Methods

The methodological approach of this study influenced the choice of methods utilised. As outlined earlier, semi-structured interviews were used to allow for a focussed in-depth inquiry into participant experiences of post-adoption contact. To ensure the constructivist elements of family experiences are uncovered, factors that may influence post-adoption contact experiences were explored through an online survey. Before the research design is

58

outlined, I will first discuss the methodological debates that currently exist that have also influenced the methods employed in this study.

4.2.1 The quantitative/qualitative dichotomy

The choice of qualitative and quantitative methods has long polarised social scientists, as researchers often choose one approach or the other. However, this dichotomy has been questioned as the debate grows surrounding the merits of both approaches and the outdated divide between the two approaches (Asberg, Hummerdal & Dekker, 2011; Cooper, Glaesser, Gomm & Hammersley, 2012). Lin (1998) suggests that a combination of positivist and interpretivist methods are appropriate in qualitative research. Positivist research seeks causal relationships, whereas interpretivist methods seek to understand causal mechanisms (Lin, 1998). It is important to incorporate both approaches into answering research questions to ensure that general patterns emerge through positivist methods, and contextual factors are highlighted through interpretive methods.

Research often focuses on the analysis of risk and probable outcomes as a way to reduce uncertainty about the consequences of certain actions, such as Ericson and Haggerty (1997). However, Reddy (1996) criticises this approach and argues that risk cannot reduce uncertainty due to the reliance on probabilities and probable outcomes rather than certain outcomes. With reference to the emphasis of risk in social work practice, Parton (1998) is critical and suggests that risks cannot be quantified, and exist in the way in which practice defines them. Therefore, risk factors can point to general trends that can help to direct practice to certain predictive characteristics. However, these trends may not predict the outcomes for each individual child and family (Mullender, 1999; Smith & Logan, 2004). Fraser, Galinsky and Richman (1999) argue that there is no single pathway that leads to or predicts a particular social problem. Despite this, risk factors can suggest pathways that are more likely to lead to a particular phenomenon occurring (Fraser et al., 1999). Therefore, we need to look at risk factors but also, “qualitative features of human interaction that may not have been captured through research methodologies and which reflect the particular situational, experiential and personal characteristics of children, adopters and birth relatives who are brought together by post-adoption contact” (Smith & Logan, 2004: 182). This research has embraced the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure that trends and outcomes are explored.

59

4.2.2 Methodological pluralism

Bryman (2006) highlights the recent shift to the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. ‘Methodological pluralism’ can be defined as an acceptance of a variety of methods and recognition that methods are part of a larger research whole (Payne, Williams & Chamberlain, 2004). However, Bryman (2006) argues that researchers do not always justify their mixed methods approach. Therefore it is important to be explicit about the reasons behind the original approach and to be aware of unexpected outcomes. To focus on this study, the justifications for the use of quantitative and qualitative methods resonate with Bryman’s (2006) ideas of ‘completeness’, ‘diversity of views’, and ‘sampling’. ‘Completeness’ refers to providing a more comprehensive account through mixed methods. Gathering a ‘diversity of views’ was possible through the use of mixed methods, and a diversity of response through uncovering the relationships between variables in the survey and revealing the meanings behind these relationships through interview accounts. And finally, the quantitative survey served as a ‘sampling’ method for the qualitative participants. However through the analysis of data, unexpected outcomes of the mixed methods approach emerged. These included the ‘illustration’ that interview data provided to the quantitative findings of the survey, particularly through the use of case studies in this thesis. A ‘process’ approach allowed the quantitative methods to uncover structures and the qualitative methods to provide a sense of the processes behind these structures.

