An exploration of adult adoptee experiences of adoption through implementation of a storytelling approach

Victoria Myers

BA (Hons) Health & Social Care

Abstract

As an adult adoptee it was often found that my voice, thoughts and experiences were clouded by others; be it concerns for my adoptive family, or frustration at a perceived lack of support from a ‘post-adoption support team’ designed, in part, to meet my service needs. It felt necessary owing to this experience to conduct a research project which allowed adoptees this ‘voice’, and as such aim to uncover what adoptees themselves perceived to be the most pertinent aspects of their experience.

In order to achieve this, a systematic approach to a literature review was undertaken which revealed most prominently the degree to which current knowledge in this field is dominated by ‘paradigm-driven’ literature which has the disadvantage of speaking ‘for’ the adoptee by constructing narratives built to fulfil a researcher’s own theory or lens. Therefore, it felt necessary to conduct a research project through which the underlying methodology allowed an open exploration into the subjective sense-making exercises as presented by a sample of seven adoptees. Through this, a chosen method of storytelling was implemented, which revealed a depth of information not otherwise identifiable through current literature. In particular, findings revealed aspects such as: relation to adoptive families, significance of partnerships, perceptions in parenthood, access to health and medical information and elements of career. As raised through the accounts of the adoptees, a significant array of information became available which has the potential for grounding future research into this area, with significant implications for future policy and practice should this be explored further.

Introduction

Practice and policy in the field of adoption, despite many fluctuations in priority interests, has long been focused foremost on children and families; with recent movements towards centring provision around meeting the best interests of the child (DfE, 2016). Whilst important and necessary, the debates informing these decisions arguably exclude a key narrative from what is consequently painted as the portrait of adoption: those of the adult adoptee. As eloquently and succinctly expressed by one adoptee in an interview for the ‘Red Table Talk’: ‘unfortunately we rarely hear from adopted people themselves… because we often think about adoption as babies, and I’m an adult… the reality is, is that we grow up’ (Red Table Talk, 2019). This perspective has key implications not only for the adult adoptee themselves, but also amongst the broader socio-political landscape and provision of post-adoption support services geared in response to this (Kalb & Tucker, 2019). Recent research in particular has begun to explore a growing interest in adoptee experiences of microaggressions (Baden, 2016; Garber & Grotevant, 2015); further indicating that there is a large social gap in understanding about what it means for an adopted person to be adopted, particularly when approaching and in adulthood.

Social perceptions of adoption, informed by its fluctuating need within society, have developed significantly in recent decades; most particularly from one which was once shrouded in concerns of illegitimacy, secrecy and shame, towards a practice which encourages openness and continued contact with birth family where possible (Pepper, 2018). Alongside popular television programmes such as ‘Long Lost Family’ depicting the positive outcomes of reunion, and technological advancements which have opened a portal through which adoptees are now readily able to trace their roots and heritage, the provisions by which adoptees are now able to connect with their adoptions has shifted dramatically; however, as uncovered, there remains a particular misconception surrounding what it means for an adopted person to be adopted; and without understandings of this perspective, practice can only remain restricted by such conceptions.  As an adult adoptee, there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that the above is true, in particular, experiences of feeling misheard, misunderstood or misrepresented in both social and practice settings. It therefore felt necessary to conduct an openly explorative research project into the experiences and perspectives of a sample of adult adoptees; with a particular interest in whether these experiences highlight any significant gaps in understanding than what is currently available, and as such open the potential to influence future practice.

Aim and Objectives

This research project aims to explore adult adoptee experiences of their adoption through utilisation of a storytelling method of enquiry. It is intended that this research will fulfil a significant gap in current academic literature by enabling adoptees an open platform in which they may freely consider their experiences of adoption, without questioning, constraint, probing or direction from the researcher.

In order to achieve this, the research will:

1. Utilise a storytelling method for sessions of approximately thirty minutes to allow a sample of adult adoptees an opportunity to reflect on their experiences of adoption
2. Utilise these data to obtain an in-depth exploration into what aspects of their adoption adoptees perceive to be most relevant to their experience of adoption
3. Identify and highlight any similarities, differences and the emergence of any common themes across the accounts of the adoptees
4. Consider the extent to which adult adoptees’ own accounts of their adoption are similar to, or differ from, what is presently available in current academic literature

Utilise the subsequent research data and findings to help inform future academic research into this area, with potential implications for local and national post-adoption support practice

Literature Review

A systematic approach to the literature review was undertaken in order to ensure the broadest range of relevant literature could be acquired for the purposes of this review. Foremost, it was found that all but one of the identified pieces of literature was written directly from the perspective of the adoptee themselves, suggesting that predominant methods employed have the disadvantage of speaking ‘for’ the adoptee, despite findings to suggest that ownership of one’s voice was an integral part of an adoptee’s positive sense of self and identity (Patel, 2007). Despite this, a number of co-occurring themes did emerge most particularly through chosen topics of exploration, which will be considered further. Nonetheless, it is clear from the attained literature that there is a distinct lack of research available, namely through methods employed, that offer a holistic view into adoptee experience, without being ‘pigeon-holed’, to effect, by the researcher’s own paradigm.

A literature review offers an in-depth exploration into existing knowledge on a research topic, and can be used to inform and justify the chosen research topic and design. In particular, the literature review seeks to place the research ‘in context’; that is, illuminating the degree to which the proposed research may embed itself within an existing array of academic literature, thus indicating where the research intends to fit amongst the literature already available, or to fulfil a gap in knowledge which may become apparent through the chosen search process (Denscombe, 2017, p. 370; Aveyard, 2019). By employing a systematic search strategy to this process, academic literature can be systematically found and narrowed to only that which is most relevant to the chosen field of interest, similarly ensuring replicability and reliability of the findings, and avoiding the presentation of misleading or inaccurate conclusions as may emerge through an unstructured and undefined methodological approach to the literature search process (Aveyard, 2019). For this search in particular, it was found that the term ‘adoption’ alone was unreliable, prompting results which related to the ‘adoption of’ a certain element or principle, as opposed to the practice which this search was focused on.

What emerged most significantly through the systematic search was a distinct lack of literature originating from England, with only four of the fourteen identified papers presenting findings from this region, two of which were written by the same author (Hughes, 2015; McKail, Hodge, Daiches & Misca, 2017; Patel, 2005; Patel, 2007). Whilst universal aspects of the adoption experience may be considered owing to the broad array of literature obtained globally, and the themes and commonalities which emerged amongst these, it is necessary to recognise the country-specific context in which these pieces were conducted, and the specific topics of exploration they sought to consider, which may not be culturally relevant to the experience of UK-based adoptees. For example, Cherot’s (2009) study focused its explorations on the experiences of Vietnamese adoptees in light of Operation Babylift, and two of the fourteen pieces explored how the passing of the Adoption Act 1955 affected adoptees in New Zealand (Blake & Coombes, 2016; Haenga-Collins & Gibbs, 2015). Whilst these experiences may not as such resonate directly with adoptees subject to adoption practice in the UK, similarities in other aspects, such as an expectation for adoptees to be ‘grateful’ for their adoption, emerged in findings from both Australia (Fronek & Briggs, 2018) and Finland (Lindblad & Signell, 2008), indicating the importance of not excluding literature from other countries despite societal and cultural differences, and arguably introducing a conceptual universality to some aspects of the adoption experience which may be explored further.

