1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The research described here had two main objectives: [d]escribe the dominant research practices—more specifically, the theoretical and methodological foundations of knowledge production—in the field of neglect; and [c]haracterize both the discrepancy between the knowledge produced by traditional research and the actual experience of parents, and the consequences of this discrepancy.» (p. 413)

Questions/Hypothèses :
This article aims «to answer the following questions: How has the family’s point of view come to be excluded from research practice? What are the consequences of this exclusion? Given the limitations of the dominant research paradigm, why does it continue to be dominant?» (p. 413)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
The study is based on a corpus of 11 articles «that were published between 2005 and 2015, and whose titles and abstract referred to neglect, family-oriented programs, or parents or children in a situation of neglect or maltreatment. […] The tools used in each article were then categorized in terms of the constructs they were designed to measure. [Authors] then compared these constructs to the effects reported by mothers participating in a distinct neglect-intervention program for parents and children implemented in Québec (Canada). To evaluate the implementation and effects of this program, 29 mothers (mean age=28 years) were individually interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013.» (p. 416)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«Analysis of the articles confirms the marked under-representation of families’ point of view in the knowledge produced about them. This exclusion is due to: [r]esearchers basing their work on theories that individualize the causes of neglect (i.e. that consider parents the primary source of the problem); and [s]tudy designs not allowing for open discussions with families about their experience.» (p. 417) «In summary, although there is some overlap between the effects targeted by the evaluative research instruments and the effects reported by the mothers, the descriptions from the two perspectives are different. For example, the primary factors measured by the instruments evaluating social support were the number of persons in the participant’s entourage, the type of support received, and whether participants were satisfied with the support. In contrast, parents talked about social support in terms that were much more evocative—emphasizing, for example, the value of mutual discussions between parents in similar situations—and that allow for a deeper understanding of the impact of support in their day-to-day lives. [Moreover, it] should be noted that mothers considered the changes they planned to make in their relationships to their environment to be the most important, whereas the focus of the quantitative instruments was on the mothers’ behaviours. There is thus a difference in the changes each paradigm considers necessary for improvement of the family’s situation.» (p. 424)