Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:49:55.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: Families, Social Work and the Welfare State: Where Contemporary ‘Family’ Meets Policy and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2018

Julie Walsh
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]
Will Mason
Affiliation:
Sheffield Methods Institute, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]

Extract

This themed section brings together the disciplines of sociology, social work and social policy in order to examine the ways in which contemporary familial diversity is recognised in comparative welfare state regimes. Contributors interrogate the ways in which such diversity is supported in national legislation, policy developments and acknowledged in everyday social work practice. In doing so, the section examines if and how these demographic trends and sociological conceptualisations are reflected in comparative welfare state systems and/or policy related to family. Selected articles will also consider if and how social workers, as ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1980), incorporate these changes in familial structures, and related policy, into their decision making processes and everyday practice.

Type
Themed Section on Families, Social Work and the Welfare State: Where Contemporary ‘Family’ Meets Policy and Practice
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bambra, C. (2007) ‘Defamilialisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 326–38.Google Scholar
Cheal, D. (2008) Families in Today's World, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunér, A. and Nordström, M. (2006) ‘The discretion and power of street-level bureaucrats’, European Journal of Social Work, 9, 4, 425–44.Google Scholar
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hantrias, L. (2004) Family Policy Matter: Responding to Family Change in Europe, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Kapella, O., Rille-Pfeiffer, C., Rupp, M. and Schneider, N. F. (eds.) (2010) Family Diversity, Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuronen, M. (2010) Research on Family and Family Policies in Europe: State of the Art, Jyvaskyla: Family Research Centre: Jyvaskyla University.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
McCartan, C., Bunting, L., Bywaters, P., Davidson, G., Elliott, M. and Hooper, J. (2018) ‘A four-nation comparison of kinship care in the UK: the relationship between formal kinship care and deprivation’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000179.Google Scholar
Nygren, K., Naujanienė, R. and Nygren, L. (2018) ‘The notion of family in Lithuanian and Swedish social legislation’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000192.Google Scholar
Nygren, L., White, S. and Ellingsen, I. T. (2018) ‘Investigating welfare regime typologies: paradoxes, pitfalls and potentialities in comparative social work research’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000167.Google Scholar
Studsrød, I., Ellingsen, I. T., Muñoz Guzmán, C. and Mancinas Espinoza, S. E. (2018) ‘Conceptualisations of family and social work family practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000234.Google Scholar
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/ [accessed 06.06.2018].Google Scholar
Walsh, J. and Mason, W. (2018) ‘Walking the walk: changing familial forms, government policy and everyday social work practice in England’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746418000209.Google Scholar