FAMILY PROFESSIONALS’ ATTITUDES AND STANCE-TAKING ON POST-DIVORCE FATHERHOOD: A QUALITATIVE ATTITUDE APPROACH
This article examines divorce professionals’ attitudes and stances in response to common criticisms of how they deal with divorce outcomes for fathers, according to which men are discriminated against in negotiations on the custody and living arrangements of their children. The study applied the relatively new qualitative attitude approach, and hence a further aim was to test its fitness for studying attitudes. Eighteen Finnish family professionals who worked with divorce cases — social workers, psychologists, district court judges, and lawyers — participated in semi-structured interviews in which they discussed claims designed to be provocative. The family professionals were found to show both collective, shared attitudes and diversity in attitudes and stances. The participants strove to position themselves as gender-neutral and as promoters of equality between mothers and fathers, and thus in accordance with the ideal of a good professional. The divorce professionals argued that their overriding aim was to secure the well-being of children. The method revealed some attribution bias, manifested as victim blaming, where fathers themselves were in part held accountable for the gendered post-divorce situation. The results highlight potential areas of cooperation between different types of divorce professionals that could lay a foundation for improving services and support for divorced parents and children.
Aarto-Pesonen, L., & Tynjälä, P. (2017). The core of professional growth in work-related teacher education. Qualitative Report, 22(12), 3334–3354. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss12/16
Arroyo, J., & Peek, C. W. (2015). Child welfare caseworkers’ characteristics and their attitudes toward non-custodial fathers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 47(1), 140–152. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.06.007
Amato, P. R, Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father-child contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58(1), 41–53. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00533.x
Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2019). Becoming a half-time parent: Fatherhood after divorce. Journal of Family Studies, 25(1), 2–17. doi:10.1080/13229400.2016.1195277
Astor, H. (2007). Mediator neutrality: Making sense of theory and practice. Social & Legal Studies, 16(2), 221–239. doi:10.1177/0964663907076531
Autonen-Vaaraniemi, L. (2010). Men’s activism, moral reasoning and good fatherhood in post-divorce family context. NORMA–Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies, 5(1), 45–59.
Baitar, R., Buysse, A., Brondeel, R., De Mol, J., & Rober, P. (2013). Divorce professionals in Flanders: Policy and practice examined. Family Court Review, 51(4), 542–566. doi:10.1111/fcre.12051
Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Knowledge and attitudes about the parental alienation syndrome: A survey of custody evaluators. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/01926180600698368
Banks, S. (2020). Ethics and values in social work (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine Books.
Baum, N. (2016). The unheard gender: The neglect of men as social work clients. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(5), 1463–1471. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv074
Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. Sage.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1987)
Bogoch, B. (2008). Adversarial agreements: The attitudes of Israeli family lawyers to litigation in divorce practice. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36(2), 85–105. doi:10.1016/j.ijsl.2007.10.001
Bogoch, B., & Halperin-Kaddari, R. (2006). Divorce Israeli style: Professional perceptions of gender and power in mediated and lawyer-negotiated divorces. Law & Policy, 28(2), 137–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00220.x
Bogoch, B., & Halperin-Kaddari, R. (2007). Co-optation, competition and resistance: Mediation and divorce professionals in Israel. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 14(2), 115–145. doi:10.1080/09695950701616481
Brasaite, I., Kaunonen, M., Martinkenas, A., & Suominen, T. (2016). Health care professionals’ attitudes regarding patient safety: Cross-sectional survey. BMC Research Notes, 9(1), 1–7. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1977-7
Braver, S. L., Cookston, J. T., & Cohen, B. R. (2002). Experiences of family law attorneys with current issues in divorce practice. Family Relations, 51(4), 325–334. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00325.x
Cohen, O., & Segal-Engelchin, D. (2000). Suzi and Mr. S: Gender role stereotyping in social workers’ court reports in custody and access case. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 70(3), 475–500. doi:10.1080/00377310009517606
Cook, L., & Gregory, M. (2020). Making sense of sensemaking: Conceptualising how child and family social workers process assessment information. Child Care in Practice, 26(2) 182–195. doi:10.1080/13575279.2019.1685458
Costa, L. L. F., Esteves, A. B. D., Kreimer, R., Struchiner, N., & Hannikainen, I. (2019). Gender stereotypes underlie child custody decisions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 548–559. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2523
Cox, R. B., Brosi, M., Spencer, T., & Masri, K. (2021). Hope, stress, and post-divorce child adjustment: Development and evaluation of the co-parenting for resilience program. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 62(2), 144–163. doi:10.1080/10502556.2021.1871831
Crawford, B., & Bradley, M. S. (2016). Parent gender and child removal in physical abuse and neglect cases. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 224–230. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.013
Davidson-Arad, B., Cohen, O., & Wozner, Y. (2003). Social workers custody recommendations: Contributions of child’s expected quality of life and parental features. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39(1-2), 11–26. doi:10.1300/J087v39n01_02
Fix, M. P., & Johnson, G. E. (2017). Public perceptions of gender bias in the decisions of female state court judges. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6), 1845–1886.
