Family(ies) in studies about school coexistence in Chile: a systematic review

Studies on school coexistence generally focus on the interaction between those who make up an educational institution. Many studies, in Chile, focus on students, teachers, and the management team, leaving aside other educational agents as educational assistants. The present study seeks to: a) Know whether research on school coexistence carried out in Chile considers family(ies) as an educational actor; b) Identify how their participation is assumed in processes related to school coexistence reported by research in this field. A systematic review was carried out for this purpose, selecting 27 articles processed through the prism flowchart. There is little consideration of the family(ies) as an active educational agent in studies of school coexistence in Chile. This makes the family(ies) invisible, reducing their responsibility and possibilities of participation as active agents in the constructive and interactive processes of school coexistence and the educational process of the new generations in their charge. These results show the need to strengthen this field of study and to promote the recognition of the family(ies) as active educational agents in the construction of school coexistence.

Based on the above and within the framework of the educational context, the family will be understood as considered by the Mineduc [5], which points out that as a result of the current heterogeneity, any adult who fulfills parental functions can be considered as a family or families.
Given the importance to the family in terms of socialization and education, concerning the joint task with the school, the present study is interested in exploring whether research on school coexistence carried out in Chile considers the family (ies) as an educational actor. Also, if that is the case then in which way, their participation is integrated or assumed in the processes related to the school coexistence of the various educational institutions.

RESEARCH METHOD a. Type of study
A documentary study through systematic review has been carried out, which proposed two purposes: 1) To know if the school coexistence investigations in Chile consider the family as an educational agent, and 2) Describe how the participation of the family(ies) in the processes related to school coexistence is integrated or assumed. The variables analyzed were "family" and "school coexistence". The studies consulted were based on the Chilean context between 2010-2019. The search was carried out in the Proquest, Scielo and Scopus databases between April 10 and 14, 2019.

b. Technique and instruments.
To gather information from the databases, the observation technique was used, taking into consideration the Cochrane guidelines [6], according to evidence corresponding to eligibility criteria to respond to the research objective.

c. Selection of studies.
The study selection process was based on the prism flowchart show in Figure 1, the stages of which are described: Identification: The search was carried out between April 10 and 14, 2019, in three databases (Proquest, Scielo, and Scopus) with the Spanish keyword "Convivencia escolar" (school coexistence), in Latin American context. In total, 196 articles were obtained. Screening: Once the total articles (n = 196) were obtained, the following filters were considered: 1) Regarding the type of literature or document, the article was selected; 2) articles with Latin American study context; 3) articles that include "School coexistence" in their title, summary or keywords; and 4) the identification and elimination of duplicate articles, which in total were 78. Therefore, there were 61 articles in Spanish and 7 articles in Portuguese. Eligibility: Out of the 61 articles published in Spanish in Latin America, 27 (44%) were developed in the Chilean context. It is important to note that, Chile concentrates a significant percentage of Latin American academic production on the subject of study. It is the country with the largest publication in the region. For these two reasons, it was decided to consider exclusively Chilean studies. Inclusion: At the end of these processes, it was decided to analyze all the 27 chosen articles.
The systematization instrument used was a file made in a word processor, which considered the following indicators: Author(s); Year; Country (City or Region); Article title; reference to the term family(s) in school coexistence, study objective, conclusions. It is important to emphasize that in this article the term family (ies) is understood as an adult who fulfills parental functions [5]. Any other reference to family (ies) associated with different contexts was not taken into consideration. For example, it was detected in articles whose object of study was mathematics, which addressed the family term as a numerical set.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the study show that family(ies) is considered in a few SC investigations. Its consideration does not refer to it as an active educational actor, which is evidenced in the process of systematized analysis through two tables and a graph.
About the tables: the first presents a characterization of the studies. The second one focuses on the frequency of use of the term family(ies) in each section of the articles.
The graph systematizes the use of the term family(ies) concerning the SC. That is, whether the term family(ies) was used to relate it to school coexistence or whether its adoption was to indicate the personal characteristics of the students. For example, characteristics related to cultural capital, sociodemographic aspects, vulnerability, among others.

