Exploring the socialization of homeless children in Czechia: sibling relationships

ABSTRACT

The paper aims to describe the specific context of the homeless children’s living environment and to show the consequences that this context has on the sibling relationships of homeless children in Czechia. The text is based on a psychosocial perspective. The context of the space, where homeless children live strongly affects their socialisation. Sibling relationships, which are transformed in such an environment, become increasingly important. Using a qualitative research strategy, we carried out 30 sets of interviews with homeless parents and children (a total of 60 interviews). We found that the environment of homelessness alters sibling roles in the family, reinforces sibling closeness as a compensation for material deprivation, makes it more difficult for children to detach, escalates sibling conflicts, and generally reinforces a certain exclusivity in relationship. The results show that social work and other helping professions should focus on supporting sibling relationships in the homelessness environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Homelessness
• children
• socialisation
• sibling relationships

Introduction

Despite the fact that the number of homeless children and families in the pan-European context is increasing and the fact that in these days there are 20,500 homeless children living in Czechia (Feantsa, 2022; RiLaSA, 2019), Czechia currently does not have a law on social housing, which would require municipalities to deal with the homelessness of their residents and systematically provide (social) housing. These children and their families most often live in private hostels (in often highly unsatisfactory conditions) or in shelters (residential social service provided for a maximum period of one year).Families with children in the situation of homelessness are usually families with low education (often only educated to primary level), families with more than three children, families headed by single parents (especially single mothers who were frequently subject to domestic violence) and Roma families, where the situation of homelessness is strongly connected with the ethnicity of these families (RiLaSA, 2019).

Homeless children are subject to many negative impacts, poverty in particular, which leads to a lack of resources to meet basic needs (Nebbitt et al., 2012), and to an unstable life situation associated with short-term contacts and frequent relocations leading to ‘breaking ties’ with potential resources of safety (Rog & Buckner, 2007; Swick, 2008), and to the need for socialisation in a specific environment of insecure housing such as shelters and hostels (Nebbitt et al., 2012). Living in shelters or hostels is associated with: a) a lack of privacy and space; b) the need to adapt oneself to the facility’s regime (daily regime, restricted visits, participation in compulsory activities) (Cosgrove & Flynn, 2005) c) a change in child’s relationship network due to the isolated environment of the shelter and the consequent inability to develop relationship networks outside the insecure housing environment (Hinton & Cassel, 2012; Swick, 2008; Tischler, 2007) d) ostracising, stigmatisation, negative interactions, and distrust of the people around as a result of the current life situation (Anooshian, 2005; Swick, 2008).

There are numerous expert studies dealing with the causes of homelessness or the situation of homeless families (e.g. Anooshian, 2005; Chow et al., 2015; Fitzpatrick et al., 2000; Hinton & Cassel, 2012; Masten, 2012; Obradović et al., 2009). However, there is a relatively limited number of studies explicitly dealing with socialisation of homeless children with a focus on sibling relationships in the specific homeless environment. This is despite the fact that understanding the nature and function of sibling relationships in the specific homeless environment will provide critical information for helping professions (e.g. social work, social pedagogy, and psychology), such as knowing when and how to intervene in sibling relationships. In addition, it is essential to note that sibling relationships are important to study within the dynamics of the larger family system and its environment. Although siblings are the building blocks of family structure and key players in family dynamics, their role has long been neglected by researchers (McHale et al., 2012).

In this context the paper aims to describe the specific environmental context of the life of homeless children living in shelters and hostels and to show the effects this context has on sibling relationships of homeless children.

Sibling relationships

Sibling relationships are a unique and powerful context for children’s development characterised by strong positive features, such as warmth and intimacy, as well as negative qualities such as an intense, potentially destructive conflict. For these reasons, sibling interactions may constitute both a risk and a protective factor, with lifelong consequences (Smith & Hart, 2011). Sibling relationships involve process and provisions that are not present in other relationships. Siblings share time, living space, common history, and opportunities for developing social-cognitive and behavioural skills that promote relationship quality (Fiese et al., 2019). Despite the important role of sibling relationships across lifespan, they have received far less attention than other relationships in children’s lives (e.g. parent-child relationship) (Davies et al., 2018).

