Essay Grade

Working With Survivors of Sexual Abuse and Trauma: The Case of Brandon
Brandon is a 12-year-old, Caucasian male who currently resides with his mother and her boyfriend. Six
years ago, Brandon disclosed that his father had repeatedly sexually abused him between the ages of 4
and 6. Brandon’s mother called law enforcement immediately after the disclosure, and his father has been
incarcerated since. Brandon has previously participated in therapy to address challenging behaviors,
including physical aggression, difficulty following rules at home and school, and using inappropriate
language with sexual overtones toward female peers. Brandon and his mother report that they ceased
participating in therapy in the past after there was no change in Brandon’s behavior. Brandon’s teachers
have suggested that his behaviors are similar to those of peers with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, but his mother has declined educational or psychological testing because she does not want her
son to be labeled and is unsure if she agrees with the use of psychotropic medication with children.
Brandon began attending trauma-focused treatment after demonstrating an increase in argumentative
behavior and minor property destruction at home. His mother reported that the majority of undesired
behaviors were initiated during interactions with her boyfriend. Brandon’s use of physical aggression has
not increased in school; however, a female peer recently reported him for using sexually explicit language
toward her. Brandon admitted to using inappropriate language toward the female peer but appeared to
have a limited understanding of what the phrases used meant. Brandon’s mother noted during intake that
she is concerned that her son will become a violent sexual offender or a pedophile and noted that his use
of sexual language was likely the start of sexual behavior problems.
At the beginning of treatment, Brandon reported that he frequently feared for his physical safety but
often could not pinpoint what made him feel unsafe. He had searched the Internet to find registered
sexual offenders in his neighborhood, and he had begun sleeping with a loaded BB gun under his pillow
in case someone entered the home to assault him again. Brandon had flashbacks when trying to fall asleep
and described feeling like he was floating outside of his body when he thought of his abuse. He had seen
a television show where victims spoke at the parole hearings of their perpetrators, and he spent many
hours thinking about what he would say if he went to his father’s parole hearing in 3 years. Brandon felt
like he loved his father very much and that his father was a great father except for when he hurt him.
Brandon identified wanting to feel less worried, sleep better, and fight less with his mother as primary
treatment goals.
I worked with Brandon in both individual and family sessions to address his symptoms of depression and
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Utilizing the trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy
approach, early sessions focused on coping skills and emotional regulation. As Brandon became more
comfortable with expressing feelings and utilizing coping skills, he began discussing his sexual abuse
history and the ongoing effect this experience had on his life. I met with Brandon’s mother for collateral
sessions in order to help her identify and process her own feelings about his abuse and to develop skills
to support Brandon through his treatment. Brandon’s mother was provided with psychoeducation
regarding childhood sexual abuse, and her belief that her son would become a violent sexual offender as
a result of his experience was challenged through cognitive behavioral therapy. She agreed to meet the
agency psychiatrist, and after the initial consultation she agreed to have Brandon meet with the doctor.
After a psychiatric evaluation, Brandon was prescribed a low dose of antidepressant medication.
Brandon completed a trauma narrative that addressed the details of his sexual abuse experience, his
disclosure of the abuse, and the trial and subsequent imprisonment of his father. Brandon included a
description of his feelings at each point in his narrative, as well as what he learned in treatment about
childhood sexual abuse and coping skills to deal with uncomfortable feelings and impulsivity. Brandon
shared his trauma narrative with his mother, who provided a safe and supportive space during this
experience through the use of skills learned and practiced during collateral parent sessions. Brandon’s
symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress decreased steadily during the course of treatment.
After 8 months of sessions and the successful completion of his trauma narrative, the family and I agreed
that Brandon was ready to terminate trauma-focused treatment. Brandon continued receiving medication
management with a psychiatrist and transitioned into home- and community-based treatment that
focused on his ongoing impulsive behaviors.
