Abstract
Cultural context has a significant influence on family support and parenting for children living with disabilities and has been powerful in shaping treatment and service provision. For parents, a pervasive concern lies with planning for future care provision for their child, and here culture plays a role. This qualitative research explores how cultural context shapes the future care provision plans for Korean parents by examining similarities and differences of future care provision-planning between Korean migrant families in New Zealand and those living in Korea. Specifically, the article examines the influence of familism on planning for future care among Koreans.
Introduction
A pervasive concern for families providing care for a child living with disabilities is around what might happen to the individual living with disabilities when the family becomes unable to provide care (Bowey and McGlaughlin, 2007; Morgan, 2009). Yet the needs of people living with disabilities (especially those under familial care) related to future care provision-planning have been an overlooked area (Bowey and McGlaughlin, 2007; Taggart et al., 2012). It is highly probable that individuals living with disabilities in the family home will become dependent on some form of formal care, making it an essential topic to research.
The cultural background and geographical location of all families have a substantial influence on future care planning processes. Social phenomena and the attached meaning are being produced and reproduced constantly by diverse social actors (i.e. language, culture, people and the interaction between them) (Bryman, 2001). Knowledge and meaning are developed through human practice and are constructed through interactions between people and the world surrounding them. Thus, experiences of individuals from the same cultural and ethnic backgrounds potentially differ between migrants and individuals living in their country of origin due to different social actors. This article will make comparisons among Korean families living in countries with distinctive cultural backgrounds, Korea and New Zealand, to see how their experiences and approaches to future care provision-planning differ.
Korean culture has a unique impact on how disability is perceived, understood and treated in Korean society. With Confucianism playing an influential role in shaping the family structure and communities, individual self-help, family interdependence and filial piety have been accentuated as a social virtue (Hyun, 2001; Shin and Shaw, 2003). Familism, 1 in particular, has a great impact on the aspects of Koreans’ life, values, ideologies and consciousness. Supporting, nurturing and caring for family members are understood and accepted as an unquestioned duty for Koreans. Therefore, with Korean society placing responsibilities for welfare of individuals on families, it is highly likely that such familism will have a considerable amount of influence on future care for Korean families planning for children living with disabilities. Furthermore, the values of familism also have an influence on Korean families living overseas when they later experience the host society’s health-care system. For instance, in New Zealand, although familial involvement is much encouraged, most systems and services are perceived to support the independence of their children. This may cause a dilemma for Korean parents, who are from a culture that emphasizes familism.
Thus, treatment, service provision and future care planning processes are substantially influenced by the cultural background of families providing care and support for an individual living with disabilities. Reflecting the issues summarized above, the current article explores the differences and similarities in the experienced reality of future care planning between Korean parents in Korea and those who have migrated to New Zealand.
Methodology
Since the overarching theme of the study was concerned with gaining data from Korean parents (and professionals working with those parents) on their plans and perspectives related to future care provision for their children, this study was conducted using a qualitative design. 2 To collect rich and lived data, semi-structured interviews were conducted. To analyse the collected data, a conventional content analysis method was used.
Sampling
Potential participants were identified using the snowball sampling technique. The information about the study was provided to the key informants to be passed on to potential participants. Participation was completely voluntary. After each interview, individual participants were asked whether they knew any other parents in a similar situation.
The participants had to meet the following sampling criteria:
Parent participants must be caring for a child living with mental, intellectual, physical and/or sensory impairments and as a result require ongoing care and support in their life, including personal care and decision-making.
Parent participants must be caring for their child in the familial home (the child must not be staying full-time in a residential facility).
Also, the following key definitions were taken into consideration in the sampling process:
‘Children’ in this study does not refer to the age of the person, but to the relationship between the parents and the child.
Depending on the parents’ and child’s age, perception and experience in planning may differ as the level of necessity of planning may differ. Hence, we tried to recruit parent participants with adult children who were in their last few years of high school or out of high school.
The demographic profile of the participants is presented in Table 1.
Demographic profile.
