How prospective adopters manage the emotional needs of existing children within the family, and how the children are able to deal with the addition of another child.
Contents:
Introduction p.2
Background p.3
Aims and Objectives p.4
Literature Review p.5
Methodology p.11
Design of the Instrument p.13
Sample p.16
Reliability and Validity p.17
Pilot Study p.18
Data Analysis p.19
Ethical Issues p.20
Reflective Account p.21
References p.23
Introduction:
This research proposal will aim to investigate how prospective adopters manage the emotional needs of existing children within the family, and how the children are able to deal with the addition of another child. Firstly, I will consider academic studies that have dealt with the same subject, and formulate my own project having considered the methodology that has been used by previous researchers.
In legal terms, a child who has been adopted is the responsibility of his or her adopted parents. Section 39 of The Adoption Act 1976 states:
“1. An adopted child shall be treated in law:
- Where the adopters are a married couple, as if he had been born as a child of the marriage (whether or not he was in fact born after the marriage was solemnised);
- In any other case, as if he had been born to the adopter in wedlock (but not as a child of any actual marriage of the adopter).
- An adopted child shall [save in the case of step-parents adoptions], be treated in law as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopter or adopters.” (cited in Lowe et al, 2000, p.22)
The 1976 Act was amended in 2002, in order to:
“promote greater use of adoption, improve the performance of the adoption service, and put children at the centre of the adoption process.” (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/en/ukpgaen_20020038_en_1)
Putting the child at the centre of the adoption process refers to the child who is being adopted rather than the adopter’s children. Both The Adoption Act 1976 and The Adoption and Children Act 2002 are concerned with the relationship between the adopted child and the adoptive parents. The aim of this research proposal is to investigate where the adopter’s existing children fit into this process. The results of the study will be useful as a guide for parents who are adopting, or have adopted. The study will also be useful to social service practitioners working in this particular field.
Although this research proposal is intended to investigate adoption, I will also be considering research into the experience of foster carer’s children. This research is useful because the children of foster carers will often have very similar experiences to the children of parents who adopt. A key difference between foster families and families who adopt is that foster families will often have a number of different children coming and going from the family home. Robert Twigg and Tracy Swan describe the foster family in the following terms:
“A foster family is a unique family arrangement which has, because of its function in society, far more flexible and permeable boundaries than are found in most North American and European families. In many ways, it could be said that foster family life constitutes a contradiction. The family is asked to help children who need to experience the nurturing of “normal family life”, but is expected to do so while embedded in a large system that simultaneously makes demands that can minimise the qualities of family living that contribute most to the capacity of nurture.” (Twigg and Swan, 2007, p.49)
Twigg and Swan place the words “normal family life” into inverted commas, rightly suggesting that all families are different to each other. However, unlike foster families, families who adopt have more in common with families in which all the children are biologically related to the parents. A child’s adopted parents have a legal parental responsibility over them.
However, there is a particular point at which adoption and fostering overlap. Often children who are taken on by foster parents later become their adopted children. For this reason, adoption and fostering cannot be easily separated. The results of many research studies may apply equally to both adoption and fostering.
Background:
Adoption is an important subject, because it affects the lives of many people. Studies into adoption need to be conducted continuously because the nature of adoption is constantly changing, with alterations in policy and legislation. Changes of this nature are brought about as a result of research. Some critics argue that despite these legislative changes, not practitioners take these changes seriously. In his book, Adoption, Social Work and Social Theory, Tim O’Shaughnessy argues:
“Despite challenges to their knowledge and authority by a range of consumer and interest groups during the 1970s and 1980s, mainstream social work educators and practitioners in the field of child welfare do not seem to be learning sufficiently from criticisms of their practices. Particulars from new perspectives have been assimilated to varying degrees over time, but wider and deeper challenges, visions, implications and lessons are too often opposed, filtered out or politely ignored.” (O’Shaughnessy, 1994, p.5)
Various studies have already been carried out into how prospective adopters manage the emotional needs of existing children within the family, but not all of these studies offer the same results. There remains a grey area regarding the best ways in which parents and practitioners should deal with children’s emotional needs under difficult circumstances. These circumstances may become particularly difficult in cases in which the adopted child has been subjected to abuse, or has been traumatised in some way, which could also cause emotional harm to their adopted siblings. Bringing these issues into the family home turn them into issues that will be shared by the whole family, including the children. As I shall go on to argue in my literature review, critical opinion remains uncertain as to what level the biological children of the adopters should be involved. Will excluding the children from certain aspects of the adopted child’s life protect them from harm, or will they be emotionally alienated? What are the implications for social policy? These are questions that I will aim to answer in this study.
Aims and Objectives:
This study will address the following questions:
- What are the right and wrong ways for parents to manage the emotional needs of their existing children?
- What effect does the presence of their adoptive parents’ children have on the adopted child?
- What effect does the presence of the adopted child have on the parents’ existing children?
- Does adoption have a different effect depending on the age of the children?
- Does adoption have a different effect depending on the gender of the children?
- What role should social services take in ensuring that the adopted child adapts to life with both their new parents and their new siblings?
In my attempts to answer these questions, I will consider various studies that have already been conducted into these issues. I will put the methodology together based on my analysis of the successes and failures of previous research.
Literature Review:
Joining New Families: A Study of Adoption and Fostering in Middle Childhood is a 1998 study by David Quinton et al, which investigates various issues concerning both adoption and fostering. Among other issues, this research raises the question, is there is difference in behaviour between children who are adopted into families with children compared to those adopted into families without children? The study takes various demographic characteristics into account – for example the age and ethnicity of the adopters. The researchers argue:
“In any discussion of placement outcomes for older children, it is necessary to take the context in which the children were placed into account.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.59)
This means that not just one variable needs to be taken into account, but several. The issue of what they call “singleton verses sibling placement” is just one of these variables.
