As noted, mothers are foregrounded in the literature relating to ADHD, which is interesting if we consider the gender imbalance in diagnoses (Bailey, 2009). Fathers are largely absent in the literature on parents and ADHD, perhaps
reflecting Singh’s suggestion (2003) that fathers are usually absent throughout the ADHD diagnostic process, a view supported by several studies which focus on child assessment procedures within institutional sites and which only mothers attend (Berman and Wilson, 2009; Hjorne, 2005).
It is interesting that despite the disproportionate prevalence of ADHD amongst boys, there is no clinical explanation as to why this should be so. Similarly, there is no clinical explanation for prevalent understandings that ADHD is genetically carried by fathers and passed on to their children (sons) (Horton-Salway, 2012; Schmitz, Filippone and Edelman, 2003). Although fathers are genetically
implicated in accounts of ADHD, Horton-Salway (2012) points out that this does not invoke moral accountability; in this respect, fathers remain free from the blameworthy narrative. However, although ‘blame’ is not a specific construct highlighted in relation to fathers within the research literature, fathers do talk about feelings of guilt and shame (Gray, 2008; Singh, 2003). It is also interesting that despite the dominance of the discourse of mother-blame within the research literature, fathers are positioned as morally accountable within accounts which align ADHD with deficit fathering, in particular with regard to notions of authority and discipline.
The blameworthy father
Several studies, predominantly from within the more traditional developmental psychology field, implicate the cause of ADHD with particular fathering styles. In particular, there is an association within the literature between ADHD and
authoritarian or excessively controlling fathering (Keown, 2011; Rogers, Wiener, Martin and Tannock, 2009; Gerdes, Hoza and Pelham, 2003). Typically, within this work, fathers are reported as being ‘overreactive’ (Keown, 2011) and their
‘negative fathering’ and ‘aggressive disciplinary practices’ (Rogers et al., 2009) are linked with disruptive behaviour in children.
Even studies that are not concerned with finding causal links for ADHD reproduce the association of fathering with authority and discipline. Bull and Whelan’s study (2006), for example, notes that mothers typically raise fathers’ authority as an issue in their talk of their partners’ interactions with their children. Interestingly, however, and echoing the findings described in the previous paragraph, fathers are presented by some mothers as being ineffective and requiring supervision in their dealings with their children, but by other mothers as having more effective ‘control’ over their children than mothers do.
The alignment of fathering with authority and discipline is one also identified by Horton-Salway (2011 and 2012). Significantly, and conversely, however, she argues that fathers are typically positioned in relation to debates about the association of ADHD with a contemporary lack of parental (father) discipline. Specifically, this perceived ‘lack’ of discipline is contrasted unfavourably with the ‘old fashioned discipline’ of the past (Horton-Salway, 2011:543). As outlined earlier in this chapter, a concern with declining paternal authority is one that is embedded within the wider social and political context and one that is identified within
sociological literature (Barnes and Power, 2012; De Benedicitis, 2012; Yarwood 2011; Gillies, 2005).
Whilst acknowledging the distinction between authoritative and authoritarian parenting, it is significant that accounts which seek to attribute cause/effect relationships for ADHD, make available two distinct and potentially opposing
repertoires in relation to fathers and children with ADHD. On the one hand, fathers’ excessive authority is considered a contributory factor to their children’s ADHD; on the other hand, fathers’ lack of authoritative presence is also constructed as being an influence. Seemingly, fathers are positioned within contrary ideologies of what constitutes effective fathering, resonating with Billig et al.’s concept of an
ideological dilemma (1988).
Although there is some indication within the literature that, through ineffective fathering practices, fathers are held morally accountable for their children’s ADHD, there is little consideration of how fathers experience, or orient to, the subject position of blameworthy father (unlike the dominant focus within literature of how mothers orient to the blameworthy mother position). One exception is Gray (2008), who suggests that fathers make relevant the disciplining, authoritative father
subject position in their accounts to counter pervasive accounts of irresponsible and deficit fathering.
Much of the more sociological/social psychological literature around fathering and ADHD indicates that fathers are more likely to be resistant to the medicalization of their children’s (sons’) behaviour, with suggestions that this is due to fathers’ identification with their sons.
Fathers’ identification with sons
Singh (2003) suggests that fathers are sceptical of ADHD as a diagnosis and show resistance to understanding their children’s behaviour within a medical framework. She also suggests that fathers identify with their sons’ ‘symptomatic behaviours’ and are reluctant to interpret such behaviour medically as this risks pathologising their own childhoods. This is supported by the accounts of mothers featured in Segal (2001) and Harborne et al.’s study (2004). In the latter study, mothers reported fathers as having a ‘different understanding of the difficulties’ (2004:336) and as seeking to normalise their children’s behaviour. Harborne et al. also indicate that it is not only fathers who identify themselves with their sons, mothers too, identified similarities between the behaviour of their sons and their sons’ fathers.
The gendered bias of media representations of ADHD might offer a further insight into why fathers identify with their son’s ADHD and are more reluctant to pursue the medical route. As Horton-Salway (2012) points out, media representations of ADHD produce two opposing constructs of ADHD masculinity: the hero and the villain. Typically, the hero construct (which within media representations is exemplified by a description of Winston Churchill) is put forward as a ‘valourised representation’ of aspirational masculinity (Horton-Saway, 2012:11), and is offered as a rhetorical counterpoint to biological and medical understandings of ADHD.
Arguably, fathers’ identification with their sons, and their resistance to
medicalization, is a result of investment in this discursive construct. This resonates with Singh’s observations (2005) that fathers account for their sons’ ADHD
behaviour as evidence of ‘authentic boy-ness’. As she comments, fathers’ accounts ‘ascribed meaning and value to stereotypic gendered behaviours and rejected the notion that these behaviours were inherently problematic’ (Singh, 2005:43).
3.7 Summary
Existing literature seems to indicate that mothers and fathers engage with ADHD in distinct ways; mothers’ take up of the biological repertoire is contrasted with fathers’ (initial, at least) reluctance to accept the medicalization of their child’s behaviour (Singh, 2003) and this might suggest that distinct identity work is being done in their construction of understanding of ADHD.
The chapter has demonstrated that within existing literature, mothers of children with an ADHD diagnosis orient to key subject positions, principally, the
‘blameworthy mother’ and the ‘valorised mother’ (Blum, 2007). The ‘blameworthy mother’ is oriented to in accounts which describe their experience of (their
parenting) being subject to judgement and scrutiny by others. The ‘valorised mother’ is made relevant though mothers’ talk of maternal activism, and maternal ‘coping’.
The Chapter has noted that fathers are predominantly absent within the literature. However, there is a growing body of literature in which fathers are genetically implicated in accounts of ADHD (Horton-Salway, 2012; Schmitz, Filippone and Edelman, 2003). The chapter also acknowledges that many traditional
psychological studies are concerned with associating distinct fathering styles with ADHD, in particular, excessively authoritarian fathering styles.
The limited focus on fathers within the existing literature is addressed in this current research project and fathers will be the focus of Chapter 8. The apparent gendered bias of ADHD diagnoses towards a focus on boys and their mothers necessitates an exploration of fathers’ engagement with the condition. This is particularly resonant within a social and political context that seems to be
increasingly aligning troublesome childhood behaviour with weak parenting and a lack of authoritative presence.