Institutional mapping as a tool for resource consultation

Abstract

This article explores how mapping is currently being used in social services research as well as practice, and discusses the potential for mapping to be a useful tool for resource consultants in the field. This article will review different mapping techniques, including community mapping, eco-mapping, journey mapping and institutional mapping, and discuss their purpose within research and professional practice. Using examples from the Inclusive Early Childhood Service System project, we describe the application of mapping in social service work, and how resource consultants can use these techniques in their own practice.

Keywords

inclusion institutional ethnography resource consultation disability studies in education

Mapping techniques are now common practice in community services (Amsden and VanWynsberghe, 2005; Ordoñez-Jasis and Myck-Wayne, 2012; Rine et al., 2012). In this article, we review different types of mapping and then propose the use of methods derived from institutional ethnography (Smith, 2005, 2006) as a tool for resource consultants. We propose that mapping has value as a professional development tool to gain deeper understanding of the institutional processes that are a social response to disability. The approaches that are proposed in this article are informed by research evidence from the Inclusive Early Childhood Service System (IECSS, 2015) project.

The IECSS project is a longitudinal study of early childhood education, care and intervention services from the standpoint of families. The project contributes to a growing body of research that recognizes the ‘strengths, hope, coping and resilience in parents’ of children with disabilities (Conley Wright and Taylor, 2014: 592). The IECSS project has documented the capacity of early childhood service systems to honour children’s rights (Underwood et al., 2018), the work that families contribute to the system (Underwood et al., in press) and the colonial culture of these services (Ineese-Nash et al., 2018). The IECSS project uses institutional mapping as a research method, but in this article, we propose the application of this method to professional practice.

Mapping for professional practice

Across social service professions such as social work, public health and mental health services, various forms of ‘mapping’ are used as a strategy for supporting families (Griffin and Farris, 2010). Although there are similarities in techniques, the purpose and approaches to mapping vary across professions. Tilleczek and Lezeu (2016) note that visually displaying the complexities of service systems is important to understand ‘how the elements of the system become tied together in a back-and-forth motion as youth and families move in and out of primary health care, school supports, acute health care, and so forth’ (p. 4).

In this article, we will provide examples of community mapping, eco-mapping and journey mapping (Baumgartner and Buchanan, 2010; Dunsmore et al., 2013; Griffin and Farris, 2010; Pickard et al., 2004; Tilleczek and Lezeu, 2016). While these mapping techniques vary, they have one common goal: to generate a deeper understanding of what resources are available within communities and how people are accessing them. We will also provide an example of mapping derived from an institutional ethnography. This mapping approach is not intended to inform the service pathways of children and families, but instead, it maps the everyday practices of institutions from a particular standpoint in order to understand the rules and processes of the institution. Dorothy Smith (2005) describes this as an ‘ontological shift’ in how we study institutions.

Method

The IECSS project is an institutional ethnography of family interactions with institutions in the early years. We have interviewed 67 family members of children who are accessing disability or developmental services, once per year for 3 years starting prior to school entry. The families live in five different communities in the province of Ontario, ranging from large urban centres in the southern and more densely populated part of the province to rural northern communities, where there is low population density. This study uses many different methodological approaches, but in this article, we will present examples of how mapping can help us to understand the ways in which institutions dictate the experiences of families. In the following sections, we use a single participant, a mother whom we call Karen, to illustrate the range of information we can glean from different mapping techniques. We have developed these maps over the 3 years of the study. The study was approved for ethical consideration at three universities.

Through the IECSS project, we also conducted interviews with resource consultants as secondary informants to gain a better understanding of their role in the early childhood education, care and intervention system in Ontario. Resource consultants were selected as secondary informants because they work with childcare programmes to support inclusive practice throughout the province. The Child Care and Early Years Act (2015) of Ontario outlines that ‘it is a matter of provincial interest that there be a system of child care and early years programs and services that respects equity, inclusiveness and diversity in communities and the particular qualities of […] children with disabilities’ (Article 49(1.f.ii)).

Through interviews, we asked resource consultants (also known as resource teachers) about the work that they do and activities of their daily job. The resource consultants identified that childcare centres are mandated to provide inclusive programming to the children in their care, and resource consultants are contracted to create Individual Support Plans (ISPs) with strategies to support the child and their participation in programming. The ISPs are developed among resource consultants, early childhood educators and the family. We also asked resource consultants about their current knowledge of mapping techniques and whether it may be a useful tool for their professional practice. All resource consultants reported that they were not currently using any mapping techniques and supported the potential for mapping to be used as a professional development tool.