Data collection and analysis
Data were collected through interviews with 36 participants. It included 18 participants (9 parents and 9 professionals) from Korea and 18 participants (8 parents and 10 professionals) from Auckland. Professionals were individuals who belonged to an organization or service provider supporting people living with disabilities and their families. They were recruited to offer professional views around future care planning perceptions and experiences of Korean parents. The key questions asked during the interviews included:
What is/are your plan(s) for your child’s care provision in the future when you can no longer provide it yourself?
In your professional view, how well do you think parents caring for children living with disabilities are prepared for their children’s future care provision?
The collected data were analysed using conventional content analysis method, which allows categories to be discovered directly from the gathered data. The method is appropriate for studies with limited existing research, literature or theory around the phenomena (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), as for the case in the study undertaken here.
In the analysis process and discussion, the collected data were divided into four groups: (1) Korean parents in Korea; (2) Korean parents in New Zealand; (3) Korean professionals in Korea; and (4) professionals in New Zealand (eight Korean and one non-Korean) working with Korean families caring for children living with disabilities. They were treated as distinct sets of data to reflect and capture major themes raised from each group, including the differing perceptions and experiences expressed between the professional and parent participants, both within and between the two countries selected.
From multiple readings of the transcripts of the interview, there emerged subjects that the participants discussed recurrently. These subjects were treated as the initial codes. Through the process of analysis, these codes were then categorized into two major sections: reasons behind lack of planning, and options for future care provision. These two sections used in the analysis formed the basis for the discussion of the data. Participants have been anonymized in the discussion below.
Findings
Reasons behind lack of planning
Lack of information
Professional participants from both countries have communicated that the planning process is significantly impacted by a lack of information. Professional participants in New Zealand have noted, I feel they aren’t sure of where to start and exactly what to prepare, and what is available and where. (Jung)
Participants residing in Korea criticized that such an issue leaves the process of planning as a familial and personal problem, which results in a ‘self-reliant’ process: Everything is done personally . . . The mothers’ ability in gathering information is critical . . . It’s solely about the mothers’ ability to gather information. (Kim)
Furthermore, although the types of insufficient database differed, in both countries, it was reported that the lack of a comprehensive database was a significant influence on the future care provision plans for the parents currently providing care, as well as the general use of support services. While parents in New Zealand were experiencing a lack of databases around case studies to provide guidelines on how to support and raise children living with disabilities, in Korea, experiences of lack of a database were mostly related to the absences of an overarching database of service providers. This meant that families themselves had to search for and contact service providers for availability.
Nevertheless, in regard to information and general service provision, one of the primary differences between the two selected countries was the bridging role between providers and service users, as well as between the population group and the society. In contrast to the availability of referral services, providing links between service providers, and service coordinators in New Zealand supporting a direct bridge between providers and users, the data gathered in Korea revealed the absence of such a medium. As a result, parents in Korea experience significant difficulty and inconvenience as families need to be involved directly in information gathering and contacting service providers personally. Furthermore, the disability-related organizations in New Zealand are observed to be more actively engaged and involved in the provision of education and training for families.
The perception of professionals was seen to be negatively impacted by such lack of bridging among parents in Korea: When parents make calls to the community service centres or the ward office, the social work departments there lack in professionalism. So, because they find working with social workers at the community service centre frustrating, they start doing it themselves, directly making calls here and there. (Keum)
Participants from both countries argued that the lack of information becomes more concerning and problematic once the child completes school years or enters adulthood without being connected to any organizations or service providers, as it cuts the channels off for possible information exchange. According to the examples that participants from both countries shared, this then led to families experiencing the process of future care provision-planning as a familial problem that needs to be resolved within the families.
Economic capacity
In Korea, the economic capacity of the parents was identified by both professional and parent participants as another significant reason behind the lack of future care provision-planning. The economic capacity of the parents determines not only the array of service options, but also the possibility of thinking about the plan itself. Parents’ ability to engage in activities organized by associations for people living with disabilities or parent societies, and to participate in the community, are also identified as being influenced by their economic capacity.