Positive sibling relationships were associated with numerous benefits related to social, emotional, and health related development throughout childhood and adolescence (Kim et al., 2007; Padilla-Walker et al., 2010; Whiteman et al., 2007). Positive sibling relationships may enhance resilience, for example, due to the fact that they: a) serve as a role model, mentor, guide to an effective negotiating approach oriented in interpersonal and exploratory domains (Jacobs & Sillars, 2012); b) are a source of security; c) provide a repertoire of coping strategies, corrective feedback and framework for understanding situations (Whiteman et al., 2007); c) provide instrumental support and distraction from stress (Jacobs & Sillars, 2012); d) reinforce the ability to gain perspectives, understand emotions, negotiate, persuade and solve problems as well as the ability to initiate and maintain positive social interactions (Sang & Nelson, 2017). Positive sibling relationships can also mitigate depression, juvenile misdeeds, and internalisation of problems and other adversity (Kim et al., 2007).

Negative sibling relationships and conflicts may lower resilience, since they are associated with: a) risky behaviour and adjustment problems (Bank et al., 2004); b) antisocial behaviours (Scholte et al., 2008); c) both internalising and externalising behavioural problems; d) depressive symptoms; self-harming, low self-esteem, emotional distress and hopelessness (Buist et al., 2013). The relationship between the child’s psychological well-being, his or her behaviour and the quality of sibling relationships is often modified by specific sibling constellations, especially by sibling gender, order, and age. In general, siblings of the same age and sex are more supportive than the ones who are more age-distance and of the opposite sex (Branje et al., 2004); but this also bears the risk of similarity in negative behaviours (e.g. theft, drug use). In general terms, it can also be stated that later-born siblings are more likely to identify with their earlier-born siblings behaviour (McHale et al., 2012), and that older siblings´ report a lower rate of conflict with the younger ones (Oliva & Arranz, 2005). However, younger siblings of a different sex are more likely to deidentify with an older sibling (Branje et al., 2004). The sibling dyads consisting of girls have a closer relationship, greater intimacy, and spend more time together; girls are generally considered to be warmer in their relationship with other siblings than boys (Dirks et al., 2015). Male dyad relationships show a higher rate of conflict, less intimacy (Kim et al., 2007) and greater hostility (Oliva & Arranz, 2005). There are also always inter-individual differences, modified by the uniqueness of children and the environment in which they live.

Specifics of socialization in the homeless environment

Socialisation can be understood as a process of acquiring ways of acceptable behaviours and learning about the cultural environment, adopting social norms or fully adapting to life in society. If we want to define the content of socialisation, it is possible to state that it is everything that enables an individual to create in himself the needed internal psychological preconditions for playing different social roles and, at the same time, the preconditions for universal ways of participation common to all individuals of a particular society (e.g. language). In our paper, we are focusing on the key aspects of the mechanisms of socialisation, which lay in the combination of learning processes and the workings of socialisation agents. The agents of socialisation are defined as social groups existing in a certain environment into which an individual is integrated, and which have the possibility to influence the individual. In our case (and, of course, in most other cases), the most important socialisation agent is the family. As the primary carrier of culture, the family provides the basis for norms and values of a particular society. An important concept strongly related to socialisation is the context (whether social or cultural) that affects socialisation in groups. In our case, this context is given by the specific life situation of homelessness (Výrost & Slaměník, 2008).

A number of socialisation theories are based on social learning, see, for example, the theories of Bandura (1977), Miller and Dollard (1941), Rotter (1954), or Sears (1951); on the premise of cultural and social conditioning of man (Linton, 1938; Mead, 1928); or on cultural-historical concepts (Vygotský, 1970). However, it is the theory by Harris from 1995 that attracted our attention in the context of homelessness. Harris (1995) presupposes dependence of the learning process on context specificity (specific context socialisation); specifically, group socialisation. According to Harris, the factor responsible for the formation of personality and its socialisation into culture is children’s experience with peer relationships (thus not necessarily parental upbringing). Through these experiences, the child develops patterns of behaviour, cognition and emotions tied to specific contexts (e.g. the context of home and the context outside home). In doing so, Harris explains peer group behaviour on the basis of four built-in predispositions of children: group affiliation, fear or hostility towards strangers, intergroup status competition, and the search for and formation of close dyadic relationships. Harris’s theory naturally has its limitations. Some of these are emphasised by, for example, Výrost and Slaměník (2008), who point to overestimating the influence of the peer group at the expense of teachers and the child-teacher relationship (outside the peer group), the child-sibling relationship, or underestimating the role of dyadic friendships. Despite these criticisms, however, we find the theory interesting in the context of child homelessness precisely because children often lack peer relationships in the context of the environment in which they live and these relationships are replaced by sibling relationships (Glumbíková et al., 2022).

