You can read the article here.
And you can complete the study here.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Parenting Study
Last week my Ph.D research project was featured in the local Wollongong paper. I thought I'd let you know about it and invite you to participate in my research.
You can read the article here.
And you can complete the study here.
You can read the article here.
And you can complete the study here.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Childcare as Abuse?
In the past week well known children’s author, Mem Fox, has created controversy by stating that future generations would look back on the current trend of putting children into childcare and ask “how could we have allowed that child abuse to happen”?
No parent wants to be accused of abusing a child. And given the relatively high standard of childcare in Australia, abuse may be a long bow to draw.
Yet an ever-increasing flow of research seems to confirm that there are significant negative consequence occurring due to childcare use.
Scientists have found that on average, mums who return to paid employment in the early stages following a child’s birth are more likely to have negative emotions towards their child. In fact, mothers who race back to the workforce have been found to be emotionally unsupportive and even downright upset at their children compared to those who remain at home. The return to work is also associated with more negative behaviour towards her child, and a more irritable child.
Some much replicated research confirms that boys are at heightened risk of failing to develop a secure attachment to their father when their mother returns to work within the child’s first year. This can influence relationship building skills for a lifetime.
In another study 200 children were followed over a nine-year period. Mothers who placed their children in 30 hours of care or more each week within the first year of the child’s life (and continued this until school age) had children who were more non-compliant compared to children receiving fewer childcare hours. These high-care children were also rated as less likeable by peers and had greater social challenges at age 9 compared to children who received less care in the early years.
Finally, another influential researcher studied children aged 5 to 6 years. Those who spent more time in childcare in their first 5 years of life scored worse on peer popularity and teacher-rated peer competence. They also exhibited more behaviour problems, aggression, and were disliked by peers. This particular study is interesting as it appears to disconfirm the common myth that time in childcare is good for children’s socialisation. Sociability appears to be worse for children placed in childcare when compared to children who are looked after by parents or who have minimal exposure to care situations.
So what seems to be an easy solution, utilising childcare, can ultimately present us with a lifetime of challenges and negative outcomes.
Our present dilemma, however, is the economic burden placed upon families with enormous debt levels and mortgages. Kevin Rudd’s “working families”, those he is aiming to “assist” are those with both parents working. “Working families” are the heaviest users of childcare in this country. Yet the very system being offered as a ‘solution’ for working families poses significant long term problems for the wellbeing of our children, the family, and our communities.
Based upon the research described above and hundreds of studies confirming and extending these findings, by endorsing childcare via subsidies the government is promoting adherence to a practice that carries with it risks that are of great concern for children, families, and even greater concern for the future of our communities.
A parent’s most important occupation is within the walls of the home. Parents should be supported by the government, business, and the community generally, in meeting the needs of our most precious resource – our children.
No parent wants to be accused of abusing a child. And given the relatively high standard of childcare in Australia, abuse may be a long bow to draw.
Yet an ever-increasing flow of research seems to confirm that there are significant negative consequence occurring due to childcare use.
Scientists have found that on average, mums who return to paid employment in the early stages following a child’s birth are more likely to have negative emotions towards their child. In fact, mothers who race back to the workforce have been found to be emotionally unsupportive and even downright upset at their children compared to those who remain at home. The return to work is also associated with more negative behaviour towards her child, and a more irritable child.
Some much replicated research confirms that boys are at heightened risk of failing to develop a secure attachment to their father when their mother returns to work within the child’s first year. This can influence relationship building skills for a lifetime.
In another study 200 children were followed over a nine-year period. Mothers who placed their children in 30 hours of care or more each week within the first year of the child’s life (and continued this until school age) had children who were more non-compliant compared to children receiving fewer childcare hours. These high-care children were also rated as less likeable by peers and had greater social challenges at age 9 compared to children who received less care in the early years.
Finally, another influential researcher studied children aged 5 to 6 years. Those who spent more time in childcare in their first 5 years of life scored worse on peer popularity and teacher-rated peer competence. They also exhibited more behaviour problems, aggression, and were disliked by peers. This particular study is interesting as it appears to disconfirm the common myth that time in childcare is good for children’s socialisation. Sociability appears to be worse for children placed in childcare when compared to children who are looked after by parents or who have minimal exposure to care situations.