Some professional participants in Korea have noted parents’ economic capacity as the ultimate determinant or standard of their ability and involvement in future care provision-planning: At the end of the day, parents try to make more money . . . Because we are living in a capitalist society, capital becomes the criterion for everything. (Jang)
In the Korean context, some of the future care provision options and choices are available only to the families who are wealthy enough to have time and money to spend on caregiving for their children. Despite the strong emphasis on familism, data gathered from Korea revealed that there were situations where children were placed in residential facilities without any other option as parents had to continue with their income activities to make a living and, as a result, were unable to provide appropriate care for their children living with disabilities.
Nevertheless, the process of planning seems to be significantly influenced by the children’s economic capacity and the ability to carry out financial activities in the Korean context. Hence, as discussed earlier, some parents were involved actively and directly in creating employment opportunities so that their children can later secure income. Again, this was a choice available only for wealthy parents.
For New Zealand-based participants, access to funding was identified as being the principal economic concern, which indirectly or directly reflects these parents’ expectations related to state-level financial provision in the support for their children. Nonetheless, for parents caring for children living with disabilities in New Zealand, children’s economic capacity did not appear to be a significant issue or a concern. Rather, it was revealed that parents living in New Zealand were provided with and expected state-level financial support in care provision for their children. Importantly, this is in contrast to the participants in Korea, where they express concerns around the parents’ economic capacity.
Cultural barriers
One of the primary dissimilarities between parents in Korea and in New Zealand was whether or not they experienced cultural barriers in the process of future care planning. In the New Zealand context, the socially experienced reality planning among Korean parents was seen to be impacted by cultural barriers. This, however, was not evident among Korean-based participants.
The majority of professionals in New Zealand who participated in this study identified cultural barriers as a major reason for lack of involvement in the planning process among Korean parents residing in New Zealand. The New Zealand ‘style’ of service provision, lack of understanding around the community, pressure towards independent living, lack of culturally appropriate services for Koreans, food and language were some of the cultural differences recurrently identified. Difficulties in adapting to the host country as migrants, no matter how long they had lived in New Zealand, were also articulated by the participants in New Zealand as one of the significant impacts on planning for future care provision for their child living with disabilities.
Nevertheless, in addition to the connections between lack of planning and cultural barriers and a perceived lack of appropriate cultural services, the New Zealand professional participant group also commented on some aspects of Korean culture that impede the process of planning for future care provision among Korean parents living in New Zealand. For example, a professional participant noted how the Korean community is largely apart from the mainstream communities in New Zealand and passive in searching for information and support. He also noted that such passive attitudes of the New Zealand Korean community pose challenges among Korean parents in taking part in the mainstream community and pushing their own boundaries. Another participant from the group also commented on the introverted aspects of the Korean community and how it makes it very difficult from them to invite Koreans to share information and to involve them in community activities.
Furthermore, as parents who have migrated from a country based on a ‘family-centred’ welfare provision, in New Zealand, they were faced with difficulty in understanding the service systems of their host country. Such difficulty was perceived to be different from a mere lack of information on available services; it was more to do with the macro level of systemic understanding and grasping the overall operation of the service system. Such issues around the lack of understanding of the system among Korean parents in New Zealand and its impact on the planning process were articulated more clearly by the professional participants in the study. According to a professional participant, Korean parents have difficulties in understanding the overall welfare system in New Zealand as it is different from the ‘family-centred’ tradition in Korea: The biggest problem is the lack of understanding of the overall New Zealand society. The big paradigm of this country’s social welfare is about the society taking responsibility together. But when they were in Korea, it was just a theory, and in reality all the responsibility goes back to the individuals later on. But they don’t have consensus around that concept. (Lee)
Options for future care provision
Under familial care
Of the plans and options shared by the participants from both countries, one of the most frequently considered plans was to have their children under familial care for as long as possible. Yet the details of the plan differed slightly between the two countries studied.
