Exploring the leadership of multidisciplinary collaboration in child maltreatment service organizations: A case study of the Southern Alberta Children Advocacy Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative case study aimed to provide an understanding of collaborative leadership at the newly established Southern Alberta Child Advocacy Centre (SACAC). Specifically, the purpose of the research was to 1) describe the particular activities the senior leadership team engaged in to guide collaboration, and 2) how each team member contributed to, and experienced, the leadership process while working towards providing child maltreatment services to children and their families in the Lethbridge and Medicine Hat communities. The study was conducted with seven participants – senior executives from social service organizations – over an 18-month period. Data was collected from individual semi-structured interviews and participant observation at six team meetings, and the review of meeting minutes and draft organization documents including the Business Plan and by-laws. Case study research was the methodology of choice. NVivo was used to organize the data. Boyatzis’ (1998) and Crabtree and Miller’s (1999) thematic analysis were used to analyze the data and yielded major themes and thematic categories: 1) creating and sharing a vision; 2) the need for planning; 3) the need for planned intentional collaboration; 4) demonstrating respect; 5) utilizing self-identified leadership styles; 6) leadership roles; 7) benefits of leadership; and 8) challenges to leadership. Leadership theories including transformational, transcendent, and facilitative, and models of collaboration utilized in healthcare, were examined to provide an understanding of the application of leadership and collaboration in social service settings. Discussions in this dissertation were guided primarily by the Reclaiming futures: Communities helping teens overcome drugs, alcohol, and crime framework (termed the RF Framework), which focused on collaborative leadership. The study built on the foundation provided by the RF Framework to propose a Child Advocacy Centre (CAC) Model of Collaborative Leadership and presented a discussion on its implications for social work practice and education, and policy development. Limitations of the study and areas of future research were also outlined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".