Community mapping

Ordoñez-Jasis and Jasis (2011) describe community mapping as ‘an inquiry-based method in which “mappers” discover, gather, and analyse a rich array of resources from a specific geographic area’ (p. 32). These maps are useful as a navigation tool because the visual is easy to understand and has the potential to be used by multiple stakeholders (Rine et al., 2012). Community maps can facilitate service navigation for families who are new to the community or who do not speak the dominant language. Having this information available is an inclusive approach to service system delivery (Amsden and VanWynsberghe, 2005). In addition to being an inclusive practice, mapping techniques may uncover new and unique resources for families that they otherwise would not have thought of within a geographic area (McCormick et al., 2008). Mapping also has the potential for professionals to learn about new resources in the community and network, and build relationships with other services in similar fields (Griffin and Farris, 2010).

The process of community mapping is described as a multi-stage process (Brooks et al., 2013; Dunst et al., 2001). While there are a range of community mapping approaches, all community maps are derived from knowledge of the services in a given geographic, and may include methods of scoping this information from online or professional knowledge of staff (Dunst et al., 2001). The mapper may even ‘scout’ the designated geographic area by walking around the neighbourhood identifying more possible resources. Finally, the mapper may choose to collect ‘artifacts’ such as brochures, flyers, photographs or field notes to supplement the mapping process (Ordoñez-Jasis and Myck-Wayne, 2012). Once all the data have been collected, it is tabulated and organized to be stored in a database. The final step of the community mapping process is physically creating the map into a visual format (Ordoñez-Jasis and Myck-Wayne, 2012).

Community mapping has been used in a variety of different professions including health services, education and the criminal justice system in order to gain a different perspective on how services are being delivered and accessed by individuals (Dunsmore et al., 2013; Maschi et al., 2008; Pickard et al., 2004; Tindle et al., 2005). One benefit of mapping outlined by Maschi et al. (2008) is that community mapping can help streamline services as it provides policy makers with an overall perspective of the services available.

Our community map (Figure 1) shows a list of services as they appear in a map that was created by the municipality where Karen (our research participant) lives. In this community map, we can see all of the services that the municipality funds, as well as some services that are jointly funded or administered with other agencies or levels of government. The services are organized into three categories: specialized services, programmes for children and families, and family health services. These are not necessarily the services that Karen is accessing but the services that make up a ‘menu’ of services that should be available to Karen. From our larger study sample, we know that this type of map varies greatly across geographic communities with the largest number of services in urban centre and where there is higher density of population. We also know that this type of map, depending on who creates it, does not include services that are outside of the geographic area, although families who have children with disabilities often must travel to get the services they need. Finally, this map includes those services that are funded or regulated by the mappers, meaning that in some places there are a range of private or unregulated services that are not represented on the map.

Figure 1.

Community map.

Eco-mapping

The term eco-map originated within the field of ecology, where ecology is ‘the study of the connection between a living thing and its environment, and how that connection is maintained and enhanced’ (Ray and Street, 2005: 546). According to McCormick et al. (2008), an eco-map is a ‘graphic representation or visualization of the family and linkages to the larger social system including informal (e.g. friends, extended family members) and formal (e.g. early care and education providers, early intervention providers) supports’ (p. 1). What makes an eco-map distinct from other types of mapping is that it focuses on three major types of support, including instrumental support (providing some type of service), informational support (transmitting knowledge) and emotional support (listening and acknowledging feelings) (Baumgartner et al., 2012). The purpose of an eco-map is to facilitate information gathering and to provide a graphic representation of complex ideas in a way that can be understood by diverse groups (Baumgartner et al., 2012; McCormick et al., 2008).

In a study by Baumgartner and Buchanan (2010), eco-maps were used by teachers to help understand children in the context of their families. Teachers looked at four aspects of support systems, including ‘the types of support, the strength of the relationships, the nature of the relationships and the developmental domains supported’ (p. 176). Baumgartner and Buchanan (2010) and others use different shapes, colours and lines to depict the types of services, to classify services by their goals or purposes and to show connections between services and relationships between people.