The study took place over twelve months, using a sample of 61 families. The sample was restricted to children placed between the ages of five and nine inclusive. Explaining their reasons for using this age range, Quinton et al write:
“This age range was chosen for two reasons: first because children in middle childhood form a large proportion of those “looked after” children who require permanent substitute families and secondly because disruption rates for permanent places had been shown to rise over this period. We expected this group to be more challenging than children placed earlier in life and therefore to have more of the problems associated with disruption.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.25)
This evidence is backed up by Thorburn and Rowe’s 1988 study, “A Snapshot of Permanent Family Placement” in the journal, Adoption and Fostering (Thorburn and Rowe, 1988). It is important to acknowledge, therefore, that Quinton et al’s study applies to children within their specific age range, and may not necessarily be representative of adopted children in other age ranges – particularly adolescents, who Quinton et al argue,
“would have raised a number of additional issues, especially the effects of the onset of puberty, that could not have dealt adequately in a sample of this size.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.25)
In my own study, it will also be necessary to consider which age group I will be focussing on, and what effect this will have on the data. Would children of different age groups produce different results? The age of the siblings is also important, as there will also be significant differences between siblings of different age groups.
The data for the study was collected in three ways: firstly, through interviews with both parents and social workers; secondly, through questionnaires, which were completed by the parents and teachers, and thirdly through direct assessments of the children. These direct assessments included examining levels of attention and impulsivity in the child, as well as assessing their intellectual development. Quinton et al write:
“It was not considered appropriate, by either the research team or the social service departments, to question the children directly about their new families during their first year of placement. However, it was possible to collect some measures of the children’s cognitive and behavioural functioning in the majority of cases.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.32.)
One potential problem with this method is that measuring modes of behaviour such as attention and impulsivity may be highly subjective, and could depend very much on the child’s mood on the day of testing. This may be a particular problem with children who are experiencing difficulties in settling into their new home, and whose mood may therefore change significantly from one day to the next. The fact that the researchers were unable to make direct assessments of all the children in the study is an indication of the potentially unreliable nature of this particular mode of assessment.
Quinton et al acknowledge the findings of previous studies into placing single children with established families, which suggest that too small a gap between a birth child and a placed child increases the chance of disruption. Three studies in particular (Trasler, 1960; Parker, 1966; Berridge and Cleaver, 1987) suggest that when the child is within five years of age of the nearest birth child, significant problems will be encountered. This is backed up by P Wedge and G Mantle’s 1991 study, Sibling Groups in Social Work: a Study of Children Referred for Permanent Substitute Family Placement, which argued that the placed child should be the youngest by three years. Of course, this does not always happen. In Quinton et al’s study, the placed children were usually the youngest, but there were six situations in which the placed child became a middle child, and three cases in which the child became the eldest sibling.
The results of Quinton et al’s investigation into the difference between singleton and sibling placements are summarised here:
“There were no significant differences in the level of behaviour problems between children in singleton and sibling placements at one month, according to the parents’ reports. However, there was a tendency for those placed alone to show less behavioural improvement than those placed with siblings. Similarly, although there were no differences in parental satisfaction between children in singleton and sibling group placements at one month, parents of children placed singly were reporting significantly more reservations by the end of the first year than those who had sibling groups placed with them. Placements of single children were less likely to be categorised as stable.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.72)
These findings are important for my own study, because although they are focused on the experience of the child and the parent, they also raise important questions regarding the child’s adopted siblings. When Quinton et al refer to behaviour problems, they are referring to behavioural problems related to the adopted child. However, are there any behaviour problems associated with the siblings? Similarly, when Quinton et al refer to “satisfaction,” they are speaking exclusively about parental satisfaction. What about the satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, of the child’s adopted siblings? Quinton et al did not conduct direct assessments of the siblings, and therefore do not provide a direct comparison against the experience of the adopted child and his or her siblings.
However, the issue of the development of relationships with new siblings were addressed in the interviews with parents. Quinton at al report:
“We asked the new parents to describe the effects of the placement on each child in the family independently. The number of relationships where the impact was positive (52) far outweighed the negative (23), but it is important to register that 23 children were distressed at the arrival of the newly placed child, and in six cases this distress was described as very marked. Several birth children were adversely affected by the placed child’s misbehaviour and, in one case, a girl was frequently physically attacked by her younger brother.” (Quinton et al, 1998, p.131.)
The researchers do not analyse these problems in detail. They suggest that the reasons for the problems that have been experienced between siblings may be largely due to the siblings being close together in age, or when the birth child has been replaced as the only child or the youngest child – as was the case in eleven of the thirteen cases referred to above. However, without in depth analysis of their findings, the researchers are unable to offer any concrete solutions to these problems.
The reason for the lack of depth in their analysis is that the relationship between siblings is not the focal point of the study. For the most part, the study aims to examine the experience of the parent and the child. Therefore, although this study’s findings are very useful, they do not provide the same depth that a study devoted entirely to the relationships between siblings would have done.
There have been several studies into the experience of foster carer’s children. In an essay from the journal, Adoption and Fostering entitled “Inside the Foster Family,” Robert Twigg and Tracy Swan bring together the research of fourteen different studies into the experience of foster carer’s children, and offer an assessment of their various findings. Although my research proposal is intended to investigate adoption rather than fostering, it is still important to consider these studies, because as I have already argued, in many cases the experience of foster carer’s children will be very similar to the children of parents who adopt. Of the fourteen studies considered by Twigg and Swan, nine are published (Ellis, 1972; Kaplan, 1988; Martin and Stanford, 1990; Poland and Groze, 1993; Twigg, 1993, 1994, 1995; Department of Health, 1995; Pugh, 1996; Ward, 1996; Watson and Jones, 2002) and five are unpublished (Mauro, 1985; Heidbuurt, 1995; Swan, 2000; Norrington, 2002; Nuske, 2006). Altogether, these studies interviewed two hundred and thirty two participants, ranging in age from seven to thirty two.
Unlike the above study by Quinton et al, several of these studies involved interviews with children. These will give a different perspective when compared to interviews with parents. Although parents may often have a greater understanding of the emotions the children are experiencing, they cannot always be relied upon to speak on their children’s behalf, because they may not know exactly what is going on in the child’s mind – particularly if they have been busy dealing with foster children. Based on these interviews, Twigg and Swan highlight various issues that have been raised by children in interviews.