Methods

The research aimed to analyse the specific environmental context of homeless children’s lives and to show the effects of this context on sibling relationships of homeless children. The research was carried out from January to July 2022.We used a qualitative research strategy to carry out the research, as its main objective was to learn about participants´ experiences´.

Overall, 30 sets of interviews were completed. One interview set involved an interview with: (1) a homeless child and (2) at least one of his or her parents (if one parent is selected, it will be a self-selection). In total, the minimum of 60 interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. Research participants (children and parents) were selected on the basis of a stratified intentional sampling (through institutions, e.g. hostel, shelter, NGO). Participants were included in the research based on the following criteria: (1) the existence of a situation of homelessness involving a child, specifically a ‘houseless’ situation, i.e. group 3 of the typology produced by FEANTSA (European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless) typology (MoLSA, 2013): persons residing in a hostel or in a shelter; (2) children aged 8–17 living in the family; (3) families of homeless children are clients of at least one of the following forms of social work: social work in a shelter or field social work in one of three largest cities in Czechia (Praha, Brno, Ostrava); (4) children aged 8–17 who have siblings who live with them in the household or it is a family with the minimum of two children.

In terms of description of the sample characteristics, it can be noted that 15 families resided in a shelter and 15 in a hostel (in Czechia) at the time of the interview. The length of stay in the accommodation ranged from one month to three years and nine months. The number of children at the time of research living in the household ranged from seven to two. Eleven families under research were in a single-mother (or a single-father) category. In case of seven households, the mother and her children lived in the same household with her partner (who was not the child’s father). In total, 18 girls and 12 boys were interviewed.

In-depth semistructured interviews that were conducted with the participants, focused on the life situation of the interviewed family and the relationships of individual family members with an emphasis on sibling relationships. Specifically, in the area of relationships we asked about the perceived characteristics of the ‘other’, reciprocal behaviour, spending leisure time and the behaviour of the other in situations where ‘something is going on’.

The data were literally transcribed, anonymised, and analysed using grounded theory approaches, namely the constructivist approach to grounded theory by Charmaz (2006). The use of the constructivist grounded theory was determined with respect to a) interpretative understanding of the phenomenon; b) emphasis on the cooperation between the researcher and the research participant on data creation; and c) reflexive approach to the data which were accentuated in this data analysis approach (Charmaz, 2006). Specifically, we used open coding (creation of analytical holders, codes); intentional coding (searching for similarities, selection of the most useful codes; comparison of data with codes and codes with data and elaboration of codes); and axial coding (creation of a coherent whole, categories that point to the relations among individual codes).

From the ethical perspective, research followed Ethical Principles in Human Research (American Psychological Association [APA], 2016). Participation in the research was voluntary; the informed consent of their legal guardian as well as the informed consent of children to participate in the research were required from the children. Special emphasis was placed on the confidentiality and anonymity of research participants. The University Ethics Committee approved the research in April 2020.

To increase the research validity, we reflected on a possible social desirability and on the demands regarding the self-reflection of informants posed by the research topic. Therefore, the most natural technique of data acquisition (i. e. interview) was used to increase the research validity. Also, the interviews took place in a calm and safe environment, according to the informants’ choice. The obtained data were cyclically subjected to regular reflections, the research team did the analysis by reflecting on their own assumptions about the positionality of the participants; to attempt to remove bias (Gabriel et al., 2017).

Data analysis

The data analysis involves two parts, the first of which is a description of the socialisation context of homeless children and the second, which consists of analysis focusing on the effects of the socialisation context of these children on the quality of their sibling relationships.

