Search

There has been a tendency for researchers and practitioners to overlook the needs and experiences of children and young people in relation to disasters. In this paper, we report on our exploration of the question of whether to involve children and young people in post-bushfire research, and if so how? In considering children's rights in this context we were guided by a number of conceptions of the child (reflecting research debates within the Sociology of Childhood): The citizen child; the child at risk; and the developing child. We engaged in formal, progressive consultations with experts internationally and with bushfire affected community partners. This study determined that research with children post-bushfires was an important, ethical and appropriate activity, provided the methodology was sensitive and allowed children to provide informed consent and to have a sense of control over the issues being discussed. We conclude that carefully considering a rights approach materially changed the final methodology that includes the perspectives of children and young people in research about recovery from traumatic disasters, while still respecting their right to be safe and supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite almost two decades of reform under Australia's National Mental Health Strategy, the life circumstances of many people with mental illness seem little improved. While lack of rehabilitation, housing and community support services have been blamed for policy shortfalls, there is also concern that mental health services may impede rather than facilitate recovery from mental illness. To explore this particular concern, this paper reports data from a project which evaluated a group mentorship programme for new graduate nurses working in an Australian public mental health service. Prominent among the problems raised in mentorship group discussions were: the arduous nature of mental health work; the uncaring attitudes and practices of many veteran nursing staff; and the maltreatment and neglect of service users. These participants characterised mental health facilities as tough security-minded places, where staff act more as risk-managers rather than therapists, and all service users are treated as if they might be dangerous. They also perceived a connection between the dismissive ways in which they were often treated by veteran colleagues and the widespread mistreatment of service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]