One particular issue is aggression. Twigg and Swan report:
“Foster parents’ children face at least the risk of being the recipient of aggressive acts from the foster child. These acts may involve rude, manipulative and / or threatening behaviour; threatened, or actual, destruction of valued possessions; and actual physical acts of aggression. Most, if not all, respondents in these studies experienced violent outbursts by foster children in addition to overt and covert threats of violence.” (Twigg and Swan, 2007, p.51)
The implication that every single child within a foster family has experienced aggression or acts of violence from the foster child is a striking statement. Can these findings be applied to every single foster family? What are the implications for adoption? Twigg and Swan argue that the foster care system does not do enough to lessen the impact on the foster carer’s child, and may overlook the issue altogether. Watson and Jones’ study argues:
“Had similar treatment been suffered / experienced by a child / young person looked after by a local authority, it could be subject to a planning meeting, review, or a child protection conference.” (Watson and Jones, 2002, p.54)
This issue is something that needs to be investigated for the children of parents who adopt, because although their homes can be expected to be comparatively more stable than foster care homes, there may well be similar issues of aggression amongst adopted siblings.
One area in which Twigg and Swan’s essay appears to contradict Quinton et al’s study is the age and sex differences of the children. Quinton et al make very specific claims about the ideal age gap for the children. However, Twigg and Swan would disagree:
“While age and sex differences have been consistently identified as being significant factors to consider, the existing research on these topics is weak and inconsistent. The research that was reviewed highlighted the importance of considering the age range between the foster child and foster child and foster parents’ child as significant, but did not explicitly indicate an ideal age range or why it would be ideal.” (Twigg and Swan, 2007, pp.51-52)
Again, this may signify a difference between adoption and fostering. Does the importance of the age difference between children differ between adoption and fostering? If so, there does not appear to be an easily explainable reason for the difference. In my study, I will need to pay particular attention to the importance of the ages of the participants. Twigg and Swan suggest that research into sex differences. However, Twigg’s 1993 study found that the placement of opposite-sex children were likely to be more complex during adolescence, although younger children responded more positively to children of the opposite sex.
One issue which is raised by both adoption and fostering is the loss of parental attention a child experiences when a new child comes into the home. Twigg and Swan write:
“Many of the young respondents spoke about feelings of jealousy and resentment, further complicated by the guilt they have experienced as a result of having these feelings.” (Twigg and Swan, 2007, p.54)
The young person will often deal with these feelings by partially secluding themselves from the family, or by refusing to communicate properly as a means of getting attention. From a research point of view, this may be a problem when it comes to interviewing children. The child may be reluctant to talk to a researcher, particularly if they have strong feelings that they may not wish to share with an adult. This would be an argument in favour of Quinton et al’s method of interviewing the parents and carrying out direct assessments of the children rather than interviews.
Another study that uses interviews with children is Wendy Spears and Melanie Cross’s study entitled “How Do “Children Who Foster” Perceive Fostering?” (Spears and Cross, 2003 pp.38-45) Again, this study is focussed on fostering rather than adoption, but several of the issues raised by the study are applicable to adoption. The study is entirely child-focussed, as the researchers argue the children of foster parents play a crucial role in the fostering process. The data for this study was collected through interviews and focus groups with children and young people.
One particular issue raised by the study is that foster children will often come from troubled backgrounds, which may result in some uncomfortable issues being brought into the family home. One child in Spears and Cross’s study was quoted as saying:
“They don’t tell me everything because they are not allowed to; they tell me what I need to know.” (Spears and Cross, 2003, p.40)
Another child said:
“I’m not allowed to ask them about their background because it might upset them.” (Spears and Cross, p.41)
However, this raises the question of whether or not it may be good for the fostered or adopted child to speak to their siblings about their experiences in order to become closer to them, and in order to feel less isolated and less negative about their previous experiences. One issue which is raised with discussions between siblings is that the fostered or adopted child will share secrets, which may be very personal. Spears and Cross report:
“Some young people said they had kept secrets when foster children had asked them to; most said they would not. The interviewer encouraged discussion about what kind of secrets should and should not be kept and was satisfied that these were not serious secrets. One young person said that they were not sure how to decide which secrets to keep and which to tell.” (Spears and Cross, p.41)
The sharing of secrets in this way could have the potential to bring children closer together, but it could also cause friction among the children. If the fostered or adopted child told them a secret which the child went on to share with an adult, this could be perceived as a betrayal of trust, no matter how well-meaning the child’s intentions were.
As in the two above studies, Spears and Cross’s study also raises the question of the significance of the age of the children:
“Eighteen of the twenty children interviewed had clear preferences as regards to the foster children they could live with. Many thought younger children were easier: “then they don’t want to borrow my stuff”; others liked younger children because “I can tell them what to do”. (Spears and Cross, p.40)
This would appear to agree with Quinton et al’s suggestion that the child should be younger than their adopted siblings. However, this is just one study, whereas Twigg and Swan’s study provides a synthesis of fourteen different studies, as well as considering previous research, which does not draw any clear conclusion of the ideal age range of the children involved in either adoption or fostering.
In contrast with Quinton et al’s study, which only interviewed adults, Spears and Cross chose to interview children exclusively. However, as I have argued, parents and children may have different views and opinions, so it would have been interesting and perhaps more useful for the researchers to have interviewed both the parents and the children in order to analyse any difference in their views. However, this may not have been possible for Quinton et al, whose study was focussed on the adopted child rather than the siblings. Therefore researchers did not feel that it was appropriate to interview to interview the children directly. One positive aspect of Spears and Cross’s methodology is that they offered the children in the study to offer feedback on their results. The fact that they communicated with the children in this way illustrates that at every stage in this study, the children were listened to and respected by the researchers, which is very important in any study involving children.