Generally, eco-maps are useful for coordination of services. They allow clusters of support to be identified so that groups of services can jointly plan and organize how services will be delivered. They are also useful when a family identifies a need, in order to identify gaps in services, and those services that might be able to work together to meet those needs.

In our eco-map (Figure 2), we show all of the different supports that Karen described in our interviews with her. In this map, which is developed from the list of supports and services that Karen described, we get a much more complex picture than the one in Figure 1. Here we see six categories of supports, and we see that the number of services is much larger than what was represented in Figure 1. Baumgartner and Buchanan (2010) note that through eco-mapping, structural, institutional and interpersonal barriers and facilitators can be discovered and better understood because the mapper is looking at systems through the lens of the participants. We have also grouped the services into types, which can be helpful in establishing relationships among professionals who have similar goals. Due to the complexity of this map, we have not included lines that show relationships between the family and each service, but these could also provide information about the strength of a relationship and which services Karen perceives to be the most supportive and the most effective.

Figure 2.

Eco-map.

Journey mapping

The third type of map that we have developed is a journey mapping. Journey mapping is a process of gathering individuals’ stories in order to understand their unique and complex experiences (Tilleczek and Lezeu, 2016). Due to the nonlinear nature of journey mapping, Tilleczek and Lezeu (2016) claim that journey maps have the ability to identifying gaps, barriers and facilitators in service systems better than other types of maps. Journey maps comprise touch points (physical interactions), stages (steps taken along the journey) and the actual journey itself (Marquez et al., 2015). These plots make up a person’s journey map. In our journey map (Figure 3), we learn a lot more about Karen and her experience seeking support and engaging with the community on behalf of her daughter Beth.

Figure 3.

Journey map.

Marquez et al. (2015) used journey mapping to better understand customers who are accessing the public library. They state that purpose of journey mapping is to understand services from the perspective of ‘users’ or ‘customers’ to better support the individuals accessing that service. We also believe that journey mapping is very useful for case management, because it allows the actual story of the family to be recorded with the advantage of creating a narrative for professionals to connect with as they plan services and programmes. Each family’s journey through the system is unique and their point of entry into the service system may be simple or complex. Journey mapping provides an opportunity to gain contextual and chronological understanding of a family’s experience and the types of relationships and referrals they have already experienced in the system.

In Figure 3, we present a journey map from Karen’s interview. This map presents a lot more information about Beth and the timing of their interactions with services. Our map shows only the developmental and service experiences, but this type of map can also be useful to depict other events in the life of a child and their family which are relevant to development and family support. For example, in the IECSS project interviews, we have families who have moved to communities, experienced divorce or death in the family, had other children, lost parents or changed and/or gained employment. These examples are just some of the life experiences that are important context for understanding a child’s development. If the family is willing to share this information, a journey map can be useful so that the family does not have to tell their story over and over again as they interact with new professionals and services.

Institutional mapping

Institutional ethnography is a research approach that studies the text-based organization of people’s lives (Smith, 2006). It examines the spaces in society that require people to align their activities in a way that produces a different meaning for the institution than it does for the individual person (Devault, 2006). One common way institutional ethnographers collect and organize their data is in the form of ‘mapping’. According to Turner (2006), institutional mapping is ‘the analytic procedure [that] results in an account of the day-to-day text-based work and local discourse practices that produce and shape the dynamic ongoing activities of an institution’ (p. 139). Institutional mapping has the ability to highlight the ‘standardized sequences of work’ that make up the institution itself (Turner, 2006: 159). These standardized sequences are replicable instances of work that when put together create the institution (Turner, 2006). By mapping these instances, researchers have the ability to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of socially organized experiences by revealing the invisible (or text-based) processes of institutions. Institutional mapping brings visibility to the power texts have on how an institution operates and how that influences people’s lives (Campbell and Gregor, 2004; Turner, 2006). There does not appear to be one singular approach to institutional mapping. Rather, maps are used in a variety of different ways in order to organize complex information systems that are unique to each research project.

Figure 4 shows an institutional map generated from the same case study with our participant Karen. In this map, we use different shapes to indicate agencies or organizations (diamonds); programmes, services or documents (rectangles); and people or professionals (circles). Institutional maps aim to show how an institution operates from a particular standpoint. In this map, we take up the standpoint of the family members whom we interviewed, as a specific position from which to understand how the institution works. These maps are derived from interviews where we ask families about their actions, which means we are creating a map of the work of families. The work of families in the map below represents phone calls, emails, appointments, paperwork, relationships and other actions on the part of families to engage with the institution.