For participants in Korea, the idea of ‘having them under familial care’ meant involving other extended (or nuclear) family members in the provision of care when the parents themselves become unable to provide it themselves: Mostly, family and extended family member support them. I don’t think that parents believe that the state will do something for them. So family members and extended family members come in as the first option. (Shim)
On the other hand, for participants residing in New Zealand, the option was communicated as caring for their children in their family homes for as long as possible, then placing them under formal services when this becomes impossible. Participants in New Zealand often expressed that parents desire and plan to devote as much time as possible to their child living with disabilities.
A number of professional participants, from both countries, have emphasized some of the issues associated with this option. For instance, a professional living in New Zealand argued this may eventually result in more difficult situations for the children in adapting to a changed environment: Some parents say that they will take the responsibility to the end. But because of such idea, the children get less educated. While there are differences in the level of disabilities, but some children are absolutely not ready at all. (Han)
Establishing care facilities
Another possible option identified by participants was being involved directly in the development of a private living facility, or purchasing and operating a small-scale business.
While only a very few participants living in New Zealand identified this as an option for their child’s future care provision, this was discussed extensively by participants in Korea. This option was often closely linked with a sense of lack of choice, economic capacity of both the parents and the child, and being self-reliant: It is because the nation had omitted its responsibilities, so individuals are privately collecting some money, establishing an institution and entrust it to professionals. There are no choices . . . But there aren’t many teams doing this. Because it costs million dollars. (Go)
In order to provide employment opportunities for their children and to ensure continuation of their child’s income activity in the future, some parents living in Korea were actively involved in acquiring a small shopping arcade or initiating a small business in the community. However, this is again an option only for wealthy parents.
Discussion: Familism and future care provision
This cross-national study revealed the significant impact of culture on Korean parents in Korea and in New Zealand planning future care for their children living with disabilities in the two countries. The findings revealed that the strong familism prevalent in Korea is generating a ‘self-serving’ disability welfare model in Korea, where families have to be involved actively and directly in almost all aspects of care provision for their children. On the other hand, the strong familism embedded within the Korean culture causes dilemmas among migrant parents in New Zealand, where individualism is predominant and favourably received. Furthermore, Korean parents are identified as having difficulty in understanding the overall welfare system in New Zealand as it is different from the ‘family-centred’ welfare provision prevalent in Korea.
How welfare responsibility of a given nation is perceived can be classified on a continuum, from individual responsibility to state responsibility (Yang, 2002). The findings of this study and the options parents are considering clearly suggest that current welfare responsibility in Korea is closer to the individual responsibility model. Hence, it can be said that current welfare provision in Korea is operated under a system that locates the family at the very centre of social welfare, while the role of the state in welfare provision is minimal. Therefore, what the families themselves can provide and offer for their children is crucial in current Korean society. In a sense, in Korea, familism leads to a ‘self-service’ model of welfare. On the other hand, parents in New Zealand tend to experience the welfare services and system as a ‘safety net’. This means that welfare responsibility in New Zealand is experienced as, and perceived to lie closer to, state responsibility rather than individual responsibility.
Parents from both New Zealand and Korea show a pervasive anxiety and concerns related to future care planning for their children living with disabilities. It is evident that parents in both countries recognize and understand the need for, and show great interest in, future care planning. At the same time, they are persistently anxious about what the future might look like for their children when they no longer can provide care for them, and they lack concrete plans as well as substantive practice.
Other than having only a very vague plan or no plan at all, in both countries, having children living with disabilities under familial care was the most frequently identified option for the child’s future care provision. This option is probably the most predominant care provision option that reflects familism. However, while the notion of familial care among parents in New Zealand implies providing familial care for as long as possible, followed by placing their children under formal welfare services as a last resort, in Korea, the option commonly involves other family members in the care provision. Such difference may have resulted from how the welfare system in the countries studied is viewed by the parents. Korean parents in New Zealand perceive the welfare system as a ‘safety net’; hence, services are in place for families to count on as a refuge when they are unable to provide care. Contrarily, in the Korean context, a strong familism and the ‘self-serving’ welfare model is evident where families plan to provide support and care themselves instead of being supported by state-level services.