The context of lack of space as a key element in the socialisation of homeless children

Most interviewees repeatedly reflected that the environment of shelters and hostels was unsuitable for the socialisation of children, especially in terms of missing space. As the most significant consequence of the lack of space, in particular deterioration of family relationships was perceived: ‘And we would also have more of a quiet time, and space for ourselves, and the relationships would be different. Our son would be calmer too, and we wouldn’t fight so much’ (CP4-Parent). Similarly, CP5 Parent adds that it is not just about constantly running into other people, but also about the lack of privacy (and perceived lack of supportive environment) within the same household/family: ‘It’s very alive here … we never get to be alone … neither outside nor inside … even if one really wanted to … we just can’t … the kids … we only have that one bedroom…they don’t understand that you sometimes need to be alone for a while…’ CP5-Child:‘I want to be alone sometimes too, but we always have to wait for mum to come with us’.

The space is also perceived as cramped due to the need for the household to store a number of items: CP11-Parent reports, “it’s definitely the cramped space … they don’t get along … there’s a cabin fever … all six in one room and so, one little spark starts it there. It’s when you have six kids in a room, and they don’t even have a storage space to put their stuff. The son CP3-Child adds: ‘Yeah, we’ve got so much stuff in there … I’ve got a bag in there, then there’s a closet in a corridor which is also stuffed, and then it’s still some more in the box’.

Another important theme was the lack of privacy for dealing with family matters, i.e. the inability of parents to discuss their affairs without their children: CP7-Parent: ‘Even as far as family matters, when we adults discuss something, the children can hear it … there is no privacy’. In this context, the daughter CP5-Child, talks about the shelter rules that limit the privacy of children, ‘the parents have to be outside with us, for example, if someone goes out alone, like (boy’s name), the mothers have to follow them and stay here with them. So that they don’t get in trouble and so that they don’t get, like “minus points”.’ The CP3-Parent adds thatthe limited playtime has been put in place because of the high number of children in the homeless shelter and the need for some regulation and rule setting, ‘And you know it’s not the caretaker’s fault … it must be because of the other kids, otherwise it would look terrible here’. The shelter rules also interfere with children’s ‘wishes’, e.g. to have a pet, which is not allowed in shelters: CP4-Parent: ‘The son wants a dog badly, but we can’t have pets here’.

The perception of living in a shelter or hostel as a stigma also emerged in the interviews: CP7-Parent: ‘They can’t even invite their friends here if they happen to have a friend. They’re ashamed of it. They go to a school where most of the kids are white, and he’s got friends … the white ones … and they listen to him and he’s dark skinned, so it’s kind of cool. They’d like to come for a visit, but he’s already ashamed … I’m dark and living in a shelter’.

The perceived dangerousness of the environment in which siblings live is also an important element in shaping relationships in a hostel and/or a shelter. For example, the interviewee (CP12-Parent) adopts a ‘protective strategy’ and isolates the siblings in the ‘safety’ of their hostel room: ‘When they come from school, we go out quickly so that they are here as little as possible, or we are just here in the room’. The interviewee (CP12-Parent) is aware that the children need to spend their leisure time with educational and after-school activities and spend time away from the hostel environment. However, the financial problems of families do not allow for the involvement in educational and leisure activities. Also, according to another interviewee (CP14-Parent), conflicting neighbour relationships, inappropriate behaviour, and the occurrence of crime are the order of the day in their hostel: ‘I’d like to move out, it’s terrible here. There’s no quiet here, everyone’s arguing and fighting. People steal… there was only cold water last week … there’s no power three times a week…there is domestic violence next door’.

Changes in sibling relationships in the context of homelessness

Role-change in older siblings

A consequence of the above life situation context (which puts a heavy burden on the parents of the children) is the need to hand over more responsibility to the oldest sibling, while this ‘adult role’ is rarely ever accepted voluntarily by the child (or young adult). CP6-Child: ‘So when my mum needed help with my brother my mum took my brother and I was supposed to help my sister with her homework or pick up laundry or go to school’. Older siblings are also encouraged by their parents to become independent in order to be able to take care of younger siblings: CP5-Parent: ‘But like even the oldest son, he’s good … he’s independent … he likes to take care of his younger sister too, so that’s good’. Thus, the oldest siblings often take on adult roles as well. CP3-Parent talks about securing care for other siblings, ‘When they were without me for a while, he took care of his younger brother. He always takes care of everything, the oldest one. I require care of the youngest one … and all three of them do so’.