Figure 4.

Institutional map.

The map shows some interesting things about what is happening in our institutional response to disability. We have separated the programmes and services, which provide a regular activity for the child and their family, from the programmes and services that identify, document and diagnose the child and sometimes their family. We group these in the top band of the map to make them visible and label them processing interchanges. ‘Processing interchange’, a term coined by Ellen Pence (2001), is a textual record that is shared with professionals for the purpose of interpretation and then action. These texts become the mechanism through which action takes place. In our map, we use dotted arrows to show where an assessment leads to a referral into a new agency. It is evident that many of the activities of the institution are for the purpose of process. Some of the agencies and organizations do not provide any direct service to the child or family and much of the activity in this map is process. In this example, Beth was diagnosed first with language delay, then global developmental delay, then autism and finally attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). With each diagnosis, Beth along with her mother Karen is moved from one agency to another. Meanwhile, Beth is participating in many community programmes. Through our study, we know that much of the information that is shared in the processing interchanges serves the institution more than it serves the programme or the child and their family. That is not to say that the family does not want diagnostic information, but often the assessments are moving the child and family through the system rather than to actually engage programming for the child.

An institutional map can be very useful for resource consultants in order to better understand the institutions and what the institution is asking of families. Through an institutional map, it is clear that the textual records that are created are critical for institutional response. This has implications for families who do not agree with the documentation or assessment of their child. In our study, we have identified that cultural values about disability may vary from the medical approaches that are central to institutional practice (Underwood et al., 2018). Families may also need support to engage in the work of institutions, and resource consultants can use an institutional map to identify where family support can be offered from the institution. Perhaps most importantly, institutional maps may help resource consultants to see the regulatory processes that govern their own work and the work of staff in programmes that they are supporting. This can give resource consultants some perspective on where families and early childhood educators are managed by processes that may need to change if institutions are going to be responsive to children and their families.

Discussion

The four different types of mapping above have different value for resource consultants, depending on which type of mapping is used. The source of information and purpose varies for each mapping technique. We discuss these differences here with reference to two key concepts from institutional ethnography: standpoint and ruling relations.

The source of information in mapping: standpoint

Smith (2005) describes standpoint as a social position that allows a particular type of knowledge. One of the key differences between the maps we have presented is the source of information for creation of the maps or the standpoint from which they were developed. The community map was developed using information from a municipal government. Governments or service providers often do community mapping in order to advertise to communities the menu of services that are available in a community. This standpoint gives us knowledge about what the municipality is funding and where they have partnerships. The source of information is the institution itself.

In the eco-map and journey map, the family is the source of information. Brooks et al. (2013) found that having a person to guide parents through a system is a useful practice, and these two approaches can support systems navigation and coordination. While the source of information is the parent, the standpoint is less clear in these maps. One parent said,

It would be nice to have a case worker or somebody that says ‘oh yes I know, we need to go and talk to somebody over there’. Rather than me scratching my head and thinking ‘oh we’ll try over there’ and they go ‘oh no you need to talk to somebody over there’. (Brooks et al. p. 57)

This quote shows that while the maps convey information about the family, they do not position families as informants with relation to the institution. The institution is neutral here and the support that is mapped is not necessarily understood in the context of the power that is held in the institution and by the professionals who provide this support.

In the institutional map, the information being mapped is derived from a detailed account of the everyday activities of families. The family is therefore purposefully the ‘standpoint’ from which we seek to understand the institutions’ power and rules that regulate the lives of children and families. It is this particular knowledge that can provide the opportunity for professionals working within an institution to gain awareness of the ways in which the institution governs, not only the families and children, but also the professionals themselves. Mapping from the standpoint of families makes the institutional process and ruling relations explicit.

What can be learned from mapping: ruling relations

The different types of mapping presented above have different purposes, and therefore, their utility for resource consultants varies. Dorothy Smith (2005) describes ‘ruling relations’ as

that extraordinary yet ordinary complex of relations that are textually mediated, that connect us across space and time and organize our everyday lives – the corporations, government bureaucracies, academic and professional discourses, mass media, and the complex of relations that interconnect them. (p. 10)

Community mapping, which documents the services that are available, can give important information about which services are available and where there may be gaps in services. On the other hand, eco-mapping is useful in understanding the ecology of a particular family’s connections, including their formal relationships with services as well as the relationships they have in their family and community (McCormick et al., 2008). Journey mapping focuses less on the relationships and more on the events of a family’s experience. Similarly, Tilleczek and Lezeu (2016) note that journey mapping may document events or roles that are unclear or complex, which are considered ‘silent actors’ in an individual’s experience. Institutional ethnography provides a way to analyse these ‘silent actors’.