Themes, chosen according to the regularity of their appearance, which emerged most prominently included: issues surrounding identity, self, belonging and ‘voice’; race or cultural heritage; relationships in reunion and social factors, including some discussion on policy, legislation and links to practice. In particular, it was found that by organising the array of literature in this manner, a central discourse surrounding notions of identity, not belonging and taking ownership of one’s voice and history underpinned much of the literature obtained, which shall as such form the basis of this review.

A sense of ‘not belonging’ was related to a number of adoptees’ experiences of ‘self’ and ‘identity’, which was found to be compounded by wider factors such as social influence and stigma (Blake & Coombes, 2016) and a particular sensation amongst transracial or intercountry adoptees of being ‘categorised’ (Patel, 2007) or ‘otherised’ by dominant discourses (Blake & Coombes, 2016). These sensations often led to feelings of exclusion, such as ‘not fully belonging to [a particular] heritage’ (Patel, 2007) in the case of transracial adoptees, or feelings of illegitimacy or of a ‘no man’s land’ between birth and adoptive families (Blake & Coombes, 2016). This was also considered by Haenga-Collins and Gibbs (2015), whose study found that their population of Māori adoptees often struggled with a ‘dual identity’, or discord between their familial and cultural identities. For Koskinen and Böök (2019), this conflict may drive adoptees to search and reunion, particularly during significant periods of their life, in seeking a sense of ‘belonging and relatedness within family’; or for McKail, Hodge, Daiches and Misca (2017) the continually unfolding ‘quest [for] self-discovery’ which dominated the accounts of their sample of international adoptees.

As uncovered in the exploration of this theme, much of the literature obtained sought understanding through the accounts of transracial or internationally adopted adoptees, which is not fully representative of a full and varied adoptee population. This suggests that while there is a prominence of research in this field, findings relating to the experience of adult adoptees may be skewed by this context, and that more comparable research with a broader array of adoptees from various histories and backgrounds is required in order to balance, corroborate or contradict current literature findings which present, through the discussed themes, a very particular portrait of adoption experience, which is largely dominated by the conflicts of identity felt by these samples of adoptees particularly.

Nonetheless, continued explorations into racial identity in particular further raised the importance of ‘voice’ in an adoptees experience, highlighted by a number of researchers as integral to reclaiming aspects of their own identity. Ung, Harris O’Connor and Phillidge (2012) propose the need to move away from ‘pathologizing’ the adoptee experience of racial identity, and instead recognise it as an ecological construct, thus allowing adoptees the opportunity to define for themselves what race means to them in their experience. This is corroborated by Cherot (2009), whose findings showed that ‘stories of self’ enabled adoptees an opportunity to develop life histories vital to them reclaiming ‘their history’; and through research with Vietnamese adoptees observed the ability to weave together diverse individual accounts to form a greater group narrative, with the extended opportunity to create a cohesive understanding of a group experience or history. For Fronek and Briggs (2018), this would allow navigation of the discovered ‘ambiguous self’ as shown to be felt by adoptees, by providing them a sense of safety and ‘belonging’ shared only by the presence of other adoptees.

Patel’s (2005; 2007) research, whilst similarly exploring the concept through transracial adoptee experiences, explicitly denotes that whilst crucial to informing a ‘positive sense of self’ (Patel, 2007), adoptees are rarely provided the opportunity to ‘speak for themselves about their own lives’ (Patel, 2005). In a means similar to the ‘pathologizing’ of experience as explored by Ung, Harris O’Connor and Phillidge (2012); she considers that adoptees are only ever heard when ‘the subject of psychological testing, talked about by parents or teachers… [or] when they have had particularly negative experiences’ (Patel, 2007, p. 33). Whilst suggesting that current literature is ‘methodologically problematic’, lacking ‘meaningful focus’ on the life experiences of the adoptees themselves, and providing an ‘oral life (hi)story’ approach as one such means to combat this (Patel, 2005), she seemingly fails to apply this to her own research. For example, her later study (Patel, 2007) applies a sociological lens of symbolic interactionism to explore the constant negotiation and (re)negotiation of the categorisation adoptees place on aspects of their ‘racial self’, as such leading to various difficulties some experienced as ‘tied to… areas associated with the transracial aspects of their adoption’ (Patel, 2007). She consequently concludes that it is only through application of a social constructionist approach that research is able to ‘move away from restrictive essentialist ideas about ‘race’’ in order to offer deeper insights into ‘how adoptees negotiate and construct their sense of self’ (Patel, 2007, p. 42). This conclusion however highlights the limitations of all but one of the identified pieces of literature (Largen, 2012), through which researchers impose ‘lenses’ of understanding in order to explore subjective experience, thus ‘categorising’ adoptee experience, rather than viewing it in its entirety, which will be explored further.

A final prominent theme amongst the literature explored considered elements of reunion and post-reunion relationships as a significant factor in an adoptee’s journey. In particular, Hughes (2015) considers a dominant discourse surrounding reunion as a pathway to healing through the metatheoretical ‘primal wound’ model in which adoptees experience ‘traumatic separation’ and as such, a desire to return to their origins. This would also be considered by Rosengarten’s (2010) conclusion that there exists a lifelong impact for adopted individuals as ‘coloured’ by their adoption, most particularly through their thoughts and perceptions of ‘self’ and others. Hughes (2015) criticises this model however as painting the ‘‘birth mother’ as a figure of wholeness’, through which ‘reconciliation’ may substantiate a subjective sense of ‘completeness, belonging, and truth’, in the process dismissing the ‘discursively neglected biological father’, which she concluded over-essentialises the role of the biological mother in both debate and experience. Conversely, Koskinen and Böök (2019), whilst agreeing that reunion offers a significant sensation of identity and belonging, suggest that this urge often activates in adolescence, or when establishing a family of their own, in order to seek ‘missing information’ in order to understand genetic ties and similarities in appearance, or upon reflections of their own ‘baby hood phases compared to their own children’s development’ (p. 231). This offers a sense of coherence for adoptees in reunion, and relieving of questions or feelings of ‘guilt over their relinquishment’ (Koskinen & Böök, 2019). In their exploration of post-reunion sibling relationships however, O’Neill, Loughran and McAuley (2018) consider the fragility and ambiguity in navigating these relationships, therefore highlighting some potential difficulty in reunion as was not made as explicit within the other literature.

Despite the emergence of themes as identified, what stood out most prominently in the exploration of these literature findings was the difficulty in placing one piece of literature amongst the context of the rest (Largen, 2012). Instead of being ‘imposed upon’ by a researcher’s own paradigm or lens, Largen (2012) authors her own account and interpretation of being adopted; in this context, by applying a Christian theological understanding to her experience. Whilst at first it was considered that this literature may be too full of bias to present any truly relevant findings, upon further reflection it became clear that this was the only piece which offered an authentic ‘voice’, despite several research findings as discussed which suggest that this aspect of identity is integral to the adoptee experience. Similarly, despite being presented in a journal of theology, as opposed to the social sciences journals as appeared in the other literature, this piece still came up as relevant through the applied systematic search strategy. As such, it embodies a more humanities-focused approach in its exploration; perhaps signifying a systemic gap in current literature which seeks to employ a more dialogic understanding, as opposed to a strictly social ‘scientific’ one.

