Practitioners' understanding of father engagement in the context of ...

Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Journal of Family Studies (2010) 16: 101–115.

Practitioners’ understanding of father engagement in the context of family dispute resolution *

R ICHARD J F LETCHER P H D1 Senior Lecturer, Family Action Centre, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

J ENNIFER M S TGEORGE P H D Researcher, Family Action Centre, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia ABSTRACT The 2006 Australian family law reforms preserve the ‘best interests of the child’ as the guiding principle for making decisions about post-separation parenting but also require, with some exceptions, that parents attempt to resolve disputes in the first instance via mediation or ‘family dispute resolution’ processes. In placing greater emphasis on the child’s right to a ‘meaningful’ relationship with both parents after separation, the legislation also in effect seeks to elevate the role of fathers in the lives of their children and move beyond the more stereotyped view of these fathers as financial providers and ‘visitors’ to their children. An important element in the successful mediation of postseparation parenting disputes is the engagement of fathers. But how is this done and what does ‘engaging fathers’ mean? This study sought to identify steps taken by family relationship practitioners to engage fathers in the dispute resolution process. The analysis revealed that in engaging with fathers in mediation, practitioners drew on four types of competencies to facilitate two basic steps, one of showing respect, the other of reframing the issue of sharing the parenting. Keywords: fathers; mediation; relationship conflict; counselling; father engagement; practitioner knowledge

R

ecent reforms to the Australian family law system have altered the ways in which parenting disputes following separation are resolved. Changes in the family law (Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth)) aim to help separating parents, wherever it * 1

does not compromise the safety of a parent and/or a child, to agree on what is best for their child(ren) (Kaspiew, Gray, Weston, Moloney, Hand, Qu, et al., 2009). The emphasis of the legislation is on sharing parenting responsibilities and providing children with the opportunity to

This research was funded through a partnership with Interrelate Family Centres. Preliminary findings were presented at FRSA Inaugural Conference, Cairns, 2008. Correspondence to: Dr Richard Fletcher, Fathers and Families Research Program, Family Action Centre, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4921 6401 Fax: +61 2 4921 8686. Email: [email protected]

Volume 16, Issue 2, August 2010 JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES

101

Richard J Fletcher and Jennifer M StGeorge

continue to have ongoing meaningful relationships with both their parents (Chisholm, 2009). A centrepiece of the reforms has been the rollout of 65 Family Relationship Centres. These community-based services provide child focused or child inclusive dispute resolution sessions (see Moloney & McIntosh, 2004), child-focused parent education (see McIntosh & Moloney, 2006), family counselling and a range of other services and referral options. Services are designed to engage both fathers and mothers. This new approach also brings new challenges. Like counselling sessions for parents, the negotiation of parenting arrangements for children may involve painful issues of disappointment, jealousy, indignation or even rage that may limit parents’ willingness or ability to compromise and reach agreements (McIntosh & Deacon-Wood, 2003). Consistent with the idea of shared parental responsibility is the expectation that both parents will share responsibility for the negotiation process. But past experience and research has shown that it has been more difficult to involve men in formal discussions about relationships than women (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1993; Symonds & Horvath, 2004). Although practitioners who work with families hold a wealth of wisdom and expertise in the moment-by-moment decisionmaking process of interacting with clients (Holmes, 2006; McCracken & Marsh, 2008), there is little research evidence pointing to indicators of father engagement (Berlyn, Wise, & Soriano, 2008). The present paper therefore explores the ways in which practitioners who are involved daily with mothers and fathers in family dispute resolution processes (FDR) aim for and recognise the engagement of the father in the mediation process.

ENGAGEMENT Engagement is frequently utilised within the literature to describe the helping relationship across health, welfare, education and counselling fields (Addington, Francey, & Morrison, 2006; Brady & Scully, 2005; Coatsworth, Santisteban, McBride, 102

JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES

& Szapocznik, 2001). In general, it is used to define a positive relationship between a service or a practitioner and an individual accessing the service, whereby this relationship facilitates the meeting of the specific expectations of that individual (Dearing, Barrick, Dermen, & Walitzer, 2005). Definitions or operationalisations of engagement are not consistent across research studies. One reason for this is the complex interplay of individual client and counsellor factors such as client expectations, the client-practitioner relationship or type of counselling being offered. In the absence of a definitive construct though, researchers and practitioners measure their clients’ engagement in counselling or therapy sessions in various ways, including assessing client expectations, the quality of the client-therapist relationship or alliance (Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000), session attendance (Connors, Carroll, DiClemente, & Longabaugh, 1997; Tryon, 1990) and client satisfaction (Andersen, Shelby, & Golden-Kreutz, 2007; Dearing et al., 2005; Tryon, 1990). As an example of measures of engagement, Dearing et al. (2005) found in their study of alcohol-related counselling that positive expectations, regular session attendance, and a perception of a positive alliance with the counsellor were all related to the client’s satisfaction with the service, which in turn was related to successful program outcomes. Orlinsky and Howard (1967) are among many authors who have observed that for counselling sessions to be successful, clients need to have experienced an active collaboration with a counsellor who has in turn, focused on their individual or personal needs, with a goal of achieving insight or understanding (Gillespie, Smith, Meaden, Jones, & Wane, 2004; Sexton, 2007). However, measures of engagement cannot be divorced from the specific circumstances and intent of the situation; different population groups (such as young people or men) may express other signs of engagement and are likely to have diverse expectations or motivations for