Community mapping, eco-mapping and journey mapping may be helpful to resource consultants as they support families and early childhood educators to find appropriate services, but none of them provides a mechanism for resource consultants and other professionals to map the processes of the institution. This understanding may be critical in advocating for and supporting self-advocacy for children, which ‘requires overcoming the cultural and institutional barriers children face in getting heard in a society in which the non-participation of children in decision making is the norm’ (Webb, 2002: 175). Institutional mapping can provide resource consultants with a better understanding of the complexities of people’s lives and experiences navigating the system but also the processes and textually mediated rules that are governing their practice and the work of families. Therefore, institutional mapping can provide a specific type of knowledge and has a role in professional development.

Practical considerations in mapping for professional practice

When practising mapping techniques, resource consultants should be mindful of the amount of additional work being placed on families who have a child with a disability. Through the IECSS project, we have found that parents are required to do a lot of additional work just to ensure that their child is receiving the types of support they need. Mapping strategies have the ability to alleviate some of that work for parents as they will not have to spend as much time seeking out services or rather attending multiple services for the same outcome. Community mapping and eco-mapping may help to identify whether families need more services or different services. Therefore, resource consultants could help families eliminate services that may not be as beneficial to the child or family and save families’ time and effort. On the other hand, institutional mapping can then highlight the work that families contribute to institutional process and provide resource consultants with greater understanding of institutional processes and their role in institutional culture.

Some families may choose to participate in the community mapping process alongside resource consultants; however, it is imperative that the mapping process itself does not create more work for parents. Parents should not be required to provide resource consultants with the services they are accessing through more paperwork. Families can choose to share their story with resource consultants or resource consultants can create maps with the accessible information already documented in a child’s file. Ideally mapping techniques can be used as a professional development tool across service systems in order to recognize the work of families and the values that are held within institutional practice. The approach to mapping with families should acknowledge the range of styles that parents may have in their interactions with professionals, including those parents who are demanding and in conflict with professionals, and those who are compliant and have close relationships with professionals (Rehm et al., 2013; Underwood et al., in press).

Conclusion

Mapping techniques can provide resource consultants with the ability to understand a family’s experiences, and the institutional practices that shape those experiences. Mapping can also provide resource consultants with information about the types of services families are accessing, which organizations are offering services and which professionals are working with the child and their family. Mapping services can provide a clear visual representation of the types of services a child is using and needs (Baumgartner and Buchanan, 2010). While mapping can be useful for case management and serving particular families, it is also valuable in helping resource consultants to gain awareness of institutional practices and culture.

Mapping is an important part of community services work. This article examines different mapping techniques taken up in this work and presents a case for institutional mapping as a tool for professional development. Exploring the different types of mapping techniques and their benefits, we propose that mapping is a useful tool for resource consultants because of its ability to visualize services from the perspective of families and assist in understanding the context in which families live and the ruling relations which affect them. Building on work by the IECSS project, we take the position that resource consultants are central to inclusive early childhood systems. We propose that in addition to common mapping techniques used for case management, institutional mapping can shift the ontological underpinnings of professional practice.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Partnership Grant #895-2018-1022 and the Corporation of the County of Wellington, District of Timiskaming Social Services Administration Board, City of Hamilton, City of Toronto and Ryerson University.

References

Amsden

VanWynsberghe

(2005) Community mapping as a research tool with youth. Action Research 3(4): 357–381.

Baumgartner

Buchanan

(2010) ‘I have HUGE stereo-types’: using eco-maps to understand children and families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 31(2): 173–184.

Baumgartner

Burnett

DiCarlo

et al . (2012) An inquiry of children’s social support networks using eco-maps. Child & Youth Care Forum 41(4): 357–369.

Brooks

Bloomfield

Offredy

Shaughnessy

(2013) Evaluation of services for children with complex needs: mapping service provision in one NHS Trust. Primary Health Care Research & Development 14: 52–62.