Some parents in Korea wish to establish a private living facility or own and run a small-scale business for their children. Here, the concept of familism and the ‘self-service’ welfare model appears again. However, establishing a care centre is an option that is available only to those parents with enough financial means. Economic capacity in general is evidently a primary factor impacting future care provision-planning among parents living in Korea. For parents residing in Korea, it is perceived that economic capacity of the parents determines the care provision plans, as well as the possibility of even thinking about the ‘planning’ itself. In other words, provision of welfare by the families is critical in Korea. On the other hand, provision of welfare in New Zealand is much more centred around the needs and status of the individuals living with disabilities themselves compared to provision in Korea. In other words, children living with disabilities in New Zealand are much less likely to be influenced by the economic capacity of their parents. Furthermore, in relation to financial support in the context of care provision, the state is again perceived as a ‘safety net’, indicating a certain level of expectations related to state-level financial support in care provision among Korean parents living in New Zealand.
Participant from both countries unanimously identified lack of information as one of the principal reasons behind the low level of involvement in future care provision-planning. However, while cultural differences and language barriers are evidently creating barriers for information circulation and gathering in New Zealand, values attached to familism appear to be the main cause of a lack of information among parents in Korea. In the Korean context, it appears that familism, which places the responsibility of care provision on the families over other groups or individuals, leads to a lack of public support and systemic foundations, leaving the process of future care provision- planning as a familial problem, which ultimately results in a ‘self-serving’ model of welfare provision in Korea.
Furthermore, one of the principal differences in service systems between the two countries is the bridging role between service providers and users, and between the population group and the society. As to the experiences related to lack of information, there is an absence of organizations facilitating direct contact between the users and the providers of services. Hence, in Korea, families take the responsibilities in information gathering and organizing care provision rather than being supported by service providers, which again reflects values attached to familism. On the other hand, in the New Zealand context, welfare services and systems constitute a ‘safety net’, which provides necessary services and support, and prevents and protects children and families in emergency situations. It also provides some support for service choices. In New Zealand, through a wide range of disability organizations, a referral system and service coordinators are available to facilitate direct contact between possible service providers and the families. However, while such a system may be welcomed by Korean parents, this study suggests that it can potentially create a form of state dependency among Korean parents living in New Zealand. This is because it would prevent families from engaging actively with a range of service providers in the planning process.
Nevertheless, future care planning processes among Korean parents in New Zealand are clearly affected by cultural barriers. Lack of culturally appropriate services, New Zealand-‘style’ service provision, pressure towards independent living, food, lack of understanding around the nature of Korean community and language are some of the cultural differences identified as having an impact on the future care planning process among Korean parents in New Zealand. Nevertheless, Korean culture and familism clearly have a substantial impact on Korean families living in New Zealand. As mentioned, it is evident that Korean families in New Zealand are faced with a dilemma between independence, which Korean parents perceive as favoured by the host country, and the values attached to familism.
Implications and recommendations
This cross-national study revealed significant impacts of national context and culture on future care planning for children living with disabilities for Korean parents in New Zealand and in Korea. It is evident that the strong familism culture is still prevalent in Korea and it creates a ‘self-service’ model of welfare. In this system, parents caring for children living with disabilities are required to be actively and directly involved in almost all aspects of care provision. Such a familism culture is also evident among Korean migrant families in New Zealand. It is clear that traditional familist values are creating dilemmas among Korean parents living in New Zealand, where individualism is favoured. It is also evident that Korean parents in New Zealand perceive the service system as a ‘safety net’, and this generates a level of state dependency among parents caring for children living with disabilities in New Zealand.