Volume 16, Issue 2, August 2010

Practitioners’ understanding of father engagement in the context of family dispute resolution

attending counselling (Berlyn, et al., 2008; Cunningham, Duffee, Yufan H., Steinke, C.M., & Naccarato, T., 2009). Several authors have discussed male–female differences in readiness to seek help for mental or physical health including in the context of family dissolution (Galdas, Cheater, & Marshall, 2005). While views are not unanimous, there is a considerable body of research to suggest that men will be less likely than women to seek help for relationship related issues and be less likely to enter willingly into a therapeutic or mediation process in which children are discussed (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Baum, 2006; Lewis, & O’Brien, 1987). In a previous paper, Fletcher and Visser (2008) called for evidence-based strategies and approaches towards engaging men to be used by practitioners in the field of mediation and dispute resolution. They also noted that there are few evaluations of training programs to assist practitioners to become competent with male clients, despite a growing number of training programs aimed at skilling practitioners to work with men (e.g., Family Action Centre, Merrilinga, Uniting Care). Given that men may require different approaches by practitioners due to a complex interaction of biological, psychological and sociological concerns (Dennison, 2003; Smith, Braunack-Meyer, & Wittert, 2006), how are practitioners to proceed with engaging separated fathers who are involved in post-separation parenting disputes? In the psychological literature, there are suggestions for successful engagement such as using the word ‘workshop’ in the session description instead of ‘counselling’, emphasising problem-solving or introducing innovative ways of labelling and identifying emotions (Baum, 2004; Robertson & Fitzgerald, 1992; Wong & Rochlen, 2005). However, it is doubtful if these ‘tips’ provide sufficient guidance to enable practitioners attempting to work with the complexity of parent conflict over children to successfully engage with fathers. On the other hand, practitioners’ expertise is recognized as a key factor in client engagement (Friedlander, Bernardi, & Lee, 2010; Holmes, 2006).

Thus, it is to experienced practitioners’ current skills with and knowledge about engaging fathers that we now turn.

PRACTITIONER SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE The central part of practitioner work in the context of family dispute resolution involving children is to engage both the father and the mother in discussions focusing on resolving conflict and making parenting plans for their children (Family Relationships Online, 2010). This work inevitably draws on practitioners’ knowledge and skills as well as their attitudes and beliefs, all of which are expressed through their choice of strategies and interactions with clients. The integration of these skills, attributes and knowledge has been conceptualised as practioner ‘competencies’ in the literature (Rodolfa, Bent, Eisman, Nelson, Rehm, & Ritchie, 2005). While practitioner competencies arise from a holistic gestalt of knowledge, skills and attributes, competence in one domain may not necessarily translate into competence in another. For example, the notion of cultural competency suggests practitioners should undertake specific practices that are sensitive to differences along cultural dimensions such as ethnicity, gender, politics, or religion (Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria [ECCV], 2006). In applying this approach to men, Liu (2005) has suggested that a cultural understanding of men would involve understanding their world view and values, an awareness of the practitioner’s own assumptions and biases about men, and appropriate interventions and strategies. Therefore, to contribute to empirical knowledge of father engagement in family services, this study explores dimensions of father engagement in dispute resolution, and describes the competencies that practitioners bring to the mediation process. The research questions posed were: 1. Are there specific aspects of father engagement in the context of dispute resolution that can be identified?


103


2. Are there specific barriers to fathers’ engagement in the context of dispute resolution? 3. Are there specific strategies or competencies used by practitioners to engage fathers in dispute resolution? 4. How do practitioners conceptualise fatherrelated competencies?

dispute resolution counsellors, 9 as group facilitators and 5 as child consultants. Eight practitioners described themselves as fulfilling more than one of these professional roles. Each focus group was workplace based and comprised 4–11 participants, both male and female.

Procedure and materials

METHOD Participants As the concept of father engagement and the related competencies are novel areas of investigation, a focus group format was considered an appropriate vehicle to elicit practitioners’ experiences and ideas about engaging fathers. The target group was practitioners involved in mediation or dispute resolution counselling who regularly provided these services to fathers and mothers. The focus of the planned discussion was on the strategies, knowledge and skills (or their absence), employed by practitioners – rather than on the interaction between participants in the group (Kidd & Parshall, 2000; Krueger, 1994). As Morgan (2010) explained, while focus groups generate their data through group interaction, the research goal may focus more on the substantive content of those discussions, rather than the dynamics of the interaction. Through the collective discussion (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas & Robson, 2001) that consisted of participants’ agreements, disagreements and explanations, the ideas, language, concepts and ‘manner of thinking’ (Krueger, 1994, p. 19) typically used by practitioners to engage fathers was captured, as well as some of their usually implicit ‘normative assumptions’ (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 5). Six focus group interviews were conducted in urban and regional counselling centres on the east coast of Australia with a total of 41 practitioner participants (11 male, 30 female; age range 25 to 67 years). Participants’ years of experience in their work ranged from 1.5 to 35 years (median of 10 years). Twenty-six of the participants described themselves as counsellors, 14 as 104


The interview guide consisted of seven questions aimed at exploring the range of skills and knowledge practitioners employed in family dispute mediation and counselling with fathers (see Appendix). The broad topics included the nature of father engagement, influences on father engagement, and procedures in father engagement. Interview questions were developed from a review of the literature (Berlyn, et al., 2008; Fletcher & Visser, 2008) and prior work with service providers involving fathers (Fletcher, 2003). To further discussion about barriers to engagement, a list of beliefs about fathers and families was used as a discussion point. To prompt discussion about practitioner qualities, a set of strength cards were used. Participants were asked to utilise their experience of situations where both fathers and mothers were involved in order to focus the discussion on engaging the father without disregarding the mother. The groups were moderated by the first author and one assistant while a second assistant took notes. Four of the six groups were digitally recorded, while notes were taken of the remaining two. After introductions, the questions and exercises using the community beliefs list and the strengths cards were completed as planned in the interview guide. The discussions took approximately 2 hours. Participants were not paid for their participation (i.e. participation was voluntary).

