My Topic Defense Presentation, Year 1

1. RESEARCH PRESENTATION
Getrude. D. Gwenzi
PhD Sociology and
Social Policy
Supervisors:
Professors Annie
Chan Hau-Nung and
Roman David
27 April, 2017 Getrude Gwenzi 1130747 1

2. Constructing the meaning of family in the context of family
separation: a study on children in institutional care and care
leavers in Zimbabwe.
27 April, 2017 Getrude Gwenzi 2

3. OUTLINE
• Introduction and Background
• The Problem
• Research Questions
• Literature Review
• Research Method
• Limitations
3

4. INTRODUCTION
•The meaning of “family” for children is something that has become interesting for
scholars due to the changes in family over the years.
•There is no consensus on the definition of family
Family as a social phenomena, constructed and defined according to historical and social
contexts (Prout, 2005).
Family as a powerful and pervasive word in our culture, embracing a variety of social,
cultural, economic and symbolic meanings (Weeks, 2001).
International human rights law and global practice emphasize the importance of a
permanent, safe and caring family for children (UNCRC, 1989; African Charter on the
Rights and Welfare of the Child
4

5. BACKGROUND
5
Functionalist
Perspective
Social
Constructivism
Social
Construction
of Family
“Displaying
Families”
Concept

6. THE PROBLEM
There are lots of children living outside of familial care
•Orphans of war or disease
•Left-behind children
•Children of incarcerated parents
•Neglected, abused, abandoned, destitute children (family disruption)
6
Globally there are 153 millionGlobally there are 153 million
orphans and separated childrenorphans and separated children
(OSCs)(OSCs)

7. 7
Source: Meeting on African Children without Family Care (2002)

8. THE PROBLEM
8
• Millions of children living in
institutions
• 22% of care leavers in the UK
became teenage parents (Knight,
2006) and 50 % of care leavers
became mothers within 18-24
months of leaving care
• Future prospects often bleak,
lower educational attainment
compared with children growing
up in their families, which results in
limited employment opportunities
(Browne, 2009)
• Young adults with care history
often have difficulties in forming
meaningful attachments in
adulthood

9. MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
To investigate how children living
in institutional care and care
leavers make sense of “family”
9

10. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• In the absence of birth or extended family, how do CLIC and CLs
understand the meaning of family?
• What social contexts influence the construction of family meanings for
CLIC and CLs? e.g. school, the institution, peers, community
• How does the meaning of family impact on CLICs and CLs decisions
related to family in their adulthood?
10

11. STUDY SIGNIFICANCE
Sociology of Family
•Different meaning of “family” in a different cultural context and setting
•Emphasis on interactive activities rather than structure or household
composition.
Sociology of Childhoods
•Social agency of children
•Growing recognition of the diversity of childhoods, research outside
familial settings
•From childhood to adulthood (life trajectories)
11

12. LITERATURE REVIEW
• Conditions of care in institutions compared to care in families
• Children needing alternative care
• Implications of previous research
• Gaps in the literature
• Theoretical Frameworks
12

13. CONDITIONS OF CARE
•Institutions are not the optimal environment for the development of
children and cannot replace or replicate family care (Utting, 1991)
•State as a corporate parent, discontinuity of attachments (Bullock,
2006)
•Workplace with rules, regulations, regimented routines including meal
and sleep times (Punch et al., 2009)
13

14. NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CARE
• when compared to children raised in birth families, CLIC have shown
evidence of poor outcomes even into adulthood
14
Cycle of
Care
Failure to
reintegrate
into
society

15. CHILDREN NEEDING ALTERNATIVE CARE
• Children coming from dysfunctional families and are at risk
• Severely disabled and mentally challenged children can get specialized
treatment
• Poverty; to meet physical and educational needs
(Carpenter, 2015; Novelle & Gonyea; 2016)
15

16. IMPLICATIONS OF PREVIOUS
RESEARCH
• Ban of institutional care for children aged below 3 years, for children
over 3 years old as a last resort in family-based settings
• CLIC conceptualizations of family can override structural
relationships; quality of relationships based on care, love and support
• The significance of sibling and kinship relationships
16

17. GAPS IN THE LITERATURE
• Studies from children’s perspectives are still few, more policy and
practice related concerns
• Studies following the trajectories of children in care and their social
interactions (during care and after care/ childhood into adulthood)
• “We need to know more about how looked-after children fare
during adolescence and how they cope with their entry into
adulthood, raising questions about marriage, self-sufficiency and
inheritance” (Tolfree, 2003:16)
17

18. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Symbolic Interactionism (George H. Mead, 1934 ; Blumer, 1969)
•Micro-theory focusing on interactions not structure
Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1952; Ainsworth, 1967)
•Maternal and relationship deprivation
Goffman Theory of Total Institutions (Erving Goffman,1961)
•Understanding the institutional environment
18

19. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
19
Previous
Circumstances
Institutional
Environment
Social and
Cultural
Context
Meaning of family

20. RESEARCH SITE
20
• Poverty is the main driver of
institutionalization(nutritional security and
education)
• 45% of the children have a disability
• HIV/AIDS orphans
• Family in the traditional sense still considered a
normative and cultural concept

21. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• Mixed-Method Study
• Questionnaires, in-depth interviews, observation
• Simple random sampling of orphanages (family-based and
dormitory style)
21

22. CHILDREN IN STATUTORY CARE
22
• Age group 12-18yrs
n=500 nationwide
• 56 institutions
Source: Powell, G. et al., 2004

23. SAMPLING PROCEDURE
23
N=220
n=100
family-
based
n=100
Dormitory
20 care
leavers
1. Questionnaire: BCN Situation of
Children in Residential Care
• Reason for being in care
• Length of stay
• Family contact
• Other social interactions
• Rating of family models
2. Strength and Difficulties
Questionnaire
Prosocial behavior, peer relationships,
emotional problems

24. QUALITATIVE IN-DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
• Investigate how children and young people make sense of family
whilst in care.
• Study verbal accounts using narrative inquiry design which asserts
that people communicate about their lives through the stories they
share
• Interviews will allow participants to generate narratives from early
years, going into institutional care, life in the children’s home,
experience of family separation, leaving care, attempts at
reintegration and future plans
24

25. QUALITATIVE IN-DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
• Select cases from survey data based on:
- prolonged stay –prolonged family separation (over 2 years)
- no prior experience of family care (orphaned or abandoned at birth)
- with prior experience of family care (abused, neglected, destitute)
• Sample size dependent on data saturation
• Care leavers (non-probability convenience sample from survey data;
age 18+)
• Data analysis- thematic coding
25

26. LIMITATIONS
• Ethical issues
– Avoiding secondary trauma
• Other issues
– Tracking care leavers
• Possible solutions
– National newspaper advert or social media can be used to track them
– Some children’s homes have ex-inmate groups, gain access to them
– Target a group leaving in the same year(17-18), maintain contact with
them and follow up after a few months
– Ethical issue: involve caregivers and children’s home staff to ensure
adequate debriefing is provided before and after
26

27. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
• Getting ethical approval
• Drafting questionnaire
• Gaining access into the state institutions
27

28. THANK YOU
28