Associate Professor Robyn Munford
School of Social Policy and Social Work,
Massey University
This research programme from which this paper is derived is funded by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology in New Zealand.
The objective of this paper is to document a piece of exploratory research in which the authors are currently engaged. Initially we will contextualise the research by outlining how we became involved in it. We will then consider some of the issues around definitions of family well-being and then move on to explore the current focus of our work and some of the methodological and conceptual challenges this research has raised for us as we develop an approach to understanding family well-being and the factors which influence this.
Our ongoing research programme has focussed upon the identification of the way in which different families and individuals within families experience well-being. This work has focused upon identifying the factors which make it easier or more difficult for families to achieve a state which they would identify as well-being. Our backgrounds in agency management, research and work in the family and disability fields has meant that issues around how and why families are able to function well, or to struggle has been an ongoing interest of ours. In particular our research between 1994 and 1998 has focused upon identifying the factors which influence the ability of families seeking social service agency support to make positive changes in the nature of their family life.
During this research we became aware that many parents who seek agency support (Munford et.al, 1996a and b, 1998, Munford and Sanders, 1999) are often very competent parents and are highly committed to meeting the needs of their children. What often made the difference between doing well or struggling for them were external or structural factors. Parents were unavailable rather than unable to parent. For instance, the challenges created by poor housing or lack of food made a big difference to the level of confidence and feeling of control parents expressed, this in turn fed directly into the way they were able to approach the tasks of parenting.
When agency support focused upon these barriers it was usually effective in achieving significant improvements in the quality of family life. When it focused upon parenting techniques or similar factors in isolation from the wider context, it was less likely to be effective (Munford et.al, 1996a, 1998, Munford and Sanders, 1999). These observations led us to develop an interest in understanding the way in which contextual (both internal to families but also external) factors influenced family well-being. We also began to develop an interest in looking at both those parents who were doing well, as well as those who might be struggling at any point in time. We found a lot of support for this sort of approach from the work of Scott and O’Neil (1996) and the approach to social work taken by St Lukes here in Victoria, where the issues around only assessing families when they are in crisis, and the need to identify the circumstances that surround the times when families are functioning well are raised.
The point made by Scott and O’Neill (1996) being that most of our knowledge about what happens in families is derived from studying and working with families when things are not going well. We therefore have little knowledge about the ways in which families manage when things are good. Thus our policies and programmes tend to emphasise the negative at the expense of the positive. We felt that this perspective which is used in client settings had something valuable to offer family research. As a result, the development of our new research programme has focused very much upon identifying ways in which we could build a research programme from within the strengths-based model.
Anyone working in the family research field will be aware of the large literature which seeks to develop workable and meaningful definitions of family well-being (see for instance, Dunst, 1988 and 1990; Ingils and Rogan, 1994; Davey, 1998; Ringen, 1997; Royal Commission on Social Policy, 1987).
Much of the literature on the definition and measurement of well-being derive from psychological and economic literature and focuses upon developing scales or indicators which can identify both the presence or absence of well-being as well as identifying different degrees of well-being. This work is valuable in identifying the important areas within and outside families which link into doing well or struggling as a family and also the ways in which families might vary across these areas.
The debates have focused upon identifying ways of accommodating things such as divergent definitions that may be held by different family members, balancing these views against external or "objective" measures of what a "healthy family" might look like. Some work has also been done around separating out the various types of factors that influence well-being, such as the differential impact of internal and external factors (for example structural issues versus internal family issues). This work has also attempted to separate out a workable definition of well-being from those things that influence the state of well-being itself. These debates will be familiar to those working in this field.
In our previous research (Munford et. al., 1996a, 1997) we have used scales to try to build a picture of well-being within families in order to understand the way that well-being changed after a period of agency support. None of these seemed to be able to capture adequately either the dimensions of well-being upon which different families placed differing values, nor could they produce an accurate picture of the family’s own view of itself and the way that this might change over time.
Having spent 4 years following families who sought agency support and building a strong picture of the things that influenced their ability to achieve positive changes, we came to the view that there was merit in exploring the contribution which an interpretive and qualitative approach could make to an exploration of the factors which enhance or limit the ability of families to experience well-being. The qualitative methods we used to track a small group of families over 18 months seemed to offer some possibilities for exploring family well-being in a community rather than agency context. This has also included an extensive exploration of the current literature in order to identify broader interpretations of well-being- (National Health Committee, 1998; Ministry of Maori Development, 1998; Ministy of Health, 1998; McMurray, 1997; Bruce et.al., 1995; Funder, 1991; Kammerman, 1984) as well as a consideration of the current social policy documents and demographic data concerning families in New Zealand.
This approach will operate out of several different research sites - in families own environments and also in community settings. It will also explore the factors which influence well-being from the perspective of a number of different groups of research participants: children and parents as well as organisations that work with children, parents and families.
So for instance, we will be able to identify the manner and extent to which structural matters get in the way of families functioning well; and the extent to which the mediation of these structural issues actually makes a difference to functioning. We will also look at issues around family relationships and patterns of interacting and highlight the way in which these might support or work against family strength and then identify the way in which changes to these might alter that.
Accordingly, we developed a multi-stage, multi-site and multi-participant protocol which we are now in the early stages of pilot testing. Because it is founded in action methods, this pilot study will form an integral part of the full research programme. The connections made with families and local community organisations will form the base from which the full research programme will grow and develop. Our intention is that this will form the base from which a longitudinal research programme which can incorporate a diversity of methodologies and approaches can be developed.
Gilgun (1992) highlights the importance of using qualitative methods to explore the subjective realm of family life. These methods are particularly suited to exploring the creation and maintenance of meanings and the individual’s understandings of the symbolic realm. Our research, concerned as it is with well-being is intimately connected to this realm — the meanings attached to the experience of well-being and the meanings which different individuals attach to the concept of well-being itself, therefore can benefit from the application of qualitative techniques of investigation.