Community beliefs about fathers A list of beliefs was drawn from the literature and from counselling texts concerning commonplace community beliefs about fathers and mothers in Australian society (see Appendix).



Strength cards The facilitators presented a list of strengths drawn from St Luke’s Strength Cards. This list contains 48 strengths in simple, positive words, and practitioners were invited to identify and discuss those strengths (or combinations of ) that they found important to engaging fathers in FDR. During the first three group interviews it was found that practitioners selected a similar group of strengths, and an abbreviated list (21 strength words) was presented to the subsequent group discussions.

Analysis Focus group discussions were transcribed and entered into the qualitative data analysis software program, NVivo7 (QSR International, 2006), which was used because it allows for flat and hierarchical coding. Additionally, the substantial amount of data generated from six groups of 2 hours’ length made it more practical to use NVivo 7 than to code manually. Following a process of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the interview topics became the first categorisation or indexing of the interview data. These topics included the nature of father engagement, indicators of father engagement, beliefs about fathers, and practitioner knowledge and strengths in relation to engaging with fathers. Following categorisation of the data, the analysis identified concepts or themes across the codes. Patterns emerged of the processes and stages of father engagement understood or experienced by practitioners, and concepts were developed that represented practitioners’ knowledge of and approaches to father engagement. Themes were then cross-checked against each group transcript to ensure that each theme discussed below was representative of the entire data set. Evidence for the themes and concepts is provided by citation of words, phrases or statements made by individual practitioners. These comments do not represent group consensus, but provide a flavour with respect to the building of the main themes. Text inside single speech marks is a

verbatim comment from one individual, who is not identified. Extensive quotes are identified by their group identity number, for example, FG03 represents a quote from Focus Group 3.

FINDINGS Engaging the father The first research question explored practitioners’ experiences of indicators or signs of engagement in the counselling–mediation relationship. All six groups of practitioners expressed the notion that an essential indicator of engagement was the father’s readiness to engage in the dispute resolution process. Many statements across focus groups indicated that ‘taking responsibility for himself ’ was a general indicator of engagement. This included the father offering information or ‘telling’ the practitioner about himself, exploring problems or issues, demonstrating active listening by asking questions and showing a positive body posture. Taking responsibility also included being willing ‘to do the things you decide’, and wanting to derive a ‘some plan, some new information … strategy, … something sorted out’. Another indicator of engagement was when the father acknowledged the mother in a positive way and ‘starts to realise the practitioner is listening to him as well as the wife; [that he has an] equal place’ (FG06). Thus a father’s engaged attitude was typically expressed by cooperation, willingness, and attentiveness which carried through repeat sessions; fathers moving from being ‘observers’ to ‘customers’. Suddenly sometimes the shift happens, when suddenly something happens and they realise, ‘Maybe it is my responsibility’. That’s taken a lot of engaging and a lot to get to that point. When they suddenly realise that the blame and guilt doesn’t work. (FG04)

Barriers to engagement Practitioners were aware that while many fathers were ready to engage in the process


105


from the outset, others found it problematic. The opening stages of the process were often the most difficult, and such difficulties acted as a ‘red light’ for the practitioner to ‘work harder’ at bringing the father into a participatory relationship. Reluctance to attend Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) was more likely if fathers had been ordered to attend, if they had a history of violence or drug or alcohol abuse, or perhaps were too ‘self-absorbed’ to focus on their children. Some practitioners perceived that a further difficulty for fathers in making the decision as to whether or not ‘they want to do the work’, was the extent to which fathers already felt ‘battered’, ‘negative’ or ‘marginalised’ by the Family Court system. Reluctance to participate was characterised by ‘stone-walling’ and passive-aggressive behaviour towards the practitioner: angry and argumentative, ambivalent or distrusting. According to practitioners, inevitable barriers to engagement emerged when fathers presented at mediation sessions with intentions to discuss their ‘rights’ concerning property and money, or to use the children as ‘tools’ against a mother. These intentions could distract discussion about children’s rights and parenting plans towards issues of power and winning, and this was a barrier until the father desired to return to discussing being involved in the parenting: And then they want to talk about their rights, and that’s big trouble as soon as you get either parent arguing, talking about their rights then the engagement is more difficult because you have to disengage them from the discussion about rights. Because what I say to them immediately is, ‘Under the Act, what we are interested in is the welfare of the children’, then try to re-focus them on that. (FG06) Practitioners also felt that fathers’ beliefs, preconceptions or even misperceptions could inhibit deeper involvement. A significant barrier inhibiting involvement was fathers’ perceptions of relationship talks as ‘feminine’. It was 106


felt that some fathers were anxious about embarking on what they perceived as ‘secret female business’ and were suspicious of the practitioner ‘siding with the women’. One practitioner explained: ‘If a female practitioner tells a male client that they are neutral, but they still speak the same language as the ex-, then it is hard [for the father] to accept that they are neutral’. As the quotes above and below illustrate, anxiety about feminisation also extended to the discussion of emotions: [It is] so hard to acknowledge their vulnerability, so when he sees a counsellor he is at risk. And so that is uncomfortable and all his defences are going to be up. (FG01) Other practitioners felt that a reticence to discuss feelings was not gender-related, but related to personality: I think that it’s more about personality. Some men and some women articulate emotion very readily in a session and some men and women don’t; they do it privately at home. So I don’t see that in either gender as a sign of engagement. Some people don’t have the language for it. (FG04) While some female practitioners expressed no difficulty in engaging male clients, others felt these feminisation beliefs predisposed fathers to avoid female practitioners or to circumvent working with their ex-partners in the FDR process: Most of them give feedback that me being female makes it OK to be vulnerable. It gives them permission to be vulnerable. (FG01) Also I am woman – many fathers have experience from their ‘ex-’ of being criticised for inadequate parenting (that is generally what the dispute is about) and here I am another woman. (FG01) As a female practitioner, so I’m perceived as another woman who has pre-conceived ideas. (FG02)



Having provided a rich description of engagement indicators and barriers, we now report on how practitioners facilitate engagement. Two steps in engaging with fathers were identified as basic to practitioner competencies.