The implications for this in current literature are that even amongst qualitatively-driven methods, such as the case studies and in-depth interviewing observed, participants are still portrayed as ‘subject’ to some degree of interpretation by the researcher; and are as such confined by these interpretations, as opposed to being allowed the full freedom of placing ‘voice’ to their own experience as Largen (2012) achieves through her account. This becomes problematic when, for example, researchers seek to explore difficulties such as those related to racial or cultural identity, as identified, however explore the accounts ‘in relation to’ or ‘through the lens’ of a particular theory, event or perspective, consequently constructing the accounts to fit their own paradigms, and as such presenting this population of adoptees as a homogenous group with similar experiences. Conversely, if a research method were to be employed whereby the adoptee was able to speak broadly about their experience, in effect constructing their own identity through narrative, in a means similar to Largen (2012), this could theoretically raise results in which the adoptee does not even acknowledge race to be a significant factor in how they construe their experience of adoption. Such an approach is therefore integral to balancing current findings, which whilst raising important arguments, may be considered to be misrepresentative of a general adoptee population, with large social, political and practice-based implications based upon this. Consequently, it becomes necessary to employ an approach in which adoptees are able to speak broadly about their experience first, through which interpretations and understanding may then be derived, as opposed to vice versa as dominates current literature. Within a social sciences project, a dialogic and interpretive framework may allow exploration into a method which emphasises working ‘with’ and not ‘on’ a research participant, to further allow the ‘voice’, as found integral, to be heard, presented and understood in as authentic a means possible.

Ethical Issues

Prior to this research being conducted, ethical approval was sought and granted in line with Bishop Grosseteste University’s ethical procedures and policies process (BGU, 2019). The submitted ‘Research Ethics Clearance Form’ and associated documents were also submitted to the Lincolnshire County Council adoption team and approved prior to their collaboration. As the research sought to explore a potentially sensitive topic, protection of participants was deemed paramount; as such, a detailed ‘Research Information Sheet’ was sent through the Council to all potential participants, highlighting in particular the extent of their participation, benefits and risks of taking part, and their rights throughout the research process, including ability to withdraw and how their anonymity and privacy would be protected. Time was spent prior to each interview session going through the information sheet, and ensuring participants understood and were happy to continue with their participation. Participants were subsequently invited to ask any further questions, before both researcher and participant signed an informed consent form, of which the participant received a copy. In the case of Participant G, Chad*, where a telephone session was required owing to the restrictive social measures placed by the government in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, and no access to email at that time, informed verbal consent was sought.

These measures were incorporated into the research process in order to ‘minimise harm’ and protect the interests and safety of the researcher, involved institutions, and participants (Denscombe, 2017). The sensitive nature of the research topic was further exasperated by the chosen research method, which intrinsically requires that a ‘trust relationship’ is developed, which can leave both researcher and storyteller particularly vulnerable (Bell, 2005). It was decided that in the interests of being transparent (Denscombe, 2017), the researcher’s position as an adoptee would be shared, with no further details prior to the commencement of the data gathering, in order to assure participants of the researcher’s genuine curiosity and interest in their own experience and story. Whilst this may have had the benefit of allowing the participant some comfort in what could be deemed an emotionally challenging process, the nature of the method and relationship required in order to effectively implement it may conversely have led to participants sharing more details about their circumstances and feelings than they would have otherwise (Bell, 2005). Maintaining integrity was central to this research project (Denscombe, 2017), and so in order to negate this, participants were sent a copy of their interview transcript prior to its inclusion for analysis in order to confirm that they were happy with the presentation of their stories, and invited to make alterations if and where they saw necessary. Narrative methods allow for this degree of flexibility, and can be inherently revealing about ‘who we are’ (Clandinin, 2013, p. 199), therefore it was important to the integrity of the research and protection of the interests of the participants that they were invited to be as involved as possible throughout the research process. This had the additional benefit of navigating issues surrounding confidentiality, anonymity and privacy (Denscombe, 2017). Whilst measures such as removing all identifying information from audio recordings and transcripts were implemented, and all files kept in an encrypted folder on a password-protected laptop for issues of data protection, participants’ ability to review transcripts prior to their inclusion allowed them to confirm or alter any details that they deemed to be too revealing, which might otherwise have been missed by the researcher. At this stage, participants were also invited to choose their own false name, protecting their privacy and also helping them feel further included in the research process.

Methodology and Methods

As a qualitative research project and owing to the conclusions derived from the literature review, the chosen design has been largely informed by a constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology (Sarantakos, 2013). Approaches to data collection in particular have therefore been formulated through an inductive, rather than deductive approach; seeking to derive understanding from the research findings, as opposed to testing against a given hypothesis or theory (Bryman, 2016). This was especially important to this research project in its aims to explore the authentic voices and perceptions of a sample of adult adoptees. As this research did not seek to place objective standards onto subjective experiences, it was important to recognise the degree to which these paradigms informed the chosen research design and processes (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012). In particular, these underpinnings highlight that the nature of reality is in a constant state of flux, and as such cannot be tested objectively, as would be considered by methods informed by a positivist standard (Walliman, 2006). It therefore becomes necessary to seek an approach in which subjective meanings, such as those in which individuals or groups are asked to make sense of their reality, or consider their response to social problems, is explored in order to contest the positivist standpoint (Creswell, 2013). An interpretivist approach conversely allows understanding of the meanings people ascribe to their own perceptions, thoughts and behaviour (Punch, 2014), and is therefore vastly more suited to the underlying aims and objectives of this study in its exploration of adoptee experiences.

The underlying philosophical approaches are as such most appropriate to the task of exploring the subjective sense-making exercises that are the foci of this research project. This is because they challenge the existing ‘paradigm-driven’ approach (Punch, 2014) which was found to be ubiquitous in the literature review. Namely, in the literature review it was found that all but one of the pieces of academic literature identified appeared to have been constructed to ‘fit’ a researcher’s paradigm. Even amongst this qualitatively driven literature, prior research failed to present findings led by the adoptee, but instead aimed to correlate findings in line with existing paradigms; in effect, falling foul of the limits of a positivist methodology.

Owing to these core philosophies, a qualitative research methodology was chosen in order to fulfil the openly explorative aims and objectives of this proposal. Unlike quantitative approaches, a qualitative methodology does not seek to measure or quantify phenomena, and instead acknowledges the complexities of life, understanding and human interaction; seeking to incorporate these into the research process, rather than hide or disregard them (Flick, 2014). In particular, it was deemed integral to the approach of presenting adoptee accounts that participants, people, were not reduced to ‘single variables’, and were instead more realistically situated within the context of everyday life and interaction (Flick, 2014, p. 15). Where quantitative approaches may be considered to impose ‘pre-determined formats on the social world’, a qualitative methodology allows for the flexibility of structure necessary to exploring the subjective perspectives and experiences of people, and is therefore often considered more suitable to research within the social sciences (Bryman, 2016, p. 397; Creswell, 2013).

Qualitative approaches are especially useful for research which seeks to ‘empower individuals to share their stories [and] hear their voices’, most particularly by de-emphasising the power relationship which often occurs between researcher and participant (Creswell, 2013, p. 48). Whilst this closeness in proximity may be argued to influence or bias findings, a qualitative approach may instead have the effect of producing more authentic findings (James, 2008), as participants are invited to collaborate throughout the research process, most particularly in data analysis and interpretation phases (Creswell, 2013). As this research seeks to explore individual’s stories, it is integral to the authenticity of the project that accounts are presented as transparently as possible. This transparency is only achievable through continued collaboration between researcher and participants; for example, by inviting participants to review session transcripts prior to their inclusion for analysis, as already discussed. Such an approach would not be so readily implemented if undertaken from a quantitative perspective, which instead emphasises objectivity and distance (Bryman, 2016).