The issue of the difference between the views of parents and children is raised by Ingrid Hojer, who writes:
“In research on foster care, the situation of foster carers’ biological children is seldom a major feature. When addressed, the position of children is often discussed through the eyes of adults. Studies where the children of foster carers speak for themselves are uncommon.” (Hojer, 2004, p.43)
Hojer cites CP Kaplan’s study, “The Biological Children of Foster Parents in the Foster Family,” which found in some cases that there were some discrepancies between the statements of adults and young people and children, usually with foster carers being more positive than their children (Kaplan, 1988). However, Hojer’s own study, “What Happens in the Foster Family?” does not conduct any interviews with children. The study, which was conducted through the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, used a questionnaire, which was responded to by one hundred and ninety two women and one hundred and seventy four men, and also carried out in depth interviews with seventeen married couples from foster families. As the study is carried out in Sweden, it is important to acknowledge differences between the British and Swedish adoption services:
“There is no special Children’s Act in Sweden. The equivalent of the child welfare law is found in the Social Services Act, which serves as a regulatory framework for different areas of social care, and the Care of Young People Act, which regulates taking children and young people into care without the parents’ or the children’s consent. Municipalities in Sweden have a high degree of local autonomy and, as long as the basic standards of the Social Services Act are respected, local authorities can organise their child welfare services in the way they find the most suitable.” (Hojer, 2004, p.38)
Therefore, because there are particular differences between the fostering and adoption services in Britain and Sweden, the results of Hojer’s study may not be entirely applicable to the British adoption services. Nonetheless, it is still useful to consider Hojer’s research.
Regarding the experiences of foster parents’ children, Hojer highlights both positive and negative experiences which were raised in the research. In the questionnaires, only 3% of parents described their biological children as being dissatisfied with fostering. In the interviews, parents explained that the experience of fostering was educational for their children, because it gave them an insight into other people’s lives, and also taught them to empathise with other people (Hojer, 2004, p.44). However, there are also negative experiences – for example, when children are exposed to the problems and hardships faced by the foster child:
“They may learn about child abuse, both sexual and violent. Some of the foster carers described how biological children were disturbed and angry on behalf of foster siblings. They were upset when foster children’s birth parents treated foster siblings badly and disappointed them. This is something they probably would not have experienced had their parents not been fostering.” (Hojer, 2004, p.44)
This could be a very difficult problem for some families to overcome, because in some cases it is perhaps inevitable that children will be exposed to the negative experiences faced by their fostered or adopted sibling. Prospective fosterers and adopters will need to be aware of these problems in order to be prepared for negative issues that may arise. One of the reasons why studies of this nature are important is that their research can be used to educate potential fosterers and adopters about experiences they may face.
Like Quinton et al, Hojer has used both in depth interviews and questionnaires, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods of research. Concerning the methodology, Hojer writes:
“In this study the questionnaire furnished the research with more comprehensive information, where certain patterns could be identified. The in-depth interviews provided deeper knowledge of familial relations as well as an opportunity to concentrate on specific areas of interest.” (Hojer, 2004, p.39)
By combining different types of research, Hojer has been able to back up her qualitative data with statistics, in a way in which Spears and Cross were unable to do with their study, which was based entirely on interviews. However, Hojer’s study could have been improved by interviewing children in addition to adults.
In considering whether or not to use children as participants, I have considered Cathy Murray’s study, “Children and Young People’s Participation and Non-Participation in Research.” This study reviewed the Quality Protects bibliographic database, which comprises details of one hundred and eighty two research studies conducted since 1991, of which seventy two were categorised as relevant to fostering and adoption. 53% of these studies used children and young people as participants (Murray, 2005, pp.57-66). Murray considers the position of “gatekeepers,” a term which is defined by R. Burgess as those with “the power to grant or withhold access to people or situations for the purposes of research.” (Burgess, 1984, p.48) In any research project involving children, permission will need to be obtained from the child’s parents or guardians before the research can be carried out. Murray argues that many gatekeepers object to their children participating in research in case the questioning is damaging to them in some way. This can be problematic for researchers, who may find it difficult to obtain a sample large enough to conduct a valid piece of research. Murray argues that gatekeepers are more likely to be protective of female children. However, Murray notes that this is just a hypothesis, and would need to be backed up with further research. In an attempt to provide a solution to these problems, Murray suggests various strategies to increase children and young people’s participation in research. For example, she argues that a researcher should make participation in their studies attractive to young people in some way:
“Researchers indicated ways of increasing the likelihood of children and young people themselves agreeing to participate and, subsequently, turning up. Considerable emphasis was placed on sending out information to young participants that was both extensive and accessible, in terms of language and graphics.” (Murray, 2005, p.63)
As I have already suggested, my research would benefit from using both adults and children as participants. Murray’s study is important because it highlights potential problems with using children in research.
Methodology:
My approach for this study is inspired by an essay written by Alison Clark and June Statham entitled “Listening to Young People: Experts in Their Own Lives” (Clark and Statham, 2005, pp.45-56). In this essay, Clark and Statham outline the benefits of what is known as the mosaic approach, and its application to studies involving children. Clark and Statham write:
“The approach uses a wide range of methods in order to allow children with different abilities and interests to take part. This multi-method approach also enables traditional tools of observation and interviewing to the overall picture or “mosaic,” and provides an opportunity to triangulate findings across the different methodologies. The name “mosaic” was chosen to reflect the bringing together of different pieces of information or material to make a picture from children’s viewpoints.” (Clark and Statham, 2005, p.47)
Therefore, the mosaic approach uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to build up a complete picture of the lives of the participants, and the issues facing them.
The mosaic approach was developed over the course of two studies – firstly a study called “Listening to Young Children,” which was an investigation into the needs of nursery school children (Wigfall and Moss, 2001), and secondly a study called “Spaces to Play,” which adapted the mosaic approach developed in the first study to involve young children in the redesign of an outdoor play space (Clark and Moss, 2005). Although these studies are not related to adoption in any way, they are relevant to my subject area because they used children as participants. Indeed, Clark and Statham state clearly in their essay that this approach would be ideal for the kind of study I am proposing to undertake:
“It could be applied in work with children who experience fostering or adoption. In particular, the approach could help children to reflect on their own experiences, provide a bridge for children and adults to discuss meanings together, and contribute to future decision-making. It could also be used with groups of siblings to help to ascertain different perspectives and priorities, and possibly with foster carers’ or adopters’ own children, especially when the latter find it difficult to articulate their feelings about the new arrivals in their family and feel that their views are not taken into account.” (Clark and Statham, 2005, p.52)
Considering this argument, it would appear that there is a gap in current research into the relationship between adopted children and the existing children of the adopters that ought to be filled by a researcher using the mosaic approach. If this particular approach has not been used before in this area, this would therefore be a significant piece of research.
