{"id":334,"date":"2026-04-24T20:19:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T20:19:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/?post_type=chapter&p=334"},"modified":"2026-05-21T21:07:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T21:07:15","slug":"paradigm-shift","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/chapter\/paradigm-shift\/","title":{"raw":"Paradigm Shift","rendered":"Paradigm Shift"},"content":{"raw":"

Paradigms<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nThe concept of a paradigm<\/em> refers to a deeply held framework that shapes how individuals and societies interpret the world. Thomas Kuhn (1962) described paradigms as overarching systems of belief that guide thinking and behavior within a given era. When a paradigm shifts, it is not simply a change in specific practices; it is a transformation in the underlying assumptions about how the world works.\r\n\r\nThe paradigm that supported traditional approaches to guidance has been gradually changing into one that no longer supports the traditional tools that were used to control or guide others. It is helpful to step back and consider the broader shift that has been occurring across human history, a shift in the very way people understand power, relationships, and social organization.\r\n\r\nFor much of human history, social systems have been organized around what can be described as a vertical or \u201cpower over\u201d paradigm. In this model, relationships are hierarchical, authority is concentrated at the top, and control is maintained through dominance, obedience, reward, and punishment. This structure has shaped governments, religious institutions, workplaces, schools, and families for thousands of years.\r\n\r\nHowever, many scholars suggest that, over the past several centuries, and accelerating in the last century, societies have been gradually moving toward a different model. Riane Eisler (1987) describes this as a shift from dominator systems to partnership systems, in which relationships are more egalitarian, cooperative, and based on mutual respect. In partnership-oriented systems, power is not something imposed on others, but something shared.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, Anthony Giddens (1992) describes a transformation in personal relationships, particularly in modern societies, where traditional roles based on obligation and hierarchy have increasingly been replaced by relationships based on negotiation, mutual satisfaction, and emotional connection. This shift is evident in changes in marriage, parenting, and family life, where authority is less absolute and relationships are more reciprocal. How many marriages today are arranged by those in power?\r\n\r\nFrom a psychological perspective, Alfred Adler was one of the early thinkers to recognize this movement. Adler emphasized that human beings are inherently social and that healthy functioning depends on cooperation, belonging, and mutual respect. He argued that authoritarian approaches to relationships, particularly with children, undermine these goals and lead to resistance rather than cooperation (Adler, 1956).\r\n

Social Movements and the Expansion of \u201cPower With\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nThis broader shift in paradigm is reflected in many of the major social movements of the modern era. Movements for civil rights, women\u2019s rights, and labor rights have challenged traditional hierarchies and advocated for greater equality, voice, and participation.\r\n\r\nThe Civil Rights Movement in the United States, led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., challenged systems of racial hierarchy and segregation, advocating for justice, dignity, and equal participation in society. Similarly, the women\u2019s rights movement has worked to dismantle long-standing gender hierarchies and expand opportunities and autonomy for women.\r\n\r\nLabor movements have also played a significant role in shifting power dynamics, advocating for fair wages, safe working conditions, and the right of workers to have a voice in decisions that affect their lives (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). These movements reflect a broader trend toward questioning and restructuring systems based on unequal distributions of power.\r\n\r\nEven more recent global movements have reflected this desire for greater participation and equity. Events such as the Arab Spring demonstrated widespread demands for political voice and an end to authoritarian control, even if the outcomes have been complex and uneven (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011).\r\n

An Uneven but Meaningful Shift<\/h3>\r\nIt is important to recognize that this shift from \u201cpower over\u201d to \u201cpower with\u201d has not been linear or complete. Periods of progress are often followed by periods of resistance or retrenchment. As discussed earlier, rapid social change can create uncertainty, leading some individuals and societies to return to more hierarchical forms of organization.\r\n\r\nHowever, across many domains, there is substantial evidence of a long-term trend toward greater recognition of individual rights, shared decision-making, and relational approaches to power. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated, \u201cthe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.\u201d While not inevitable, this perspective captures the broader pattern of movement toward more inclusive and participatory systems.\r\n

