Solidarity and Reciprocity Between People With and Without Disabilities

'Let us be'. Social support needs of people with acquired long-term disabilities and their caregivers in rehabilitation practice in the Netherlands

In many European countries, including the Netherlands, current care policies encourage 'active citizens' to support each other rather than having individuals rely on paid professional help. Rehabilitation centres also put greater emphasis on social networks assisting adults with acquired long-term disabilities and their caregivers. Often these adults and their caregivers feel insufficiently prepared to cope with the disability in daily life and struggle with community integration. However, little is known about the factors that make vulnerable people accept or decline support from their social networks. We researched the social support needs of persons with acquired disabilities and their caregivers eligible for a family group conference intervention by conducting 19 semi-structured interviews in rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. A thematic analysis revealed that most couples (15) were reluctant to request (more) support from their social network, even though many of them had a good network to rely on. We identified five reasons for this reluctance: (1) not accustomed asking support, (2) not wanting to be a (bigger) burden, (3) fear of intrusion into one's privacy and independence, (4) fear or problematic motivations such as curiosity or pity and (5) lack of reliability, competence, or comprehension. The main factor seemed to be the lack of reciprocity: couples do not see sufficient options to reciprocate the necessary support. Therefore, before instigating social support-centred interventions such as family group conferences, social care and other health professionals should be aware of any factors causing a sense of reluctance and explore the experiences of an imbalance in reciprocity.

Research on the Relationship Between High-Commitment Work Systems and Employees' Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Balanced Reciprocity Beliefs

Based on the social exchange theory, this paper explores the indirect impact of high-commitment work systems on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. Through the analysis of multisource data from 139 companies (including 139 human resource managers and 966 employees), a multilevel structuring equation model is used to verify the study’s hypotheses. The research results show the following findings: (1) High-commitment work systems are significantly positively related to employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. (2) High-commitment work systems have indirect effects on the employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior through the relational psychological contract. The relational psychological contract plays a mediating role in this process. (3) Employees’ balanced reciprocity beliefs significantly enhance the positive effect of relational psychological contracts on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. It can also positively moderate the mediating effect of high-commitment work systems that affect employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior via relational psychological contract.

Belonging and reciprocity amongst people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic methodological review

BACKGROUND

Social inclusion has been explored using a wide range of theories and methods. Belonging and reciprocity have been identified as key components of social inclusion. This systematic methodological review identifies and evaluates the theoretical frameworks and qualitative approaches adopted to explore belonging and reciprocity in the lives of adults with intellectual disabilities.

METHOD

A systematic search was conducted across ten databases. Screening and quality appraisal were carried out independently by two researchers, and data were extracted to provide detailed accounts of the theories and methods employed.

RESULTS

Seventeen papers met inclusion criteria. Clear conceptualisations of belonging and reciprocity were lacking, and these concepts were rarely the focus of the research. Theoretical and methodological shortcomings across this literature were identified and discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

More nuanced conceptualisations of belonging and reciprocity may be helpful in future research, to better capture the context and meaning of individual lives and relationships.

The care receivers perspective: How care-dependent people struggle with accepting help from family members, friends and neighbours

In many countries in north-western Europe, the welfare state is changing, and governments expect a great deal of informal care. In the Netherlands, citizens are also increasingly expected to rely on informal instead of professional care. In this study, we aim to determine to what extent Dutch care-dependent people want to rely on social network members and what reasons they raise for accepting or refusing informal care. To answer this question, we observed 65 so-called 'kitchen table talks', in which social workers assess citizens' care needs and examine to what extent relatives, friends and/or neighbours can provide help and care. We also interviewed 50 professionals and 30 people in need of care. Our findings show that a great deal of informal care is already given (in 46 out of 65 cases), especially between people who have a close emotional bond. For this reason, people in need of care often find it difficult to ask their family members, friends or neighbours for extra assistance. People are afraid to overburden their family members, friends or neighbours. Another reason people in need of care raise against informal care is that they feel ashamed of becoming dependent. Although the government wants to change the meaning of autonomy by emphasising that people are autonomous when they rely on social network members, people who grew up in the heyday of the welfare state feel embarrassed and ashamed when they are not able to reciprocate. Our findings imply that policymakers and social professionals need to reconsider the idea that resources of informal care are inexhaustible and that citizens can look after each other much more than they already do. It is important that social policymakers approach the codes and norms underlying social relations more cautiously because pressure on these relations can have negative effects.