1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The purpose of this study [is] to explore the role of socio-ecological community factors in family well-being as narrated by Inuit families of Nunavik, Quebec.» (p. 137)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«Family connectedness, and sharing between families being central to wellness, we wonder how current community life, with its ups and downs, influences family well-being?» (p. 123)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’échantillon est composé de 14 participantes (13 femmes et 1 homme) provenant de la communauté du Nunavik, dans la région du Nord-du-Québec.

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«Two main mechanisms by which socio-environmental factors influence family emerged from participants’ narratives […]. The first mechanism is perhaps more distal, but nonetheless omnipresent and pervasive. It includes all indirect exposures to community difficulties. The second is more proximal, including actively supporting community members. Regarding more distal mechanisms, people spoke of how everyday life and family interactions were influenced by the presence of community stressors. For example, parents may feel worried and frustrated at having children playing in an environment where they are exposed to alcohol misuse and violence. Exposure to such persistent daily stressors is a strong predictor of negative psychological outcomes […].» (p. 137-138) «Another related example of this more distal mechanism was peer bullying. Parents felt that bullying within the community was due in part to hunger, poverty, exposure to violence, and children being placed in foster homes. Bullying was a constant threat to families and led parents to distance their children from other children and from school.» (p. 138) Regarding proximal mechanisms, «there exist various forms of formal and informal support in the community that are used in different ways. Support of grandparents, spirituality, going on the land, and friends were all described as positive and beneficial and were never described negatively.» (p. 139)