Modern School Discipline: Old Paradigm, New Forms<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nIn education, it is only relatively recently that we have moved away from some of the more overt and harmful forms of punishment, such as corporal punishment. Yet despite this progress, schools remain deeply rooted in a paradigm that assumes some form of punishment is still the primary means of addressing misbehavior.\r\n\r\nAlthough corporal punishment has declined significantly, the underlying logic of \u201cpower over\u201d discipline remains firmly embedded in educational systems. Practices such as withholding recess, requiring students to run laps, assigning detention, removing students from classrooms, and suspending or expelling students continue to reflect a reliance on external control through consequences. While these approaches may appear less severe than past practices, they are grounded in the same fundamental assumption, that behavior is best managed through control rather than through understanding and relationship.\r\n\r\nResearch in child development and education raises important concerns about these practices. For example, recess has been shown to play a critical role in children\u2019s cognitive, social, and emotional development. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) found that physical activity and unstructured play are associated with improved attention, behavior, and academic performance. When recess is withheld as a form of punishment, children are deprived of opportunities to develop precisely the self-regulation and social skills that adults are attempting to promote.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, using physical activity as a consequence, such as requiring children to run laps, or writing \u201cI will not cheat\u201d a hundred times, can create negative associations with exercise or writing. Instead of promoting health and well-being, these practices may inadvertently discourage lifelong positive attitudes toward physical activity. It can harm the joy that can come from writing.\r\n\r\nMore formal disciplinary practices, including detention, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and expulsion, represent some of the most widely used tools of modern school discipline. These exclusionary practices remove students from the learning environment in response to behavioral concerns. However, a substantial body of research indicates that such approaches are not only ineffective in improving behavior but may also contribute to a range of negative outcomes.\r\n\r\nStudents who experience suspension are more likely to demonstrate lower academic achievement, decreased engagement with school, and an increased likelihood of dropping out (Skiba et al., 2014). In addition, exclusionary discipline has been linked to greater involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, a pattern often referred to as the \u201cschool-to-prison pipeline\u201d (Skiba et al., 2014). These findings suggest that removing students from school does not address the underlying causes of behavior and may, in fact, exacerbate long-term challenges.\r\n\r\nNational data further illustrates the scope of these practices. Millions of students in the United States are suspended each year, and although suspension rates have declined somewhat in recent years, exclusionary discipline remains a common response to student behavior. Importantly, these practices disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities, raising significant concerns about equity and fairness in educational systems (Welsh, 2023).\r\n\r\nFrom a developmental perspective, these modern disciplinary approaches share many of the same limitations as traditional punishment. They remove students from opportunities to learn appropriate behavior, often generate feelings of anger, shame, or disconnection, and fail to address the underlying needs or circumstances that contribute to the behavior. Rather than fostering internal responsibility, they reinforce a model of authority based on control and compliance.\r\n

A Promising Shift: Restorative and Relational Approaches<\/h3>\r\nIn response to the limitations of punitive discipline, there has been a growing movement within education, and in the broader legal system, toward approaches that emphasize repair, accountability, and relationship rather than punishment alone. These approaches, often referred to as restorative practices or restorative justice, represent a shift toward a more relational and collaborative model of addressing conflict and harm.\r\n\r\nRestorative practices are grounded in the idea that when harm occurs, the primary goal should be to repair relationships and restore a sense of community. Instead of focusing on rule violations and consequences, restorative approaches ask questions such as: What happened? Who was affected? And what can be done to make things right? This shift in focus encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions while also considering the impact of their behavior on others.\r\n\r\nResearch on restorative practices in schools has shown promising outcomes. Schools that implement restorative approaches have reported reductions in suspension rates and disciplinary incidents, as well as improvements in school climate and student relationships (Learning Policy Institute, 2020). These approaches have also been associated with increased student engagement and a stronger sense of belonging, both of which are critical factors in promoting positive behavior and academic success.\r\n\r\nIn addition to their impact on individual behavior, restorative practices contribute to a broader shift in how authority and responsibility are understood within school communities. Rather than positioning adults as enforcers of rules and students as subjects of control, restorative approaches emphasize shared responsibility, mutual respect, and collaborative problem-solving.\r\n\r\nThis shift is not without challenges. Implementing restorative practices requires time, training, and a willingness to rethink deeply ingrained assumptions about discipline and authority. However, the growing body of research supporting these approaches suggests that they offer a more effective and developmentally appropriate alternative to traditional punitive models.\r\n