Practitioners’ work: Respecting and reframing The exploration of the ways in which practitioners accomplished the process of engagement revealed a wide range of strategies and skills. However, the means by which this was accomplished emerged inductively as two major strategies in practitioners’ work: respecting and reframing.

Showing the father he is respected In the process of encouraging fathers to participate in negotiation of shared parenting plans, practitioners felt one of their principle strategies was to acknowledge the value of fathers as parents. As the following quote reveals, practitioners took care to recognise and value fathers. I think there are particular issues to consider when engaging any client but the particular issues with the father is that a lot of them come from other situations where they haven’t felt they were respected. So as part of their engagement you have to respect and value their position as a father. They often come feeling the world at large doesn’t value their role as fathers. (FG04) Fathers were described as feeling ‘behind the eight ball’ or ‘secondary parents’; some appearing to be ‘playing catch-up in parenting and relationships’. Practitioners were also aware of fathers of having to seek mothers’ ‘permission’ to have the children. One comment offered was that ‘it’s not easy to be a man or a father’. Many practitioners felt they should recognise the continuing conflict and resistance concerning father involvement. Listening, understanding, and ‘being curious’ were described as ways practitioners could show fathers they ‘had been recognised and their story listened to’:

[Making] contact with the perceptions they have of themselves as a parent and as a father and a man. (FG06) Seeking to understand what they’ve experienced and where they’re at and what they’re thinking. (FG06) When fathers’ stories were heard, then practitioners could better understand fathers’ history, background and ‘agenda’. Respect could also be shown through acknowledging fathers’ needs or expectations and helping to solve problems without what some practitioners described as ‘imposing’. A further focus of practitioners’ assertions of respect was with regard to fathers’ willingness to talk about emotions and relationships, a barrier to engagement identified earlier. Practitioners described how they encouraged men to acknowledge their feelings, for example, by ‘being transparent’ and ‘creating a safe space’. In sum, practitioners felt that a key first strategy was to demonstrate respect for fathers. Through listening to, empathising with, and eliciting a father’s story in a non-judgmental manner, practitioners aimed not to critique his perceptions but allow him to lay these out for reflection and, later, reframing.

Helping to reframe The second strategy that the focus group discussions implicated as critical to engaging fathers was reframing. Reframing is considered to mean a change in the conceptual or emotional context of a particular value or belief. This is described by Benjamin (as cited in Fisher, 2000) as redirecting the meaning of a communication to ‘allow for its more constructive use’ (paragraph 28) without distorting the meaning entirely. When practitioners prioritised acknowledging the father’s role, many then felt it was important to provide opportunities for fathers to reconsider their role. They described using their knowledge of law changes and their familiarity with social constructions of fatherhood to offer fathers a new context in which to see themselves. This included redirect-


107


ing the meaning of fatherhood – that from the perspective of the law for example, fathers are now considered to be as equally important as mothers, or from a more personal perspective, observations such as: ‘You are the expert here and I’m not’. Practitioners identified many other issues where they could help fathers reassign meaning. For example, the relationship talk in which they encouraged fathers to participate was recontextualised as a positive step; one practitioner reflecting to the father that, ‘You are taking control over your own life’. Practitioners also aimed for fathers to reconsider the focus of the mediation, moving away from the relationship ‘warring stories’ to the child’s best interests and ‘thinking about their responsibility’. Harsh parenting practices, whether carried out by their own fathers or themselves, were similarly reframed to help fathers understand the key messages of the dispute resolution process. As the following quote illustrates, practitioners needed to draw on resources such as their knowledge and skill to respect and reframe fathers’ experiences: Then yesterday it was quite amazing; he suddenly realised that door slamming and throwing things was bullying. I think I made that statement, but I couldn’t have said it in the first couple of sessions. He went away with this whole, ‘This is what I’m taking away from this session, is a realisation that that’s bullying, that I’ve actually been bullying’. (FG04) Further components of their resources were their strengths, which were discussed using the Strengths cards. One practitioner suggested that discussing these resources was ‘simply unpacking competent’ and this concept is now addressed.

Practitioner competencies for engaging fathers in mediation and counselling The concept of competency forms a substantial part of healthcare and counselling professionals’ codes of practice (Jackson, 2007; Kaslow, Celano, & Stanton, 2005; Roe, 2002). The following sections provide specification of bodies of knowl108


edge, skills and strategies that practitioners felt would enable them to effectively implement the practices of respecting and reframing in the context of engaging fathers.

Knowledge of role and ethical responsibilities The central role that practitioners considered they played in the FDR process was being there to ‘bat for the kids’, because ‘the core of FDR relationship specialis[ation] means that you are looking from the point of view of children’. Mediation work meant undertaking the ‘function’ of making a ‘bigger picture parenting plan’. According to practitioners across the six groups, at the heart of mediation are the child’s best interests and therefore all discussions with fathers revolved around consideration of the child. Practitioners also felt a core principal in their work was to preserve impartiality, maintaining neutrality at the same time as being curious, nonjudgemental and understanding: ‘If I’m judging this person and scrutinising this person I am not going to get anywhere with them’. Mediation was considered to differ from therapy or counselling, being solution focussed, and although as confidential, consists of less personal exploration and aims at specific outcomes of decisions, plans and certificates. Practitioners felt it was important to be aware of their role and its limitations, and following the different purposes of counselling and mediation, it was important to tell fathers whether the work to be done was at the ‘therapy or non-therapy level’.