Forsberg, H., & Autonen-Vaaraniemi, L. (2017). Moral orientations to post-divorce fatherhood: Examining Finnish men’s descriptive practices. Families, Relationships and Societies, 8(1), 23–36. doi:10.1332/204674317X14920695828859
Forsberg, H., Kääriäinen, A., & Ritala-Koskinen, A. (2018). Children’s residence in divorce disputes – examination of social work reports to the court. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 40(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/09649069.2018.1414351
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience (Reprint). Northeastern University Press. (Original work published 1974, Harper & Row)
Hakovirta, M., & Rantalaiho, M. (2011). Family policy and shared parenting in Nordic Countries. European Journal of Social Security, 13(2), 247–266. doi:10.1177/138826271101300203
Israel, J. (1979). Om relationistisk socialpsykologi [On relational social psychology]. Bokförlaget Korpen.
Kalmijn, M. (2015) Father-child relations after divorce in four European countries: Patterns and determinants. Comparative Population Studies, 40(3), 251–276. doi:10.12765/CPoS-2015-10
Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2017). Mens rea ascription, expertise and outcome effects: Professional judges surveyed. Cognition, 169, 139–146. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.008
Kruk, E. (2010). Parental and social institutional responsibilities to children’s needs in the divorce transition: Fathers’ perspectives. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(2), 159–178. doi:10.3149/jms.1802.159
Kullberg, C., & Fäldt, J. (2008). Gender differences in social workers’ assessments and help-giving strategies towards single parents. European Journal of Social Work, 11(4), 445–458. doi:10.1080/13691450802075659
Lamb, M.E., & Sagi, A. (Eds.). (2014). Fatherhood and family policy. Routledge.
Malmi, P. (2009). Discrimination against men: Appearance and causes in the context of a modern welfare state. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Lapland]. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ula-20111141041
Mattison, M. (2000). Ethical decision making: The person in the process. Social Work, 45(3), 201–212. doi:10.1093/sw/45.3.201
Meyer, D. R, Cancian, M., & Cook, S. T. (2017). The growth in shared custody in the United States: Patterns and implications. Family Court Review, 55(4), 500–512. doi:10.1111/fcre.12300
Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2006). Legalizing misandry: From public shame to systemic discrimination against men. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Nielsen, L. (2017). Re-examining the research on parental conflict, coparenting, and custody arrangements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 211–231. doi:10.1037/law0000109
Nouman, H., Enosh, G., & Niselbaum-Atzur, P. (2016). The role of parental communication, child’s wishes and child’s gender in social workers’ custody recommendations. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 302–308. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.034
Peltola, S., & Vesala, K. M. (2013). Constructing entrepreneurial orientation in a selling context: The qualitative attitude approach. Poznan University of Economics Review, 13(1), 26–47.
