Suchergebnisse

Introduction In Norway, legal measures securing equal marriage and parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples took effect on January 1, 2009. The aim of this study was to assess Norwegian public beliefs about lesbian and gay family rights in the period of 2008–2017. Methods Three nationwide surveys representing the adult Norwegian population were conducted with a time series design (data collected in 2008, 2013, and 2017, n = 1246, 1250, and 1250, respectively) utilizing Web-based questionnaires. Results Over the 9-year period, there was a decline in negative beliefs about lesbian and gay parenting and marriage rights and gradually less concern about children growing up with same-sex parents, more so for men than for women. Beliefs about equal parenting rights remained more negative than beliefs about equal marriage rights. At all points in time, concern for children's welfare was the strongest predictor of beliefs about equal parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples, and for all points in time, being older contributed to the explained variance. Conclusions We discuss how the findings may relate to policy developments concerning LGBTI rights in Norway. LGBTI rights have gained increasingly significant symbolic value in the public domain, and we suggest that it is productive to reflect on findings in relation to new landscapes of political and public discourse in Norway and Europe. Social Policy Implications The results reveal contemporary supportive public opinion regarding LGBTI family rights, which currently gives lawmakers a foundation for further institutionalizing LGBTI rights in domains such as in schools at every level and in institutions offering family support and counseling. However, there is also a need for political awareness of emerging discourses linking questions on same-sex family rights to broader divisive sociopolitical processes. ; publishedVersion

ABSTRACTPlacing children in out‐of‐home care constitutes one of the strongest public interventions in families. This paper explores how Norwegian Child Welfare Service (CWS) workers present their reasons as well as their work processes in the course of deciding to place children in out‐of‐home care. The analysis is based on interviews with 83 social workers and concerns 109 children recently removed from their homes. Three central elements were identified in the social workers' accounts: (1) a description of worrying conditions in the family; (2) the workers' long‐term back‐and‐forth process, which revolved around experiences from the case, particularly around interactions with the parents; and (3) a triggering factor that made the out‐of‐home placement take place when it did. These elements underline the need to include both substance (conditions related to the child and his/her family) and procedure (conditions related to the work on the case) to understand what leads CWS to removing children. Both types of conditions put the parents, rather than the children, in the centre of the workers' attention, which may be explained by the position and role of the CWS workers as street‐level bureaucrats. The findings emphasize the importance of acknowledging the contradictory position of CWS workers.

Since the 1960s, deinstitutionalisation has been salient in mental health reforms across the West. In Norway, this culminated in the National Action Plan for Mental Health (1999-2008), where meeting places in community mental health care were deemed a prioritised strategy to counter social isolation among people in psychosocial hardships. However, during the same period in England, meeting places were beginning to be contested for contributing to social exclusion. This is an inquiry of meeting places in Norway guided by the following research question: How do service users discuss their encounters with the spaces and people of meeting places? Situated in community psychology and participatory research traditions, we engaged in a participatory discourse analysis of four focus group discussions with 22 service users from meeting places. We detail and discuss four central discursive constructions of meeting places against the backdrop of a civil society identified as fraught with sanism that stigmatises and excludes service users: a compensatory public welfare arrangement positioning service users as citizens with social rights; a peer community positioning service users as peers who share common identities and interests; spaces of compassion validating service users as fellow human beings who are precious in their own right; and greenhouses facilitating service users to expand their horizons of possibility. This inquiry implies that meeting places could mean everything to the people who attend them by facilitating opportunities considered less accessible elsewhere in their everyday lives in a sanist civil society. ; publishedVersion

In previous research, meeting places have been favourably addressed by service users, but they have also been contested as exclusionary. In this participatory explorative study, we sought to perform a contextual analysis of meeting places in Norway based on a discourse analysis of three focus group discussions with 15 staff members. We asked the following question: how do meeting-place employees discuss their concrete and abstract encounters with service users and their experiences? We focused on service user involvement, which was largely analysed as neoliberal consultation and responsibilisation. Service users were positioned as resisting responsibility trickling down and defending staffed meeting places. Social democratic discourse was identified in the gaps of neoliberal discourse, which is noteworthy given that Norway is a social democracy. This relates to global concerns about displacements of democracy. We suggest that meeting places appear to hold the potential for staff and service users to collaborate more democratically. ; publishedVersion