A qualitative approach also accounts for the degree of reflexivity in the researcher’s position necessary for understanding the motivations behind the research, and interpretations and conclusions derived from it (Creswell, 2013). As an adult adoptee, it may be argued that objectivity cannot be achieved in the implementation of the research design and data analysis. Therefore, it becomes crucial to implement an approach that incorporates the subjectivity of both researcher and participants into the research process (Flick, 2014). Whilst quantitative studies may mark such subjective findings as less credible due to potential biases (Bryman, 2016; Denscombe, 2017), from a qualitative paradigm, reflexive accounts on the part of the researcher may serve to enhance findings, whereby inclusion of the researcher’s own reflections, as informed by the influence of personal experiences and values, ‘become data in their own right’ (Flick, 2014, p. 17; Denscombe, 2017). The latter is crucial in this project, which aims to explore adult adoptee experiences, and will be undertaken from the perspective of an adult adoptee; it is necessary to incorporate a methodology that allows for this degree of transparency, thus establishing to the reader a base upon which they are able to inform their own judgements of the validity of the research (Denscombe, 2017). It is a presumption of this research that all experiences and interpretations are valid in their own right, and qualitative analysis allows the potential for ‘more than one explanation being valid’ and is therefore vastly more suitable for the intentions of this research (Denscombe, 2017, p. 331).

Qualitative research is often criticised as being difficult to replicate, and therefore findings are considered to be non-reliable, owing to its focus upon subjectivity and interpretation (Bryman, 2016). However, it has been suggested above that filtering data in accordance with traditional quantitative paradigms is not suitable for this research project. This is because one of the explicit aims of the research is to not simply reduce participant accounts with pre-existing variables (Flick, 2014). Whilst rendering the task of thematising and organising findings into a repeatable framework problematic as per a quantitative paradigm, this research valued instead ‘trustworthiness’ of the data as desirable in terms of the validity and reliability of results (Bryman, 2016, p. 384; Denscombe, 2017, p. 326).

Owing to the above, it is apparent that a methodology and method that does not speak ‘for’ the adoptee, as observed through the predominant, ‘paradigm-driven’ (Punch, 2014) literature, is required in order to fulfil a hitherto insufficiently explored gap in academic knowledge on this subject (barring, as mentioned, Largen (2012)). As such, a pragmatic approach was undertaken whereby research questions were first identified and appropriate methods then chosen for answering them, as opposed to the development of questions and methods suited to the identification of any pre-existing paradigm (Punch, 2014). 

Method:

In consideration of this, a narrative line of inquiry was deemed most appropriate for fulfilling the intended aims and objectives of this research project. Whilst at first it was considered that a focus group method may be suitable for obtaining the qualitative data required, it was decided that due to the ‘public nature of the process’ some individuals may be deterred from delving as deeply into their experiences, thus limiting findings (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006, p. 315). Narrative research, by contrast, offers a unique opportunity to gather rich, multi-faceted and in-depth understandings of people’s lives and ‘how they experience their inner self’ (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010, p. 275; Bell, 2005), as such leading to a high quality of findings, with complex, diverse and intense results (Sarantakos, 2013) appropriate to navigating some of the methodological concerns identified.

Pratt and Fiese (2004) identify that there are two distinct ways ‘of knowing or thinking in human experience’: the paradigmatic mode, and the narrative mode (p. 8). The narrative mode in particular opposes paradigmatic thinking which encompasses the categorisation of objects or events in order to form ideas about their properties; instead allowing individual experiences to be treated as ‘unique historical events [and therefore] categorically distinct’ (Pratt & Fiese, 2004, pp. 8-9). This approach offers an opportunity to ‘escape’ the paradigmatic prison of previous research as discussed. Narrative research, whilst sharing common assumptions, is considered to have ‘splintered’ into a number of different approaches, therefore it is intrinsic that the researcher be familiar with ‘what kind of narrative analysis’ they will be conducting prior to the research taking place (Bryman, 2016, p. 593).

Due to the limitations of the study at this level of research, it was considered to be most practical to engage with the data by way of thematic analysis, focusing primarily on the content of the adoptee accounts (Sarantakos, 2013, p. 380). Whilst analysis could include structural, interactional and performative aspects, due to the volume of data obtained through this method it was not deemed feasible to incorporate these into the research findings at this stage of research. Thematic, or content, analysis is an appropriate means of gathering a broad understanding of a phenomenon, as shared by a group of individuals, as opposed to a holistic understanding of a single person within narrative research (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010). As this project aims to explore multiple perspectives, content analysis was consequently considered most appropriate at this level of research.

The narrative approach in particular offers a creative opportunity to access the ‘identity constructions’ of individuals and is therefore often recognised as an opportunity to ‘give voice’ to underrepresented groups, as was identified to be the case for adult adoptees through the conducted literature review (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010). Similarly, participants are empowered through this process, as they are required to reflect on personal experiences which may validate their position and enhance learning for both parties (McCall et al., 2019). Unlike objective methods, storytelling, as used synonymously here with the ‘narrative approach’, proactively encourages engagement ‘with, not on, people’ and is therefore inherently subjective; identifying in particular that ‘stories do not reveal one, single discoverable truth because truth is a matter of… perspective’ (McCall et al., 2019). As such, it is similarly important to recognise that in implementing this approach, it is not the researcher’s position to ‘give voice’ to the populations that the research seeks to represent or empower, instead simply to ‘hear voices’ that are recorded and interpreted (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010). This was found to be problematic in the pre-existing, paradigm-driven literature as identified, and as such felt important to recognise and highlight in the implementation of this approach and subsequent analysis and presentation of the findings.

In conducting this approach, participants were at first informed of the purpose and intent of the research, and it was revealed the researcher’s position as an adoptee. This was intended to create comfort and familiarity; integral to building the rapport necessary to conducting this method effectively (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Following this, participants were asked to recount the ‘story’ of their adoption, detailing any experiences they felt important or necessary. This prompting question was chosen to be both broad enough to allow participants flexibility in their response, and also ‘sufficiently focused’ so that the group may reveal shared experiences about the chosen topic (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). It was found that some participants took more readily to this approach, as circumstantially, ‘a longer turn at talk’ than is usually customary in ordinary conversation is felt more comfortably by some than others (Kohler-Riessman & Quinney, 2005). This became evident during participant sessions where some felt more at ease during follow-up questions than when given space to speak freely on their experience. In particular, Participant G: Chad*, whose session had to be completed over the phone owing to the Covid-19 crisis and imposed government lockdown, expressed tentativeness in his narration perhaps owing to the lack of signalling cues such as body language and active listening techniques that would ordinarily be employed in-person. These experiences as such reveal the ‘systemic violation of… usual role expectations surrounding an ‘interview’’, or ‘everyday narrative’ in this approach alone (Flick, 2014), and may indicate a perhaps more beneficial mixed-methods approach of storytelling and unstructured interviewing, to combat these seemingly ‘unnatural’ experiences of social interaction and understanding than would otherwise have been observed (Punch, 2014). 

The approach was however successful in allowing the opportunity to gather ‘a large amount of thick descriptions of storied data’ as was authentic to the perceptions of the adoptees interviewed, therefore fulfilling the intended aims and objectives of this research project (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Whilst this degree of data may then be considered difficult and time-consuming ‘to make sense of’ (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010, p. 278), the chosen method of thematic analysis and application of the ‘Matrix Table’ made navigating the information gathered more manageable at this early stage of research. Sessions of approximately thirty minutes each were audio-recorded and transcribed, and so in order to aid in the initial transcription process it was chosen to utilise the software ‘Otter’ (Otter, 2020) which was free and accessible at the time of use. Whilst at first it was considered that such software may prevent an important opportunity to get ‘close to the data’ (Denscombe, 2017, p. 307), it was quickly discovered that utilisation of such was vastly useful in transcribing the majority of the information. The software was however unable to detect nuances of expression, or misinterpreted certain words or phrases due to an individual’s accent, therefore it was necessary to revisit and edit the transcripts alongside the original audio-recordings, as such not dismissing any familiarity with the individual accounts, and saving large amounts of time in such a time-bound project simultaneously.