So what seems to be an easy solution, utilising childcare, can ultimately present us with a lifetime of challenges and negative outcomes.
Our present dilemma, however, is the economic burden placed upon families with enormous debt levels and mortgages. Kevin Rudd’s “working families”, those he is aiming to “assist” are those with both parents working. “Working families” are the heaviest users of childcare in this country. Yet the very system being offered as a ‘solution’ for working families poses significant long term problems for the wellbeing of our children, the family, and our communities.
Based upon the research described above and hundreds of studies confirming and extending these findings, by endorsing childcare via subsidies the government is promoting adherence to a practice that carries with it risks that are of great concern for children, families, and even greater concern for the future of our communities.
A parent’s most important occupation is within the walls of the home. Parents should be supported by the government, business, and the community generally, in meeting the needs of our most precious resource – our children.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Labor leaning conservative?
An upcoming bill before Federal parliament will allow Labor senators to cross the floor and act on conscience. The bill (see this link) is to end Medicare funding for late-term (second trimester) abortions.
A step in the right direction... Pray that this one passes.
A step in the right direction... Pray that this one passes.
Our Values
I had a conversation with a friend recently which prompted this blog.
Over a particular weekend he had reflected on the priorities in his life, and what he values the most. He created a list based upon his values. The list included similar items to those that most of us would likely include. He started off with his spouse, children and his own wellbeing. Lower down the list were his work and church/community responsibilities.
He indicated that the process had been helpful in shining a light on those important parts of his life that were not receiving the attention that they deserved.
I reflected on that as it related to me. I cannot help but wonder why so many things that I do not "value" take precedence over those things that I do value.
Some simple examples that could apply to any of us:
I say I value my health, but I regularly indulge in LARGE bowls of ice-cream, fatty foods, and laying around on the lounge.
I say I value my relationship with my wife but I regularly let her go to bed alone so that I can watch the footy, or finish whatever other unimportant "job" I'm focussed on.
I say I value my relationship with my children, but the Internet or newspaper often take precedence.
I say I value my spirituality, but sleeping in often creates rushing that does not allow for study and pondering, or even prayer.
So based on that, I really value indulgence, sport and entertainment, news, and sleeping even if I claim to value my wife, children, health, and wellbeing.
A former stake presidency member in a place I previously lived suggested that if we really valued the words of the prophets we might know who they are better than we know our favourite team. If we really valued the idea of our children serving a mission we might spend more time providing spiritual education to a similar level as the secular education our children receive.
Forever is a long time. I think it's important that we focus on what we really value.
Over a particular weekend he had reflected on the priorities in his life, and what he values the most. He created a list based upon his values. The list included similar items to those that most of us would likely include. He started off with his spouse, children and his own wellbeing. Lower down the list were his work and church/community responsibilities.
He indicated that the process had been helpful in shining a light on those important parts of his life that were not receiving the attention that they deserved.
I reflected on that as it related to me. I cannot help but wonder why so many things that I do not "value" take precedence over those things that I do value.
Some simple examples that could apply to any of us:
I say I value my health, but I regularly indulge in LARGE bowls of ice-cream, fatty foods, and laying around on the lounge.
I say I value my relationship with my wife but I regularly let her go to bed alone so that I can watch the footy, or finish whatever other unimportant "job" I'm focussed on.
I say I value my relationship with my children, but the Internet or newspaper often take precedence.
I say I value my spirituality, but sleeping in often creates rushing that does not allow for study and pondering, or even prayer.
So based on that, I really value indulgence, sport and entertainment, news, and sleeping even if I claim to value my wife, children, health, and wellbeing.
A former stake presidency member in a place I previously lived suggested that if we really valued the words of the prophets we might know who they are better than we know our favourite team. If we really valued the idea of our children serving a mission we might spend more time providing spiritual education to a similar level as the secular education our children receive.
Forever is a long time. I think it's important that we focus on what we really value.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Food storage - church looking for stories
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long encouraged its members to store extra food to provide for possible future needs caused by economic hardship, disasters or other emergencies. Encouraging individual members to be prepared is part of the Church’s overall welfare plan.
Anyone want to oblige and post here on their experience with food storage?2008 ACT Election?
I am very underwhelmed by the upcoming ACT Legislative Assembly election in October.