4.2.3 The validity of interpretive inquiry

The approaches outlined above share an epistemological aim to maintain recipient subjectivity whilst also maintaining a level of objectivity (Schwandt, 2000) through rigorous analysis and production of themes. Despite this, an issue of non-generalisability arises through the interpretivist position, due to the highly subjective and individual accounts (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). Furthermore, it is important to be reflexive as a researcher to be aware of any bias that may influence the interpretation of participant accounts and external factors including the influence of gender, culture, class, and power. Reflexivity is vital to be aware of the fact that knowledge will also be limited to the methods used (Delanty, 2005) and the researcher influence (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Interpretive phenomenological research searches for themes and paradigms, which suggests consistency between participant responses. Although, it is also important to consider any fluctuations between accounts to understand the way in which people make sense of the complexities of their lives (Conroy, 2003). Advocates of the interpretive

60

tradition suggest that methods that seek an objective truth cannot understand the complexities of human life (Sandberg, 2005). Sandberg (2005) argued that to overcome this positivist limitation, interpretivists use phenomenological ideas in search of human lived experience and therefore are able to investigate unexplored questions. However, critics argue that the non-objective knowledge produced by interpretivist inquiry cannot be justified. In answer to this, Sandberg’s (2005) approaches to maintaining validity are outlined below and the ways in which these approaches were developed in this study are highlighted in parentheses:

 Communicative validity: ensure there is an understanding between the researcher and participant about what the research is about. Interpretation must be based on a relationship between parts and the whole. (Participants gave fully informed consent to the research. Interpretations of idiographic accounts have been drawn together to represent overall themes).

 Pragmatic validity: validate claims through concrete examples and in practice. (Family cases are used throughout the analysis to illustrate concrete examples, findings are situated in the existing knowledge of the field, and considerations for practice are made).

 Transgressive validity: research reflexivity is important to ensure taken-for-granted frameworks are questioned. (I consider my position and potential influence on the study later in this chapter).

 Reliability as interpretive awareness: researchers must demonstrate how they have checked their interpretations and dealt with subjectivity. (This is considered in the ‘reflexive researcher’ section of this chapter).

4.2.4 The use of technological modes of research

Methodological literature has traditionally advised against the suitability of the use of the telephone for qualitative interviewing (Irvine, 2011; Irvine, Drew & Sainsbury, 2013). Irvine (2011) compared telephone and face-to-face interviews, and found that telephone interviews tended to be shorter and contain less detail. However, the personal reflections of researchers and participants with experience of telephone interviews suggest a more nuanced picture (Irvine et al., 2013). The benefits of telephone interviews have been identified as offering time and cost efficiency and anonymity for participants (Irvine et al., 2013), particularly when discussing sensitive issues (Van Selm & Jankowski, 2006). The striking difference between telephone and face-to-face interviews is a lack of a visual

61

encounter, which it has been argued, can make it difficult to build rapport with the participant (Irvine et al., 2013) and difficulties in ensuring appropriate responses from the researcher (Holt, 2010). However, Holt (2010) argued that telephone interviews could offer a valid alternative to face-to-face interviews due to the increased availability of participants and the ability to focus on the text due to the lack of contextual data. Further, Holt (2010) argues that participants who are subject to the ‘professional gaze’, for example from social workers, may prefer a telephone interview that does not mirror professional questions. The data produced through telephone interviews can be richer due to the lack of visual encounter and the need for both researcher and participant to articulate everything clearly (Holt, 2010). The telephone interview can also provide the participant with more control over the research process through greater convenience and the ability to control the privacy of the interview, for example from family members (Holt, 2010). It is important to offer choice to participants and allow them to choose which type of interview mode they would feel most comfortable with based on their skills regarding social encounters in everyday life (Holt, 2010).

In this study, participants were given the choice to take part in an interview face-to-face or over the telephone giving them control over the interview experience. I did find that the interviews conducted via the telephone were shorter, however this was due to the focus on the interview questions and an absence of more conversational interaction that existed face-to-face. The data collected via both methods was equally as rich and provided in- depth understandings of participant experiences.

