ARTICULO 414. SANCIÓN POR CORRECCIÓN DE LAS DECLARACIONES

Epistemologically this research falls within the interpretivist tradition and in particular follows phenomenological thinking (Husserl, 1965; Schutz, 1967), seeking to understand the individual’s personal experience of the world and the meanings attached to those

Methodological Position

A constructivist investigation of the factors that influence post-adoption contact experiences in adoptive families.

Thematic and interpretive phenomenological approach to understand adoptive family experiences of post-adoption contact and the meanings attached to open

practices.

Qualitative semi-structured interviews

Interpretive

23 adoptive parents and 6 adopted young people (aged 14-22 years) Face-to-face and telephone interviews

Questions focussed on family background, communicative openness, post- adoption contact, and the influence of communicative technologies (including

experiences of virtual contact).

Quantitative online survey

Constructivism

101 adoptive parents

The survey had a total of six sections and 43 questions focussing on: adoptive family structure, adoptive parent-child relationship, communicative openness, contact arrangements, technology and adoptive family life, and satisfaction with

54

experiences. Ontologically this research produces knowledge that is subjective, with the researcher seeking to understand the meanings of people’s experiences of the world that are subject to change and therefore there is no single truth (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). The views of participants are deemed to produce valid knowledge that can be used to form overall themes and ideas about the topic under study and therefore create an inductive approach to knowledge. Overall, this study sought the individual’s subjective report of the topic under examination from their point of view. The approach is therefore exploratory, with no original hypothesis (Smith & Osborn, 2003). As the emergence of virtual contact is a new phenomenon with little empirical evidence about its impact in adoptive family life, the exploratory emphasis of IPA suits this topic of study.

Due to the lack of concrete knowledge in the area of virtual contact, an inductive approach will attempt to create tangible recommendations for wider practice from the small sample of adoptive families. The aim is to find understanding not rational facts (Dilthey, cited by Walliman, 2005). Adoption is a widely accepted family form across the world, however the way in which the adoption process is experienced and ultimately adoptive family life is an extremely personal affair. The investigation of everyday family practices and relationships within adoptive families will go some way to understanding the meanings of post-adoption contact for individual family members, and within a phenomenological stance will attempt to gain understanding of individual and family experiences through interpretation. However, interpretation is always culturally specific (Delanty, 2005), and therefore this cultural context needs to be understood through quantitative inquiry, including family structure, adoption history, and technological use within the family. Constructivist methods search for the meanings research stakeholders (e.g. adoptive family members) construct with consideration of the societal context within which those meanings are constructed (Lincoln & Guba, 1989). Ideologically, constructivism highlights an interdependence between the person and society (Bartlett, 1958). Traditionally, constructivism is associated with qualitative methods (Appleton, King & Chinn, 1997). However, I have adopted constructivist ideas in relation to quantitative inquiry in this study to understand how the meanings of virtual contact are constructed in adoptive families and how this is influenced by the context of family life. Therefore this study employed a mixed methods approach to produce a dual focussed data set aiming to understand the meanings that adoptive family members attach to the experience of virtual contact and situate these meanings in the context of wider family and individual factors.

55

In summary, this research sought adoptive family experiences of post-adoption contact and the impact of technology on this. An interpretive approach allowed for an understanding of the meanings behind these experiences to be gathered to form a picture of private family practices surrounding openness. A constructivist approach to quantitative inquiry investigated the factors that can influence the experience of openness.

4.1.1 Adoption specific methodological issues

Researching adoption presents specific methodological issues that should be considered. The topic of adoption focusses on complex family relationships within the adoption kinship network. Therefore, literature that discusses research with families more generally can help to understand some of the issues that are presented with adoptive families. Family research presents additional challenges due to the complex and intimate nature of family relationships. Therefore it is likely that dissonant findings will emerge amongst family members (Perlesz & Lindsay, 2003). Perlesz and Lindsay (2003) argue that methodological triangulation can allow researchers to consider the family context and complexities through interpretation of multiple data. A mixed methods approach was employed through this research to gather multiple perspectives in different forms. Quantitative data in this study has helped to interpret the sometimes complex qualitative accounts of family life.

