Karen A. Jensen Graduate Honorable Mention

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

HOW Does religion/spirituality inform maternal satisfaction?

Introduction

Literature regarding the levels and nature of satisfaction experienced by a woman in connection with her role as mother is, at this point in time, somewhat limited.  Much of it has to do with women’s medical concerns rather than the more ethereal and psycho-spiritual aspects of mothering.  Medicine, Mothering and Religiousness have connections which require further investigation and exploration, in order to determine the satisfaction, and fulfillment a woman may experience in this powerful and unique aspect of human experience.

The phenomenon of  mothering and the satisfaction or fulfillment she may associate with this facet of her life goes beyond that which can be measured by marital satisfaction, child outcomes or the amount of analgesic intervention used during a medical procedure.  Indeed, one may ask if mothering can be satisfying even for those who do not give birth at all (Dew,2001).

The idea of motherhood as a unique and important phenomenon, worthy of research and exploration, appears to be in its infancy.  However, as women move into third wave feminism, they begin to explore their roles in society in new and diverse ways (Kaufman,1993).  (more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Kathy Christensen 3rd Place in the Graduate Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

Marital Relationship Quality, Parenting, and Differentiated Self-Regulation: Understanding the Whole Picture

Self-regulation has been defined in a variety of ways. Some researchers label it as a dimension of temperament, a skill such as social competence, or a personality trait such as impulsivity (Calkins, 2004; Novak & Clayton, 2001; Smith & Hart, 2002). However, this study approaches self-regulation from a motivational perspective, emphasizing the importance of self-determination and initiation of choice. Grolnick and Farkas (2002) explain that self-regulation is manifest when children “monitor, plan, guide, and control their behavior” in the process of goal attainment (p. 90). The pursuit of personally relevant goals—in response to personal and environmental circumstances, cues, and feedback—appears to be salient in the majority of self-regulation definitions (Bandura, 1991; Demetriou, 2000; Novak & Clayton, 2001).

The delineation of self-regulation is further complicated by the existence of multiple constructs within self-regulation as a whole. As a multidimensional construct, self-regulation includes cognitive, behavioral, and affective elements that are interrelated, but distinct (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002; Moilanen, 2007), and clearly differentiated across the realms of child functioning (Bandura, 1997). Behavioral regulation refers to the child’s ability to control hyperactivity, aggression, and fidgeting; emotional regulation abilities include controlling extreme affect; and cognitive regulation includes resisting impulses, demonstrating attention to tasks, planning, and avoiding distractions (see Garnefski, Kraaij, & van Etten, 2005; Moilanen, 2007). However, despite evidence suggesting multidimensionality in self-regulation, researchers habitually explore only a single dimension without mention or regard of the other two. This is an unfortunate oversight given that these three constructs are interconnected and child strategies employed to regulate in one realm may foster further development of the others (Kopp, 1982; Moilanen, 2007). While underlying mechanisms for the three types of regulation are the same, more research is requisite to determine how inclusive representations of self-regulation are differentially promoted by socialization influences than are single dimensions. In this paper, I will evaluate how all three types of child self-regulation are influenced by mothering, fathering, and the quality of the marital relationship. (more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Stephen Francis 1st Place for the Graduate Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

A New Natural Law Approach to the Family

Introduction

Over the years, there have been many different social science theories applied to the family (see Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993).  Although there have been a variety of theories and perspectives, no theory has dominated family studies research.  As regards family theorizing in general, there are at least five criticisms that have been made: “the lack of the theoretical development itself, the tendency for scholars to move from topic to topic without sustaining their effort, the weak links between theory and research, the relative absence of multidisciplinary collaboration, and the questionable value of conceptual frameworks in moving us toward better family theories” (Klein & Jurich, 1993, p. 39).

Each of the theories prominent in family studies makes assumptions concerning the family.  These theories have different strengths and limitations based on social science criteria (e.g. methodological soundness, explanatory power).  These theories have, for the most part, sought to explain the family, which explanation often includes at least a tendency to value some sort of prediction and control.  In this paper, I will discuss the investigative frameworks of explanation and understanding.  I will also suggest that that in order to better understand the family, one can look to new natural law theory.  (more…)

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Kendel Christensen 2nd Place in the Undergraduate Category

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

The Same-sex “Marriage” War: Why the Traditional Definition Should Remain the Standard

“We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past,
and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.”
-President Barack Obama
“Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize” December 10, 2009

Preface

I would like to preface my words by stating that my opinions are not meant nor should be taken as personal attacks to those who identify as homosexual.  I love and value them as people and my heart goes out to them in any valid injustices they suffer.  If nothing else I say is understood in the way I intend it, please understand this: loving people who identify as homosexual and opposing same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive.  There is a difference between loving a person and actively endorsing his or her actions.  My statements are to address the issues involved in defining marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.  Marriage affects all of society, not just the alleged rights of a minority.

Introduction

On December 10, 2009, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.  In his acceptance speech, he talked of war between and within nations, its realities, and its consequences.  While pondering his remarks, I could not help but see a parallel in his message to a central focus in America’s “culture wars”—namely, genderless or so-called same-sex “marriage”.  I use his speech as a both a backdrop and a point of departure.  As such, his statements are sometimes used in a different context than his strict original intention.  Nevertheless, I believe the comparisons are valid and the principles completely applicable.  Like the President, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of [marriage].  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require . . . vision.”[1] Unlike the President, I argue that if he or this nation truly espouses the principles he invokes in his Nobel speech, then the first step to strengthening marriage is to reverse the trend that has led us to even consider including same-sex couples into the institution of marriage.

(more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Brittany Ratelle Law Honorable Mention

On 03.08.10, In Stand For Family, BYU Symposium, By Jamie

State Cesareans: Treating Natural Birth as Neglect in New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. V.M. & B.G.

An estimated 1.5 million cesarean sections are performed in this country each year, making it the most common inpatient surgical procedure.[1] However, the procedure is not without controversy as the United States’ cesarean rate has consistently increased for the last eleven years to a present record-high of 31.8 percent[2] of births, more than double what the WHO recommends.[3] While many medical professionals have agreed the rate is too high, citing diminishing health gains and an increase in maternal and fetal health risks, the heated debate over strategies and policies to reduce the rate between OB/GYNS, midwives, childbirth educators and public health specialists continues.

A recent appellate case in New Jersey involving a woman who refused to undergo a cesarean section and the subsequent removal of her healthy child inflamed a new wave of discussion surrounding cesareans and their prevalence as part of the current medical and legal structure of American maternity care.[4] In New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. V.M., the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the termination of parental rights and deferred to the lower court’s finding of abuse and neglect as to V.M, the mother of the child.[5] The majority abstained from ruling on the cesarean and tersely affirmed the decision while it was Judge Carchman’s lone concurrence that considered it inappropriate to consider the refusal to undergo the procedure, though he did not go far enough and reverse the trial court.[6] Thus, while the court officially did not comment on the cesarean, their improper consideration of an invasive medical procedure was a factual and legal error that will achieve the same purpose in altering birth and the culture of choice in the child welfare regime.

(more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Next Entries »
Go To Top »