Predominantly, the storytelling approach offered an opportunity to negate some of the methodological concerns as identified in previous literature, thus obtaining data and information authentic to the perceptions of the adoptees, as intended through the aims and objectives of this research, as such fulfilling a distinct gap in current data and knowledge available. This approach also renders ‘interpretation’ as central to the uncovering of such knowledge, both of the participants, whose narratives cannot reveal the past ‘as it actually was’; only the truth of their experience as is ‘neither open to proof nor self-evident’ (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010, p. 277), and of the researcher, particularly in analysis stages, whose position cannot be ‘neutral and objective’; as with ‘no direct access to the personal experiences that they are studying’ must simply report on what people relate (Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010, p. 276). This research as such does not rely on ‘truth’ as an objective reality to be seen as valid, instead meaningful through the rich and varied understandings of lived and personal experience; thus this approach is wholly suitable to the methodological underpinnings identified.

Sample:

As previously highlighted, this research was undertaken in close collaboration with the local County Council, in order to ensure primarily the protection and safety of all involved participants owing to the sensitive nature of the research topic at this level of study. Owing to this, there were some potential limitations to the sampling method chosen, however these were necessary to negating the barriers of undergraduate study. Whilst this may potentially bias some of the findings obtained, as will be discussed further, it is hoped that this will provide a foundational opportunity for further exploration and study. Similarly, whilst the sample size and type may be limited, there remained significant variation across the accounts obtained to warrant further exploration into this field, namely through the research method employed and authenticity of what remain true adoptee voices and accounts despite the identifiable sampling limitations, most particularly the demographic of adoptees available in the area of which this research was undertaken, and the already expressed interest and action taken into their adoption through contact made with the Council, as will be further explored.

Due to the limitations of the study, and access to potential participants necessary through the County Council, sampling took a non-probably approach, and was one of convenience with the potential for snowball (Bryman, 2016). This was largely chosen to navigate the confines of a time and resource constrained research project, which whilst argued to affect the generalisability of the findings (Punch, 2014), ensured an in-depth and relevant exploration into what may be considered an otherwise hard-to-access participant group, necessary to fulfilling the intentions and methodological process of this research as detailed (Flick, 2015).

A minimum quota of three participants was set and a maximum of eight, as it was hoped and intended at the beginning of this research project for a variety of comparable findings at this initial stage of research and was felt to be achievable within the constraints of the research at that time. Participants were contacted through the County Council and provided the ‘Research Information Sheet’ and ‘Consent Form’ along with contact details and had to have expressed their interest in joining the project by a set date, due to time limitations attached to this study. No other limitations were imposed at this stage of research, only that the participant had to be aged eighteen or above in order to consent as an ‘adult’, and it is at this age that adoptees may contact the Council for further information about their birth records. This was again chosen in the hopes of obtaining a broad array of comparable findings. A total of seven adoptees had made contact by the chosen deadline. However, a difficulty in employing the chosen method was that the exponential degree of information gathered, as observed in the full transcripts, proved challenging to narrow for purposes of analysis in later stages of the research. In particular, there were fears of missing significant elements of a participant’s story and experience, thus restricting the depth of narrative that could be included than that which was initially hoped for as per the aims and objectives. This suggests that a smaller sample size ought to be employed in future similar projects to allow for greater depth of narrative. However, given the scope of this enquiry, seven participants provided suitable data to analyse in a substantive manner.

Findings and Critical Discussion

There were a number of emergent themes which appeared through implementation of the chosen storytelling method that did not appear in the identified literature. This would suggest that the chosen storytelling approach was successful in its intentions of uncovering new information through authentic voices and accounts, through which there exists a large opportunity for further learning and exploration, and the potential for practice-based implications within the field of adoption. Whilst some similarities to the literature did emerge by way of the themes of ‘Identity’ and ‘Reunion and post-reunion relationships’, the majority of the findings revealed new areas of understanding, which shall as such form the basis of the exploration to follow.

Correlation with current literature: Identity, self, belonging and voice:

In a means similar to that as emerged in the literature review, aspects of ‘identity’ arose as a common thread throughout the adoptee accounts and other drawn out themes, suggesting that this is an intrinsic aspect of the adoptee experience. However, what was uncovered amongst the research findings was the degree to which some adoptees expressed this more explicitly than others, for example, Georgina recounts at the beginning of her narrative:

Georgina: “I think for a lot of adopted people, it’s a story, it’s a detective story, but it’s also a story about identity”

With such an explicit recognition of her adoption as to how she self-identifies, aspects of this theme emerged frequently throughout her narrative, which whilst shared in part by the majority of other participants, was not related so explicitly.

Chad, whilst sharing this relation to his adoption, acknowledges that this reflection only came following the receipt of further information from social services:

Chad: The information “kind of explains why I am the way I am”; “I was not raised like that… to what’s in my file”; “all of a sudden it’s like, wow, I’m actually reading about myself… I am… a male version of my mum”

Unlike Georgina, Chad’s perception of himself would contradict literature which would suggest that there exists a ‘life-long’ impact of adoption which follows adoptees from childhood into adulthood (Rosengarten, 2010). Similarly, it exposes a lack of literature identifying how the receipt of previously withheld birth records may impact adoptees, particularly aspects of their sense of self and identity, and consequent processing of this, therefore necessitating a current gap in practice to facilitate this.

Contrastingly, for other adoptees, when reflecting upon how they related to their adoptions in pre-adulthood and growing up phases, there was a general consensus of the adoptions not having had a marked effect. Peter, for example, exposed it as a “non-event”, as was felt similarly by Louise, Robert, and James. This would contradict literature findings to suggest that all adoptees experience a sense of ‘exclusion’ and ‘loss’ as follows them throughout childhood (Blake & Coombes, 2016).

Nonetheless, despite James’ explicit consideration otherwise:

James: “It was never about me… I didn’t need anything I didn’t want anything… it was more just telling her that everything was okay”

He identifies to what Hughes (2015) would relate to as the dominating ‘birth mother’ narrative, whereby through this association he seeks ‘healing’ and ‘reconciliation’ to an overriding sense of exclusion and loss (Blake & Coombes, 2016). This may signify a conflicting sense of self or identity than would have otherwise been identified, thus leading to his subsequent search for information and potential reunion. Whilst not as explicit as accounts such as Georgina and Chad, it may be inferred from the reading that there is a common sense of complexity relating to ‘self’ as may appear in later stages, or portrayed ‘themes’, of adulthood, as will be explored.

Reunion and post-reunion relationships

As also raised from the literature, aspects and contemplations of ‘reunion’ also emerged across the accounts, however these findings may be swayed by the potential sample bias as discussed. Nonetheless, there emerged various accounts and motivations for reunion as was not uncovered by the literature examined, for example, Louise and James’ initialdesire to meet with birth siblings ahead of birth parents, most specifically the birth mother, contradicted findings by Hughes (2015) to suggest the ‘intrinsic’ desire adoptees feel to reconnect with this figure in particular as a pathway to ‘healing’. Simultaneously, some adoptees did present this desire; as Georgina, Chad and Ranulph expressed in their accounts, suggesting most particularly that thoughts, feelings and motivations cannot be presented homogenously, as was uncovered in the literature review also.

