. As previously mentioned, colleagues would get together every week to discuss issues they had been struggling with. They strived for reassurance from other colleagues. In some cases, they wanted reassurance that what they have been seeing or hearing from a child, in fact could be something reportable.

P3; The first case, I took the child to the school nurse, because I wanted someone else to hear what I heard…

Colleagues could also help each other in a more practical way. School personnel support each other when it comes to sharing information about children.

P3. You need to help each other to be observant, notify each other if the daycare would see something, or if the gymnastics teacher would see something. You help each other and inform each other. I think that this school is really good at that.

Respondents had a willingness to report the truth rather than suspiciousness. In situations where respondents were not sure about whether or not a child had been subjected to maltreatment, they tried on their own to figure out the truth. It could be searching for additional signs to confirm that the initial feeling that a child had been subjected to maltreatment was in fact right.

P1: You would be looking for signs, to consolidate, to be sure that the first initial feeling was right.

The respondents knew that receiving a report from the child services would be hard on the parents. And because of that, they often wanted to make sure that no false report was being filed.

P2: You want, you want to know if what you suspect is in fact true because we know that receiving a report could be a hard thing for parents, or whom it might be…and of course, for the child.

References

Related documents

Flowchart of participants over the four waves of

[r]

Keywords: academic functioning, substance use, child maltreatment, early adolescence, emotional maltreatment, gender, mental health,

it is a great challenge not only for the child but also for his or her parents. Paying attention to parents’ experience of having a child with cancer is of great significance

Among those under 30 years of age who want children (any number), having an ideal family size of one child is more likely for an only child compared to a person with siblings.. This

Depending on the nature of the evidence preserved at these points, environmental archaeology may provide the potential to reveal certain aspects of this landscape context

As we put our focus on WeChat, a single case research design can offer a valuable opportunity to reveal and understand Chinese consumers shopping experience on a

[r]