Citation

Gough B, Reavey P. Child Abuse Negl. 1997; 21(5): 417-430.

Affiliation

School of Health and Community Studies, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

9158903

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In the light of the psychological literature (e.g., Bettleheim, 1987) which indicates various contradictions surrounding the talk about and practice of the physical punishment of children (PPC), the main aim of the present study is to identify and examine the rationale(s) used by parents which bolster(s) PPC. METHODOLOGY: Data collection--semistructured interviews carried out with 10 parents (nine female, one male). Data analysis--discourse analysis (e.g., Potter & Wetherall, 1987), a form of qualitative data analysis which is sensitive to the range and complexity of accounts (or discourses) presented by participants. Hence, we explore the various (often conflicting) discourses deployed by parents while talking about PPC, an approach which has not been used before in the study of parental discipline. RESULTS: Various oppositional discourses were used by the parents, each of which implies diverse justifications and consequences. Four in particular were identified--PPC as (1) pedagogic (educational). (2) cathartic (need relief); (3) individualistic (power assertion); (4) cyclical (reproduction)--and five instances of contradiction explicated with reference to the particular discursive context. CONCLUSION: Much confusion and complexity regarding PPC is evident from parental talk which is marked by discursive variation and contradiction. These discursive collisions notwithstanding, the participant's discourse generally implies the oppressive positioning of children and, consequently, offers support for physical punishment. The study also highlights the utility of discourse analysis as a method for interrogating PPC--and indeed other phenomena related to child abuse and neglect.

Language: en