Negative influence and transformation of sibling relationships

According to the interviewees, one of the significant consequences of lack of the supportive environment and space is a change in the amount of time siblings spend together. The interviewees perceive that siblings in a homeless shelter are in daily contact with each other, which is perceived as too intense at times: CP5-Parent: ‘Well, they’re always here together… they’re really together a lot. Too much, I think’. CP3-Child also adds: ‘Well, I always see my brother in the morning and then in the afternoon. Maybe too often’.

Some siblings experienced the phenomenon of ‘cabin fever’. The interviews show that there is a decline in the level of empathy between siblings, and there are petty arguments, etc. CP4-Child: ‘My sister’s always intruding. She wants to be on top of everything that’s going on’. Informants also perceived that the ‘overcrowded’ shelter environment leads to a decline in empathy between siblings: CP5-Parent reports: ‘Before it was like that, for example, her brother, when he saw that she was crying, he would immediately ask her who did what to her … but now I don’t see it anymore. Now it’s like, they just don’t give a damn’. The siblings also ‘do not stick together’ as much during their time in a shelter compared to their previous living arrangements, as they are influenced by other children. CP5-Parent states, ‘It’s rather iffy… sometimes I even see them going against each other … like she’ll pair up with another girl against her brother’. It is perceived that there is also ‘nudging’, arguing, provocation or fighting between siblings: CP4-Child says: ‘ … when she provokes me. It’s all the time’. ‘My brother is like that, he provokes, he’s in his teens’. (CP20-Child).

In other families, in contrast, there is a higher level of need to spend all the time with a sibling, which, according to the statements of the interviewees, often borders on dependence on the sibling(s), manifested by a noticeable mood deterioration if the child is ignored by his/her sibling(s). CP8-Parent: ‘… they’re quite attached to each other… they really do everything together… they act like they’re against each other … they play pranks on each other… but then they love each other… especially when one does something, the other one wants to do it too’. In many interviews, even the children themselves reflected that they could not imagine being separated from their siblings: CP7-Child: ‘I wouldn’t handle it if we weren’t supposed to see each other for a while’.

Children also maintain relationships to varying degrees with siblings who do not share the same household with them. Where the siblings are in regular contact, they have a good relationship and can turn to them at any time. ‘They respect the oldest one as an authority … even more than me’. (CP21-Parent) Where the siblings are not in regular contact or did not grow up together, they do not show interest in each other. ‘Those three are in another home … we didn’t grow up with them … we just know they’re our siblings, but we don’t sympathise with them … We don’t care about each other’ (CP20-Child)

Positive influence and transformation of sibling relationships

The siblings of homeless families replace material deprivation with emotional closeness. According to the interviewee (CP12-Parent), the children are ‘good and protective of each other. For example, when they’re at school and some boy wants to fight at a break, the older son will stand up for the younger one. They help each other with anything – studying, playing’. Siblings see each other as a source of support and protection: CP4-Parent: “When something happens, they protect each other. If they see something’s bad happening to them, for example, they defend them. They look out for each other. CP7-Child stated, ‘When Titanic’s sinking, we stick together (laughs)’. CP2-Child talks about being there for his siblings in their tough moments trying to distract them: ‘I go and play with them. For instance, we play hide and seek or rock scissors paper’.

The siblings also showed empathy and an effort for mutual help/cohesion. If one of the siblings is feeling down or sick, they take care of each other. ‘We’d all help each other … and mum too. When my brother’s feeling down, I ask him what’s wrong. Or I also ask mum and sister. They tell me, and so, I try to make them feel better, so they don’t feel sad’. (CP20-Child) Reciprocal mirroring was also reflected: CP2-Parent: ‘When one starts crying, the other one joins him, and the third one joins those two. They stick together’. In this context, the CP2-Parent speaks of a certain exclusivity of the sibling relationship: ‘They can talk to a million kids, but they’ll always stick with each other. They don’t let anybody to start on them’.

It is evident that siblings also help each other. Most of the time it is about older siblings helping younger siblings in different areas: CP4-Child talks about helping the younger sibling with homework. “I’ll help him with homework if I know. The interviews also revealed that siblings help out with games, e.g. CP9-Child says: ‘If we’re playing some game and we don’t know what to do, they come and help me’.