International Social Work 51(1): 37±46
*
i s w
Sage Publications: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/0020872807083914
Children’s rights: a challenge for
social work
* Rudi Roose and Maria De Bie
On 20 November 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Since
then, the rights of the child have been promoted by an increasing
number of actors as a frame of reference for social work with children and families. Skegg (2005) argues that a human rights approach
to social work is not without risk, because of the Western character
of the concept of human rights. In this article, we argue that a
human rights approach, and more speci®cally a children’s rights
approach, to social work also contains risks within Western society
itself. The rights of the child can be interpreted in different ways,
with different consequences for clients and for social workers. On
the one hand, the focus can be on the legal status of the child. We
point out the possibly negative consequences for children and parents in such an interpretation. On the other hand, the rights of the
child can be seen as a lever for commitment. Here, the focus is on
the question of how these rights can be realized in different contexts
and with respect for the rights of other actors involved. This focus
demands a perspective on the rights of the child and the CRC as a
framework for social work as a social and political platform,
which creates space for meaning making with parents and children
and with regard to the societal context.
Key words *
children’s rights
* citizenship * dialogue *
social work
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
38
International Social Work
volume 51(1)
A focus on the legal status of children
Rights as an end to dialogue
In the debate on children’s rights and social work, the emphasis
often lies on the improvement of the legal status of the child, for
instance the right to register complaints and the right to participate
in reviews and planning meetings. Although such legislation is
important, a one-sided emphasis on strengthening the legal position
of children and other service users starts from a belief in `rights talk’:
that is, the search for solutions to social problems in terms of the
individual rights of the parties involved. For instance, in a con¯ict
between parents and children, the law will decide who is right and
who is wrong. This approach conceives of rights as an end to dialogue: the solution to problems is to be found in the legal rule.
For instance, the con¯ict between a social worker and a client can
be resolved through the recognition of the right to complain: when
clients are not satis®ed with the care they receive, they can simply
complain about it. This approach turns the debate on the rights of
children predominantly into a debate on their legal status.
A normative concept of citizenship
A human rights approach in social work can be linked to a citizenship framework for social work (Skegg, 2005). Following this link,
the debate on the recognition of children’s rights focuses on the
question of whether children are fellow-citizens (Kiwan, 2005), a
question which involves conceptions not only of children and childhood but also of citizenship itself. This last term denotes the way in
which the relationship between the state and its citizens is de®ned
(Wong and Wong, 2004). In a human rights approach solely focused
on legal status, the emphasis is on the legal equality of citizens: every
citizen should be allowed to exercise his or her rights. In that view,
autonomy is a characteristic of and a condition for citizenship.
Citizens, including children, are expected to possess or acquire the
competence to stand up for their rights and, if necessary, claim them.
Social work as disciplinary action
The interpretation of the rights of the child as based on legal status
ultimately reduces social work to disciplinary action. It starts from a
banking concept of education (Freire, 1970), in which the social
worker is an expert who will teach children and parents how to
act. In this view, empowerment, which is one of the central concepts
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
Roose & De Bie: Children’s rights
39
in social work today (Margolin, 1997), is de®ned as an empowerment of the self, as an obligation for every citizen. `Taking control
of one’s life, or particular aspects of it, is not only seen as being intimately connected with the formation or reformation of the self as
empowered, it is increasingly becoming an ethical obligation of the
new citizenry’ (Baistow, 1994: 37).
Creating dichotomies
The emphasis on autonomy ignores the fact that people often do not
act autonomously and that it is a ®ction to believe that rights can
create this autonomy (Apostel, 1989). For instance, recognizing
the rights of the child to complain does not mean the child wants
to or is able to use this right. The formal right to complain might
not give satisfaction to a child’s wish to be taken seriously. In fact,
the belief in the ideal of autonomy on the one hand and the
problem-solving capacity of rights on the other creates a dichotomy
between citizens and non-citizens and between the rights of children
and those of adults.
A dichotomy between citizens and non-citizens
The concept of the autonomous individual sharpens the contrast
between the citizen and the non-citizen. Since children and adults
have rights, they are also expected to (learn to) claim these rights.
In this way, the emphasis on equality creates inequality, since it
imposes an equality standard by which everyone is to be assessed
(Masschelein and Simons, 2002). People who are seen as unable to
manage their lives properly ± for instance, clients of social work ±
are seen as non-citizens: with the entrance of the citizen, the client
seems to disappear (Pols, 2004).