Among the various methods used in these studies were both child and adult interviews. The emphasis of each of these interviews was different. The interviews with the children were formal, but had to become more informal in certain cases in which children were not interested in sitting still while they were interviewed, but instead had conversations with the researcher “on the move”. (Clark and Statham, 2005, p.48) The adult interviews were more concerned with the adults’ perceptions of everyday experience rather than the first-hand accounts provided by the children. (Clark and Statham, 2005, p.49) Data was also collected through child observation. Clark and Statham write:
“Observation provides an important starting place for listening to children, whatever their age. It is of particular value with younger or less articulate children. We chose to use narrative accounts, which are a qualitative type of observation based on written descriptions of episodes of children’s play.” (Clark and Statham, 2005, p.49)
In my study, I will use participant observation as my primary research method, which as I will go on to argue, fits in very well with the mosaic approach, as it can be used alongside other kinds of research. This study will combine both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to make full use of the various methodologies available to me as a researcher.
Design of the Instrument:
It is interesting to note that none of the studies I investigated in my literature review used participant observation as a research method. I have decided to use participant observation as my primary method of data collection, partly because it appears not to be widely used in this field, and may therefore offer a different kind of insight into the issue. One relevant study is Vera Fahlberg’s A Child’s Journey Through Placement, which uses what Fahlberg calls “direct observation” as a means of producing various case studies. Although the study is not focussed on exactly the same area I will be looking into, Fahlberg’s research is relevant because it looks into areas of the child’s life that cannot always be expressed verbally. Fahlberg writes:
“Although grown-ups are responsible for making the major life decisions on behalf of children, it is difficult to make the best determinations unless the child’s perceptions of the situation are taken into consideration. In general, children use non-verbal communications more extensively than speech.” (Fahlberg, 1991, p.7)
Therefore, using a method such as interviewing may be considered less useful than observations, in which the child can communicate visually, and on a less self-conscious level.
My main reason for using participant observation is that this method does not make any prior assumptions about the participants, or what the results are expected to be. In his book, Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process, Tim May writes:
“The aims of participant observation, as well as its history, are different from what is commonly termed positivism: for example, the design of questionnaires involves the researcher in developing ideas and testing or exploring these using questions. Critics argue that researchers employing this method assume that they already know what is important. In contrast, participant observation is said to make no firm assumptions about what is important. Instead, the method encourages researchers to immerse themselves in the day-to-day activities of the people they are attempting to understand. In contrast to testing ideas (deductive), they may be developed from observations (inductive).” (May, 2001, p.148)
By observing people in their natural environment, the researcher can get away from the problems associated with methods such as interviewing, which place the participants into a situation that they may not be used to, and may not be entirely comfortable with. This will be particularly the case when it comes to interviewing children. The child may feel self-conscious about the interviewing process, and consequently may not be entirely honest in their answers. For example, the child may offer answers that they feel their parents would like them to give. Also, they may be reluctant to talk about their feelings to an interviewer, particularly if they are speaking about personal and uncomfortable issues.
Using a method that does not begin with preconceived assumptions about what the outcome of the study will be is appropriate for this particular subject, because previous research appears to be inconclusive about issues such as the ideal age gap between the adopted child and their siblings. Therefore, if the researcher approaches the study without any specific ideas about what the results will be, their assumptions will not affect the direction of the study, or their analysis of their findings. Methods such as interviews and questionnaires may lead to misleading results based on the researcher’s bias, whether this is intentional or not. As May argues, the researcher formulates the questions they ask based on what they consider to be important. Therefore, even if the researcher makes an effort not to ask any leading or biased questions, they have still directed the study in a certain way depending on what they consider to be important. With participant observation, the outcome of the study is in the hands of the participants.
- Gold has identified four distinct types of participant observation (Gold, 1969). The first of these is the “complete participant,” in which the researcher engages fully with the activities of the group they are observing. As my study is based on observing families, it would not be appropriate for a researcher to play the part of a member of the family in order to immerse themselves within the group. I would have to acknowledge my own position as an outsider to the group. Gold’s second role within participant observation is the “participant as observer”. Here, the researcher plays a more overt role by making their intentions known to the group. N.K. Denzin suggests that this process is an attempt to:
“form a series of relationships with the subjects such as they serve as both respondents and informants.” (Denzin, 1978, p.188)
This is the role that I will adopt as researcher, as it will be obvious to all the participants that I am not a member of their family. Gold’s third role is “observer as participant,” which differs from the approach that I will take to the extent that it would not strictly be regarded as participant observation. Gold writes:
“The observer-as-participant role is used in studies involving one-visit interviews. It calls for relatively more formal observation than either informal observation or participation of any kind.” (Gold, 1969, p.36)
The direct assessments of children conducted by Quinton et al could perhaps be included in this category. They would not be appropriate for my study, as I am looking for more in-depth, qualitative data. Gold’s forth role is that of the “complete observer,” in which the researcher is completely removed from the participants. In this role, a researcher may study recordings of the participants, and may not even be in the same room as them. I will not be adopting this role, as my study requires a certain amount of interaction with the participants.
- Pearson identifies participant observation as a type of ethnographic research, which is a type of research that involves being actively involved in the social world. Pearson argues that different methods need to be employed by the researcher:
“It can involve gathering information by moving closely among people, sometimes quite literally “living among people,” and observing their everyday lives … In other forms of study, in-depth interviews and life-histories which could never be obtained simply by “hanging around” and “watching the action”. Not uncommonly, different methods are mixed together.” (Pearson, 1993, ix)
The idea of combining different methods within participant observation is very much in keeping with my mosaic approach. For example, there may be times during my observation that I may feel it appropriate to ask questions about how the children are feeling, or what their opinions are about their living situation. This would introduce an element of interviewing to the observation, therefore combining two different types of qualitative research.