Knowledge of theory and history Practitioners felt it was important to have specific knowledge of substantive father issues including the influence of fathers on child development, family dynamics and parenting after separation. For example, they felt it important to know how a father’s presence or absence at different stages of the child’s life was likely to impact on the child’s development. This knowledge was needed to address issues such as chil-



dren’s needs for warmth, fathers’ desire to share care of infants, and the impact of family experiences on parenting. At the same time, practitioners felt they needed to be aware of the research on a range of topics concerning fathers: theories of power including feminist critiques of power and domestic violence, and the historical and theoretical background of men and fathering. An awareness of such theories was thought to help understand or ‘unlock’ fathers’ concerns. Practitioners also reported the need to be in touch with support resources for fathers, such as workshops for men or separating parents, and father support services such as Dads in Distress.

Demonstrate cultural sensitivity Practitioners felt it was important to be able to demonstrate awareness of the changing societal or cultural changes that produced different perspectives on the meaning of fatherhood, fathers’ role or their practices. Practitioners acknowledged, for example, that they had to be aware of the ‘cultural/legal/social disjunction’ or the ‘cultural lag from law’ characterising recent expectations of father involvement. They felt that it was important to be alert to the conflict or confusion these new circumstances might cause in fathers: I suppose that sometimes they just think that – certainly in the past – parenting has been just primarily a mother’s role. I find that sometimes I have to go a little further in acknowledging the importance of the father role. Society just doesn’t generally do that. I find that’s changing but it’s still has a way to go. (FG04) Practitioners also appeared wary of cultural or gendered stereotypes and generalising, and felt these needed challenging when they were articulated in mediation sessions. In recognising cultural myths and typecasting, a practitioner could ‘understand someone so well that you be a cultural translator, how the system can work with them’. They felt they could use ‘legislation to counter myths’ or group-work as a way of challenging commonly held stereotypes among fathers.

With regard to gender sensitivity, there were two commonly held standpoints across the focus groups. One was that men are different from women and this should be accounted for; the other was that gender should not be a defining factor in the consultation process; that rather than engaging men, practitioners engage individuals. The first standpoint included statements about differences between men and women. For example, some practitioners noted that men are more difficult to engage than women because they often have not ‘processed’ emotions as fully as women have. They may in fact be full of strong emotions that they do not express easily, although they may be willing to talk once they feel ‘safe’. Points were made that some men prefer mediation because it is more ‘business like’ and not about ‘love structure’; and that they require more tangible or concrete engagement or activity. This was similar to the view that men are inclined to be ‘more cognitive’ and ‘respond quite well to facts and factual presentations’. The second standpoint concerned an appreciation of the limitations of generalising about fathers and men too broadly. It was noted that there are many individual differences among fathers and that these should not be ignored by practitioners for ‘men are different, one size doesn’t fit all, so need to be creative in your wording to suit the variety’ (FG02). Other practitioners noted that fathers as a group do not necessarily fit the generalisations pertaining to ‘men in general’. This second standpoint emphasised the need to address fathers as individuals first and foremost, downplaying the role of gender in any differences that practitioners found in their interactions with fathers: For me there’s not much difference in father engagement and human being engagement; every person that comes in has their peculiarities and things that are important and things that are impinging on them and you engage with them around that stuff, and what challenges and concerns they are facing. (FG04)


109


I get worried when people talk about gender – because of their uniform approach. It is important to think what it would be like to be a dad or mum and what would society or family say? (FG06) Every person is an individual. (FG 02) Focus group participants felt that it was important to get ‘past the stereotypes’ since these are ‘pitfalls’; practitioners should experience the individuality of a father, because as one practitioner noted, ‘father equals human being, engagement is the same’. Differences in emotionality, responsibility or use of power in this view are not due to gender, but more to personality, and are common to humanity in general. For example, ‘sometimes it’s a personality thing that they are not really talkers’; the practitioner aims then to ‘engage on a level that connects personally, regardless of gender’, in order to ‘tease out’ the individual differences and needs that emerge through the consultation process.

Demonstrate self-reflectiveness and interpersonal skills All groups mentioned the importance of selfreflection – on one’s own beliefs and views of parenting, of men, and of fathers – in preparation for engaging fathers. Being a father oneself was not sufficient qualification for being able to engage fathers. Self-reflection should also include consideration of the quality of one’s personal relationships with one’s own father, grandfather or other significant males, who may ‘not have necessarily done 5 years of psychotherapy themselves, but… have done some of that work themselves. What was it like with their father and what do they see happening with their relationships with women/others that they know’ (FG04). One of the purposes for this reflection was to become aware of the impact that personal beliefs might have on professional practice, and to bring these implicit beliefs into the open: ‘Holding [a] belief as a practitioner is not the problem: it is when it impacts on work’ (FG06): 110


As counsellors we don’t have any biases [laughter], we don’t have any preconceived ideas [laughter], and the fact that we are laughing highlights the fact that we hold some conflicting beliefs and clients hold some and until they are identified and played with then change can’t happen. (FG01) Alongside self-reflection, practitioners identified a range of interpersonal skills or qualities that enabled them to empathise and respond to fathers’ concerns at the same time as progress the purpose of the meeting. Such qualities included empathy, openness and authenticity. Empathy was characterised as being caring, warm and friendly, to be ‘available on their terms’, through sensitivity and understanding, which ‘encourages disclosure’; practitioners needed the ‘capacity to understand the man beneath the agro’ (FG05). Qualities of openness and authenticity were described in terms of being genuine and accepting, as well as direct in speech and meaning, to ‘talk, name and acknowledge’. Some practitioners felt that good interpersonal skills were most needed in the initial stages of the mediation process: If you can talk their language and accept their language and just be … you connect with them much faster. (FG04) In addition to interpersonal skills, a number of personal strengths were also identified. For example, resilience and firmness were considered important when ‘containing’ fathers’ strong and volatile emotions that might arise during the ‘tough work’ of a mediation session. Internal strength was needed to ‘be able to keep coming back to that work there’. In short, practitioners felt that the reflexive use or adaptation of such interpersonal skills and psychosocial strengths communicated to fathers the practitioner’s willingness and ability to accept and work with fathers’ problems and issues: ‘We are not going to run away just because you are getting very distressed or angry about something’ (FG06).