A dichotomy between the rights of children and the rights of adults
A one sided emphasis on the legal status of the child also creates a
dichotomy between children’s rights and the rights of adults, for
instance those of parents. This emphasis leads social work to be
regarded as a type of legal protection of the child in which parents
only have rights in so far as they serve the child’s best interests
(Howe, 2001; Westman, 1999). The legal-status view of children’s
rights holds parents to be primarily responsible for the implementation of these rights. The recognition, enshrined in the CRC, that
parents have the primary responsibility for upbringing is ultimately
interpreted as the right of children to good parents who perform
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
40
International Social Work
volume 51(1)
their education tasks to the full (Willems, 2002). The legal-status
view enjoins parents to raise their children in the `correct’ way.
This correct way is currently viewed as a negotiated upbringing
(Beck, 1997; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006). The
family, and if necessary social work, is viewed as the training
ground where the child prepares for active and democratic citizenship (Tomanovic-Mihajlovic, 2000). Parents then become the managers of education and children small entrepreneurs of their own
lives (Van Nijnatten, 2000). As regards parents and state, this view
makes the parent one who has to be educated and taught to act in
the child’s best interests (Moqvist, 2003). Such a view was also formulated during the preliminary proceedings for the CRC, which
stressed the importance of the second sentence of article 18.1 of
the CRC: `Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have
the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of
the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.’
This could suggest that families are protected from unnecessary state
interference, but conversely: `It also indicates that parents or legal
guardians cannot expect the state to intervene because the upbringing and the development of the child is primarily their responsibility’
(Detrick, 1996: 100).
Sentimentalization and distrust of parents and social workers
Critics argue that when the rights of parents are seen in the function
of the rights of the child, parental authority is undermined (Purdy,
1994), since focusing on the individual rights of the child creates distrust towards adults, not just parents but other educators ± for
instance social workers ± as well (Pupavac, 1998, 2001). This distrust
has come about because the emphasis on the individual rights of the
child has arisen in a climate of sentimentalization and a growing
focus on the symbolic value of the child (King, 1997; Pupavac,
2001). This process is believed to be related to social changes, notably the development of a risk society in which `the child is the source
of the last remaining irrevocable unexchangeable primary relationship. Partners come and go. The child stays. Everything that is
desired, but not realisable in the relationship is directed to the
child’ (Beck, 1994: 118). This symbolic value of children may have
negative consequences for the parents and social workers as well
as for the children. Distrust is generated towards adults in `a misanthropic view of adulthood’ (Pupavac, 2001: 100) in which `the
very idea of parental authority has been compromised as abusive
in itself’ (Pupavac, 2001: 106). The de®nition of child abuse by the
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
Roose & De Bie: Children’s rights
41
World Health Organization is noteworthy in this respect: `All forms
of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or
negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation resulting
in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility,
trust, or power’, in other words, any form of injustice done to the
child. It is obvious that such a broad conception of abuse views all
children as actually or potentially in danger. Consequently, childraising or social work with children becomes a very hazardous
task. The sentimentalization of children can be harmful to children
as well, for instance by increasing the risk of child abuse when children fail to meet expectations of emotional proximity and comradeship (de Graaf, 1993). Pupavac (1999) suggests that parents tend to
abandon their educational commitments towards their children
rather than maximize them if they perceive the ideal (negotiated)
upbringing as unattainable.
Children’s rights as a lever for commitment
Rights as a starting point for dialogue
The CRC should not only be considered as a legal instrument focusing on individual rights but also as a general policy framework outlining obligations for the state and for social services with respect to
children and parents alike. From this social political point of view,
the focus shifts from the autonomy of the child towards discussion
about the commitment of society and of social work towards
children and families. In this context, the discussion is of a fundamental commitment to the realization of sustainable conditions in
society, so that all parents can raise their children and every child’s
adequate development can be ensured. With regard to the daily
practice of social work, this means that children’s rights are rights
that are to be shaped in a participative way, a process in which
parents and children themselves participate, not only in the implementation of their rights, but also in discussion on the meaning
and content of these rights. From this perspective, rights function
as a starting point for dialogue instead of an end to it. This conception of rights implies that children are accepted as co-actors in a
dialogue about their best interests. In social work, children may
have different perceptions of what is in their best interests from,
for instance, their parents and the social worker, but that does not
necessarily mean that the rights of the child are more important
then the rights of others or that the child has the most adequate
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
42
International Social Work
volume 51(1)
view. Rights as a starting point for dialogue implies that in every
context, children and parents should examine together, in dialogue,
whether their rights are given full play. Hence, as Ife and Fiske argue
(2006), human rights are a valid framework for social work as a form
of community work, where human rights can inspire the practice of
social work, but social work practice also inspires discussion on the
meaning of human rights.
