Travelling meanings: meaningful measures at a child protective service in the Netherlands
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In recent years, a child protection service in the Netherlands has concentrated on developing a collection of instruments, questionnaires and assessment tools that are family-centred and aid professionals in their decision-making, while also offering insightful data for the organization's monitoring and evaluation. They have dubbed these newly created instruments “meaningful measures”. The organisation’s aim is to lower the bureaucratic burden on professionals and to align organisational metrics and indicators with the work being done on the ground. These professionals are tasked with planning and coordinating care for families and to guide them as they move through a multi-institutional trajectory. This study aims to gain an understanding of how professionals are working with these instruments in providing good care and how the meanings of the instruments travel and are conceptualised as boundary objects. Methods: A qualitative study in which 34 professionals were interviewed regarding their perspectives on the importance and function of "meaningful measures" for themselves, families and their organisations. Respondents were chosen at random and all levels of seniority and experience were included. The research team conducted a thematic analysis of the data with two rounds of open coding. Findings: In this study we found that the instruments interact with different layers of actors and their governance structures involved, and that they are nested within wider networks of standards and institutional practices. The instruments help professionals to gain insight into and overview of the family’s needs and situation and to reflect upon their own actions and those of the families. In team meetings, professionals argue their scoring in a discussion. The scores are experienced as highly subjective and simplistic, a characteristic that is actively taken as a positive means to spark debate and reflections upon each other’s work. While professionals feel a degree of control over the meaning of the measures’ outcomes on the ground, this gets lost in cases of (accused) malpractice and legal complaints. What started as notes and insights into a family’s situation, becomes material or evidence in a court or a hearing. The possibility of losing one's job and professional registration puts pressure on how such scores and results are documented and used by the professional and the organisation. Conclusions: A child protection service in The Netherlands is implementing a collection of instruments, meaningful measures, with a three-tiered aim: to be valuable to professionals, families and the organisation. This study aimed to understand how the meaning of these measures travels and we have found that while meanings need to be negotiated and are subjective in the daily work of professionals, their discussion is deemed valuable. It is crucial for professionals to understand what information needs to be recorded and to feel safe whilst filling out forms, for translational work to be carried out, and for the legal framework to become more in line with the daily practice of professionals, as these measures will be taken out of the context of the organization and daily practice to facilitate accountability and legal checks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».