DISCUSSION This study was undertaken with a view to contributing to continuous quality improvement in professional standards for those working in family dispute resolution in Australia (Sourdin, Fisher, & Moloney, 2004). The descriptions of father engagement detailed here resonate with others’ observations of engagement (Friedlander et al., 2010; Orlinsky & Howard, 1967; Tryon, 1990; Yatchmenoff, 2005). Our results show that practitioners in these focus groups were confident in their ability to identify when fathers were engaged in meaningful negotiations with their partners and/or the mediation practitioner. They noted both non-verbal communications (such as posture, tone, attendance, and expressions of willingness or resistance to be involved) and verbal communication (such as preoccupations with ‘rights’ to property and money) as indicative of whether or not fathers were engaged in the goals and process of mediation. For many practitioners, the central feature of an engaged father was his taking responsibility for the successful outcome of the negotiations in terms of the wellbeing of the children involved. This is consistent with the research literature concerning fathers’ role in the family, where measures of ‘father involvement’ frequently mention the child–father relationship and his awareness of the wellbeing of his children (Boechler, Harrison & Magill-Evans, 2003; Lamb & Tamis-Lemonda, 2004; Mezulis, Hyde, & Clarke, 2004). The findings from this study also highlighted a number of factors that practitioners identified as posing challenges for father engagement. The extent to which a father felt angry, self-absorbed or negative influenced the quality of engagement – factors previously discussed by Bickerdike and Littlefield (2000). Other factors were related to the real or perceived ‘feminine’ nature of the consultation process (previously discussed by Ciarrochi, 2001; Rickwood & Braithwaite, 1994), whereby discussion and personal revelation were perceived as styles of communication more typical of women.

With respect to this gender-related issue, the study uncovered a debate among practitioners about whether gender or personality was predominant in fathers’ willingness to engage. Both personality and gender differences are recognised as having strong cultural and social influences (McCarthy & Holliday, 2004; Wong & Rochlen, 2005). However, although one stated principle was to treat people as individuals rather than create gender-informed pigeonholes, the need to recognise the special characteristics or attributes of fathers supports a ‘gender aware’ approach to engaging men in post-separation parenting disputes (Rochlen, 2005). Although a wide range of strategies were described by practitioners as being instrumental in engaging fathers, the analysis identified two overarching strategies: respecting and reframing. Prioritising respect is a central feature of cultural competence (Ball, 2008; ECCV, 2006). Practitioners in this study felt that respecting a father’s role and his previous experiences, and acknowledging the general lack of social recognition of fathers, were important clinical responses to encourage fathers to participate fully in the mediation process. The objective of reframing those beliefs about fathers that continued to portray them primarily as inadequate or incompetent parents was to align attitudes more closely with growing community expectations and growing research evidence of the competence of fathers as both providers and nurturers (Lamb & TamisLeMonda, 2004; Pacquette, 2004). The broad aim is to promote post-separation collaboration with mothers in meeting the developmental needs of their children and in actively sharing in the task of maintaining child-focused parenting arrangements (McIntosh, Wells, & Long, 2007). Finally, the information provided by the participants strongly suggests that successful father engagement requires practitioners to apply the strategies of respect and reframing through a set of competencies that echo other researchers’ conceptualisations of practitioner knowledge in areas such as nursing (Carper, 1978), family counselling


111


and mediation (Holmes, 2006) and public health (Jackson, 2007). Competencies, which are typically understood as an integration of skills, attitudes and knowledge (Pound, Dams, Gammon, Martindale, Page, & Stapleton, 2001; Rodolfa et al., 2005), were discussed by practitioners in terms of the interpersonal skills needed to empathise with and respond to fathers’ concerns, and their personal attributes of sensitivity, awareness of self and awareness of others. Practitioners also described occupational and ethical responsibilities that required a theoretical and historical knowledge of fatherhood, parenthood and child development. The focus group method utilised in this project is a way of tapping the tacit or implicit expertise of practitioners (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000; McCracken & Marsh, 2008). This project made no attempt to link father engagement knowledge to gender, years of experience or professional qualifications, although this question is addressed in a research project currently underway. In the end, however, it may be that the competence to successfully respect and reframe fathers’ experiences is an aspect of practitioner responsiveness, a construct described by Friedlander et al. (2010) as ‘accurate adaptation to changing client needs’ ( p. 198). It may be that responsiveness, perhaps a ‘sine qua non’ of good mediation, results from a highly sophisticated skills and knowledge base that cuts across gender and professional qualifications, and in the end relies primarily on a personal commitment to ongoing training, supervision and the accumulation of professional experience.