The essential argument of the discussion is not to say that familism is undesirable, or that it needs to be abolished. It is not to say that all welfare support should be provided by the state either. Rather, it suggests the development of a ‘Korean Model of Welfare’ through state-level engagement in encouraging, strengthening and empowering family functioning while reflecting Korean traditional cultural values.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), as well as the thrust of disability activism and critical scholarship, rejects both the familial approach and reliance on top-down state service provision and has been a key point of critical disability scholarship since the 1970s and 1980s (at least in the Global North). Whereas the United Nations adopted the Convention in 2006 where the state’s role is to reduce barriers to education and employment and, when this is not possible, provide assistance to individuals to be autonomous through independent living arrangements or direct payments, the CRPD does tend to reflect the cultural values of the Global North. For example, it is heavily based upon certain forms of individualism that may not be reflective of Korean traditional culture.
Hence, while the suggested model of service provision may be perceived to ignore the vision within the CRPD (state-provided resources, but controlled and organized by the disabled individual), this study would like to raise an important criticism of the CRPD and independent living ideology because it ignores culture, or assumes a ‘Western’ form of cultural values. Indeed, migrants are shown to be confused about services and are excluded due to cultural and language issues. The value system of the CRPD is, itself, also culturally situated and the article attempts to shed light on this oversight. Therefore, this article suggests a number of recommendations with two aims.
First, reflecting the traditional Korean cultural values, it is necessary to empower and enhance family functioning in Korea and reduce the tendency of placing families as the primary, and almost the only, responsibility holders in care provision in Korea with minimal governmental intervention as a result of clinging onto familism values and concepts. Second, at the same time, the recommendations are designed to support family functioning among the Korean parents in New Zealand to minimize the level of state dependency evident among some parents.
From what is evident in the findings of this study, rather than reinforcing and encouraging the family support system, the state ultimately needs to support families themselves. In other words, the essential goal of policies and service provision for family support needs to be providing social and economic resources necessary for families to overcome various challenges to integrated family life. Nonetheless, the traditions of and values attached to familism should not be used to avoid or minimize the state’s obligations to provision of welfare, but rather it should encourage development of state-level welfare provision which is intended to empower and strengthen family functioning in diverse and individualized ways (Yang, 2002). The traditional concept around family values should be worked into policy so that such values could be utilized as a positive reinforcement mechanism to empower and enhance family functioning. In order to bring such changes into the system, social workers must engage actively in political processes by advocating, lobbying, campaigning and collaborating, so that the system functions to achieve a balance between families and the state.
Nevertheless, as one of the primary reasons behind lack of planning in Korea, parents’ economic capacity poses a significant level of anxiety and pressure around future care provision and the process of planning. Furthermore, the services provided and the systems related to disability and poverty in Korea, such as the basic livelihood allowance 3 and the family support obligation rules, 4 are inadequate to meet families’ needs, Hence, this study suggests that a system needs to be developed and put in place to ensure a basic standard of living for people living with disabilities, allowing diverse service options, regardless of the economic capacity of the parents. In the development and delivery of such a system, the role of social workers is critical. Social workers with their knowledge in the field must engage in the process of development of such a system to inform the needs of the service users and the approaches to maximize accessibility and efficiency of service delivered.
Furthermore, there is an urgent and serious need for the advancement of social work professionals with expertise in the disability field in Korea. A group of disability specialists need to be cultivated as service coordinators, in the hope that these disability service coordinators will enable provision of an integrated ‘one-stop’ service and information. This would create necessary links between various providers as an umbrella organization of disability services, while also engaging actively in the development of a comprehensive database on service needs, reflecting the socially experienced reality of disability systems and services. There is also a need for social workers in Korea to both work together with service users as social activists and to lead systemic and social changes. Such involvement is likely to reduce the level of welfare provision that is ‘self-servicing’, and hence the high level of familism associated with care provision for children living with disabilities, through using the support of the state to empower and support the families while also providing services as needed.
The values attached to familism are also evident in affecting future planning for Korean parents in New Zealand. They are perceived to be experiencing difficulty finding appropriate residential settings for Korean children living with disabilities. As discussed earlier, much of this comes from a dilemma between independence, which Korean parents perceive as favoured by the host country, and the values attached to familism. Similar to the findings in Kim-Rupnow’s (2001) study, participants in this study expressed their desire to encourage self-sufficiency of their children living with disabilities, while also wanting to protect their children’s well-being.