For Ranulph, despite a desire to reunite with his birth mother, he detailed his experience of this not being returned:

Ranulph: “she’s said… I don’t want any contact… I can’t cope with it… Which… I can understand… I don’t really sort of agree with it and I do find it a bit difficult if I’m honest”

Comparably, James has had an alternate, positive experience, in which he expresses:

James: “I’ve fully embraced this new life… I talk to her every other day, I call her mum… I can’t explain how natural and normal… there’s no effort”

Whilst Georgina was able to reunite with her birth sister, she expresses more concern over the relationship than was experienced by James:

Georgina: “I feel I don’t want to overwhelm her, because… this is all a complete shock to her”; “I don’t want things to… go wrong between us. I want us to be, you know, friends”

The results of these findings highlight further that as well as varying motivations, there can also be very different and unprecedented outcomes in reunion, of which not all are easy or positive as is often assumed or presented in modern media such as ‘Long Lost Family’, as was often discussed with the adoptees, and highlighted in Robert’s account, furthering the indication of experiences not being presented as homogenous, and the importance of listening to and learning from individual accounts.

Adoptee-raised themes:

Adoptive families:

As related in adulthood, one emerging theme which did not appear in any of the literature identified was that of the significance of the relationship to adoptive families, which was raised to varying degrees by all of the adoptees interviewed. This had particular implications for aspects such as accessing further information or pursuing relationships with birth families. In particular, a number of adoptees felt an obligation to their adoptive families which prevented them pursuing further information:

Peter: “With hindsight after the death of my mother I did realise that one of the reasons I hadn’t pursued, getting my information was out of respect for my adoptive parents”

Ranulph relates this as “not an uncommon scenario”, stating that he had not “wanted to do anything that would upset [them]”. Similarly, Georgina expressed that to talk to her mother about the adoption “seemed like a betrayal”, as such not following her desire to pursue further information “until after she died”. Following his adoptive parents aging and illness, James also acknowledged that prior, it had not been something that had “[played] on my mind”.

The participants’ accounts indicate the importance of these bonds and relationships that adoptees feel, and the impact that this can have on their experiences both relating to their adoption and decisions moving forward. This is exacerbated by accounts in which, contrastingly, adoptees have felt able to include their adoptive parents and families in their journeys:

Louise: “My parents have been really good… really open… even now they’re… if you want to find them we’ll help you and, they don’t want to be directly involved but they will, help me as much as they can”

Robert: “It has prompted more conversations… But they’ve always known… I’ve always kept them in the loop… you know, not to feel that, ‘oh well he’s off to find his mum and dad’”

Chad: “My dad… said yes, if that’s what you want to do, we’ll stand by you and help you”

This perhaps further signifies the importance of openness in such relationships and subsequent implications for encouragement of such in practice, in order for adoptees to feel a positive sense of self and security in their decision-making. This was especially marked by James in how he discusses his feelings in reunion:

James: “I was riddled with guilt, because I couldn’t tell [adoptive mother], because she wouldn’t have understood… I don’t feel like I’ve been disloyal or anything because I just see it as… it’s two chapters in my life. It’s first part of my life was with my mum and dad. And now I’ve got my birth mother and all my family”

Partnerships:

In a similar regard, partnerships also played a key role in adoptees’ experience of their adoption, often prompting further information, and in these accounts especially, oftentimes prior to the adoptee being interested in the information search themselves:

Peter: “My partner… she was very much… do you want to… find out who your real parents, and my answer was no, because there was genuinely no interest from my side”

Similar sentiments were also expressed by James and Robert, whose partners showed a ‘curiosity’ to their backgrounds that was not at that time a “priority” for them. Georgina’s partner also expressed an interest in her adoption, to which she reveals, “he wrote a sort of, project about it”.

This intrigue felt by others and not the adoptee could suggest several things: foremost, that there is an experience of adoption that extends beyond only the adoptee that must also be acknowledged. There may perhaps also exist a social misconception, as carried in this case by the adoptees’ partners, that adoption is a mystery to be ‘solved’ which is not always felt by the adoptees themselves. These perceptual misconceptions are and have been exasperated by the literature as explored (McKail et al., 2017). In a means similar to what was considered through ‘Adoptive families’, acknowledgment of these key relationships, as indicated to be significant by the adoptees interviewed, is inherently revealing and integral to the adoptees’ experience of their adoption.

Parenthood:

For several adoptees, the process of becoming parents themselves prompted further interest in their adoption and potential for seeking out further information.

In particular, there was an interest as expressed by Koskinen and Böök (2019) in which adoptees felt a sense of needing to explore genetic ties as brought on in parenthood through consideration of their own ‘baby-hood phases’. For Louise, this emerged when having no “baby photos to compare [her own children] to”, and subsequently “wondering, who I look like”.

This was felt also by James, who after seeing a photograph of his birth mother for the first time, expressed:

James: “I was… fixated, it was really just because I looked like her and I hadn’t looked like anybody… in my life”

Whilst this corroborates literature, in navigating an ‘ambiguous self’ and seeking genetic ties to sense ‘belonging’ (Fronek & Briggs, 2018), very little was available to observe this within the context of parenthood, apart from Koskinen & Böök (2019), as identified earlier. The adoptees furthered these contemplations beyond aspects of self, as did not emerge in the literature:

Robert: “Now I’m a parent, you see things different… you realise… what an undertaking that can be”

Louise: “Having my own children, being in that situation… I look at my own children and I think how can you… do stuff like that” [referencing her early experiences of neglect]

This would suggest further than what was offered in the literature that the significance of becoming a parent offers an opportunity for adoptees to reflect on their adoptions through an alternative perspective, and the potential implications for this.

For two of the adoptees, their children expressed an open curiosity and interest in their parents’ adoptions:

Ranulph: “I’ve noticed that… they’re as equally curious as I am… I do feel as though I want to provide them with some information, so that they know a little bit more about, you know where their dad, came from”

Beyond curiosity, Robert’s son took an active role in starting the information search:

Robert: “My eldest was very keen on finding more information so he went down the DNA route. He was keen to find out that side of it, so he started populating a family tree”

This indicates the importance of the ties of adoption not only being significant for the adoptee, but for their children too, whose roots and access to information are as equally affected, as requires further exploration into the potential impact of such.

Health and Medical Information:

The significance of having access to medical information was raised by most of the adoptees, as a number related the common occurrence of being asked to provide medical information only to be able to reply, “I don’t know because I’m adopted” (Ranulph, Robert, Louise). As acknowledged further by Robert, in a “medical scenario, it’s not very helpful for them”, which was a particular concern, and for Louise especially, that “it causes my own… anxiety”.

These issues become exasperated in parenthood, where for Louise, concern over health anxiety prompted her initial search for further information, and in finding information, for Robert:

Robert: “[It was] flagged up that [biological father] had coronary thrombosis… So, went to… my GP, make sure there was nothing that… I was unaware of and could have been a hidden problem… more importantly, that it wasn’t handed down to my lads”

For adoptees, it is evident that this lack of important health information has a significant impact on not only the welfare of the adoptee, but for their children also, on what could be vitally important knowledge with potentially significant implications for their lives. Thus, it might be suggested from these findings that there needs to be changes in policy and practice which allow some degree of flexibility in keeping adoptees informed on what could be vitally important health information than is currently observed.