a. Characterization of the studies
In the present study, the articles were identified, to contextualize characteristics such as authorship, time, title and region. The above is evidenced in Table 1, shown in Apendix. Table 1 shows that currently, there is a greater tendency to publish studies on SC. In this sense, during the years 2010-2014, 33% of the academic concentration was published, while in the year 2018 the percentage increases to 37%.
In the studies carried out, a variety of thematic areas on school coexistence are observed, such as a) school violence and its types; b) directive management; c) reflection of teaching practices; d) school climate; e) educational policies; f) diagnosis of school coexistence; g) improvement strategies; h) student, teacher and management team participation; i) internal regulations for school coexistence; j) school coexistence supervisory agents; k) academic performance; l) measuring instruments. Most of the studies have been carried out in urban areas, in cities that concentrate large numbers of inhabitants and located in the central area of the country, reaching 88.9% of the total research. In the case of peripheral areas, 7.4% of the investigations are carried out in the northern zone and 3.7% in the southern part of the country. Another point to consider is that no research was identified in rural areas.
On the other hand, for the definitions of school coexistence contained in the articles, it is identified that 14 (52%) of the 27 articles conceptualize school coexistence. Among these conceptualizations none includes the term family (s) directly, the only reference is made to educational actors, educational agents or others. An example of this is seen in the following excerpts: "the potential that people have for living with others" [7, p. 160]; "the interrelation between the different members of an educational establishment" [8, p. 113]; and "Coexistence is a way of socializing with others" [9, p. 387]. In the above, there is no presence of the term family (ies) in the definitions of school coexistence used by the authors of the selected studies, nor is there evidence of its presence in the titles of the studies.

b. Presence of the term family in school coexistence studies
According to the information presented, the term family(ies) is/are not included in the titles of the studies, nor the conceptualizations of SC. Therefore, it is appropriate to show the frequency of the use of the term family (ies) in the various sections of the investigated articles.
The data presented in Table 2, show that 22% of the studies do not mention the term family(ies). 33% of studies mention family (s) between 1 or 2 times. 30% do it between 3 to 5, 11% from 6 to 10 and 4% more than 10.
From the total number of studies that mention the term family(ies) 1 or 2 times, it has been identified that this term is used for different purposes, namely: a. As an interactional factor: referred to the relationships between different members. For example: "This dimension is focused on the fluid and timely communication between family and school" [10, p. 209]. b. As a factor of violence: In investigations, it is pointed out that sometimes the family(ies) go to the educational establishments attacking the teachers [11]. c. As a client: The consideration is on an instrumental role, subject to the payment of educational services [12]. d. As an analogy of the institutional vision: that is, the institution is projected as a family. An example: "we are a family, we are an oasis, to welcome, to love children" [13, p. 8]. In general, in the context of these studies, there is no consideration of family(ies) as an educational actor involved with the SC. Rather, it is assumed as a passive actor. However, in studies that mention the term family(ies) between 3 and 10 times, it is used under the following criteria: a. As a support network: understood from a double interpretation. On the one hand, from a favourable point of view: "students recognize the family as an element of support in their educational process" [8, p. 107]; "The main support networks for young students are made up of their families" [7, p. 168]; and "the good relations between school, teachers, unemployed, students and families, help the student's academic performance" [16, p. 50]. On the other hand, from less favourable aspects: "The lack of support of the families of the students in their formative process" [8, p. 121]. "In the problems of coexistence of the school, some families cooperate and others do not" [17, p. 28]. b. As a sociocultural category: referred to the description of the student's life contexts: For example, 1) [18] point out that one way of knowing youth reality is through the family; 2) [19] recognize as an important factor the family of origin of the students, in terms of influence on their training, their habits, values, and customs; and 3) "A line of response is given by those authors who emphasis on the cultural capital of families" [7, p. 128]. c. Family as a client: Family is associated with their ability to pay. An example of this is evidenced in the following sentence: "Subsidized Private Establishments (SPE), of mixed provision, receive contributions from the State and charge a fee to the families of the students" [20, p. 66]. d. As an analogy of the institutional vision: institutions are often compared to the term family to express the existence of a fraternal connection. For example: "students use is" family "to refer to school" [21, p. 11]. Finally, an article was identified (representing 4% of the total) that uses the term family more frequently (n=14), compared to the remaining 96%. It is necessary to point out that the article proposes a collective reflection considering students, teachers, and families. However, the main focus is on teachers. In this investigation, reference is made to the term family (s) from two aspects: 1) to mention the participants in the methodology; and 2) as an instance of consultation against the rules of the establishment.

