Recap: Again, I need to articulate a rationale that will motivate my proposed study: "Why spend time examining the genetic narratives of adoptive parents?" I've already sketched out the Big Answer to this question, involving the huge explosion in understanding and "mapping" the human genome and other developments in the area of genomics. I likened this model to an inverted pyramid. Now my task is to flip the pyramid back around so that I begin my proposal with the most narrow justification for my particular proposed research: At the point, as it were--both in a literal and metaphorical sense. And part of this point, I say, is that I should study adoptive parents' genetic narratives because these genetic narratives exist.
This is how this argument, point at pyramid's top, sketches out:
How Do I Know Adoptive Parents (APs) Relate Genetic Narratives?
1) Common sense and logic says they are there...why wouldn't they be?
This will tie in closely with numbers two and three below. And this may not be explicitly stated. The idea is that I should present the notion of genetic narratives of APs in such an easy, jargonless way that it will seem even to a reader unfamiliar with my area that, yes--it is so obvious that this is a topic that needs further exploring.
-->So, one motivation for the study is to test scientifically something that has intuitive appeal, something that is commonly assumed but not fully explored. A case can be made that such a contribution that adds to/refutes/clarifies "common" views will be a more solid foundation for further research as well as education, policy, therapy, and other applied uses.
2) Existing theory strongly suggests they sould be there
Exploring this involves clearly defining my concept of "genetic narratives"--drawing the boundaries around it (tentatively, open to further exploration through my research, of course), saying how it is similar to and different from related concepts (e.g., folk theories about genetics, Keller's "gene talk," etc.)
Then the next step is placing my proposed concept in some larger framework. This may change, but for now my best hunch is that this concept is part of adoptive parents' navigation of difference in their family. I see it as being closely related to Kirk's "shared fate" framework that I previously discussed. I also see it as being part of, or on the same conceptual level as, adoptive parents' perceptions of how their child fits within their family, and there is another whole theoretical formulation related to such notions of "goodness of fit" that I can draw on. Also, it is part of views of the transition to adoptive parenthood in that this difference navigation is a normative developmental task that APs must address some way.
-->So, one motivation for this study is that it adds to and expands previous conceptual models of adoptive family life. Theories in the social sciences are frequently lacking in specification of "mechanisms" of change or relationships. A mid-level concept like this might potentially shed light on this, linking broader conceptual ideas to data.
3) Previous empirical research says they are there
No one necessarily has used my exact terminology, though, so I'll have to show how previous research (including MTARP-related) dealing with adoptive parents and their talk about genetics was really about just what I am proposing to study.
Once I've established this there is still more to do: I still need to answer why this needs to be addressed again empirically, by me, with this sample, and with these variables. Just a few possible justifications I might discuss:
-->So, the point is that I have to show how my study will be able to provide valuable answers that previous studies could not, did not, or only hinted at. The key is that this information has to be seen to be valuable, for example in clearing up confusion or showing complexity and multidimensionality where previously less developed answers were drawn.
There are still steps to be taken to get me to method. But it is now much clearer what my purposes are and, as a result, what kinds of methodology might be necessary in order to meet these aims.
And it is a lot easier to hint at broader links to the grand level, to foreshadow these for future research. Like, some of the assumptions from previous researchers about the negative nature of AP's perceptions of the role of genetics in their family mirror the assumptions about the nefarious uses of genetics at the societal level. Some of the discussed negative outcomes of certain kinds of genetic thinking (e.g., genetic determinism) are presumed to entail certain negative outcomes on the societal level; Analogous kinds of genetic narrative of adoptive parents might have negative family outcomes.
But also, some scholars have started to question whether or not "accuracy" in the public's genetic knowledge is necessary for positive outcomes, and have suggested that "looser" accounts of genetics can serve specific purposes--like making something huge and incomprehensible (e.g., "25% risk of developing a genetic condition by a certain age if both parents are carriers for the condition") more manageable cognitively and emotionally (e.g., "X runs in our family"). So similarly, there may be various genetic narratives that may be related to positive outcomes.
Now the madness is starting to look less so. And starting at the point of the pyramid means I'm less likely to bite off more than I can chew...
Posted by perry032 at January 25, 2005 06:42 PM | TrackBack