As introduced, the significance of this factor prompted many adoptees to reflect on their adoptive status, or begin their search for further information on their heritage or potential reunion with birth relatives:

Robert: “as you get through your decades… you see life differently… you realise… you are getting older, and… that actually your biological parents are also getting older. So if you’re going to do something then there’s a point where you’re going to say okay time, I need to look”

Ranulph: “I would want to know if… birth parents had suffered with something that I may suffer with… But then again I suppose there might be an advantage in not knowing, personal thing”

For others, similar to Louise and her expressed anxieties, specific health experiences prompted the need for further information or reunion:

Georgina: “I had a melanoma. And I thought, if I’m going to snuff it, I’m going to find this out. I need to know this before I go”

James: “When I went to Afghanistan… I had a bit of a thing about well if something happened… if I didn’t come back or something went wrong… that was the first time in my whole life I thought about it”

The significance of James’ statement and account, and recurrence as felt by a number of the adoptees, highlights the exceptional importance of this aspect in an adoptee’s life, particularly as they approach and move through adulthood, which as such warrants further research and exploration.

Career:

In a means similar to requiring access to medical information, some adoptees highlighted the necessity of having certain documents or details available for their respective careers:

James: “I was looking to join the Royal Navy. I had to go and get these documents of joining up if you had an alias or… different name”

Ranulph: “Vetting is… quite a big issue… in the police… just making sure that you are who you are… on forms… I’ve had to put the truth that I’m adopted and… haven’t actually got a proper, or a genuine birth certificate”

Whilst for James, this process triggered no further thoughts of his adoption at this time, for Ranulph there was some acknowledged uncertainty:

Ranulph: “if [managers] read the forms properly they will have seen I’d been adopted. Which I was never quite… 100% comfortable with”

He relates this somewhat to a sensation of “secrecy” as would be related to the common aspect of ‘Identity’, and relates this directly to aspects of his job role:

Ranulph: “as a detective you… want to know about people and… finding out facts… but I know nothing about myself”

By contrast to Georgina, who relays elements of her adoption as intrinsic to her sense of identity; there is an experience she describes as “peculiar to adopted people” whereby she felt able to fulfil a number of job roles:

Georgina: “I’ve done all sorts of different jobs… I can be whoever I want to be”

This contrast, as such, suggests a direct correlation between aspects of adulthood, such as career choices, and an adoptee’s inherent or continuing sense of self or identity. Most particularly, it necessitates further research, as raised by the adoptees as significant to their experience, which has been previously neglected in literature, policy and practice.

Practice:

Whilst raised to some degree in the literature findings, and perhaps again owing to the lack of comparable UK-based literature in this field as observed through the literature review, a majority of adoptees highlighted the significance of the amount of information as held by social services as a clearly distinguishing feature of their experience. For example, many talked about the “amount” of information held, and “detail” of what was recovered (Peter, Louise, Ranulph).

For Louise in particular, what was uncovered was “completely different to what I was aware of”, therefore signifying the importance of adoptees having such detailed information available should they come to require it; as probed especially by previous themes explored.

By contrast, some adoptees had less positive experiences trying to access their information:

James: “I [tried] to get organisation to help us… I couldn’t get anybody… unless they accessed records, and nobody could find the records”

Chad: “there’s roadblocks in finding stuff out, unless you want to pay a lot of money”

In navigating some of these difficulties, Robert began his own search through DNA and genealogy websites:

Robert: “I… tried to track a few things myself, found it very complicated… In the meantime, my eldest was very keen on finding more information so he went down the DNA route… started populating a family tree”

Whilst it is an acknowledged limitation of this research that due to sampling restrictions all adoptees included in these findings had begun the process of seeking out information, as explored, which may as such sway findings to the recurrence of this theme within their accounts; what the adoptees raised in the importance of ease of access to and level of information held by services has clear implications for practice. It may be considered that, owing to the confusion and frustration felt by some in accessing their birth records and further information, and “relief” at the amount of information held by others, that this is a significant area of practice which needs refining for the wellbeing of adoptees who wish to obtain these details of their lives, without “paying money” as expressed by Chad, or the time and emotional consumption of populating information through websites, as considered by Robert. Whilst there are practical implications for generations passed, this knowledge has the potential for impacting future adoptees, on what may be considered a particularly significant aspect of their experience.

Missing literature themes:

Whilst it is clear from the findings and critical discussion above, one significantly differentiating factor of these findings as comparable to the literature is the lack of findings owing to the experiences of transracial or internationally adopted adoptees, as was found to dominate the literature review. Predominantly, this was due to sampling restrictions at this level of academic study, which was conducted in an area whereby the latest found consensus statistics hold the demography of the area as predominantly white-British (LRO, 2011). Simultaneously, on a more national scale, it is only in 2014 that amendments to previous legislation had removed requirements that persuaded agencies to give ‘due consideration’ to a child’s racial or cultural heritage in placing them with an adoptive family, in order to reduce the numbers of ethnic minority children held in care (Sargent, 2015). Therefore, such literature findings may not be as statistically relevant to UK-based adoptees at this time. These presented findings, as such, may offer a broader view of adoptee experience than is presently observable through current literature.

Conclusion

It is clear from the depth and array of information obtained through implementation of this method the significance of such an approach to be considered amongst current literature. Whilst some of the research findings corroborated what was held by the initial literature findings, a vast majority introduced new ideas and concepts, or contradicted some of the existing findings. Most particularly, the data revealed the depth at which adoptees should not be presented as a homogenous group with similar experiences; instead, particular attention should be paid to the value of individual accounts, and the strides in learning which can occur from such, which in this instance has identifiably distinct implications for future practice.

As raised throughout this project, the need for ‘voice’ amongst a population of adult adoptees is necessary for informing such practice, as was similarly raised by the adoptees themselves. One such method for achieving this in a research context appears through implementation of a storytelling method, which as revealed, offers a level of detail and insight which would not have otherwise been obtained. Whilst restricted for purposes of analysis at this level of study, the approach offered an important introductory awareness into adoptee-raised areas such as parenthood, relation to adoptive families, and impact on career, which may probe distinct areas for further research and study necessary to fulfilling gaps in current literature.

Similarly, as underlined by explorations in ‘Practice’, there is a distinct need amongst the research for more UK-based findings relative to adoptees from this region, in order for research and consequent practice to be further representative to the experiences of adoptees in this area. 

Recommendations

As identified, owing to the large amount of information and findings uncovered through this approach, not all that may be considered perceptually relevant could be discussed at this current stage of research: a significant limitation of conducting such a project at an undergraduate level, whilst also signifying the need for further research in this field, perhaps through means of alternate narrative analysis with further scope for exploration into the findings. Nonetheless, the findings obtained offered a suitable and detailed introduction to the potential in this field of research. Similarly, the conducted storytelling method offered an alternate means of gathering information, suitable to exploring the authentic perceptions of adoptees as was a primary aim of this research project and its methodological underpinnings. It may be considered that there is potential for further exploration into the discussed themes as was raised by the adoptees, perhaps through implementation of a similar method, in order to substantiate the findings raised further.

A considerable limitation to this research, as already discussed, was the potential for sample bias, owing again to the restrictions at this level of undergraduate study. The adoptees included in this project had an already expressed interest in their adoptions as made evident through their contact with the local County Council for further information, which could perhaps sway findings, and may as such not be fully representative to the experiences of all adoptees; though as discussed, this research placed validity on the authenticity of the individual accounts of the adoptees, though it is acknowledged that this may be an aspect worth consideration for future research.