Hence, in order to resolve such concerns related to finding the most appropriate residential setting for their children in the host country, education is critical. Through provision of education and information, parents should always be empowered and encouraged to be involved in matters concerning their children’s well-being and provision of care and support. Social workers working with migrants must always consider culturally appropriate ways to engage families in information provision on every possible option so they have a full understanding of each option before they make decisions about their children’s future care provider. Families must understand that there are options that recognize the importance of familial involvement in care provision and this does not necessarily imply complete independence.
Another approach to resolve such issues is to develop a culturally appropriate service for Koreans living with disabilities in New Zealand. A strong preference towards Korean residential care provided and serviced by Korean service providers within the Korean community for Korean children living with disabilities is evident among Korean families living in New Zealand. Their argument is that a service operated by Koreans for Korean in New Zealand may benefit Korean service users. A very similar recommendation was also made in a study conducted earlier (Choi, 2014), exploring experiences and perceptions of Korean parents caring for their children living with disabilities in New Zealand. The participants in the previous study made a recommendation for the establishment of an organization for Koreans by Koreans.
There are potential benefits in creating and establishing an organization for migrant children living with disability by professionals from the same ethnic background and parents of those children. It is anticipated that such services would resolve issues related to language, culture and food and hence provide more culturally appropriate services for the children and their families. For instance, if the Korean community were to establish a service that operates reflecting Korea cultural values, while also comprehending New Zealand policies and systems around care and service provision for people living with disabilities, it may resolve some level of cultural discomfort such as communication and food, while also increasing parental involvement in service provision (Choi, 2014). Such an approach may encourage familism embedded within Korean culture while reducing the level of state dependency evident among Korean parents in New Zealand, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, this may create job opportunities, and therefore lead to greater financial independence and community involvement among migrant families as well as their children (Choi, 2014). Yet great consideration and care are necessary with such initiatives as they may pose a potential risk of isolating minority communities even further from the mainstream society and limit choices in service provision.
Nevertheless, the need for education, training and workshops for parents where parents are provided with general information regarding raising children living with disabilities, available supports and providers, and processes of future care planning are identified regardless of country contexts. In order to resolve concerns around education and training opportunities in both countries, the issues around the lack of a comprehensive database need to be resolved. For New Zealand, once the issues around the lack of databases around case studies to provide guidelines are resolved, it would be possible for service providers to develop new programmes while also supplementing the existing programmes for the parents and children. For Korea, once data are gathered to overcome concerns regarding lack of an overarching database of organizations that provide services for people living with disabilities, this will enable collective and comprehensive information to be available and provided to the carers. Here, again, in order to initiate the development of such a database, social workers, together with service users, must advocate for the needs to the ministries and policy makers, and perhaps, in a more community-based approach, facilitate collaborations between diverse service providers to form networks and share available resources.
Nevertheless, as argued by participants in Korea, social work interventions from an early diagnosis must be introduced, implemented and provided for parents caring for children living with disabilities as soon as possible in Korea. It is crucial to address the needs of the families during the most anxious or even traumatic phase of caregiving in order to support and empower the families while also maximizing the development of the children (Guralnick, 2005). Furthermore, it is evident that appropriate interventions and routinely provided treatments at an early age can go a long way to easing concerns around the future, as they lead to enhanced levels of skills and independence for the individuals living with disabilities (Dillenburger and McKerr, 2011; Keenan et al., 2000).
Conclusion
Exploring the experiences of Korean parents in two different countries caring for a child living with a disability and of professionals working with them identifies the significance of the country context in enabling deeper understanding of the significance of this context. In particular, it enables us to see how both the geographical and cultural contexts shape the experience of and approach to meeting the needs of the child and the carers, and allows us to identify how services can be made more responsive to those needs.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies Grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST) (AKS-2012-BAA-2101)