With a focus on adoption, Grotevant (2000: 52) has argued that one of the key issues that emerges when researching openness is the level of analysis that is taken; with a focus on the individual, dyadic relationships, the family, or the adoption kinship network as a whole. Openness can also be considered in three ways, by structure, process, and meaning (Grotevant, 2000: 63). In relation to this study there has been an attempt to understand openness from the analytical level of meaning with a focus on individual, idiographic accounts. These meanings have then been applied through analysis by considering what these concepts of openness may mean for the wider adoptive family. However the lack of birth relative accounts means that this study cannot consider the adoption kinship network as a whole. Due to the overall aim and research problem being to investigate the impact of communicative technologies on the practice of openness in adoptive families, this study has paid attention to the three constructs of openness. The structure of openness has been investigated through the survey and the situating of traditional and technological open practices in the context of influencing factors. The process of openness has been addressed through adoptive parent definitions of openness in the survey and the way in which

56

openness is practised in adoptive families. Finally, the meanings of openness have been uncovered through in-depth interviews with adoptive parents and adopted young people. One aim of this study is to translate personal narratives and survey findings into tangible evidence that can be used to make recommendations for policy and practice. This study will aim to identify good practice to manage risk and identify positive experiences that can be utilised. Evidence-based practice is advocated by many writers (for example, Howard, McMullen & Pollio, 2003; McNeece & Thyer, 2004; Mullen, Bledsoe, Bellamy & Francois, 2007), and the recommendations made will use the ideas that centre around the use of valid, reliable, and relevant research. However, it has been argued that evidence- based practice is too narrow for complex social processes and reverting back to the constructivist key argument, there is a need to consider individual influencing factors, such as family, social context, and values (Barratt, 2003) when making recommendations. An action-oriented approach is important to ensure the voices and experiences of adoptive family members are heard (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). This research involved working closely with two host agencies which allowed the research to move beyond evidence based practice to ‘practice-based evidence’ that engages all stakeholders that produce practice, engaging with service users, and advocating on their behalf in an empowering manner (Ferguson, 2003). ‘Practice-based evidence’ broadens the approach of ‘Evidence-based practice’ (EBP) which typically uses quantitative methods, to include qualitative inquiry of professional and service-user experiences (Ferguson, 2003). Ferguson (2003) argues that this allows research to highlight ‘best practice’ in a critical fashion to develop knowledge and practice competencies, rather than an EBP deficit approach investigating what doesn’t work well. In order to incorporate this approach into this research, key workers in each agency acted as advisors to the research and were involved in the design and ensuring sensitivity and ethical responsibility. With reference to medical research, Murphy, Spiegal and Kinmonth (1992) highlight the importance of negotiations with gatekeepers and the usefulness of developing a sense of ‘collective ownership’ to enhance the quality of the project and data collected. To this end, the host agencies were given a sense of ownership through their involvement in the project and also through dissemination of results to inform their service users. Hence, incorporating a collective ownership of the research through collaboration.

Social work education and practice now recognise the importance of gathering the views of service users to feed back into the development of the field (Kemshall & Littlechild, 2000).

57

The experiences of all members of adoptive families are important and may contain similarities and differences across and within families themselves, which may suggest a range of required support needs. However, power relationships exist between agencies and vulnerable groups, with an assumption that service users need assistance and are reliant on services (Henn, Weinstein & Foard, 2006). Agencies also act as gatekeepers, maintaining the power dynamics and removing autonomy of participants to decide to take part separately from the agency. The use of an online survey removes this bias slightly, through the participant self-completion design and allowing participants the choice to take part. Power relationships are also evident within private institutions, such as the family, and can cloud assumptions about childhood and serve to maintain adult power status (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000). Parental responsibility tends to be prioritised in law and policy over the individual agency of the child (James & James, 2004). The democratisation of family life (Giddens, 1992) thesis suggests that family life is more complex than this and relationships are based on autonomy, negotiation, and equality. It would be useful, in light of above power relationships, to reconceptualise how the child is viewed and shift this from a legal, minor actor to a social, family member (James & James, 2004). This is particularly appropriate when considering young people as ‘youthful experts’ (Livingstone, 2009) in relation to technology and internet use. Therefore adoptee accounts are considered in the same way as adult accounts and are analysed as valid voices surrounding the experience of openness in family life.

This section has outlined the methodological assumptions of this study and also the specific issues that were considered in the design of the research due to the focus on adoption. The following section discusses the debates that surround research methods in the social sciences in order to discuss the research design that was chosen with reference to the interpretivist and constructivist philosophical stances.