As an introductory study, this research did not place any restrictions on ‘age’ in adulthood beyond the participant being aged over eighteen. Upon reflection this may have influenced findings owing to the social and practice contexts in which the adoptees’ experiences had occurred. Whilst at first considered a limitation to this study, it was later acknowledged that generational aspects and reflections, which may indeed warrant further study, have the benefit of informing not only current post-adoption support practice, but also that of present and future generations of young adoptees.

In relation to the research findings, it is evident through the adoptee-raised themes the significance of further research into aspects such as increased flexibility for access to medical information, or an ease of process in the tracing of birth records and information, which was highlighted numerously by the adoptees as significant through their accounts. Consequently, this research has the potential to form the basis for further academic research which may potentially ground change or reviews of current policy which presently influence practice, thus highlighting the significance of such research taking place.

If you would like further information about the research, including access to full interview transcripts, please contact me at victoria.lpmyers@outlook.com.

---

References

Aveyard, H. (2019). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: a practical guide. London: Open University Press.

Baden, A. L. (2016). “Do You Know Your Real Parents?” and Other Adoption Microaggressions. Adoption Quarterly, 19(1), 1-25. doi:10.1080/10926755.2015.1026012

Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Berkshire: Open University Press.

BERA. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_2018.pdf?noredirect=1

Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU). (2017). Research Ethics Policy. Retrieved from https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Research-Ethics-Policy-2017.pdf

Bishop Grosseteste University. (BGU). (2019). Research Ethics Policy. Retrieved from https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Research-Ethics-Policy-2019-1.pdf

Blake, D., & Coombes, L. (2016). No-man’s Land: Adoption Storied Through the Aotearoa/ New Zealand Adoption Act 1955. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(1), 47-60.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cherot, N. (2009). Storytelling and Ethnographic Intersections: Vietnamese Adoptions and Rescue Narratives. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 113-148.

City of Lincoln Council. (n.d.). The Lincoln City Profile- 2016/2017: A collection of themed factsheets. Retrieved from http://www.lincoln.gov.uk/lincolncityprofile/

Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Oxon: Routledge.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2012). A student’s guide to methodology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. 

Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2009). Researching sensitive topics: qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 61-79.

Department for Education. (2016). Adoption: A vision for change. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/512826/Adoption_Policy_Paper_30_March_2016.pdf

Denscombe, M. (2010). Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2012). Research proposals: a practical guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. London: Open University Press.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Fronek, P., & Briggs, L. (2018). A Qualitative Exploration of the Adult Intercounty Adoptee Experience in Australia. Adoption Quarterly, 21(3), 161-181.

Garber, K. J., & Grotevant, H. D. (2015). “YOU Were Adopted?!”: Microaggressions Toward Adolescent Adopted Individuals in Same-Race Families. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(3), 435-462. doi:10.1177/0011000014566471

Gov.uk. (n.d.). Adoption records. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/adoption-records

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2014). Qualitative methods for health research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Haenga-Collins, M., & Gibbs, A. (2015). ‘Walking between worlds’: the experiences of New Zealand Māori cross-cultural adoptees. Adoption & Fostering, 39(1), 62-75.

Hughes, E. (2015). “There’s No Such Thing as a Whole Story”: The Psychosocial Implications of Adopted Women’s Experiences of Finding Their Biological Fathers in Adulthood. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 16(3), 151-169.

James, N. (2008). Authenticity. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. doi: https://dx-doi-org.bishopg.idm.oclc.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n26

Kalb, S., & Tucker, A. (2019). How adoptees are shaping post-adoption support services. Retrieved from https://www.umass.edu/ruddchair/sites/default/files/rudd.kalb.pdf

Kohler-Riessman, C., & Quinney, L. (2005). Narrative in social work: a critical review. Qualitative Social Work, 4(4), 391–412. 

Koskinen, M. G., & Böök, M.J. (2019). Searching for Self: Adult International Adoptees’ Narratives of Their Search for and Reunion With Their Birth Families. Adoption Quarterly, 22(3), 219-246.

Largen, K. J. (2012). I love to tell the story: reshaping the narrative of adoption. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 51(4), 284-293.

Larsson, S., & Sjöblom, Y. (2010). Perspectives on narrative methods in social work research. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 272–280.

Lincolnshire County Council. (2018). Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://uk.sitestat.com/lincolnshire/lincolnshire/s?Home.jobs.manuals.employment-manual.managing-performance-and-conduct.code-of-conduct.58706.articleDownload.113051&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk//Download/113051

Lincolnshire Research Observatory (LRO). (2011). Country of Birth, Ethnicity and Nationality of Lincolnshire Residents. Retrieved from http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/UI/Documents/country-of-birth-ethnicity-and-nationality-of-lincolnshire-residents-census2011-112013.pdf

Lindblad, F., & Signell, S. (2008). Degrading attitudes related to foreign appearance: Interviews with Swedish female adoptees from Asia. Adoption & Fostering, 32(3), 46-59.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, J. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

LSAB. (2017). Lincolnshire Safeguarding Adults Policy, Procedure and Process 2017. Retrieved from http://uk.sitestat.com/lincolnshire/lincolnshire/s?Home.lsab.policy-and-procedures.131094.articleDownload.109509&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk//Download/109509

McCall, B., Shallcross, L., Wilson, M., Fuller, C., & Hayward, A. (2019). Storytelling as a research tool and intervention around public health perceptions and behaviour: a protocol for a systematic narrative review. BMJ Open, 9(12), 1-12.

McKail, R., Hodge, S., Daiches, A., & Misca, G. (2017). Life Stories of International Romanian Adoptees: A Narrative Study. Adoption Quarterly, 20(4), 309-328.

Oliver, P. (2003). The student’s guide to research ethics. Berkshire: Open University Press.

O’Neill, D., Loughran, H., & McAuley, C. (2018). Diversity, Ambiguity and Fragility: The Experiences of Post-Adoption Sibling Relationships. British Journal of Social Work, 48(5), 1220-1238.

Otter. (2020). Otter.ai. Retrieved 02 July, 2020, from https://otter.ai/

Patel, T. (2005). The Usefulness of Oral Life (Hi)story to Understand and Empower: The Case of Trans-Racial Adoption. Qualitative Social Work, 4(3), 327-345.

Patel, T. (2007). Theorising the Racial Identity Development of Transracial Adoptees: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. Adoption & Fostering, 31(2), 32–43. doi: 10.1177/030857590703100207

Pepper, J. (2018). Adoption: The journey to where we are now. Retrieved from http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/adoptionthejourneytowherewearenow.pdf

Pratt, M. W., & Fiese, B. H. (2004). Family stories and the life course: across time and generations. East Sussex: Routledge.

Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Red Table Talk. (2019, October 21). S2:E15 – Raised By White Parents: A Black Adoptee Speaks [Facebook]. Retrieved December 04, 2019, from https://www.facebook.com/redtabletalk/videos/570658477003653/

Rosengarten, S. (2010). Myra’s Story: A Life Narrative as It Unfolds in the Treatment and Journey of an Adopted Woman. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 30(1), 54-62.

Sarantakos, S. (2013). Social research. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sargent, S. (2015). Transracial adoption in England: a critical race and systems theory analysis. International Journal of Law in Context, 11(4), 412–425. doi: 10.1017/S1744552315000270

Thomas, D. R., & Hodges, I. D. (2010). Designing and managing your research project: core knowledge for social and health researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ung, T., Harris O’Conner, S., & Phillidge, R. (2012). The development of racial identity in transracially adopted people: an ecological approach. Adoption & Fostering, 36(3-4), 73-84.

Walliman, N. (2006). Social research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd