One of the challenges in dissertation writing is conceptualizing reseearch questions that are "novel." We're supposed to be making a "unique" and "innovative" contribution to the field blah blah blah. One way to achieve this (assuming one buys that it must be achieved) is to...simply search for a truly new slant on a topic. But that is difficult, in that there may really be nothing truly new under the sun.
Another way, however, to achieve novelty is to attempt to resuscitate a concept or question that has taken its (presumed) last breath.
I think that is what I might be doing by reintroducing the idea of "Family Structure" into my proposed dissertation. I'm not sure right now, even, how big a role "structure" will play in my final work. But for now it is emerging as an interesting way to organize some of what I want to explore.
It's kindova long story--fascinating to me and necessary to document my thinking (even if I do not go much further with it, or if it becomes less central in my work)--but probably pretty tedious to most others. So, I'll continue "below the fold" for myself and any other interested parties.
For the rest of you, check out my post on Grokker below. I LOVE Grokker! It is the absolute coolest thing since...the last absolutely coolest technological thing that I got worked up about. If you are not now Grokking, you should be Grokking. Grok Grok Grok Grok! As soon as I figure out if it can be done, I'm gonna post some of my Grokker maps.
ANYway, back to structure:
What I may end up doing is to place family structure back into conceptualizations of adoptive openness. Now, some discussions of openness in adoption have never advanced beyond structural openness, or otherwise have been fairly limited in what constitutes "open" or "fully disclosed" adoption.
(What is "open adoption"? Grok it and see for yourself! Also, see the resources listed on the MTARP website, linked to over on the sidebar. As always, I must offer the disclaimer that the following represents my "take" on aspects of adoption as I have come to understand it in part through my work on MTARP. Please see the MTARP web site and publications for the official word on the project.)
Multidimensional Openness, Defined
However, in the project I have been involved with, the definition of openness has evolved into a complex, multi-dimensional concept. As put by Grotevant & McRoy (1998): "We conceptualize openness as a spectrum involving differing degrees and modes of contact and communication between adoptive family members and a child's birthmother" (p. 2).
With my emphases above, you can see that openness involves at least a four dimensional space:
(1) Degrees of contact
(2) Modes of contact
(3) Degrees of communication
(4) Modes of communication
Further, these dimensions may--and often do--change over time, and are experienced differently by the child and different members of the child's birth and adoptive families. (The "birthmother" in the above definition has been expanded greatly in MTARP work to include contact and communication with other birth family members, including birth grandparents, birth "half" siblings, and birth "step" fathers. See note* at the end of this post.)
So, as the project has evolved, also evolving is a conceptualization of openness as the ebb and flow of interaction; as a relational variable; as a multidirectional continuum. This has been an important view of the adoptive family experience, placing it in a new landscape of normative family diversity that focuses more on relational processes, subjective experiences, intentional actions and decision making, and multiple pathways to similar (and positive) outcomes--Largely replacing the previous prevailing view of one type of family=one type of family experience.
Bringing Back Structure
It is telling, I think, that the subtitle of the book I quoted from above is "exploring family connections."
My question: If openness creates different ways that families are connected (or "yoked"), then do these novel connections create new family units? In other words, instead of openness arrangements resulting in merely relational patterns between distinct family units, do the relational ties expand the bounds of the distinct families such that a new boundary is drawn--one that to some extent incorporates both families?
This idea has already been put forth in the context of MTARP in the form of the concept of the "adoptive kinship network" (AKN). Still the focus in this work has been largely on the dynamic processes within the network. The structure of the network only comes into play in defining the full range of who might be included in the AKN.
What I am trying to make a distinction about is a vague notion...So, I also looked outside of MTARP work to try to put my finger on it.
Another author writing on adoption calls what results from more disclosure and contact the "open adoption clan" (Gritter, 1997). "Every adoption brings families together for a lifetime"--but in fully disclosed adoption, the family members are all "active members of the system" (p. 51). Also he talks of the forming of a "sense of community" when more fully disclosed family systems are created. Still, though, since the focus of Gritter's discussion is on adoption as a system/institution aimed at serving the child, the notion of what this new whole that includes the child is is given little further explication.
I'm thinking that one way to start taking this "new whole" notion seriously is to step back (but not backwards) to look seriously at structure: Who is included in the family system? What roles do they seem to be taking on? What functions do the roles seem to be fulfilling? How are the roles related to each other?
Deja Vu, Again...
Sociologists in the house may recognize the above questions as forming part of the theoretical framework of "Structural Functionalism." (See below* for further references.) If you know this, then you also know that "structure" is considered by some (many?) to be a dirty word: conservative and restrictive, upholding a view of society and actors that apologizes for or even rationalizes current social inequities, descriptive in a way that equates "is" with "ought" and so on. At the very least, "structural functionalism" as a theoretical framework is considered by some scholars to be an interesting, though currently useless, relic from a dry and dusty scholarly archeological site.
Here are some random other features of Structural-functionalism as it has been applied in family social science:
-primacy of the nuclear family
-role expectations
-specialized roles, esp along "traditional" gender lines
-functional requirements of roles
-socialization of children as a primary function of families
-children as the "replacement members" of society
-ultimate goal is the continued survival of "the whole" (i.e., society)
-neo-structuralism, eases some of the features of traditional family S-F
What I am talking about now is recasting "openness" as a type of "family structure" for the purposes of my dissertation. From a research plan that I recently wrote for a fellowship application I "tweaked" the standard MTARP definition of openness in this way:
"A previous study with these [MTARP] data examined the dynamics of adoptive families in three types of structure:
a) a biologically-related nuclear family type, with no relationships with children’s biological mothers,
b) an extended family type with direct relationships with children’s biological mothers, and
c) a type with indirect relationships with biological mothers through adoption agencies"
Why STRUCTURE?
Why go back to this anacronistic notion of structure being important in and of itself? What are the implications of this slight re-definition of openness as structure that I sketched out above?
My first hunch: "structure" means nothing more than who is in the family--with no theoretical strings attached. If this is the case, perhaps I merely defined openness as structure in my research plan to make the definition more familiar to fellowship application reviewers who were not already steeped in adoption research.
But it is hard to say it is this simple--not to mention it is hard to convince others that this is the case in adoption. I think there is an inherent tension in how "we" (all of us, in non-scholar mode) think about adoption; This tension involves a sense that through adoption we create one family unit by means of dismantling another.
A subtractive, or substitutive process. Not an additive, or multiplicative one.
Thus, the first more complex reason for returning to structure in adoptive relationships is
-Structure is what the public fixates on--regardless of the extent to which academics may think we've moved beyond it.
The worry that "Heather has two mommies" might be articulated in the context of lesbian-couple headed families, open adoption arrangements, or blended families. The public is not so focussed on the "dynamic processes"--and further, policy is not so concerned with this. There is, however, interest and concern about what happens when there is a seeming excess of adults for what is assumed to be one family "slot" or role.
But there are other benefits such a reconceptualization might give me, as a researcher striving for novelty:
-Idea of "roles" can be further explored.
Some AKNs with similar membership may have different roles assigned to or taken by its members; We need not go back to old fashioned, rigid notions of roles for this kind of examination to be important. But we shouldn't be surprised if our new role examination reveals similar snapshots, for example the frequent finding in this MTARP data set that adoptive mothers are often the "kinkeepers" responsible for managing the exchange of information when children are younger...Sounds like the old S-F notion of the mother as the nurturer.
-Such a structural view may allow more fruitful comparissons to other kinds of families with "complex" structures.
The MTARP PIs have already put forth this as a wave of the future for this research (and other scholars have noted this as well; see Shapiro, Shapiro, & Paret, 2001). This may be a move in the other direction than that used in the past w/this data set: e.g., using more generic concepts from the close relationship model to show how the adoptive openness model is a case of broader processes. Instead, trying to pick out those more narrow and unique concepts that can be applied to other distinct types of families.
-Examination of structure allows for the examination of "boundaries"--and more importantly points me to not dismiss as different two AKNs that appear to differ because of who is part of each.
For example, consider the hypothetical example of one AKN that includes face-to-face relationships with the birthfather, who subsequently married the birthmother, and another network that does not include this mode and participant of contact. But in the second AKN the birthfather may be "psychologically present" (see Pauline Boss's work) in that he is a large part of the content of the discussions between adopted person and birthmother.
-Even though sometimes convceived of as a static property, structure may allow for interesting dialectical linking of dynamic process and structure, in that the processes over time may lead to new structures, roles and norms.
I have touched on many of these themes with other blog entries, for example on Adoption, ART and the social contract theory and also with a paper I wrote as part of my written prelim exam on adoptive "ties." Also, lots of other places, now that I think about it...
-Looking at openness as stucture may allow me to make explicit potential links to my interest in perceptions and talk about genetics.
For example, a key concept emerging from some of my pilot work is the idea that genetic and quasi-genetic concepts used by adoptive parents assist in "placing" children (and perhaps their birthmothers or other birth family members) in a kind of "reconstructed" family lineage.
This is a use that is just ripe with possibilities for the development of new conceptual concepts. For example, Pittman (1993, in the first Sourcebook in a piece entitled "Functionalism May Be Down, But It is Surely Not Out") talks about "scapegoat" as a useful conceptual product of S-F theory. In family therapy, this concept has largely negative connotations--but in identifying and labeling its occurence in families, the practice might be able to be averted or corrected. In parallel, for some adotive families there could be a "scapegoating"--not of a person, but of the genetic connection between an child and her birthmother. The Biblical scapegoat is a symbolic representation of sins; On the flip side, in the adoptive context there might be some positive role assigned to a genetic connection: the bond or the child as a symbolic representation of kinship connections.
So, I may end up rescuing the baby of adoptive structuralism--just putting it in some fresh bath water. So far, the "novel" ideas that this line of thought is generating in me is exciting. We'll see where it all leads.
_________________________________________________________________
*For further information about how the openness concept has evolved in MTARP research see the chapter: Grotevant, H. D., Perry, Y. V., & McRoy, R. G. (2005). Openness in adoption: Outcomes for adolescents and their adoptive kinship networks. In D. M. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption: Theory, research, and application (pp. 167-186). Westport, CT: Praeger.
More on structural functionalism in social sciences:
Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism
Beyond the Five Conceptual Frameworks: A Decade of Development in Family Theory, Carlfred B. Broderick
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 33, No. 1, Decade Review. Part 2. (Feb., 1971), pp. 139-159.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445%28197102%2933%3A1%3C139%3ABTFCFA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
I can't remember how I found you; you may already read this blog, but if you don't it is kind of related to your project and there is an interesting conversation going on about adoption.
http://chookooloonks.typepad.com/chookooloonks/
Posted by: Mieke at June 10, 2005 09:09 PM