Data for participant observation is put together by compiling field notes. This can be a difficult task to undertake, and needs to be considered carefully. May suggests:
“The notes made will depend upon the focus of your inquiries … To take notes on anything and everything that happens is not only impossible, but also undesirable; your theoretical interests will guide your observations and they, in turn, modify or alter those. You will also need to minimise the time from observations to full notes to maintain good recall and in the initial stages of your research, make a running description of events noting any questions that may arise or you wish to pose.” (May, 2001, pp.160-1)
Therefore, although the primary motivation behind the research is not to prove or disprove a particular hypothesis, there still need to be specific questions that the study will need to address. Without these questions in place, the field notes will not have enough focus for the data to be considered useful. In addition to the questions listed in my aims and objectives, I will also consider a series of general questions that May argues are important for any fieldworker to consider:
“Why did that happen and to whom? What do people ordinarily do in this setting and why? What would happen if people did X? What do they think about Y? What are the usual rules of the social scene? How are the rules negotiated? What are the verbal and non-verbal gestures employed? Who said what to whom and why? What do they mean and how do they relate to particular relationships and actions? Why is X not done? What would happen if something different happened? Finally how does physical space relate to the setting and the interactions which take place within it?” (May, 2001, p.159, adapted from Lofland and Lofland, 1984.)
On occasions, my enquiry into questions of this nature will require me to ask questions of the participants. As I have suggested, this will be in keeping with the mosaic approach, in which I will be combining observations with other methods such as interviewing. Mainly, however, the field notes will be based on my own analysis and questioning of the situation. It is the intention of participant observation to observe people in their day-to-day life when they are acting in an unselfconscious manner. If a researcher were to ask a question of them while they are behaving in this way, this may lead to the participant becoming self-conscious, and therefore acting in a different way. Therefore, the researcher needs to be particularly careful about interrupting the participant, and making them become too aware of their presence.
An important consideration when conducting this kind of observation is to make sure the participant is completely comfortable with the arrangement. It is not simply a matter of obtaining the participant’s consent for the study. They need to be relaxed and happy with the arrangement; otherwise this will affect their behaviour, and therefore invalidate the data. As Fahlberg writes:
“It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately assess relationships unless the observations are completed in a comfortable setting. Assessors need to closely observe parent-child interactions and then organise the observations so that conclusions can be reached as to the nature of current relationships and what would need to change to strengthen the connections.” (Fahlberg, 1991, p.31-32)
Therefore, any reservations the participant has about the research should be discussed thoroughly beforehand, and if they do have any problems, the researcher should do their best to ensure that the participant is completely happy with being observed. This is particularly true when it comes to observing people in their own homes, because observation in this context could be perceived as an invasion of privacy. It is important to respect the participant’s privacy, and address any problems they may have in a sensitive and sympathetic manner.
In addition to the participant observations, I will also conduct a series of questionnaire surveys, in order to allow the participants to voice their own views on the issue, and also to introduce a quantitative element to the study. This is in keeping with the mosaic approach, which uses a range of different methods to build up a picture of the participants’ lives. The surveys will be with both children and parents. They will be structured, because young children will find it easier to answer straightforward questions than open-ended ones, and the interviewer will be able to guide them through the whole process. I have chosen to conduct questionnaire surveys instead of questionnaires, which the participants fill in themselves, because children may need to ask questions about what particular questions mean. In his book, Introducing Research Methods, Robert B. Burns distinguishes between two types of survey: descriptive and explanatory surveys. This survey will be explanatory, because it is looking at people’s subjective views. Burns writes:
“The explanatory survey seeks to establish cause and effect relationships but without experimental manipulation; for example, the effects on teachers’ motivation of merit schemes, the effects of social climate on adolescent values.” (Burns, 2000, p.566)
This study is very much concerned with children’s social climate, and the way that adults deal with their emotional needs. This kind of survey aims to provide an explanation for the participant’s behaviour. It will be interesting to compare the results of this survey with the data collected from the participant observation. The number of participants for the questionnaire surveys will be considerably higher than the number of participants for the observation, because the questionnaire surveys will be relatively quicker and easier to carry out. This will widen the overall sample of people used in the study.
Sample:
In their book, Data Collection and Analysis, Roger Sapsford and Victor Jupp define sampling as:
“a set of elements selected in some way from a population. The aim of sampling is to save time and effort, but also to obtain consistent and unbiased estimates of the population status in terms of whatever is being researched.” (Sapsford and Jupp, 1996, p.25)
The population I will be sampling from will be the same as the population Quinton et al used in their study – i.e. adopters with children placed between the ages of five and nine inclusive. As I noted in the literature review, there are valid reasons for using this particular age range, because there are numerous differences between children of this age range and children of other ages, particularly adolescents. Also, as Quinton et al suggest, this age range constitutes a very large proportion of children who are adopted. (Quinton et al, 1998, p.25)
As my methodology is mainly qualitative, I will be using a non-probability sample. I will use quota sampling, as this is the most widely used method of non-probability sampling, and should be appropriate for this research. On the subject of quota sampling, Sapsford and Jupp write:
“the population is split up into overlapping subgroups, as for stratified sampling. Quotas of the desired number of sample cases are then calculated proportionally to the number of elements in these subgroups. These quotas are then divided up among the interviewers, who simply set out to find individuals who fit the required quota criteria. They continue doing this until they have filled their quota.” (Sapsford and Jupp, 1996, p.36)
The subgroups in the study will be based around information such as age, ethnicity and social class, as these are significant distinctions, and generally speaking, family relationships will vary from subgroup to subgroup.
Reliability and Validity:
It is important to draw a distinction between reliability and validity, as the two terms have the potential to be confused. Burns writes:
“Synonyms for reliability are dependability, stability, consistency, predictability, accuracy. A reliable person, for instance, is one whose behaviour is consistent, stable, dependable, and predictable – what he or she will do tomorrow and next week will be consistent with what he or she does today, and what he or she did last week.” (Burns, 2000, p.336)
Scientific data is treated in the same way. If a study has reliable data, the data could be expected to be replicated if the study were conducted with different participants. This may be a problem with my proposed study, because of the nature of the subject. As a study of family life, it has to be acknowledged that although we may observe repeating patterns of behaviour, we cannot ignore the fact that no two families are exactly the same as each other. Additionally, because this is mainly a qualitative study, the results can be expected to be less reliable than a quantitative study.
Burns defines validity in the following terms:
“Validity information gives some indication of how well a test measures a given area, under certain circumstances and with a given group.” (Burns, 2000, p.336)
A valid test is one in which the means of testing measures what it is supposed to measure. At this stage, it is difficult to speculate how valid the research will be, but I am confident that the methodology I have chosen will be focused on answering the questions set out in my specified aims and objectives. My findings may not be applicable to all families who adopt – therefore they may not be entirely reliable – but in theory, the results of the study should be valid.