Implications for Working with Children<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nThis paradigm shift has profound implications for how we approach relationships with children. In a world that increasingly values voice, autonomy, and mutual respect, traditional \u201cpower over\u201d methods, such as punishment and reward, are less effective in fostering cooperation and responsibility.\r\n\r\nChildren today are growing up in a context where hierarchical authority is less absolute and where relationships are more collaborative. As a result, approaches that rely on control are more likely to lead to resistance, disengagement, or superficial compliance.\r\n\r\nIn contrast, guidance approaches grounded in \u201cpower with\u201d principles, <\/strong>including shared problem-solving and relationship-based influence, align more closely with the social realities that children experience. These approaches support the development of internal regulation, empathy, and a sense of belonging.\r\n\r\nUnderstanding this broader shift helps explain not only why traditional methods are less effective but also why a new approach is needed, one that reflects the evolving nature of human relationships and prepares children to function in a more interconnected and collaborative world.\r\n\r\nThese emerging approaches point toward a fundamentally different way of understanding guidance. Rather than relying on control and consequences, they are grounded in a principle that emphasizes relationship, dignity, and shared responsibility. This is beginning to sound like one of those Facebook commercials for the \u201cSecret\u201d to something important. They constantly talk about all the reasons you need this ANSWER and all the benefits you\u2019ll receive when you have it, without telling you what it is.\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s time for the two-word principle that I could guarantee would solve or prevent any guidance challenge you might face if it is implemented fully and skillfully. That ANSWER is simply:\r\n

Mutual Respect<\/h3>\r\nThe next section will define and explain what actually goes into mutual respect to make it so powerful. In the next chapter, we will discuss specific strategies and principles that will concretely help you actually implement and create relationships that are defined by mutual respect. You will learn about the tools that are much more effective than punishment and rewards, and that are consistent with the paradigm that we as a larger culture and world are growing into. But for now, what exactly is \u201cMutual Respect\u201d?\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

References<\/h2>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Basic Books.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? Basic Books.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.<\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Learning Policy Institute. (2020). The impact of restorative practices on school climate and student outcomes.<\/li>\r\n \t
  8. Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546\u2013564.<\/li>\r\n \t
  9. Welsh, R. O. (2023). Up the down escalator? Examining a decade of school discipline reform. Children and Youth Services Review.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>","rendered":"

    Paradigms<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    The concept of a paradigm<\/em> refers to a deeply held framework that shapes how individuals and societies interpret the world. Thomas Kuhn (1962) described paradigms as overarching systems of belief that guide thinking and behavior within a given era. When a paradigm shifts, it is not simply a change in specific practices; it is a transformation in the underlying assumptions about how the world works.<\/p>\n

    The paradigm that supported traditional approaches to guidance has been gradually changing into one that no longer supports the traditional tools that were used to control or guide others. It is helpful to step back and consider the broader shift that has been occurring across human history, a shift in the very way people understand power, relationships, and social organization.<\/p>\n

    For much of human history, social systems have been organized around what can be described as a vertical or \u201cpower over\u201d paradigm. In this model, relationships are hierarchical, authority is concentrated at the top, and control is maintained through dominance, obedience, reward, and punishment. This structure has shaped governments, religious institutions, workplaces, schools, and families for thousands of years.<\/p>\n

    However, many scholars suggest that, over the past several centuries, and accelerating in the last century, societies have been gradually moving toward a different model. Riane Eisler (1987) describes this as a shift from dominator systems to partnership systems, in which relationships are more egalitarian, cooperative, and based on mutual respect. In partnership-oriented systems, power is not something imposed on others, but something shared.<\/p>\n

    Similarly, Anthony Giddens (1992) describes a transformation in personal relationships, particularly in modern societies, where traditional roles based on obligation and hierarchy have increasingly been replaced by relationships based on negotiation, mutual satisfaction, and emotional connection. This shift is evident in changes in marriage, parenting, and family life, where authority is less absolute and relationships are more reciprocal. How many marriages today are arranged by those in power?<\/p>\n

    From a psychological perspective, Alfred Adler was one of the early thinkers to recognize this movement. Adler emphasized that human beings are inherently social and that healthy functioning depends on cooperation, belonging, and mutual respect. He argued that authoritarian approaches to relationships, particularly with children, undermine these goals and lead to resistance rather than cooperation (Adler, 1956).<\/p>\n

    Social Movements and the Expansion of \u201cPower With\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    This broader shift in paradigm is reflected in many of the major social movements of the modern era. Movements for civil rights, women\u2019s rights, and labor rights have challenged traditional hierarchies and advocated for greater equality, voice, and participation.<\/p>\n

    The Civil Rights Movement in the United States, led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., challenged systems of racial hierarchy and segregation, advocating for justice, dignity, and equal participation in society. Similarly, the women\u2019s rights movement has worked to dismantle long-standing gender hierarchies and expand opportunities and autonomy for women.<\/p>\n

    Labor movements have also played a significant role in shifting power dynamics, advocating for fair wages, safe working conditions, and the right of workers to have a voice in decisions that affect their lives (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). These movements reflect a broader trend toward questioning and restructuring systems based on unequal distributions of power.<\/p>\n

    Even more recent global movements have reflected this desire for greater participation and equity. Events such as the Arab Spring demonstrated widespread demands for political voice and an end to authoritarian control, even if the outcomes have been complex and uneven (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011).<\/p>\n

    An Uneven but Meaningful Shift<\/h3>\n

    It is important to recognize that this shift from \u201cpower over\u201d to \u201cpower with\u201d has not been linear or complete. Periods of progress are often followed by periods of resistance or retrenchment. As discussed earlier, rapid social change can create uncertainty, leading some individuals and societies to return to more hierarchical forms of organization.<\/p>\n

    However, across many domains, there is substantial evidence of a long-term trend toward greater recognition of individual rights, shared decision-making, and relational approaches to power. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated, \u201cthe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.\u201d While not inevitable, this perspective captures the broader pattern of movement toward more inclusive and participatory systems.<\/p>\n

    Modern School Discipline: Old Paradigm, New Forms<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    In education, it is only relatively recently that we have moved away from some of the more overt and harmful forms of punishment, such as corporal punishment. Yet despite this progress, schools remain deeply rooted in a paradigm that assumes some form of punishment is still the primary means of addressing misbehavior.<\/p>\n

    Although corporal punishment has declined significantly, the underlying logic of \u201cpower over\u201d discipline remains firmly embedded in educational systems. Practices such as withholding recess, requiring students to run laps, assigning detention, removing students from classrooms, and suspending or expelling students continue to reflect a reliance on external control through consequences. While these approaches may appear less severe than past practices, they are grounded in the same fundamental assumption, that behavior is best managed through control rather than through understanding and relationship.<\/p>\n

    Research in child development and education raises important concerns about these practices. For example, recess has been shown to play a critical role in children\u2019s cognitive, social, and emotional development. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) found that physical activity and unstructured play are associated with improved attention, behavior, and academic performance. When recess is withheld as a form of punishment, children are deprived of opportunities to develop precisely the self-regulation and social skills that adults are attempting to promote.<\/p>\n

    Similarly, using physical activity as a consequence, such as requiring children to run laps, or writing \u201cI will not cheat\u201d a hundred times, can create negative associations with exercise or writing. Instead of promoting health and well-being, these practices may inadvertently discourage lifelong positive attitudes toward physical activity. It can harm the joy that can come from writing.<\/p>\n

    More formal disciplinary practices, including detention, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and expulsion, represent some of the most widely used tools of modern school discipline. These exclusionary practices remove students from the learning environment in response to behavioral concerns. However, a substantial body of research indicates that such approaches are not only ineffective in improving behavior but may also contribute to a range of negative outcomes.<\/p>\n

    Students who experience suspension are more likely to demonstrate lower academic achievement, decreased engagement with school, and an increased likelihood of dropping out (Skiba et al., 2014). In addition, exclusionary discipline has been linked to greater involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, a pattern often referred to as the \u201cschool-to-prison pipeline\u201d (Skiba et al., 2014). These findings suggest that removing students from school does not address the underlying causes of behavior and may, in fact, exacerbate long-term challenges.<\/p>\n

    National data further illustrates the scope of these practices. Millions of students in the United States are suspended each year, and although suspension rates have declined somewhat in recent years, exclusionary discipline remains a common response to student behavior. Importantly, these practices disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities, raising significant concerns about equity and fairness in educational systems (Welsh, 2023).<\/p>\n

    From a developmental perspective, these modern disciplinary approaches share many of the same limitations as traditional punishment. They remove students from opportunities to learn appropriate behavior, often generate feelings of anger, shame, or disconnection, and fail to address the underlying needs or circumstances that contribute to the behavior. Rather than fostering internal responsibility, they reinforce a model of authority based on control and compliance.<\/p>\n

