Using Hierarchies of Loss in Courses on Research Methods or Death and Dying

A teaching tool is presented to help students differentiate disenfranchised grief from hierarchies of losses perceived as legitimate relationships to grieve, reflecting both social norms and life experiences. The tool is also used in research methods courses to match conceptualization with measurement of nominal, ordinal, or interval variables.  This small group activity includes three scenarios of deceased children or adults and their social networks. US class discussion group results are compared to those from previous UK individual research participants. Findings suggest instructors can benefit from deemphasizing binary categorization and focusing on quality and context of relationships rather than structural roles.

Objectives

1. To demonstrate a teaching tool for identifying hierarchies of loss and social norms for determining legitimacy of relationships that warrant grief. 2. To describe results of using this teaching tool with small groups of students in US classes as compared to results from use of similar scenarios with individual research participants in the UK. 3. To identify uses of this teaching tool within courses on research methods or death and dying.

Family Life Stage and Relationship Education Efficacy

In this study we examined if family life stage affects the outcomes of relationship education and if changing norms of family development matter in family development theory using linear mixed-effect models to estimate the impact of family life stage on the post-test scores of three RE outcomes, controlling for pre-test scores and income. We then organized participants by whether or not they fit the theory's expected (traditional) stage progression, and tested for an interaction with traditional progression by family life stage. Significant interactions were found for two of the three outcome variables. Results, and their implications for practice, are discussed.

Objectives

(1) To identify if family life stage impacts the outcomes of relationship education. (2) To identify which stages may be impacting specific outcomes. (3) Answer whether changing norms of family development matter in family development theory.

Family Resilience and Dementia: A Model for Family Life Education

We present a new model to serve as a basis for family life education designed to support families with dementia, the Progression-Reframing-Protection-Navigating (PRPN) model. This family resilience based model addresses key areas for family life education for families dealing with dementia: the common forms of progression in dementia (P), reframing or developing new meaning (R), mobilizing or accessing protection through family adaptive systems to address changes within the system associated with dementia (P), and navigating the ebb of flow of family life with dementia in ways that yield competent short- and long-term functioning at multiple family system levels (N).

Objectives

1. Participants will learn the common stages of dementia as a base to use in guiding families as they experience and prepare for transitions and changes associated with disease progression. 2. Participants will learn concepts of the Family Resilience (FRM) model and how to apply the Progression-Reframing-Protection- Navigating (PRPN) model for families who have members with dementia. 3. Participants will learn how to assist families in developing and/or accessing protection through family and community resources and services.

Family Resource Centres and LGBT Family Inclusion

This research explored LGBT-specific inclusion within family resource centres (FRCs) and what it looks like from the perspective of FRC staff. Fifteen people completed a survey asking about resources, materials, policies, and training. Six people were also interviewed about FRC’s roles in creating and maintaining LGBT inclusion. Results showed inclusion efforts were occuring at a minority of centres. Five themes from the qualitative interviews showed that FRC staff recognize that more resources and education are needed but that separate programming for LGBT families is unnecessary. Findings raise important questions about how LGBT inclusion can be achieved in this context.  

Objectives

1. To examine current LGBT inclusion efforts in Family Resource Centres. 2. To examine the perspectives of Family Resource Centre staff about LGBT inclusion. 3. To reflect on what LGBT inclusion looks like in family life education.