Suchergebnisse

Democratic theorists increasingly stress that democratic legitimacy rests primarily on authentic deliberation. Critics of deliberative democracy believe that this hope is unrealistic—that deliberation either will prove intractable across political differences or will exacerbate instability. This paper deploys some tools of political psychology, notably Q methodology and values analysis, to investigate the conditions under which effective deliberation is likely to occur. These tools are applied to contemporary political debates in Australia, concerned with how the Australian polity should be constituted in light of a reform agenda underpinned by a discourse we term "Inclusive Republicanism." An investigation of the character of the basic value commitments associated with discursive positions in these debates shows that some differences will yield to deliberation, but others will not. When two discourses subscribe to different value bases, deliberation will induce reflection and facilitate positive‐sum outcomes. When a discourse has a value base but finds its specific goals opposed by a competitor that otherwise has no value base of its own, deliberation will be ineffective. When one discourse subscribes to a value base that another questions, but without providing an alternative, deliberation can help to bridge idealism and cynicism.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Contributing Authors -- Preface -- 1 Introduction: Restorative and Responsive Human Services -- 2 Broadening the Applications of Responsive Regulation -- 3 Families and Schools That Are Restorative and Responsive -- 4 Burning Cars, Burning Hearts and the Essence of Responsiveness -- 5 Familiness and Responsiveness of Human Services: The Approach of Relational Sociology -- 6 Families and Farmworkers: Social Justice in Responsive and Restorative Practices -- 7 Children's Hopes and Converging Family and State Networks of Regulation -- 8 Black Mothers, Prison, and Foster Care: Rethinking Restorative Justice -- 9 Responding Restoratively to Student Misconduct and Professional Regulation: The Case of Dalhousie Dentistry -- 10 Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation in Higher Education: The Complex Web of Campus Sexual Assault Policy in the United States and a Restorative Alternative -- 11 Responsive Alternatives to the Criminal Legal System in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence -- 12 Responsive and Inclusive Health Governance Through the Lens of Recovery Capital: A Case Study Based on Gambling Treatment -- 13 Why Do We Exclude the Community in "Community Safety"? -- 14 Learning from the Human Services: How to Build Better Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation -- Index.

History of nursing home regulation -- US nursing home regulation -- The disciplinary society and its enemies -- American regulatory strategies -- English nursing home regulation -- Australian nursing home regulation -- Dimensions of ritualism -- Market ritualism -- Transcending ritualism -- The new pyramid

Abstract
Community workers provide critical support services to parents and families with children who may be placed in out-of-home care by child protection authorities. Drawing on in-depth interviews with fifteen community workers, who represent nine agencies assisting families with child protection issues in a small jurisdiction in Australia, we show how the stigma attached to 'bad' parents is passed on to the community workers who are supporting them. The 'stigma by association' directed at community workers by child protection authorities means they are stereotyped negatively, undermined professionally and socially excluded. In spite of such stigmatic treatment, community workers remained committed to their professional role. Although workers were frustrated and disappointed in the treatment they received, there was no open acknowledgment of stigma-induced poor mental health. The results are interpreted within a broader social context where child protection authorities are being constantly reviewed and criticized in Australia. The support that community workers give to each other as frontline defenders of families against a powerful and publicly criticized government authority may allow community workers to construe themselves as heroes rather than villains in this highly adversarial environment. The costs play out at the institutional level, however, because reduced trust limits opportunities for genuine collaboration between government and community organizations.

A qualitative study explored the private realities of forty-five Australian Indigenous parents and carers who had experiences with child protection authorities. Interviews focused on the nature of the relationship between parents and authorities, how these regulatory encounters served to enlist or dissolve cooperation, and how child-focused outcomes could be delivered. The descriptions of encounters with authorities challenged the public hope for reconciliation between government and Indigenous Australians through reports of procedural injustice, failure by the authority to communicate and demonstrate soundness of purpose, and through lack of interest in identity affirmation and relationship building. In spite of these perceptions of integrity failings in how child protection authorities have operated, a positive role was acknowledged for authorities' future involvement, albeit with different strategies from those currently experienced. How this progression might be facilitated by principles of restorative justice and responsive regulation is discussed.

�Child protection systems are expected to scrutinise the care offered to children and to coordinate the provision of improved quality of care. They are under stress in many developed countries with burgeoning case loads and a mixture of positive and negative outcomes. Because child protection systems seek to change the course of parenting, they can be thought of as highly formalised regulatory systems that cut across one of our most entrenched informal systems how parents raise children. This paper asks whether the stress experienced by child protection workers, support agencies and families alike is associated in part with failures to satisfactorily address three basic regulatory principles: identifying the purposes of the intervention; justifying the intervention in a way that is respectful of broader principles of democratic governance; and understanding how the informal regulatory system intersects with the formal child protection system. Child protection interventions are plagued by multiple purposes that are not necessarily compatible; non-transparent processes; and a high risk of counter-productive outcomes

A qualitative study explored the private realities of forty-five Australian Indigenous parents and carers who had experiences with child protection authorities. Interviews focused on the nature of the relationship between parents and authorities, how these regulatory encounters served to enlist or dissolve cooperation, and how child-focused outcomes could be delivered. The descriptions of encounters with authorities challenged the public hope for reconciliation between government and Indigenous Australians through reports of procedural injustice, failure by the authority to communicate and demonstrate soundness of purpose, and through lack of interest in identity affirmation and relationship building. In spite of these perceptions of integrity failings in how child protection authorities have operated, a positive role was acknowledged for authorities' future involvement, albeit with different strategies from those currently experienced. How this progression might be facilitated by principles of restorative justice and responsive regulation is discussed.