Pilot Study:
The pilot study will consist of a series of survey questionnaires, which will serve as a test for the survey questionnaires in the main study. If there are any questions the participants find difficult answering, I will be able to revise them based on the respondent’s feedback. It may be the case that the wording of the question needs to be changed in order to have a clearer meaning, or the question may be difficult to answer because the interviewee is simply unable to give a sufficient reply.
The results of the pilot study will provide an early indication of the kind of results that can be expected in the main study. Although these results will be useful, I will not allow the results of the pilot study to influence the way I conduct the research in the main study. If the results appear to be heading in a certain direction, it would lead the researcher to assume that the results of the study will be a foregone conclusion, and therefore end up being biased in the way the research is conducted.
Data Analysis:
In a sense, the quantitative data obtained through the questionnaire surveys will be easier to analyse than that of the participant observation. The results will be displayed as statistics and graphs, representing the differences in the experiences between my specified sub-groups. However, this data will not be treated as being separate from the data collected through observation. The data from the questionnaire surveys will influence the analysis of the observation data.
The qualitative data obtained through participant observation should be approached in a different way. Howard Becker identifies three distinct stages of analysis for observation, which can be used to develop a theoretical framework. The first of these stages is the “selection and definition of problems, concepts and indices.” (Becker, 1979, p.317) Perhaps it could be tempting for a researcher to make these identifications based on problems and concepts identified within previous literature. However, this must be done by focusing purely on the data that has been collected in the study, as the problems and concepts may differ from previous studies. As Becker suggests, “Use the literature, don’t let it use you.” (Becker, 1979, p.149) The second stage is a check on the frequency and distribution of phenomena, in order to see what events are:
“typical and widespread, and by seeing how these events are distributed among categories of people and organisational sub-units.” (Becker, 1979, p.317)
At this point, the analysis of the questionnaire surveys will be a particularly useful addition to the observation data, because the number of people participating in the questionnaire survey will be larger than those used for participant observation. Therefore, the survey data will be useful in identifying which events are typical and widespread.
Becker’s third stage is the “construction of social system models” which:
“consists of incorporating individual findings into a generalised model of the social system or organisation under study” (Becker, 1979, p.319)
As I have argued, with this kind of research there will undoubtedly be individual findings, as all families are different, and to a certain extent will behave in their own idiosyncratic way. Using Becker’s third stage of data analysis, I will aim to integrate these idiosyncrasies into the study’s more general findings. In theory, in carrying out this final stage of analysis, this will make every single part of the research relevant to the findings in the final results.
Ethical Issues:
Any study in which children are used as participants raises ethical issues. It is extremely important that the children are not emotionally damaged or disturbed by the research process, and it is vital that parental consent is given in all cases. From a practical point of view, it is important that the researcher is able to gain the trust of the participants when it comes to participant observation. Tim May writes:
“If participant observation involves becoming part of a group or organization to understand it, then it is obviously not simply a case of “hanging around”. To become part of a social scene and participate in it requires that the researcher is accepted to some degree. This period of “moving into” a setting is both analytically and personally important.” (May, 2001, 157)
This process is particularly important when it comes to working with children. It is the duty of the researcher to ensure that the children are completely comfortable. If not, not only the data will be affected, as the children will not be behaving as they normally would, but there would also be significant ethical issues.
Reflective Account:
Throughout my research for this proposal, I have been searching for an original way to approach the issue of how prospective adopters manage the emotional needs of existing children within the family. However, my decision to use the mosaic approach recommended by Clark and Statham did not simply come about out of a desire to be original. Crucially, my approach needed to be both original and appropriate for the subject. Having considered this matter thoroughly, I believe that by using this approach, my study will have the potential to shed some new light into the subject by approaching the issues in a different way. Of course, the use of participant observation and structured interviews is not an original concept in itself. These techniques have been tried and tested by researchers over many years. The fresh approach I believe I am taking in this proposal is to use these methods as a means of examining the issue of adoption.
The most interesting studies I came across in my research were the qualitative studies such as the studies by Quinton et al, and Spears and Cross. These studies were particularly effective because they placed the participants at the centre of the study – with Quinton et al, the adults were at the centre, and in Spears and Cross, the children were the centre of the study. In both cases, the researchers were listening to other people rather than imposing their own ideas on their own research. Data collected in this way can be very valuable to social work educators, researchers and practitioners. As Tim O’Shaughnessy argues:
“social work educators, researchers and practitioners should be more open to “lay” knowledge and perspectives.” (O’Shaughnesy, 1994, p.6)
By “lay” knowledge, O’Shaughnessy is referring to people outside the sphere of social work – both adults and children who adopt. In my study, I wanted to put the participants at the centre of the research, but in a different way to the aforementioned studies. Instead of having either adults or children as the primary focus, I have decided to put the whole family – both adults and children – as the central focus. By adopting the method of participant observation, I will be able to observe the ways in which children relate to each other, and also the way in which the parents relate to their children. This will be backed up by structured interviews in which the participants will be given the opportunity to contribute their own ideas and opinions to the study.
At this stage, it is not entirely clear what the outcome of this research will be. One reason for this is that, as I have noted above, there have been inconsistencies in previous research regarding issues such as the effects of age and gender differences between an adopted child and their siblings. As a result of these inconsistencies, whatever the outcome of my study, the research may only be seen as one particular view which may not be representative of all families who adopt. However, it could be argued that it is impossible to make generalisations about families who adopt, because people should be treated as individuals. Moreover, there is not one particular type of family who adopt. Factors such as age, ethnicity and social class need to be taken into consideration.
This does not mean that this research will not be useful. On the contrary, it is vitally important to conduct qualitative research into how prospective adopters manage the emotional needs of existing children within the family, because this is an issue that needs to be thoroughly understood on a deeper level than that which would be provided by statistics. This data will be of use to both social work practitioners and families who adopt. In their book, Supporting Adoption: Reframing the Approach, Nigel Lowe et al suggest that social work support should be viewed as an educational process rather than a social work process:
“After all, the primary purpose of adoption support is to enable adopters to learn the very special parenting skills and understanding that they will require. Children, too, have to learn how to settle into the new adoptive home. Many adopters view the process as a pathway to a “normal” family life, not one which is to be supervised and supported by “the welfare”. This perception comes from an understandable wish on their part not to be seen or labelled in any way as social worker’s “clients”.” (Lowe et al, 2000, p.436)
Research can be used as part of this process of educating potential adopters. The way in which the adopter’s children are affected by the arrival of their adopted sibling is just one of many issues associated with adoption, and because of this there is the potential for social work practitioners and educators to ignore it in favour of providing the adopters with what they would consider to be more relevant information. One reason for this attitude would be a lack of research into this particular area. Therefore, this research will have the potential to be used to educate parents who adopt about possible issue that may arise.