References Addington, J., Francey, S. M., & Morrison, A. P. (Eds.). (2006). Working with people at high risk of developing psychosis: A treatment handbook. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Addis, M., & Mahalik, J. (2003). Men, masculinity and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1): 5-14. Andersen, B. L., Shelby, R. A., & Golden-Kreutz, D. M. (2007). RCT of a psychological intervention with patients for cancer: 1. Mechanisms of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(6): 927-938. 112


Ball, J. (2008). Cultural safety in practice with children, families and communities. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.ecdip. org/docs/pdf/rp/culturalsafety.pdf. Baum, N. (2004). On helping divorced men to mourn their losses. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 58(2): 174-185. Baum, N. (2006). Post divorce paternal disengagement: Failed mourning and role fusion. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(2): 245-254. Berlyn, C., Wise, S., & Soriano, G. (2008). Engaging fathers in child and family services. Participation, perceptions and good practice. Occasional Paper No. 22. Canberra: National Evaluation Consortium, FACHSIA. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Individuality and diversity: Theory and research in counseling psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 343-381. Bickerdike, A., & Littlefield, L. (2000). Divorce adjustment and mediation: Theoretically grounded process research. Mediation Quarterly, 18: 181-201. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage. Boechler, V., Harrison, M. J., & Magill-Evans, J. (2003). Father-child teaching interactions: The relationship to father involvement in caregiving. Journal of Paediatric Nursing, 18(1): 46-51. Brady, L., & Scully, A. (2005). Engagement: Inclusive classroom management. Sydney: Pearson Education. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Carper, B. (1978). Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 1(1): 13-23. Chisholm, R. (2009). The meanings of ‘meaningful’ within the Family Law Act Amendments of 2006: A legal perspective. Journal of Family Studies, 15(1): 60-66. Ciarocchi, J. V. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to seek help from professional and non-professional sources. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 29: 233-246. Coatsworth, J. D., Santisteban, D. A., McBride, C. K., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Brief strategic family therapy versus community control: Engagement, retention, and an exploration of the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process, 40: 313-332.


Practitioners’ understanding of father engagement in the context of family dispute resolution Connors, G. J., Carroll, K. M., DiClemente, C.C., & Longabaugh, R. J. (1997). The therapeutic alliance and its relationship to alcoholism, treatment participation and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65: 588-98. Cunningham, W. S., Duffee, D. E., Yufan Huang., Steinke, C. M., & Naccarato, T. (2009). On the meaning and measurement of engagement in youth residential treatment centers. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(1): 63-76. Dearing, R.L., Barrick, C., Dermen, K. H., & Walitzer, K.S. (2005). Indicators of client engagement: Influences on alcohol treatment satisfaction and outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(1): 71-78. Dennison, E. (2003). Father’s engagement with child clinical psychologists: A grounded theory study of client and provider perspective. Unpublished Doctor of Clinical Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds. Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action of an expert practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2): 87-101. Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria (2006). Cultural Competence Guidelines and Protocols. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://eccv.org. au/doc/CulturalCompetenceGuidelinesandProto cols.pdf. Family Action Centre. (nd). Involving fathers in Early Childhood services. Retrieved July 28, 2010 from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/researchcentre/fac/research/fathers/involving-fathers/ training.html. Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. Retrieved September 27, 2009 from http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/ Page/Families_FamilyLawAmendment(SharedRe sponsibility)Act2006. Family Relationships Online (2010). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from http://www.familyrelationships. gov.au/fdr. Fisher, T. (2000, May). Advice by any other name... interventions that mask similar intentions. Paper presented at the 5th National Mediation Conference, Brisbane, Queensland. Fletcher, R. (2003). Father’s role in family services: The Engaging Fathers Project. In R. Sullivan (Ed.), Focus on fathering (pp. 125-141). Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press. Fletcher, R., & Visser, A. (2008). Facilitating father engagement: The role of Family Relationship Centres. Journal of Family Studies, 14(1): 53-64. Friedlander, M. L., Bernardi, S., & Lee, H-H.

(2010). Better versus worse family therapy sessions as reflected in clients’ alliance-related behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2): 198-204. Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2005). Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6): 616-623. Gillespie, M., Smith, J., Meaden, A., Jones, C., & Wane, J. (2004) Clients’ engagement with assertive outreach services: A comparison of client and staff perceptions of engagement and its impact on later engagement. Journal of Mental Health, 13(5): 439–452. Holmes, S. (2006). Becoming ‘the best possible’ family counsellor or family mediator: What expertise research has to say. Journal of Family Studies, 12(1): 113-122. Jackson, A. K. (2007). Cultural competence in health visiting practice: A baseline survey. Community Practitioner, 80(2): 17-22. Kaslow, N. J., Celano, M. P., & Stanton, M. (2005). Training in family psychology: A competencies-based approach. Family Processes, 44(3): 337-353. Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., et al. (2009). Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group. Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 293-308. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lamb, M. E., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2004). The role of the father. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 100-105). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lewis, C., & O’Brien, M. (1987). Constraints on fathers: Research, theory and clinical practice. In C. Lewis & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood (pp. 1-19). London: Sage. Lister, M., & Gardner, D. (2006). Engaging hard to engage clients: A Q methodological study involving clinical psychologists. Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 79(3): 419-443. Liu, W. M. (2005). The study of men and masculinity as an important multicultural competency consideration. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6): 685-697. Martin, D., Garske, J., & Davis, M. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other