Relational citizenship
A social political interpretation of the rights of the child implies a
different idea of citizenship from a normative one. The latter
assumes the existence of a standard for citizenship. Social work is
often involved with people who fail to meet this standard, for
instance realizing a negotiated upbringing. A human rights
approach should start from the concept of a `relational citizenship’
(Pols, 2004). Relational citizenship sees citizenship as to be developed in the relationship between people. `There is no autonomous
self to be de®ned as apart from others; the self is variable and inconsistent’ (Pols, 2004: 68). The idea is that people cannot be de®ned as
citizens or non-citizens, but rather that citizenship is actualized in
diverse activities and relationships. For instance, from a normative
concept of citizenship, social workers will act as experts who teach
parents how to raise their children. From a relational view of citizenship, social work will share the responsibility for the education of
children with parents and, through dialogue, social workers, parents
and children will come to an understanding of what a good upbringing might be. This orientation affects the position of the social
worker, who is not expected to deliver the solution to a problem,
but who intervenes in the life of the child and who is, because of
this intervention, obliged to enter into a dialogue with the child
and his parents.
Rights as a lever for commitment
In a social political interpretation of the rights of the child, social
work is not aimed at teaching children and parents the nature of
responsibility as an ideal norm. Instead, responsibility is construed
as a learning process that should constantly be renegotiated.
Responsibility relies on the awareness that one has to learn to deal
with situations in society where choices have to be made and
where these choices raise the issue of how individual and social
responsibility relate to each other (Heyting et al., 2002). The
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
Roose & De Bie: Children’s rights
43
approach to responsibility as a learning process and to social work
as platform for discussion about support for this process implies
that the practice of social work must always rely on a prior social
analysis. This analysis should seek to de®ne the problem and propose an approach to which everyone can relate and in which everyone feels accepted. This means that the social worker must enquire
over and over again about the nature of the problems encountered:
for instance, is it really a matter of bad parenting or a matter of
parenting in bad conditions, such as poverty? This ambition raises
the matter of the unequal positions of power held by people when
they introduce their view of the problem at hand. The designation
by social workers of a situation as problematic should also take
possible social causes into account. `This orientation would compel
practitioners to be actively involved in the larger social and political
issues that create and sustain the conditions that produce clients,
their problems and their social workers’ (Witkin, 1998: 198). From
this point of view, rights can serve as a lever for doing so.
Social work as an actor
Social workers as social policy administrators
The debate on children’s rights should focus not so much on the
rights which children do or do not have as on the question of how
the rights of children, just like the rights of any person, can be
realized. A central question in this respect is what type of support
parents and children can rely on. Fox Harding (1991) distinguishes
four approaches to the relationship between parents, children and
the state: a patriarchal approach, emphasizing the autonomy of
the family; a child protection approach, in which state paternalism
is deemed important for the protection of the child; an approach
focusing on the family and the right of parents to be supported;
and a child liberation approach, which stresses the autonomy of children with respect to both family and state. Each of these approaches
implies a different role for the support provided to children and
parents which in practice therefore can be `too early, too late, too
much, or too little’ (Goldstein et al., 1980: 133). In the legal-status
interpretation of the CRC, the tension between these different
approaches is considered an element that needs to be resolved: interventions should happen at the correct time and with the correct
intensity. This interpretation reduces social workers to socialpolicy administrators and social work to a predictable technical
practice rather than an unpredictable event (Dahlberg and Moss,
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
44
International Social Work
volume 51(1)
2005), the application of the correct techniques in order to obtain the
correct effects.
