In recent years, governments in many post‐industrial nations have re‐discovered ‘community’. Social capital and neighbourhood renewal are key concepts underpinning policies aimed at building the capacities of communities to respond to the problems facing them. Despite the apparent consensus amongst Anglo‐American governments about the use of social capital, and related concepts, as a guide for policy formulation these ideas remain hotly contested amongst social policy commentators. Against a general backdrop of disquiet about the application of social capital initiatives to communities facing significant social and economic challenges, some commentators highlight the curious inattention to gender in debates about social capital. This is all the more troubling given the apparent reliance of social capital initiatives on the informal network‐building activities often undertaken by women. In this article we present findings from an empirical study of social capital creation across four geographically diverse communities. We show that the relationship between gender and social capital is complex. We argue that the ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ approach to social capital formulation fails to recognise gendered patterns of social capital formulation, but so, too, do analyses of gender that neglect the complex interactions between gender and other factors, particularly location, age and income. We argue for approaches to policy formulation that recognise local differences, including differences between and amongst men and women in social capital creation.

This article draws on an Australian project engaging with families with complex support needs as their children start school. The project itself is focused on developing collaborative research relationships between families, community support agencies and researchers with the aim of investigating what happens for families during the transition to school. In particular, the project has focused on developing strategies that promote recognition of family strengths, as well as challenges, and that support a positive start to school education. This article reports a range of ethical issues and situations encountered throughout the project. The aim of reporting these is to share some of the critical reflections about the assumptions underpinning the research, ethical engagement with research participants, and the responsibilities researchers have. In particular, the authors share reflections about the nature and implications of conducting research with families, accessing research participants and strategies for engaging with research participants. The approach taken in the project, and this article, reflects assumptions about research as an ethical process and the need for researchers to consider the ethical issues and situations they meet within research contexts.

No abstract

In recent years, Australian governments at all levels have adopted social capital and related concepts to frame social policy. Hence, these ideas provide the backdrop within which much contemporary social work practice and social policy development occurs. Despite extensive coverage of social capital concepts in the social science literature there has been limited discussion of their application to social work practice. In this paper we review the origins and meaning of social capital. We then turn to a discussion of its application to progressive social work as well as a consideration of the criticisms of social capital concepts. We introduce a synergy model of social capital formation that incorporates a dual focus on local community networks and the role of the institutions of government, non‐government agencies and business in the creation of social capital. The paper concludes with consideration of how a synergy approach can be applied in, and developed through, social work practice.

BackgroundIndigenous infants and children in Australia, especially in remote communities, experience early and chronic otitis media (OM) which is difficult to treat and has lifelong impacts in health and education. The LiTTLe Program (Learning to Talk, Talking to Learn) aimed to increase infants’ access to spoken language input, teach parents to manage health and hearing problems, and support children’s school readiness. This paper aimed to explore caregivers’ views about this inclusive, parent-implemented early childhood program for 0–3 years in an Aboriginal community health context.MethodsData from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 9 caregivers of 12 children who had participated in the program from one remote Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory are presented. Data were analysed thematically. Caregivers provided overall views on the program. In addition, three key areas of focus in the program are also presented here: speech and language, hearing health, and school readiness.ResultsCaregivers were positive about the interactive speech and language strategies in the program, except for some strategies which some parents found alien or difficult: such as talking slowly, following along with the child’s topic, using parallel talk, or baby talk. Children’s hearing was considered by caregivers to be important for understanding people, enjoying music, and detecting environmental sounds including signs of danger. Caregivers provided perspectives on the utility of sign language and its benefits for communicating with infants and young children with hearing loss, and the difficulty of getting young community children to wear a conventional hearing aid. Caregivers were strongly of the opinion that the program had helped prepare children for school through familiarising their child with early literacy activities and resources, as well as school routines. But caregivers differed as to whether they thought the program should have been located at the school itself.ConclusionsThe caregivers generally reported positive views about the LiTTLe Program, and also drew attention to areas for improvement. The perspectives gathered may serve to guide other cross-sector collaborations across health and education to respond to OM among children at risk for OM-related disability in speech and language development.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1081-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.