113

Richard J Fletcher and Jennifer M StGeorge variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68: 438-450. McCarthy, J., & Holliday, E. L. (2004). Help-seeking and counselling within a traditional male gender role: An examination from a multicultural perspective. Journal of Counselling & Development, 82(4): 25-30. McCracken, S. G., & Marsh, J. C. (2008). Practitioner expertise in evidence-based practice decision making. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4): 301-310. Mclntosh, J., & Deacon-Wood, H. B. (2003). Group interventions for separated parents in entrenched conflict: An exploration of evidence-based frameworks. Journal of Family Studies, 9: 187-199. McIntosh, J. E., & Moloney, L. (2006). Dialogues with separated parents: Child focused dispute resolution. Melbourne: La Trobe University Centre for Online Multimedia Technologies. McIntosh, J., Wells, Y., & Long, C. (2007). Childfocused and child-inclusive family law dispute resolution: One year findings from a prospective study of outcomes. Journal of Family Studies, 13(1): 8-25. Merrilinga (nd). Dads in the early years. Available from http://www.meerilinga.org.au/Parenting/ Dads%20in%20the%20Early%20Years.aspx (accessed 28 July 2010). Mezulis, A. H., Hyde, J. S., & Clark, R. (2004). Father involvement moderates the effect of maternal depression during a child’s infancy on child behaviour problems in kindergarten. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4): 575-588. Moloney, L., & McIntosh, J. E. (2004). Child responsive practices in Australian family law. Journal of Family Studies, 10(1): 71–86. Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5): 718-722. Orlinsky, D. E., & Howard, K. I. (1967). The good therapy hour: Experiential correlates of patients’ and therapists’ evaluations of therapy sessions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16: 621-632. Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4): 193-219. Pound, R., Dams, M., Gammon, K., Martindale, J., Page, C., & Stapleton, J. (2001). Practice and knowledge: An action research approach. Community Practitioner, 74(3): 104-106. QSR International (2006) (Version NVivo 7). Doncaster: QSR International. 114


Rickwood, D. J., & Braithwaite, V. A. (1994). Socialpsychological factors affecting help-seeking for emotional problems. Social Science & Medicine, 39(4): 563-572. Robertson, J. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1992). Overcoming the masculine mystique: Preferences for alternative forms of assistance among men who avoid counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2): 240-246. Rochlen, A. B. (2005). Men in (and out of ) therapy: Central concepts, emerging directions, and remaining challenges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6): 627-631. Rodolfa, E., Bent, R., Eisman. E., Nelson, P., Rehm, L., & Ritchie, P. (2005). A cube model for competency development: Implications for psychology educators and regulators. Professional Psychology - Research and Practice, 36(4): 347-354. Roe, R. A. (2002). What makes a competent psychologist? European Psychologist, 7(3): 192-202. Sexton, T. L. (2007). The therapist as a moderator and mediator in successful therapeutic change. Journal of Family Therapy, 29(2): 104-108. Smith, J. A., Braunack-Mayer, A., & Wittert, G. (2006). What do we know about men’s helpseeking and health service use? The Medical Journal of Australia, 184(2): 81-83. Sourdin, T., Fisher, T., & Moloney, L. (2004). Towards quality standards for family dispute practitioners. Research report. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/ agd.nsf/Page/Publications. St Luke’s Strength Cards. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://wwwinnovativeresourcesorg/ display_detailsaspx?productcode=0100. Symonds, D., & Horvath, A. O. (2004). Optimizing the alliance in couple therapy. Family Process, 43(4): 443-455. Tryon, G. S. (1990). Session depth and smoothness in relation to the concept of engagement in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(3): 248-253. Uniting Care, Institute of Family Practice. (nd). Working with Men. Retrieved June 28, 2010 from http://www.ifp.nsw.edu.au/newpdf/WWM%20 Accredited.pdf. Wong, Y. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (2005). Demystifying men’s emotional behaviour: New directions and implications for counseling and research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(1): 62-72. Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2005). Measuring client engagement from the client’s perspective in nonvoluntary child protective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2): 84-96.



APPENDIX Focus group questions • The nature of father engagement • What is ‘father engagement’ in a helping context for separating parents? • Is disengagement by fathers more likely at some particular stage? • What impact does conflict between the mother and father have on the father engaging in the process? • What is the role of ‘power’ in engaging fathers? • Indicators of engagement • What are the indicators of fathers who are ready or not ready, to engage?

• Beliefs about fathers • How do beliefs about fathers’ and mothers’ roles impact on your practice when engaging with fathers? • Practitioner strengths and knowledge • What are the strengths a practitioner needs for engaging fathers? • What knowledge or topics are essential in preparation for working with fathers? • What strategies do you use to engage fathers? (this was not usually asked directly)

Community beliefs about fathers • • • •

The role of dads is to be providers Mums are more nurturing Men are controlling and dominating Men don’t take responsibility

• Women make up allegations of abuse against dads when separating • Both parents have rights • Kids should live with their mums

CALL FOR PAPERS Advances in Contemporary Community and Family Health Care (2nd edn) A special issue of Contemporary Nurse – Deadline for Papers: 1st February 2011 ISBN 978-1-921729-28-7 ~ Volume 39 Issue 1 ~ ii+126 pages ~ August 2011 Guest Editors: Anne McMurray, Adjunct Professor, Research Centre for Clinical and Community Practice, Innovation, Griffith University, Gold Coast QLD, Australia; and Mark Hayter, Reader in Nursing and Head of Taught Post Graduate Programmes, The University of Sheffield School of Nursing and Midwifery, UK Prospective authors are invited to submit an abstract of up to 200 words on these issues to Guest Editors ([email protected]; [email protected]) in advance of the manuscript submission.

NOW AVAILABLE Child Support A special issue of Journal of Family Studies ISBN 978-1-921348-83-9 ~ Volume 16 Issue 1 ~ ii+94 pages ~ April 2010 Guest Editor: Bruce Smyth Australian National University Canberra, ACT, Australia While most child support schemes are now well established, many continue to be ‘modernised’ in a bid to improve the balance between adequacy and equity and to adapt to changing social trends. The Australian Child Support Scheme is a case in point. Sweeping reforms were recently introduced, featuring a dramatically different – albeit more complex – system for the calculation of child support and an enhanced compliance regime. eContent Management Pty Ltd, PO Box 1027, Maleny QLD 4552, Australia Tel.: +61-7-5435-2900; Fax. +61-7-5435-2911; [email protected] www.e-contentmanagement.com


115