c. Family(ies) in school coexistence
In Figure 2, a breakdown of the number of articles that mention family(ies) and whether or not it is related to SC is presented. The figure shows that in 6 articles (22%) there is no reference to the term family(ies). While in 14 articles (52%) its use is not related to school coexistence, as it can be seen in the following excerpts: "The characteristics of this participation take as a metaphor the idea of the family" [21, p. 11]; "The open coding was the initial fragmentation of the data into smaller descriptive units that allowed ordering and systematizing the information in codes, categories and families" [19, p. 328]. On the contrary, for the remaining 7 articles (26%), the use of the term family (ies) is associated with SC in the following ways: Nail et al. [22] discloses results on the perception that certain educational agents (such as students and family (ies)) have concerning the SC norms of their institution. Within their findings, [22] state that: a) "families, like students, are not able to identify the institution's rules accurately." (p. 379); b) "families tend to write the norms they claim to know positively, indicating what the desired behavior is (to do), rather than to formulate them in the negative (not to do)." (p. 380); c) "Regarding the foundation of the existence of norms in the school, families mention that they serve to control coexistence" (p. 380); and d) "Therefore, the management of standards at the institutional level requires a coordination process from the direction of the establishments, linking teachers, students and families" (p. 381).
According to Cerda et al. [16] in the use of SC measuring instruments through Likert type scales, they identify 8 dimensions that make up the SC construct, among which is positive interpersonal management, which includes the interpersonal relationships that occur between teachers, families, and students.
On the other hand, [23] relate the family and the SC, pointing out that "it is a much felt challenge to generate actions that allow families to join in efforts, based on strategies that promote participation, training and involvement" (p. 345). Besides, this study relies on [24] to mention that families request to be trained to contribute to the better development of the SC.
Valdés et al. [25] report SC assessment instruments that have focused on negative aspects and the way they have addressed interpersonal conflicts and the problems of abuse, bullying, arrogance and school maltreatment, where recognition is given to instruments that target students, teachers, and family.
According to López at al. [15] approach the term family(ies) from a perspective focused on the delegation of responsibility in transgressive actions. Under this context, in this study, it is pointed out that: "[...] the theme of coexistence in schools is focused more on the attention of what schools call "the cases of problem students" than on an integral look of coexistence. Its effect is to divert attention on the responsibility of the establishment, attributing itself to the student and his family" (p. 118 -119).
Muñoz et al. [10] used an SC questionnaire for Nonviolence (CENVI) in their study, focused on student perception. The questionnaire includes in the Coexistence Management factor, a dimension focused on fluid and timely communication between family and school.
In the study carried out by Muñoz et al. [17] the families are related to the SC from different fields, namely: a) relationship with the SC norms: "The issues of conflict were the respect of the norms by the students, trust with teachers and disciplinary actions of families". (p. 17); b) as an SC variable: "exogenous variables, such as the student's family, the media, the community, society, the education system, and public policies" (p. 22); and c) as a support resource: "Students who alter coexistence in school should be referred to a specialist with family support" (p. 30).