Pesonen, H., Niska, M., & Vesala, K. M. (2013). The societal role of Evangelical Lutheran parishes in rural Finland: A qualitative approach to local attitudes. Rural Theology, 11(2), 68–82. doi:10.1179/1470499413Z.00000000014
Rosen, L. N., Dragiewicz, M., & Gibbs, J. C. (2009). Fathers’ rights groups: Demographic correlates and impact on custody policy. Violence Against Women, 15(5), 513–531. doi:10.1177/1077801209331409
Saini, M., Black, T., Lwin, K., Marshall, A., Fallon, B., & Goodman, D. (2012). Child protection workers’ experiences on working with high-conflict separating families. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1309–1316. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.005
Sanders, L., Geffner, R., Bucky, S., Ribner, N., & Patino, A. J. (2015). A qualitative study of child custody evaluators’ beliefs and opinions. Journal of Child Custody, 12(3-4), 205–230. doi:10.1080/15379418.2015.1120476
Sjølie, H., Karlsson, B., & Binder, P.-E. (2013). Professionals’ experiences of the relations between personal history and professional role. Nursing Research and Practice, Article ID 265247. doi:10.1155/2013/265247
Smithson, J., Barlow, A., Hunter, R., & Ewing, J. (2015). The ‘child’s best interests’ as an argumentative resource in family mediation sessions. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 609–623. doi:10.1177/1461445615590722
Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). Characteristics of joint physical custody families in Flanders. Demographic Research, 28(29), 821–848. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.29
Solsona, M., Ferrer, L., Simó-Noguera, C., & Spijker, J. (2020). Divorce and gendered family (re)configurations in a sample of employed and higher educated mothers and fathers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(7), 463–486. doi:10.1080/10502556.2020.1768492
Sullivan, M., & Burns, A. (2020). Effective use of parenting coordination: Considerations for legal and mental health professionals. Family Court Review, 58(3), 730–746. doi:10.1111/fcre.12509
Taylor, R. J. (2004). Then and now: A follow-up study of professionals’ perceptions of parenting after divorce classes. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41(3-4), 135–142. doi:10.1300/J087v41n03_07
Thomas, J. (2011). Analysing Thurstone and Likert attitude scales as data collection methods. Journal of Paramedic Practice, 3(5), 250–254. doi:10.12968/jpar.2011.3.5.250
Vesala, K. M., & Rantanen, T. (Eds.). (2007a). Argumentaatio ja tulkinta: Laadullisen asennetutkimuksen lähestymistapa [Argumentation and interpretation: The qualitative attitude approach]. Gaudeamus.
Vesala, K. M., & Rantanen, T. (2007b). Laadullinen asennetutkimus: Lähtökohtia, periaatteita, mahdollisuuksia [Qualitative attitude research: Starting points, principles, possibilities]. In K. M. Vesala & T. Rantanen (Eds.), Argumentaatio ja tulkinta: Laadullisen asennetutkimuksen lähestymistapa [Argumentation and interpretation: The qualitative attitude approach] (pp. 11–61). Gaudeamus.
Vuori, J. (2001). Äidit, isät ja ammattilaiset: Sukupuoli, toisto ja muunnelmat asiantuntijoiden kirjoituksissa [Mothers, fathers and professionals: Gender, repetition and variety in expert texts]. Tampere University Press.
Vuori, J. (2009). Men’s choices and masculine duties: Fathers in expert discussions. Men and Masculinities, 12(1), 45–72. doi:10.1177/1097184X07306720
Authors contributing to the International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported license. This licence allows anyone to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Rights Granted After Publication
After publication, authors may reuse portions or the full article without obtaining formal permission for inclusion within their thesis or dissertation.
Permission for these reuses is granted on the following conditions:
- that full acknowledgement is made of the original publication stating the specific material reused [pages, figure numbers, etc.], [Title] by/edited by [Author/editor], [year of publication], reproduced by permission of International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies [link to IJCYFS website];
- In the case of joint-authored works, it is the responsibility of the author to obtain permission from co-authors for the work to be reuse/republished;
- that reuse on personal websites and institutional or subject-based repositories includes a link to the work as published in the International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies; and that the material is not distributed under any kind of Open Access style licences (e.g. Creative Commons) which may affect the Licence between the author and IJCYFS.