1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The current article attempts to understand the interactive and collective nature of the decision-making process in permanency planning, and how the actors involved in this process must deal with various underlying elements, specifically three institutional logics (clinical, legal, and managerial) with differing goals and differing operational frameworks.» (p. 2)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
This study was conducted «from May 2018 through July 2019 at two units responsible for the protection of children ages 0 to 5 at the CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, a university-affiliated, public-sector health and social services center in Montreal. [The authors] observed 15 advisory-committee meetings over nine months, recording all their discussions and transcribing them verbatim. [They] also conducted in-person interviews with 16 individuals whom [they] had identified as key actors at these meetings, including the case reviewer; the clinical assistant; the child-protection caseworkers; the resource persons for adoption, fostering, and evaluation of alternative living environments; and the consulting psychologist.» (p. 4)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien non directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«The results of [this] study show that despite the importance of individual actors, permanency planning—the process of deciding whether and where to place children outside of their families of origin permanently—is carried out in a space midway between the actors and the structure. The structure can be understood as the playing field for “interacting, strategically acting and negotiating agents” (Lash, 2002, p. 39). This playing field, or context for action, is composed of organizational routines that organize the actors’ day-to-day activities. These routines play a fundamental role because they enable the decision-making process by making it apprehensible for the actors involved. But these routines also depend on the various actors, and more especially on the interactions among them, because these interactions propagate these routines and make them flexible enough to adapt to the unique features of each situation. These findings suggest the importance of regarding every child-protection decision not merely as the sum of the judgments made and actions taken by individuals, but rather as the application of an interactive, collaborative process.» (p. 9)