DISCUSSION
Based on the results, in these articles family(ies) is/are not addressed as a fundamental axis of the SC, nor as a relevant factor in itself. This is coincident with the statement made by Gillies [26] who points out that many times the family(ies) is/are not approached as a subject with great theoretical possibilities, rather it is subordinated to other issues. This is evident from the 14 articles in which family(ies) unrelated to SC are mentioned. They just name it either as a list of factors, as one of the characteristics that are part of the student, or as a client that must be captured by educational institutions, among other aspects. As for the 7 articles that directly relate family(ies) to SC, there is a duality in which, on the one hand, it is given a connotation of external and passive agents and, on the other hand, an internal and active agent. For example, Muñoz et al. [17] indicate that the family (ies) is one of the exogenous variables that affect SC. Subsequently, they indicate that the family(ies) must also be considered in the formulation of the internal SC regulations of each institution [17]. This situation can be explained from the formulation of the political guidelines of the Mineduc since the same normative theoretical framework on SC does not fully address the characteristics, considerations, and roles of the educational agents that build the SC. Rather, it presents general guidelines that can be interpreted from various perspectives.
For example, there are investigations that address the roles of some school agents, from the point of view of violence or conflict [27][28][29]; Other investigations do so from the perspective of SC management [30]; while some others focus on proposals to work on SC [31][32][33][34][35][36]. These differences help contribute to strengthen the knowledge about SC. However, they do not rigorously and specifically characterize the roles of the subjects in study, as SC agents.
The duality mentioned above is not the only one that has been detected. There is also a duality about responsibility in student training. On the one hand, López et al. [15] point out that when there are difficulties with students, schools seek to "divert attention on the responsibility of the establishment, attributing itself to the student and his family" (p. 119). This is consistent with the study of Cárcamo [4] in which it indicates that the school blames the family(ies) and differs in the way of understanding education. But on the other hand, other studies mention that the family(ies) is the one who mistrusts the school [37], carrying out the management of their risks in today's society [26,38,39], which does not facilitate coordinated work with the school where both assume co-responsibility in training.
This dual duality presented can be explained from the approach made by Cárcamo [4] who reveals that schools seek the participation of families only to achieve their objectives. Then it is understandable that on certain occasions, the family(ies) will be involved only as an advisory body, but on other occasions, they will be denied participation as an active agent, product of this distrust of their parental abilities. Mistrust, which also emanates from the families, since they go to the establishments for their children's particular interests and not as a collective commitment [37].
Another point raised by Cárcamo [4] refers to teachers seeking family participation to achieve their own goals and even achieve "instrumental alliances" (p. 61). This not only implies a degree of manipulation, but it also takes families from participation in technical-pedagogical decision making [4]. Therefore, the objective and theoretical framework presented by Mineduc [40] in its SC policy are not fulfilled, wherein it emphasizes that all establishments must implement programs or projects for optimal development of the SC and that these must be originated in a participatory manner and with the collaboration of all school actors in the community.
The distrust detected between school -family(ies) leads to another contradiction. On the one hand, the school avoids involving the family(ies), but on the other hand, in some research, it is identified that the schools in their speeches are projected as a family. This can be seen in the following quotation: "These meanings are framed in a project characterized by a valuable sense that gives identity to the school [...] For example, we are a family, we are an oasis" [13, p.8].
Finally, research that considers school and family coexistence do not show clear evidence of recognition of family(ies) as an active agent in the SC processes. It is seen as an advisory body, a negative cause of conflicts, as a client of the education system or as support only when students transgress institutional norms.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the articles on SC in Chile, it is suggested that the reference to the term family(ies) as an object of investigation is scarce and its absence is evident as a research topic in SC. This is evidenced in 8 approaches: a) it is not mentioned directly in the SC conceptualizations; b) it is not specified who are the "educational agents" that are part of the conceptualization of SC; c) the family(ies) is/are referred to as sociodemographic or anecdotal data: d) within the subjects of study, students, teachers and managers are mostly considered; e) family issues are not incorporated to interpret or analyze the results; f) it is observed that in the discussions of the studies that mention "family", it is not explained how it affects the results found g) in the conclusions presented by the studies, there is no reference to the family(ies) and h) an invisibility of the degree of responsibility that this has in the EC is identified, in the different school contexts.
From the limitations of the study, it is recognized that the search for information focused on the Chilean context and publications from other countries in the region were not considered. Another limitation is that not all databases were included to perform the queries, only the revision is included in the Scielo, Scopus and Proquest databases.
As for the strengths of the study, there is a review centered between the last 10 years (2010-2019), which includes all the publications in these databases mentioned in Spanish. This allows a high spectrum of analysis since, usually, the use of literature that does not exceed 5 years is privileged. For future studies, the search could be expanded at the Latin American level, to know the state of the art in this field of study. In this way, comparisons of the EC and family events in the countries of the region could be carried out. This could contrast the political guidelines that emanate from the different Ministries of Education or their respective institutions.