In planning this research we have been mindful of some of the key challenges that confront qualitative researchers when they enter the world of families. One such challenge is the need to establish and maintain the role of the researcher. This includes clarifying the motivation behind the research for potential participants, identifying the best way to enter the field — being clear about the extent of participation and the limits to this, and being clear about the ways in which information is to be collected
This research involves:
1. exploring the ordinary - children's experiences of family. This will be an in-depth study of the views and family experiences of children aged between 7 and 10 years. It will be based in and around the primary school curriculum and involve the use of exercises and activities such as drawing and acting as well as group and individual discussions. The objective is to build a picture of the things that make a difference to children in terms of the quality of their lives and the roles that families play in that. We have termed it exploring the ordinary because our early experience indicates that for many children family is part of their "taken for granted" reality. From their perspective then, why research it?
2. Charting a path to the future - parents hopes, dreams and challenges. This will involve focus groups and individual interviews with a range of parents who are differently situated in terms of demographic factors such as socio-economic status and ethnicity to explore how they interpret what a strong family looks and feels like and the things that make it easier or more difficult to create such a family. This is closely connected to findings from our previous research, namely the concept of unavailable to parent. Where we identified that it was often the situational or contextual matters which influenced the degree to which parents were able to parent well at any given time, rather than simply their skills or knowledge. This will also take into account broad interpretations of the family, such as Maori whanau and their role in the protection, nurturing and the provision of support and resources to all whanau members.
3. The retreating tide - primary schools as providers of social services as well as education. This is an intensive community development research project in and around one of the schools in one of the mixed neighbourhoods in our city. It will include both focus group work and action methods with the board of trustees and associated organisations. It will explore the connections between family, school and community in terms of the healthy and successful development of children. In particular, it will focus upon exploring the changing role of primary schools in an environment where the availability of social services is reducing and where families are simultaneously finding it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of themselves and their children. This links to the current movement in NZ to locate support services such as social work within school environments.
4. Community is a word which can justify a multitude of sins. In NZ "Community" has been used to imply self-sufficiency and absence of need for external support. Terms such as community and social capital have been used to justify current social and economic policies that expect communities and families to provide for their own. This part of the research will work alongside the previous parts and focus upon the development of community profiles to understand the "social geography" of the locality and to identify the existence and role of naturally occurring support systems. This will include the mapping of both formal and informal networks, organisations and groupings.
The research will use action methods to explore the issues for families and their care of their children in this community and to identify and develop a range of solution-focused responses to some of the issues raised.
REFERENCES
Bruce, J. Lloyd, C. and Leonard, A. with P. Engle and N. Duffy (1995) Families in Focus : new perspectives on mothers, fathers, and children. New York. Population Council.
Davey, J. (1998) Tracking Social Change in New Zealand: From birth to death IV. Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Dunst, C. J. Trivette, C.M. and Deal, A.G. (1988) Enabling and Empowering Families. Cambridge MA, Brookline Books.
Dunst, C. (1990) Family Support Principles: Checklist for program builders and practitioners: family systems intervention monograph, 2, No.5 . Morganton, N.C.:Family Infant and Preschool Program, Western Carolina Center.
Funder, K. (ed) (1991) Images of Australian Families. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Melbourne.
Gilgun, J. F., K. Daly, and G. Handel (1992) Qualitative Methods in Family Research. Newbury Park, Sage.
Gledhill, M. (1994) Community Support Services for Families: From Prevention to Promotion of Family Strengths. J. Inglis and L. Rogan (eds) Flexible Families: New Directions in Australian Communities. Australia. Pluto Press
Inglis, J. and Rogan, L.(eds) (1994) Flexible Families: New Directions in Australian Communities. Pluto Press, Sydney.
Kamerman, S. (1984) "Women, Children and Poverty: public policies and female-headed families in industrialised countries". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 10:249-271.
McMurray, S. (1997) The Speaking Out Project: Occasional Paper #4. Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Canada.
Ministry of Health, 1998 Whaia Te Whanaungatanga: Oranga Whanau. The Well-being of Whanau. The Public Health Issues. Ministry of Health. Wellington.
Ministry of Maori Development (1998) Progress Towards Closing Social and Economic Gaps Between Maori and Non-Maori. A Report to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Wellington.
Munford, R., Sanders, Tisdall, M. Mulder, J. Spoonley, P. and Jack. (1996a) Working Successfully with Families: Stage 1. Wellington. Barnardos NZ.
Munford, R., Sanders, Tisdall, M. Mulder, J. Spoonley, P. and Jack. (1996b) "Factors Associated with the Achievement of Positive Change in Families- Some Preliminary Findings." Social Work Review, 8(2):29-34
Munford, R. Sanders, J. Tisdall, M. Henare, A. and Spoonley, P. (1997) Families in Context: "Parental Discipline Strategies with Children" Childrenz Issues 1(2)25-28..
Munford, R. Sanders, J. Tisdall, M. Henare, A. Livingston, K. and Spoonley, P. (1998) Working Successfully with Families: Stage 2. Wellington. Barnardos NZ.
Munford R. and J. Sanders (1999) Supporting Families. Dunmore Press, Palmerston North. (forthcoming).
National Health Committee (1998) The Social, Cultural and Economic Determinants of Health in New Zealand: Action to Improve Health. A Report from the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, Wellington, New Zealand.
Ringen, S. (1997). Citizens, Families and Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Scott, D. and O’Neil, D. (1996) Beyond Child Rescue: Developing Family-Centred Practice at St Luke’s. Sydney. Allen and Unwin.