Also interesting is the fact mentioned by most of the siblings in their responses that, due to the forced time spent together in one room, the siblings create their own rituals that help the sense of belonging between them, e.g. spending time together (especially in the evening) by watching cartoons on the biggest one of the beds. CP6-Child reports: “When there’s some cartoon on TV, my sister and I go and sit down and so do my mum and my brother … and we all sit on a large fold-out bed … and we all sit or lie down and talk and watch the cartoon.

Discussion and conclusion

We can conclude that despite the fact that the generated data cannot be generalised (which is a limitation of any qualitative research), it brings a unique insight into the researched topic. Data analysis shows that the context of the home environment has a great influence on socialisation in homeless children. According to Bartlett (1997), the household environment is influenced by material and symbolic aspects, therefore a distinction can be made between housing and home. Thus, housing can both constrain and support certain patterns of behaviour of household members. The household environment can also be seen as a specific cultural setting through which parents (un)create opportunities for their children and communicate norms and expectations. A context-specific aspect in the form of the lack of living space in shelters and hostels was described in the narratives of the interviewees, where it is common for a family of six, for example, to share one room of five by four metres.

The interesting finding that we should discuss is the phenomenon of replacing material deprivation with emotional closeness, which develops among siblings within the context of a certain exclusivity of this type of relationship in homeless children. Whiteman et al. (2009) argue that siblings influence each other’s lives, but the degree of this influence is not always clear. Indeed, the quality of the sibling relationship seems to be related not only to a degree of adjustment of the older sibling to the younger one and the children-parent relationship management (Pike et al., 2005), but also to the space in which the children’s socialisation takes place and the opportunities this space provides or doesn’t provide. A space can be understood not only as a flat or room, but also as a space for staying outdoors. According to research by McCarthy et al. (2020), providing siblings with opportunities to engage in shared activities that build bonds and create memories contributes significantly to strengthening sibling relationships, and can be helpful in coping with complex emotions and anxieties that develop when encountering new life experiences. The effectiveness of sibling programmes has been proven in research; see, for example, Solmeyer and Feinberg (2011). It is the strengthening of the quality of sibling relationships that can significantly strengthen family cohesion in the homeless population and thus potentially serve as a source of resilience to cope with the current difficult life situation of homelessness.

From a social work perspective, an implication of the findings is that practitioners should work to strengthen the relationship between the parents and the children, which is impaired by the insufficient spatial capacity of accommodation and to improve the lack of leisure and play activities available to children, by organising common activities (excursions or trips) or setting up easily accessible family services, such as play and youth services, in the immediate vicinity of their accommodation, where the children could spend their time productively in a safe environment and the parents could ‘relax’ and reduce their emotional strain (see Swick, 2008).

From the point of view of the socio-political context, we need to say that dealing systematically with the situation of homelessness in Czechia appears to be necessary. These systemic steps can only be taken through the enforcement of the Social Housing Act, which would oblige the municipalities to provide housing for homeless children and their families, based on the Housing First principle, and arising from the belief that housing is a right and that standard housing does not need to be seen simply as a reward for complying with the regulations set by shelters. Gaining a stable background in the form of a home would thus stabilise the social contacts of children and allow them to spend time in a safe environment. The provision of stable housing, i.e. an apartment with more than one room, would also have an impact on the relationship of the parents with their children, which is disrupted by the lack of space and privacy in shelters and hostels (Glumbíková et al., 2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The article was written with the support of the project GA ČR with identification number 22-00941S.

Notes on contributors

Kateřina Mikulcová

Kateřina Mikulcová is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava. Her research is focused on the issue of reflexivity in social work with vulnerable children and their families. Her research interests also include responsive evaluation of social housing and homelessness of mothers and women without a shelter.

Ivana Kowaliková

Ivana Kowaliková is a researcher at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Ostrava. Her research topic is the social support of seniors in difficult situations with consequences for social work.

Lenka Caletková

Lenka Caletková is a researcher at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Ostrava. Her research focuses on strategies of individual approach to long-term unemployed clients used by employees of labour offices.

Veronika Mia Racko (Zegzulková)

Veronika Mia Racko (Zegzulková) is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Ostrava. Her research deals with social work in an international context and professional practical training in social work

Marek Mikulec

Marek Mikulec is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Ostrava. In his dissertation he dealt with the topic of social exclusion. He is currently studying the topic of housing exclusion and social housing.