The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has been experienced differently in and within individual countries and thus has had a different impact on the individual researchers in the child–computer interaction studies. There were several challenges that our research group experienced during the pandemic period, with a rapid transition to digital working conditions and a society managing altered living conditions. The changes happened on all levels of the society, and they affected our key participants — children, teachers, designers of children’s digital books and publishers. In this Viewpoint article we highlight the lessons learnt from the changes in our study designs and data collection processes due to lockdown and other restrictions related to the pandemic. We draw on three case studies to showcase the adjustments we made and the impact such changes have had on the quality of data, participants’ attitudes towards data collection and the studies’ outcomes. The theoretical frameworks of ‘funds of knowledge’ and ‘funds of identity’ structure our discussion on the new knowledge, skills and resources that were mobilized during the pandemic from diverse community members. We propose the concept of ‘community of practice’ to guide future developments in child–computer interaction studies to support and sustain collectives of multi-disciplinary, trusted networks of diverse stakeholders.

Social workers' constructions of children and childhood are central to how professionals interact with children and support their needs. The aim of this integrative review was to provide a comprehensive portrayal of child protection social workers' constructions of children and childhood. We analysed and synthesized 35 empirical studies with samples of social workers in the child protection domain where issues regarding the child or the child's situation were the study focus. The findings show that children and youth are constructed as a generalized group viewed in light of their parents. We see a fragmented and context‐free child produced by causal shortcuts strongly informed by specific and, at times, simplified and biased psychological knowledge. Moreover, we identify constructions of the child in need of protection and thereby position children as objects for intervention, separating that from children as subjects in their own rights. Although the participatory child is visible in the data material, the actual practice of involving children seems arbitrary.

No abstract

EnglishThis study explores understandings of children and childhood among 21 social workers from five child protection services in Chile. To help grasp multiple ideas about children and childhood, we use Q methodology and the ‘child visibility’ concept. The object is to explore dissimilar and/or similar views on child visibility among social workers and the characteristics of these viewpoints. The results reveal three distinct views on child visibility. Based on the characteristics of these perspectives, we have conceptualized the workers associated with them as: activists, buffers and experts. The activists vigorously seek children’s own perspectives, and produce an image of capable children with unique perspectives. The buffers and the experts, however, typically define children’s needs from their own perspectives. Nevertheless, through differing logics, the experts focus on children’s vulnerability and protection needs, while the buffers are more inclined to view children in terms of their contextual risk and on the margins in an underfunded child protection context. Despite these differences, there are shared viewpoints among the social workers, for example, by understanding children as relational. The results are discussed in light of current theory within childhood studies. SpanishNiños e infancia en Chile: Perspectivas de los trabajadores sociales.Este estudio explora las concepciones que sobre los niños y la infancia desarrollan 21 trabajadores sociales de cinco servicios de protección infantil en Chile. Para comprender estas múltiples ideas, utilizamos la Metodología Q y el concepto de “visibilidad del niño”. El objeto es explorar perspectivas similares o diferentes respecto a la visión que tienen los trabajadores sociales sobre este grupo social, así como las características de esos puntos de vista. Los resultados revelan tres tipos de visión distintivos sobre los niños. Con base a las características de estas tres perspectivas, hemos conceptualizado a los trabajadores sociales asociados con ellas como: activistas, baluartes, y expertos. Los activistas buscan vigorosamente las perspectivas de los propios infantes y producen una imagen de que los niños poseen capacidades y perspectivas únicas. Los otros dos grupos, sin embargo, típicamente definen las necesidades de los niños desde sus propias representaciones. A través de lógicas distintas, los expertos se enfocan en la vulnerabilidad de los infantes y sus necesidades de protección; mientras los baluartes están más inclinados a ver a los niños en términos de sus propios riesgos contextuales, y en los márgenes de un contexto de protección infantil con financiación insuficiente. A pesar de estas diferencias, existen puntos de vista comunes entre los trabajadores sociales, por ejemplo, al entender a los niños en términos relacionales. Estos resultados son discutidos a la luz de las teorías actuales dentro de los estudios de la infancia.

BackgroundIntroducing new technologies into healthcare practices may challenge professionals' traditional care cultures. The aim of this review was to map how the ‘ethics of care’ theoretical framework informs empirical studies of technology‐mediated healthcare.MethodA scoping review was performed using eight electronic databases: CINAHL with full text, Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, the Philosopher's Index, SocINDEX with Full Text, SCOPUS, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science. This was followed by citation tracking, and articles were assessed against the inclusion criteria.ResultsOf the 443 initial articles, 18 met the criteria and were included. We found that nine of the articles used the concept of ‘ethics of care’ (herein used interchangeably with the terms ‘feminist ethics’ or ‘relational ethics’) insubstantially. The remaining nine articles deployed care ethics (or its equivalent) substantially as an integrated theoretical framework and analytical tool. We found that several articles suggested an expansion of ethics of care to encompass technologies as part of contemporary care. Furthermore, ethics of care contributed to the empirical research by recognising both new relationships between patients and healthcare professionals as well as new ethical challenges.ConclusionEthics of care is sparsely used as a theoretical framework in empirical studies of technology‐mediated healthcare practices. The use of ethics of care in technology‐mediated care brings new dilemmas, relational tensions and vulnerabilities to the foreground. For ethics of care to be used more explicit in empirical studies, it is important that it is recognised by research community as an adequate, universal ethical theory.