Dual parent-professional role: the tensions associated with family-work for foster carers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature on work-family roles and boundaries are commonly examined as two different spheres, with family distinct from work. Foster care, however, combines the role of family and work. Foster care is founded on the principle of finding a home for a child that is loving and lasting, which provides the foundation for a good life and helps children excel in education and work and have good overall mental and physical health. Foster carer is a ‘professional’ role in which foster carers are encouraged to perform a ‘parent’ role by creating a supportive ‘family’ environment to facilitate attachment and belonging in children. Although this ‘parent’ role has endured, the demographic changes in children entering foster care have resulted in a shift from a ‘parental’ to a ‘professional’ role among foster carers in the United Kingdom. This paper provides an analysis of the accounts of foster carers and social care professionals to explore the experiences of therapeutic support in managing this dual role. In-depth interviews were conducted with foster carers and social care professionals (N = 21) to investigate the experiences of foster carers in England. This paper adds to the literature in terms of understanding the dual role of foster carers by combining Social Identity Theory with the Job Demands-Resources model. This paper investigates the role of therapeutic support in helping foster carers balance dual roles to create secure and stable placements for children. It makes recommendations regarding the development of cohesive approaches to supporting foster carers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".