The aim of this paper is to point out the meaning that Social Pedagogy assigns to family. The discussion about family led within social sciences is permeated by the discoveries of the systems theory, which places family at the level of a complex system functioning which is nuanced by the action of internal subsystems and external mechanisms of other systems. In this sense, the socio-pedagogical perspective of family is here presented through socio-pedagogical prevention, treatment and post-treatment efforts. The paper presents the place of family in the prevention and conceptual construct of risk and protective factors, resilience, developmental advantages and positive development. Moreover, it emphasizes the essential role of family as a source and factor in socio-pedagogical comprehensive assessment, planning and implementation of socio-pedagogical treatment and post-treatment.
References
1.
Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology. 1990;2(4):425–44.
2.
Walsh F. Strengthening family resilience.
3.
Walsh F. Family Resilience: A Framework for Clinical Practice. Family Process. 2003;42(1):1–18.
4.
Uhlendorff U. Socijalna pedagogija u Njemačkoj. Kriminologija i socijalna integracija: časopis za kriminologiju, penologiju i poremećaje u ponašanju. 20(1):87–94.
5.
Úcar X. Exploring different perspectives of Social Pedagogy: towards a complex and integrated approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 21:36.
6.
Risk and Protective Factors for Substance Use among American Indian or Alaska Native Youths. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2004.
7.
Small SA, Huser M. Family-Based Prevention Programs. Encyclopedia of Adolescence. 2016. p. 1–11.
8.
Search Institute. Dosupno na.
9.
Scott ME, Schelar E, Manlove J, Cui C. Young adult attitudes about relationships and marriage: Times may have changed, but expectations remain high. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2009.
10.
Pašalić-Kreso A. Koordinate obiteljskog odgoja: prilog sistemskom pristupu razumijevanja obitelji i obiteljskog odgoja.
11.
Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People. 2009.
12.
Moss P, Petrie P. Education and social pedagogy: What relationship? London Review of Education. 17(3).
13.
McCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA. Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping and Adaptation.
14.
Bartolac A. Stavovi studenata o kohabitaciji i braku. Socijalna ekologija: časopis za ekološku misao i sociologijska istraživanja okoline. 22(2):107–31.
15.
Ljubinković M. Brak i porodica kao vrednosti kod mladih. Istraživanja u pedagogiji. 4(2):95–114.
16.
Koller-Trbović N, Miroslavljević A i JB, I. Procjena potreba djece i mladih s problemima u ponašanju: konceptualne i metodičke odrednice.
17.
Koçyiğit Özyiğit MK. The meaning of marriage according to university students: A phenomenological study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 17(2):679–711.
18.
Pristupanje obitelji.
19.
Harper NJ, Russel K. Family involvement and outcome in adolescent wilderness treatment. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare. 19–36.
20.
Dychawy Rosner I. Socio-pedagogical knowledge expertise across the social care sectors in Northern Europe. Papers of Social Pedagogy. 2018;8(1):5–13.
21.
Dychawy Rosner I. Preventive interventions in socio-pedagogical social work. Papers of Social Pedagogy. 01(6):2–35.
22.
Christensen EJ. Yound Adults’ Marital Attitudes and Intentions: The Role of Parental Conflict, Divorce and Gender.
23.
Benson PL, Scales PC, Syvertsen AK. The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 2011. p. 197–230.
24.
Bašić J i Ž, A. Programski aspekti tretmana djece i omladine s poremećajima u ponašanju. Zagreb: Republički fond socijalne zaštite, Zavod grada Zagreba za socijalni rad.
25.
Nikčević Milković A, Rupčić A. PROCJENA RIZIČNIH I ZAŠTITNIH ČIMBENIKA U SVRHU PLANIRANJA PREVENCIJE PROBLEMA U PONAŠANJU DJECE I MLADIH. Annual of Social Work. 2014;22(1):105–22.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
