This scoping review focuses on the views of informal caregivers regarding the division of care responsibilities between citizens, governments and professionals and the question of to what extent professionals take these views into account during collaboration with them. In Europe, the normative discourse on informal care has changed. Retreating governments and decreasing residential care increase the need to enhance the collaborationbetween informal caregivers and professionals. Professionals are assumedto adequately address the needs and wishes of informal caregivers, but little is known about informal caregivers’ views on the division of care responsibilities. We performed a scoping review and searched for relevant studies published between 2000 and September 1, 2016 in seven databases. Thirteen papers were included, all published in Western countries. Most included papers described research with a qualitative research design. Based on the opinion of informal caregivers, we conclude that professionals do not seem to explicitly take into account the views of informal caregivers about the division of responsibilities during their collaboration with them. Roles of the informal caregivers and professionals are not always discussed and the division of responsibilities sometimes seems unclear. Acknowledging the role and expertise of informalcaregivers seems to facilitate good collaboration, as well as attitudes such as professionals being open and honest, proactive and compassionate. Inflexible structures and services hinder good collaboration. Asking informal caregivers what their opinion is about the division of responsibilities could improve clarity about the care that is given by both informal caregivers and professionals and could improve their collaboration. Educational programs in social work, health and allied health professions should put more emphasis on this specific characteristic of collaboration.
This scoping review focuses on the views of informal caregivers regarding the division of care responsibilities between citizens, governments and professionals and the question of to what extent professionals take these views into account during collaboration with them. In Europe, the normative discourse on informal care has changed. Retreating governments and decreasing residential care increase the need to enhance the collaborationbetween informal caregivers and professionals. Professionals are assumedto adequately address the needs and wishes of informal caregivers, but little is known about informal caregivers’ views on the division of care responsibilities. We performed a scoping review and searched for relevant studies published between 2000 and September 1, 2016 in seven databases. Thirteen papers were included, all published in Western countries. Most included papers described research with a qualitative research design. Based on the opinion of informal caregivers, we conclude that professionals do not seem to explicitly take into account the views of informal caregivers about the division of responsibilities during their collaboration with them. Roles of the informal caregivers and professionals are not always discussed and the division of responsibilities sometimes seems unclear. Acknowledging the role and expertise of informalcaregivers seems to facilitate good collaboration, as well as attitudes such as professionals being open and honest, proactive and compassionate. Inflexible structures and services hinder good collaboration. Asking informal caregivers what their opinion is about the division of responsibilities could improve clarity about the care that is given by both informal caregivers and professionals and could improve their collaboration. Educational programs in social work, health and allied health professions should put more emphasis on this specific characteristic of collaboration.
Informal learning spaces create opportunities for children and youth to develop their talents and to experience new social roles. In recent years, several public libraries in the Netherlands have established makerspaces to empower youth by facilitating the development of their digital skills in conjunction with their creativity. The Amsterdam Public Library created a network of makerspaces (Maakplaats021) and provided training for the makerspace-coaches. These coaches – former librarians or other professionals – have a central role in the makerspace and fulfill several functions. This contribution describes informal learning of children in these makerspaces and distills critical features that enforce learning through the lens of children aged 8–12 and their makerspace-coaches.
A growing part of contemporary arts practices in the Netherlands has reoriented itself from studio and institutional art towards self-organization in self-run initiatives. In this type of contemporary art, self-organization is not only a way of gaining economic independence. Just as importantly, it is a form of expression where the organizational structure becomes the art project: self-organization-as-contemporary-art. Often using informal and underground settings, these initiatives reach audiences who have little or no access to the established system of cultural institutions. Aiming to bring art closer to everyday life, they often are no longer easily recognizable as art projects at all. Instead of individual studio practice with the artist as the central figure, these projects and initiatives are based on participation and non-hierarchical collaboration and rarely produce art objects for the traditional gallery art market. Examples include restaurants run as art projects, experimental schools, radio stations run as art performances, and do-it-yourself publishers. Rotterdam is an ideal case study for this development, since the city has played a role in self-organized artists’ initiatives and activist practices like no other city in the Netherlands. The trend towards self-employed work and flexibilization in the creative sector after 2008 accelerated this development. Self-organization-as-contemporary-art has developed throughout the years into an active, extensive and complex network of more than 80 self-organized initiatives; a fabric of autonomously operating initiatives that covers the entire city which we have mapped in previous research. This leads to the questions: How can the creative industries and cultural institutions adapt to these new forms of artistic practice which are no longer based on (a) individual work and (b) classical artists’ portfolios? How can art school curricula be adapted so that they educate innovative network artists who actively contribute to the fabric of self-organization-as-contemporary-art?