Campbell

Gregor

(2004) Theory ‘in’ everyday life. In: Caroll

(ed.) Critical Strategies for Social Research. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press, pp. 170–180.

Conley Wright

Taylor

(2014) Advocacy by parents of young children with special needs: activities, processes, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Social Service Research 40(5): 591–605.

Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, S.O. 2014, c. 11, Sched. 1.

Devault

(2006) Introduction: what is institutional ethnography? Social Problems 53(3): 294–298.

Dunsmore

Ordoñez-Jasis

Herrera

(2013) Rethinking literacy instruction through community mapping. Language Arts 90(5): 327–338.

10.

Dunst

Herter

Shields

et al . (2001) Mapping community-based natural learning opportunities. Young Exceptional Children 4(4): 16–24.

11.

Griffin

Farris

(2010) School counselors and collaboration: finding resources through community asset mapping. Professional School Counseling 13(5): 248–256.

12.

Inclusive Early Childhood Service System (IECSS) Project (2015). Available at: http://inclusiveearlychildhood.ca

13.

McCormick

Stricklin

Nowak

et al . (2008) Using eco-mapping to understand family strengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children 11(2): 17–28.

14.

Marquez

Downey

Clement

(2015) Walking a mile in the user’s shoes: customer journey mapping as a method to understanding the user experience. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 20: 135–150.

15.

Maschi

Hatcher

Schwalbe

et al . (2008) Mapping the social service pathways of youth to and through the juvenile justice system: a comprehensive review. Children and Youth Services Review 30(12): 1376–1385.

16.

Ordoñez-Jasis

Jasis

(2011) Mapping literacy, mapping lives: teachers exploring the sociopolitical context of literacy and learning. Multicultural Perspectives 13(4): 189–196.

17.

Ordoñez-Jasis

Myck-Wayne

(2012) Community mapping in action: uncovering resources and assets for young children and their families. Young Exceptional Children 15(3): 31–45.

18.

Pence

(2001) Safety for battered women in a textually mediated legal system. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies 7(2): 199–229.

19.

Pickard

Seely

Kirker

et al . (2004) Mapping rehabilitation resources for head injury. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 97: 384–389.

20.

Ray

Street

(2005) Eco-mapping: an innovative research tool for nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50: 545–552.

21.

Rehm

Fisher

Fuentes-Afflick

et al . (2013) Parental advocacy styles for special education students during the transition to adulthood. Qualitative Health Research 23(10): 1377–1387.

22.

Rine

Morales

Vanyukevych

et al . (2012) Using GIS mapping to assess foster care: a picture is worth a thousand words. Journal of Family Social Work 15: 375–388.

23.

Smith

(2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Toronto, ON, Canada: Rowman Altamira.

24.

Smith

(ed.) (2006) Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

25.

Tilleczek

Lezeu

(2016) Journeys in youth mental health. Education Canada 56(2): 1–9.

26.

Tindle

Leconte

Buchanan

et al . (2005) Transition planning: community mapping as a tool for teachers and students. Research to Practice Brief 4(1): 1–5.

27.

Turner

(2006) Mapping institutions as work and texts. In: Smith

(ed.) Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 139–162.

28.

Webb

(2002) Health services: who are the best advocates for children? Archives of Disease in Childhood 87: 175–177.

29.

Ineese-Nash

Bomberry

Underwood

Haché

(2018) Raising a Child with Early Childhood Disability Support Systems Shakonehya:ra’s ne shakoyen’okon:’a G’chi-gshkewesiwad binoonhyag ᑲᒥᓂᑯᓯᒼ ᑭᑫᑕᓱᐧᐃᓇ ᐊᐧᐊᔕᔥ ᑲᒥᓂᑯᓯᒼ ᑲᐧᐃᔕᑭᑫᑕᑲ: Ga-Miinigoowozid Gikendaagoosowin Awaazigish Ga-Miinigoowozid Ga-Izhichigetan.Indigenous. Policy Journal. 28(3): 1–14.

30.

Underwood

Church

van Rhijn

(in press) Responsible for Normal: The contradictory work of families. In Winton

Carpenter

Parekh

(eds) Critical Perspectives on Education Policy and Schools, Families and Communities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing (IAP).

31.

Underwood

Frankel

Spalding

Broph

(2018) Is the right to early intervention being honoured? A study of family experiences with early childhood services. Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights 5(1): 56–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22215/cjcr.v5i1.1226