    A Promising Shift: Restorative and Relational Approaches<\/h3>\n

    In response to the limitations of punitive discipline, there has been a growing movement within education, and in the broader legal system, toward approaches that emphasize repair, accountability, and relationship rather than punishment alone. These approaches, often referred to as restorative practices or restorative justice, represent a shift toward a more relational and collaborative model of addressing conflict and harm.<\/p>\n

    Restorative practices are grounded in the idea that when harm occurs, the primary goal should be to repair relationships and restore a sense of community. Instead of focusing on rule violations and consequences, restorative approaches ask questions such as: What happened? Who was affected? And what can be done to make things right? This shift in focus encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions while also considering the impact of their behavior on others.<\/p>\n

    Research on restorative practices in schools has shown promising outcomes. Schools that implement restorative approaches have reported reductions in suspension rates and disciplinary incidents, as well as improvements in school climate and student relationships (Learning Policy Institute, 2020). These approaches have also been associated with increased student engagement and a stronger sense of belonging, both of which are critical factors in promoting positive behavior and academic success.<\/p>\n

    In addition to their impact on individual behavior, restorative practices contribute to a broader shift in how authority and responsibility are understood within school communities. Rather than positioning adults as enforcers of rules and students as subjects of control, restorative approaches emphasize shared responsibility, mutual respect, and collaborative problem-solving.<\/p>\n

    This shift is not without challenges. Implementing restorative practices requires time, training, and a willingness to rethink deeply ingrained assumptions about discipline and authority. However, the growing body of research supporting these approaches suggests that they offer a more effective and developmentally appropriate alternative to traditional punitive models.<\/p>\n

    Implications for Working with Children<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    This paradigm shift has profound implications for how we approach relationships with children. In a world that increasingly values voice, autonomy, and mutual respect, traditional \u201cpower over\u201d methods, such as punishment and reward, are less effective in fostering cooperation and responsibility.<\/p>\n

    Children today are growing up in a context where hierarchical authority is less absolute and where relationships are more collaborative. As a result, approaches that rely on control are more likely to lead to resistance, disengagement, or superficial compliance.<\/p>\n

    In contrast, guidance approaches grounded in \u201cpower with\u201d principles, <\/strong>including shared problem-solving and relationship-based influence, align more closely with the social realities that children experience. These approaches support the development of internal regulation, empathy, and a sense of belonging.<\/p>\n

    Understanding this broader shift helps explain not only why traditional methods are less effective but also why a new approach is needed, one that reflects the evolving nature of human relationships and prepares children to function in a more interconnected and collaborative world.<\/p>\n

    These emerging approaches point toward a fundamentally different way of understanding guidance. Rather than relying on control and consequences, they are grounded in a principle that emphasizes relationship, dignity, and shared responsibility. This is beginning to sound like one of those Facebook commercials for the \u201cSecret\u201d to something important. They constantly talk about all the reasons you need this ANSWER and all the benefits you\u2019ll receive when you have it, without telling you what it is.<\/p>\n

    It\u2019s time for the two-word principle that I could guarantee would solve or prevent any guidance challenge you might face if it is implemented fully and skillfully. That ANSWER is simply:<\/p>\n

    Mutual Respect<\/h3>\n

    The next section will define and explain what actually goes into mutual respect to make it so powerful. In the next chapter, we will discuss specific strategies and principles that will concretely help you actually implement and create relationships that are defined by mutual respect. You will learn about the tools that are much more effective than punishment and rewards, and that are consistent with the paradigm that we as a larger culture and world are growing into. But for now, what exactly is \u201cMutual Respect\u201d?<\/p>\n

    \n

    References<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Basic Books.<\/li>\n
    2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.<\/li>\n
    3. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.<\/li>\n
    4. Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? Basic Books.<\/li>\n
    5. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University Press.<\/li>\n
    6. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.<\/li>\n
    7. Learning Policy Institute. (2020). The impact of restorative practices on school climate and student outcomes.<\/li>\n
    8. Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546\u2013564.<\/li>\n
    9. Welsh, R. O. (2023). Up the down escalator? Examining a decade of school discipline reform. Children and Youth Services Review.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"Paradigms","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["ken-breeding"],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc"},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[61],"license":[56],"class_list":["post-334","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless","contributor-ken-breeding","license-cc-by-nc"],"part":328,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/334\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":590,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/334\/revisions\/590"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/328"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/334\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=334"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=334"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palomar.edu\/childguidance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}