Much of the research I have reviewed as part of this study is focussed on the children of foster care rather than on adopters. This is still relevant research, because fostering often leads to adoption, and many of the issues faced by foster parents are shared by adopters. However, this study will be focussed specifically on adoption, which will mean that the research will be completely relevant to adopters. The research will also be useful to social work practitioners, as it will give them a valuable insight into the lives of the people they work with on a day-to-day basis.
References:
Adoption and Children Act 2002 – available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/en/ukpgaen_20020038_en_1
Becker, Howard – “Problems of interference and proof in participant observation” in J Bynner and K Stribley (eds), Social Research: Principles and Procedures (London, Longman, 1979)
Berridge, D and Cleaver, G – Foster Home Breakdown (Oxford, Blackwell, 1987)
Burgess, R – In The Field: An Introduction to Field Research (London, Allen and Unwin, 1984)
Burns, Robert B. – Introduction to Research Methods (London, SAGE publications, 2000)
Calrk, Alison, and Statham, June – “Listening to young children: Experts in their own lives” (Adoption and Fostering, vol.29, no.1, 2005)
Denzin, N.K. – The Research Act in Sociology (London, Butterworths, 1978)
Department of Health – Post-Placement Services and Families: Defining the Need (Report of the Proceedings of two seminars organised by the Social Services Inspectorate, London, DH, 1995)
Ellis, L – “Sharing Parents with Strangers: The Role of the Group Home Foster Family’s Own Children” (Child Welfare, 51:3, 1972)
Fahlberg, Vera – A Child’s Journey Through Placement (UK edition, London, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, 1991)
Gold, R – “Roles in Sociological Filed Observation” in G. McCall and J. Simmons (eds), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (London, Addison Wesley, 1969)
Heidbuurt, J – “All in the Family Home: The Biological Children of Parents Who Foster” (Unpublished MA Thesis, Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, 1995)
Hojer, Ingrid – “What happens in the foster family? A study of fostering relationships in Sweden” (Adoption and Fostering, vol.28, no.1, 2004)
Kaplan, C P, “The Biological Children of Foster Parents in the Foster Family” (Child and Adolescent Social Work 5:4, 1988)
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. – Analysing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1984)
Lowe, Nigel et al – Supporting Adoption: Reframing the Approach (London, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, 2000)
Martin, G and Stanford, D, Children Who Foster, training pack and video (York, Natural Children’s Support, 1990)
Mauro, L – The Impact of Foster Care on the Lives of Foster Families (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1985)
May, Tim – Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process (Buckingham, Open University Press, 2001)
Murray, Cathy – “Children and young people’s participation and non-participation in research” (Adoption and Fostering vol. 29, no.1, 2005)
Norrington, S, “The Forgotten Child in Child Welfare: Caregivers’ Children” (Unpublished MA thesis, School of Social Work, MacMaster University, Hamilton, ON, 2002)
Nuske, E, “Beyond the Double-Edged Sword: The Contradictory Experiences of Natural Children in Foster Families” available from www.croccs.org.au/downloads/2004_conf_papers/040709PaperElaineNuskePUBLISH.pdf, May 2006.
O’Shaughnessy, Tim – Adoption, Social Work and Social Theory: Making the Connections (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1994)
Parker, RA – Decision in Child Care: A Study of Prediction in Fostering (London, Allen and Unwin, 1966)
Pearson, G. – “Talking a Good Fight: Authenticity and Distance in the Ethnographer’s Craft” in D Hobbs and T May (eds), Interpreting the Field: Accounts of Ethnography (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993)
Poland, D and Groze, V, “The Effects of Foster Care on Biological Children in the Home” (Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 10:2, 1993)
Pugh, G, “Seen But Not Heard? Addressing the Needs of Children Who Foster” (Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10:2, 1993)
Quinton, David, et al – Joining New Families: A Study of Adoption and Fostering in Middle Childhood (Chichester, John Wiley, 1998)
Sapsford, Roger, and Victor Jupp – Data Collection and Analysis (London, SAGE Publications, 1996)
Spears, Wendy, and Cross, Melanie – “How do “children who foster” perceive fostering?” (Adoption and Fostering, vol.27, no.4, 2003)
Swan, T, “Care Providers’ Children Share Their Experiences” (Unpublished research funded by Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society, Toronto Children’s Aid Society and the Faculty of Social Services, McMaster University, Haminton, ON, 2000)
Thoburn, J, and Rowe, J – “A Snapshot of Permanent Family Placement” (Adoption and Fostering, 12, 1988)
Trasler, G – In Place of Parents: A Study of Foster Care (London, Routledge and Kegan-Paul, 1960)
Twigg, Robert, “What Price Foster Care? The Effects of the Foster Care Experience on the Foster Carer’s Own Children” (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Smith College School for Social Work, Northampton, MA, 1993)
Twigg, Robert, “The Unknown Soldiers of Foster Care: Foster Care as Loss for the Foster Parents’ Own Children” (Smith College Studies in Social Work, 64:3, 1994)
Twigg, Robert, “Coping With Loss: How Foster Parents’ Children Cope With Foster Care” (Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care, 7:1, 2002)
Twigg, Robert, and Swan, Tracy – “Inside the foster family: What research tells us about the experience of foster carer’s children” (Adoption and Fostering, vol. 31, no. 4, 2007)
Ward, R, “Children Who Foster” (Foster Care 78, 1966)
Watson, A and Jones, D, “The Impact of Fostering on Foster Carers’ Own Children” (Adoption and Fostering 26:1, 2002)
Wedge, P and Mantle, G – Sibling Groups in Social Work: a Study of Children Referred for Permanent Substitute Family Placement (Aldershot, Avebury, 1991)