Help me out here and give me some pointers to who to vote for and restore my faith in local politics :-)
I have generally been an ALP voter, but this time around I am really at a loss as to who to vote for. No party or candidate imbues me with confidence.
The current Stanhope Labor government has seen better days. I am not a fan of some of their more 'progressive' policies (eg "Civil Unions"), or their bad planning decisions and high taxing ways.
The Liberals before them were just as bad (Canberra Stadium, anyone?).... Having said that, the current liberal candidates are a bunch of new faces and do seem to be working really hard, highly visible in local shopping centres every Saturday. At least they act like they want to be voted in.
I am not a fan of the Greens policies on pretty much everything. And then there are all the minor party/fringe and one issue candidates.
Maybe I will become a swinging voter (but not like Austin Powers kind of swinging!?!?)
What to do? I welcome your views...
Help me out here and give me some pointers to who to vote for and restore my faith in local politics :-)
I have generally been an ALP voter, but this time around I am really at a loss as to who to vote for. No party or candidate imbues me with confidence.
The current Stanhope Labor government has seen better days. I am not a fan of some of their more 'progressive' policies (eg "Civil Unions"), or their bad planning decisions and high taxing ways.
The Liberals before them were just as bad (Canberra Stadium, anyone?).... Having said that, the current liberal candidates are a bunch of new faces and do seem to be working really hard, highly visible in local shopping centres every Saturday. At least they act like they want to be voted in.
I am not a fan of the Greens policies on pretty much everything. And then there are all the minor party/fringe and one issue candidates.
Maybe I will become a swinging voter (but not like Austin Powers kind of swinging!?!?)
What to do? I welcome your views...
Friday, June 13, 2008
Afraid to step in?
There is an opinion piece in todays SMH from former Secretary of State (US) Madeleine Albright which I find rather intriguing. Essentially the piece suggests that national sovereignty has strengthened for totalitarian states because neighbouring countries and the rest of the developed world are afraid to step in and take action. She highlights Burma as a case in point.
Part of her reasoning for this seems like a political attack to me on Bush's War of Iraq, but can play out in most peoples minds I suppose. She argues that because of the mess of Iraq, States are unwilling to get their hands dirty and impede on these types of areas. Burma in particular is a melting pot of races all with some claim to some agenda and in some cases, independent States of their own. But is that the real reason why we neglect to intervene on these cases? Or is it more to do with the lack of 'economic' and 'political' gain that can be had with countries like these?
IF Burma was holding terrorist camps within its border, I'm sure the Western World would react with force. But they don't, as far as we know.
It should be noted that we have in the past (not so much us here in Australia but in the West) intervened when we though necessary in places like Somalia where things went 'no so good' for the 'good guys'. Perhaps lessons like those cause some hesitancy on the issue of State v State conflict.
There is another point. That of the declining significance of the Nation State, a thesis proposed by people like Fukuyama. I think its clear to most by now that Fukuyama's thesis of the 'death of the nation-state's' sovereignty is waning in efficacy. And thats not just the totalitarian governments. Even we seem to be able to write our own policies without much intervening from supranational governance. I will concede though, if the AU (Asian Union) idea kicks in, this could change a bit for us here.
Part of her reasoning for this seems like a political attack to me on Bush's War of Iraq, but can play out in most peoples minds I suppose. She argues that because of the mess of Iraq, States are unwilling to get their hands dirty and impede on these types of areas. Burma in particular is a melting pot of races all with some claim to some agenda and in some cases, independent States of their own. But is that the real reason why we neglect to intervene on these cases? Or is it more to do with the lack of 'economic' and 'political' gain that can be had with countries like these?
IF Burma was holding terrorist camps within its border, I'm sure the Western World would react with force. But they don't, as far as we know.
It should be noted that we have in the past (not so much us here in Australia but in the West) intervened when we though necessary in places like Somalia where things went 'no so good' for the 'good guys'. Perhaps lessons like those cause some hesitancy on the issue of State v State conflict.
There is another point. That of the declining significance of the Nation State, a thesis proposed by people like Fukuyama. I think its clear to most by now that Fukuyama's thesis of the 'death of the nation-state's' sovereignty is waning in efficacy. And thats not just the totalitarian governments. Even we seem to be able to write our own policies without much intervening from supranational governance. I will concede though, if the AU (Asian Union) idea kicks in, this could change a bit for us here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)