4.2.5 The participation of children and young people in research

Since the late 1980s, national and international legislation has recognised the importance of children and young people’s participation in research to ensure their views are heard regarding matters that affect them (Children Act, 1989; United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). There is a growing body of literature to support both the technical feasibility and epistemological desirability of seeking children’s perspectives directly from the child (James & Prout, 1997; Christensen & James, 2000) and pioneering methods have emerged to ensure that children are not excluded from such research. However, a tension remains surrounding the recognition of children as ‘knowing subjects’ whilst also ensuring their protection (Balen, Blyth, Fraser, Horrocks & Manby, 2006).

62

The New Social Studies of Childhood (Qvortrup, Corsaro & Honig, 2011) calls for a change in the way we perceive childhood and youth and has led to an emphasis on the competence of children and a recognition of children as being able to participate fully in the research process (Noble-Carr, 2006). Children and young people have views and ideas about their own lives that must be gathered and understood to uphold the right for children to be consulted about issues and services that affect their lives (Sinclair Taylor, 2000). Adoptees are consumers of adoption services alongside their parents, therefore it is valuable to get their perceptions (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000). Epistemologically, this is important as the reality experienced by young people cannot be understood through assumption or by proxy through parental accounts (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000). Therefore, informed consent must be sought from the young person themselves to ensure they fully understand short and long-term implications (Lindsay, 2000; Masson, 2000) (as will be discussed in the ‘Ethical considerations’ section). Further, confidentiality should be upheld for young people with information not being passed to parents (Masson, 1995). However the same degree of confidentiality cannot be guaranteed as with adults due to ethical issues of disclosure and child protection (Masson, 1995; Roberts, 2003) (as will be discussed in the ‘Ethical considerations’ section).

Research that listens to the voices of children in care has increased in recent years due to the ethical responsibility to ensure that their voices are not silenced (Holland, 2009). Although these children can be classed as vulnerable and the research topics discussed are often highly sensitive, it is important to seek their views as they may offer different perspectives to the adults (for example parents, carers, and social workers) who have previously spoken for them and influenced practice (Holland, 2009). ‘Child standpoint’ allows the researcher to see the world from the child’s point of view and to understand the ‘actuality’ of the child’s life (Balen et al., 2006). It is also important to move beyond ‘familialisation’ processes that define the child as dependent on the family, to individualisation that sees the child as an individual actor within the family (Balen et al., 2006). Echoed in the literature surrounding young people’s relationships (Marshall & Stenner, 1997) and in E-safety guidance (Byron, 2008) is the importance of empowerment and the ability for self-regulation.

4.2.6 The ethical intensification of research

Although the argument surrounding child and youth participation in research focusses on the positive outcomes of the empowerment of such participants, practice may not have

63

caught up with this thinking. The growing ethical intensification and formalisation of the research process (Haggerty, 2004) has made it difficult to access child and youth participants. In particular access to child participants is not in their control, but rather is often controlled by gatekeepers. ‘Gatekeepers’ can be defined as adults who can limit or control a researcher’s access to child participants (Coyne, 2010), such as parents, teachers, or social workers. Gatekeepers can be necessary to ensure child safety, however they can also hinder a child’s opportunity to be heard (Coyne, 2010). In particular, this has led to the under-representation of vulnerable children in research, as vulnerability can be seen as the same as incompetence (Coyne, 2010). In this study there were significantly fewer adopted young people who participated than their adoptive parents. This was due to their parents acting as gatekeepers and in many cases not asking their children to take part due to fears that the research may have upset or harmed them. This was explained as being due to their heightened vulnerability due to ongoing additional needs related to their adoption and was probably necessary in many cases. However, it is unclear how many adoptees were denied the opportunity to take part in the research. This is a sampling limitation that must be considered in this study.

This section has discussed the methodological debates that have influenced the choice of methods and the issues to take into consideration. Underlying all methodological choices are the ethical values that must be adhered to in order to ensure the safety of participants and the integrity of the research process.