Social workers as agents
The idea of social workers as administrators clashes with the
empirical ®nding that social work practice helps to shape policy
(Braye and Preston-Shoot, 2006; Evans and Harris, 2004; Lipsky,
1980; Watson, 2003). Acceptance of this fact means that the tension
between different views of the relationship between the state, parents
and children is not viewed as an element to be resolved, but rather as
a tension within which action is to take place. Neither a positive nor
a negative answer is given to the question of whether it is the rights
of children or the rights of parents which should be given precedence, since every absolute proposition is inadequate. The starting
point is a multiformity of values and norms, of ideas about children
and parents, education and support. A social political interpretation
does not aim to cover up this multiformity. On the contrary, it aims
to acknowledge it. This approach recognizes social work as essential(ly) social action, an unpredictable occupation (Parton, 2000)
in which action involves mutual action. In other words, it is oriented
towards others’ actions. This means that we can behave adequately
in any situation only in relation to how the other behaves, since the
others cannot be reduced to dead matter which can be dealt with
arbitrarily (Giesecke, 2003). Interpreted in this way, the CRC can
offer a re¯ective framework for questioning this adequacy.
Conclusion
In this article, we have argued that the rights of the child as a framework for social work is not necessarily a positive evolution for
children, parents and social workers. Rights are not static entities,
but can be interpreted in different ways (Ife, 2001). In the discussion
about children’s rights and social work, one can stress the point that
children have rights and that these rights must be respected. However, we have argued, this claim could have possibly negative effects
on children, parents and social workers themselves. To avoid these
negative consequences, the CRC should be seen as a lever for discussion of the unequal contexts in which parents and other educators
have to raise children. This discussion questions the notions of the
parent as an autonomous being, of the child as a being who has to
be raised towards autonomy and of the social worker as one who
has to control these processes. It focuses on social work as a
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
Roose & De Bie: Children’s rights
45
platform for dialogue between the rights of parents and the rights of
children as human rights.
References
Apostel, L. (1989) `Children’s Rights and Needs. Human Rights and Needs. Open
Problems and Personal Convictions’, in E. Verhellen and F. Spiesschaert (eds)
Ombudswork for Children. A Way of Improving the Position of Children in Society,
pp. 47±85. Leuven: Acco.
Baistow, K. (1994) `Liberation and Regulation? Some Paradoxes of Empowerment’,
Critical Social Policy 42(3): 34±46.
Beck, U. (1994) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Beck, U. (1997) `Democratisation of the Family’, Childhood 4(2): 151±68.
Braye, S. and M. Preston-Shoot (2006) `The Role of Law in Welfare Reform: Critical
Perspectives on the Relationship between Law and Social Work Practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare 15: 19±26.
Dahlberg, G. and P. Moss (2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
de Graaf, W. (1993) `Gevleugeld of beteugeld ouderschap?’, in C. van Nijnatten (ed.)
Kinderrechten in discussie, pp. 143±61. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.
Detrick, S. (1996) “`Family Rights” Under the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child’, in N. Lowe and G. Douglas (eds) Families across Frontiers,
pp. 95±114. The Hague, Boston, MA and London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Evans, T. and J. Harris (2004) `Street-level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the
(Exaggerated) Death of Discretion’, British Journal of Social Work 34(6): 871±95.
Fox Harding, L. (1991) Perspectives in Child Care Policy. London and New York:
Longman.
Freire, P. (1970) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Giesecke, H. (2003) PaÈ dagogik als Beruf. Grundformen paÈ dagogischen Handelns.
Munich: Juventa.
Goldstein, J., A. Freud and A.J. Solnit (1980) Beyond the Best Interests of the Child.
London: Burnet Books.
Heyting, F., B. Kruithof and E. Mulder (2002) `Education and Social Integration: on
Basic Consensus and the Cohesion of Society’, Educational Theory 52(4): 381±96.
Howe, R.B. (2001) `Do Parents Have Fundamental Rights?’, Journal of Canadian
Studies 36(3): 61±78.
Ife, J. (2001) Human Rights and Social Work. Towards Rights-Based Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ife, J. and L. Fiske (2006) `Human Rights and Community Work. Complementary
Theories and Practices’, International Social Work 49(3): 297±308.
King, M. (1997) A Better World for Children. Explorations in Morality and Authority.
London and New York: Routledge.
Kiwan, D. (2005) `Human Rights and Citizenship: An Unjusti®able Con¯ation?’,
Journal of Philosophy of Education 39(1): 37±50.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Margolin, L. (1997) Under the Cover of Kindness. The Invention of Social Work.
Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
46
International Social Work
volume 51(1)
Masschelein, J. and M. Simons (2002) `An Adequate Education in a Globalised
World? A Note on Immunisation Against Being-Together’, Journal of Philosophy
of Education 36(4): 589±608.
Moqvist, I. (2003) `Constructing a Parent’, in M. Bloch, T. Holmlund, I. Moqvist and
T.S. Popkewitz (eds) Governing Children, Families and Education. Restructuring the
Welfare State, pp. 117±32. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Parton, N. (2000) `Some Thoughts on the Relationship between Theory and Practice
in and for Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work 30(4): 449±63.
Pols, J. (2004) Good Care. Enacting a Complex Ideal in Long-term Psychiatry. Utrecht:
Trimbos-instituut.
Pupavac, V. (1998) `The Infantilisation of the South and the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child’, Human Rights Law Review 3(2): 3±8.
Pupavac, V. (1999) `Children’s Rights and the Infantilisation of Citizenship’, paper
presented at Political Studies Association Annual Conference, University of
Nottingham.
Pupavac, V. (2001) `Misanthrophy Without Borders: The International Children’s
Rights Regime’, Disasters 25(2): 95±112.
Purdy, L.M. (1994) `Why Children Shouldn’t Have Equal Rights’, International
Journal of Children’s Rights 2(3): 223±41.
Skegg, A.M. (2005) `Human Rights and Social Work. A Western Imposition or
Empowerment to the People?’, International Social Work 48(5): 667±72.
Tomanovic-Mihajlovic, S. (2000) `Young People’s Participation within the Family:
Parents’ Accounts’, International Journal of Children’s Rights 8(2): 151±67.
Vandenbroeck, M. and M. Bouverne-De Bie (2006) `Children’s Agency and Educational Norms ± A Tensed Negotiation’, Childhood 13(1): 127±43.
Van Nijnatten, C. (2000) `Authority Relations in Families and Child Welfare in the
Netherlands and England: New Styles of Governance’, International Journal of
Law, Policy and the Family 14: 107±30.
Watson, D. (2003) `De®ning Quality Care for Looked After Children: Frontline
Workers’ Perspectives on Standards and All That’, Child and Family Social Work
8(1): 67±77.
Westman, J.C. (1999) `Children’s Rights, Parents’ Prerogatives, and Society’s Obligations’, Child Psychiatry and Human Development 29(4): 315±28.
Willems, J.C.M., ed. (2002) Developmental and Autonomy Rights of Children: Empowering Children, Caregivers and Communities. Antwerp, Oxford and New York:
Intersentia.
Witkin, S.L. (1998) `Human Rights and Social Work’, Social Work 43(3): 197±201.
Wong, C.K. and K.Y. Wong (2004) `Universal Ideals and Particular Constraints of
Social Citizenship: the Chinese Experience of Unifying Rights and Responsibilities’, International Journal of Social Welfare 13(2): 103±11.
Rudi Roose
is senior researcher at Ghent University, Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences, Department of Social Welfare Studies, H. Dunantlaan 2,
9000 Ghent, Belgium. [email: rudi.roose@ugent.be]
Maria De Bie
is professor at Ghent University, Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences, Department of Social Welfare Studies, at the same address.
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Bibliotheek fac Psych en on March 21, 2016
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 490e499
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children
and parents from low-income families
Nicholas L. Holt*, Bethan C. Kingsley, Lisa N. Tink, Jay Scherer
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H9, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 14 June 2010
Received in revised form
23 March 2011
Accepted 17 May 2011
Available online 2 June 2011
Objectives: The first purpose of this study was to examine low-income parents’ and their children’s
perceptions of the benefits associated with participation in youth sport. The second purpose was to examine
parents’ perceptions of the challenges associated with providing their children sporting opportunities.
Design: Interpretive Description qualitative approach (Thorne, 2008).
Methods: Thirty-five individual interviews were conducted with parents and children from 17 lowincome families. Data were transcribed and subjected to interpretive description analytic techniques.
Results: Analysis produced three main findings: (1) Parents and children reported that sport participation
was associated with a range of personal and social developmental benefits; (2) Parents reported that
several remainin