Marit Skivenes
Head of the Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism (www.discretion.uib.no).
Principal investigator for the research project "DISCRETION" (University of Bergen). Funded by the European Research Council. Startup 2017.
Principal investigator for the research project "The acceptability of child protection interventions. A cross-country analysis" (Bergen University College). Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (FRIHUMSAM).
Principal Investigator for the research project «Adoption in Norwegian child protection» (Marit Skivenes, Hege Helland, Øyvind Tefre), The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs. 2016-2018.
Member of the core group in the research project "Understanding Paternalism" together with Alexander Cappelen and Bertil Tungodden (The Choice Lab, Norwegian School of Economics). Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (FRIPRO)
Coordinator for the Child Rights Unit at Centre on Law and Social Transformation.
Principal investigator for the research project “Legitimacy and Fallibility in Child Welfare Services – A Cross-Country Study of Decision-Making” (Marit Skivenes, Tarja Pösö, Jill Berrick, Jonathan Dickens, Anne-Mette Magnussen, Line Sørsdal), The Norwegian Research Council (VAM) 2012- November 2017.*
Principal Investigator for the research project “The Norwegian Child Welfare System in a Comparative Perspective" (Marit Skivenes, Katrin Kriz, Heidi Skramstad, Øyvind Tefre, Milfrid Tonheim), The Norwegian Research Council (FRISAM) 2010- November 2017.
Volume co-author (togheter with Jill Berrick and Neil Gilbert) on "Handbook on Comparative Child Welfare Policy» as part of the Oxford University Press International Social Policy Library. 2016-2019.
Book project: "Children´s participation in child protection - street level bureaucrats exercise of discretion" (Marit Skivenes, Katrin Kriz). 2016-2018.
Book project: Co-editor (Together with Malcolm Langford and Karl Harald Søvig) "Measuring Child Rights in Norway". Universitetsforlaget. 2016-2017
Address: Bergen, Norway
Principal investigator for the research project "DISCRETION" (University of Bergen). Funded by the European Research Council. Startup 2017.
Principal investigator for the research project "The acceptability of child protection interventions. A cross-country analysis" (Bergen University College). Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (FRIHUMSAM).
Principal Investigator for the research project «Adoption in Norwegian child protection» (Marit Skivenes, Hege Helland, Øyvind Tefre), The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs. 2016-2018.
Member of the core group in the research project "Understanding Paternalism" together with Alexander Cappelen and Bertil Tungodden (The Choice Lab, Norwegian School of Economics). Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (FRIPRO)
Coordinator for the Child Rights Unit at Centre on Law and Social Transformation.
Principal investigator for the research project “Legitimacy and Fallibility in Child Welfare Services – A Cross-Country Study of Decision-Making” (Marit Skivenes, Tarja Pösö, Jill Berrick, Jonathan Dickens, Anne-Mette Magnussen, Line Sørsdal), The Norwegian Research Council (VAM) 2012- November 2017.*
Principal Investigator for the research project “The Norwegian Child Welfare System in a Comparative Perspective" (Marit Skivenes, Katrin Kriz, Heidi Skramstad, Øyvind Tefre, Milfrid Tonheim), The Norwegian Research Council (FRISAM) 2010- November 2017.
Volume co-author (togheter with Jill Berrick and Neil Gilbert) on "Handbook on Comparative Child Welfare Policy» as part of the Oxford University Press International Social Policy Library. 2016-2019.
Book project: "Children´s participation in child protection - street level bureaucrats exercise of discretion" (Marit Skivenes, Katrin Kriz). 2016-2018.
Book project: Co-editor (Together with Malcolm Langford and Karl Harald Søvig) "Measuring Child Rights in Norway". Universitetsforlaget. 2016-2017
Address: Bergen, Norway
less
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
Papers by Marit Skivenes
restrictions of personal autonomy of others to protect the interest of
children. We use representative country samples of the adult
populations of Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland,
Norway, and Spain, and ask them to consider an experimental vignette
with three different parental conditions: substance abuse, mental health
problems, and learning difficulties. The findings display that most
people would restrict parental freedom to protect the child, and a
stricter restriction when the parent struggles with substance abuse
compared to mental health compared to learning difficulties. There are
some country differences, and when examining the role of institutional
context of child protective system, a correlation is detected with
significant differences between population views in a right-oriented
system versus a well-being system and maltreatment system. In light of
the ongoing European debates about child protection and how
controversial and contested this area of the welfare state seem to be, it
is interesting to learn (also) from this study that people, across
countries, individual differences, child protection systems, overall are
supportive of state intervention and support in a situation with a child
at potential risk.
accept a parents’ rights perspective. Demographics such as immigrant status and age account for some of these differences. The study contributes to the literature on children's rights and the role of the state in aligning public policy with public attitudes about children.
restrictions of personal autonomy of others to protect the interest of
children. We use representative country samples of the adult
populations of Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland,
Norway, and Spain, and ask them to consider an experimental vignette
with three different parental conditions: substance abuse, mental health
problems, and learning difficulties. The findings display that most
people would restrict parental freedom to protect the child, and a
stricter restriction when the parent struggles with substance abuse
compared to mental health compared to learning difficulties. There are
some country differences, and when examining the role of institutional
context of child protective system, a correlation is detected with
significant differences between population views in a right-oriented
system versus a well-being system and maltreatment system. In light of
the ongoing European debates about child protection and how
controversial and contested this area of the welfare state seem to be, it
is interesting to learn (also) from this study that people, across
countries, individual differences, child protection systems, overall are
supportive of state intervention and support in a situation with a child
at potential risk.
accept a parents’ rights perspective. Demographics such as immigrant status and age account for some of these differences. The study contributes to the literature on children's rights and the role of the state in aligning public policy with public attitudes about children.
The authors argue that the findings indicates that what is deemed important for children’s interests across child protection systems differs hugely, and as such the right of the child in many jurisdictions has a long way to go. The child best interest principle appears oftentimes as a right that is open to wide discretionary interpretation.
Prof. Marit Skivenes share some of her recent discussions with Professor Tarja Pösö, on the exercise of discretion in child protection systems and how comparative research on social workers in child protection systems may teach us about the meaning and significance of social work research.
This text aims to present new research at the intersection of social work, law, and social policy concerning child protection proceedings for children in need of alternative care. It explores the role of court-based and voluntary decision-making systems in child protection proceedings, its effects, dynamics, and meanings in seven European countries and the United States, and analyses the tensions and dilemmas between children, parents, and socio-legal professionals.
The book consists of eight country chapters, plus an introduction and conclusion chapters. The range of countries of countries represented in the book covers the social democratic Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, and Sweden), the conservative corporatist regimes (Germany and Switzerland), the neo-liberal (England, Ireland, and the United States), and related child welfare systems.
Boken er et resultat av en større undersøkelse av hvordan ulike kommuner oppfatter og forholder seg til krav om innsyn, frimodige ytringer og varsling, og hva enkelte kommuner har gjort for å styrke åpenheten og ytringsklimaet. For første gang har kommunepolitikere en sentral plass i denne forskningen.
Illustrates how child protection approaches are rooted in overall social welfare philosophies.
Analyzes the two major trends (child protection vs. family service) and charts the rise of a third way, the child-focused orientation