Beyond blood ties: Constructing the meaning of ‘family’ among Spanish children in foster care

PROGRAMA DE DOCTORADO EN INVESTIGACIÓN TRANSDISCIPLINAR EN EDUCACIÓN TESIS DOCTORAL: Beyond blood ties: Constructing the meaning of ‘family’ among Spanish children in foster care (ES) Más allá de los lazos de sangre: La construcción del significado de ‘familia’ entre los niños españoles en acogimiento familiar Presentada por Judite Ie para optar al grado de Doctora por la Universidad de Valladolid Dirigida por: Dr. Almudena Moreno Mínguez Dr. Marit Ursin Dr. Miguel Vicente Mariño i Summary of thesis While there is a substantial body of research with children in foster care in Spain, there is little that concerns their perspectives on the concept of ‘family’. This mirrors a general trend in research involving foster children, which frequently overlooks wider sociological perspectives related to family and intimate life. This study aims to address these gaps by exploring how children and youth in long-term non-kinship foster care in Spain define and experience the concept of family, utilising contemporary family sociology perspectives as a guiding research paradigm and conceptual framework. The study employs a multi-method qualitative approach involving 14 children and youth (seven boys and seven girls) aged 10 to 22. This PhD thesis includes three peer-reviewed journal Articles. The first Article offers a comprehensive systematic qualitative synthesis review of existing international literature on the concept of family as understood by children and youth in foster care. The second Article explores how foster children and youth perceive and ‘do’ family in Spain, while the third Article investigates how birth mothers are perceived among children in foster care. The study reveals that the definition of family is primarily based on (1) blood ties (discourse and genetics), (2) emotions, and (3) doing and displaying family. For many foster children in Spain, the family concept focusing on blood ties becomes deconstructed in the absence of support and regular contact. Emotional and practical support is positioned as superior to family, defined through blood ties. These definitions were shaped by a variety of factors, including reciprocal love, care, support, security, predictability, everyday family practices in foster families, and children’s past and current experiences in both foster and birth families. ii Resumen de la tesis Aunque son más frecuentes las investigaciones sobre niños en acogimiento familiar en España, poco se sabe de las percepciones que estos tienen sobre el concepto de ‘familia’. Esto refleja una tendencia general en los estudios relacionados con estos niños: la mayoría de las veces no tienen en cuenta amplias perspectivas sociológicas relacionadas con la familia, ni las relativas a las situaciones entre diferentes personas. Este estudio pretende abordar estas lagunas explorando cómo los niños y jóvenes en acogimiento familiar ajeno de larga duración en España entienden y viven el concepto de familia. Para ello se tendrá en cuenta la perspectiva de la sociología de la familia contemporánea como paradigma de investigación y como marco conceptual. El estudio emplea un enfoque cualitativo multi-método con 14 niños y jóvenes (siete chicos y siete chicas) de edades comprendidas entre los 10 y los 22 años. Esta tesis doctoral incluye tres artículos de revistas revisión por pares. El primer artículo ofrece una amplia revisión sistemática de síntesis cualitativa de la literatura internacional existente sobre el concepto de familia, según es entendido por los niños y jóvenes en acogimiento familiar. El segundo, explora cómo los niños y jóvenes en acogida perciben y ‘hacen’ familia en España; y el tercero, explora cómo las madres biológicas son percibidas por los niños que viven en esta situación. Los resultados de este estudio revelan que la definición de familia se basa en (1) los lazos de sangre (discurso y genética), (2) las emociones, y (3) el ‘hacer’ y ‘mostrar parentesco’. Para la mayoría de los niños acogidos en España, los lazos de sangre como fundamento del concepto de familia pierde importancia en ausencia de apoyo y contacto regular. El apoyo emocional y práctico se posiciona como rasgo superior al de la familia definida a través de lazos de sangre. Estas definiciones estaban determinadas por diversos factores, como el amor recíproco, el cuidado, el apoyo, la seguridad, la predictibilidad, las actividades cotidianas en las familias de acogida y las experiencias pasadas y presentes de los niños, tanto en las familias de acogida como en las biológicas. iii Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to the following individuals and organisations who have played a significant role in my PhD journey: First and foremost, my heartfelt appreciation to my supervisors: Professor Almudena Moreno Mínguez, Professor Marit Ursin, and Professor Miguel Vicente Mariño. Almudena, thank you for the intellectual freedom you have granted me throughout my research and the opportunity to explore my chosen topic with autonomy and independence. Marit, your immense knowledge, considered feedback, relentless encouragement, and support were key to the successful completion of this thesis. I am truly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work under your expert guidance and benefit from your mentorship. Miguel, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your mentorship, for reading my work, and for the hours you sat with me when I struggled. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the 14 children and youth who generously gave their time to participate in this study. Their willingness to share their views and experiences was remarkable, and I hope I have done justice to their voices. Thank you to the European Social Fund for funding this project, and to Castilla y Léon child protection services and the regional Red Cross for their assistance and collaboration. My sincere gratitude to Professor Ingunn T. Ellingsen for her influential article and the inspiration it has provided for my research in a different context. Thank you for your kindness, for making me giggle, and for the opportunity to learn from your expertise. To my colleagues at the Department of Sociology and Social Work for being supportive, when I joined as a member of staff during the PhD process. Thank you to the research groups WorldViews, and Critical Childhood and Youth at the Department of Education and Lifelong Learning. Their inclusive and stimulating work environment has made my research stay in Norway a wonderful time. Special thanks to Professor Ingunn Dahler Hybersten for opening your home for me and my daughter during our stay in Norway, and making us feel like part of your extended family. This experience will be cherished for a lifetime. To my incredible family and friends, cheers to you all for venturing into the academic realm and reading my work, and helping me reach the finish line with a smile on my face. You iv might not understand my research, but your unwavering support and willingness to listen to my ramblings, and reading my work mean the world to me. To Professor Sarah Richards and Professor Ingunn Studsrød, I thank you for your time, expertise, and constructive feedback, which greatly contributed to the enhancement of this thesis. Your valuable input played a significant role in shaping the final version of this work. Finally, thank you to my daughter Emilia, who was born during the PhD journey. You bring me so much joy and contentment that I never knew possible. Your presence in my life has enriched my PhD journey and reminded me of the importance of balance and resilience. This one is for you. v List of publications The thesis is based on the following publications: Article I: Ie, J., Ursin, M., & Vicente-Marino, M. (2022). Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Children and Youth Services Review, 132, 106337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106337 Article II: Ie, J. (2022). The concept of family: perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 28(2), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12980 Article III: Ie, J. & Ellingsen I.T. (2023). “You’ve to got to love her” – Perceptions of birth mothers among children in long-term foster care. Child & Family Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13071 v Table of contents Summary of thesis…………………………………………………………………………….i Resumen de la tesis…………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….iii List of publications…………………………………………………………………………..v Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………….vi CHAPTER ONE: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Why this study?...............................................................................................................1 1.3 Background to the study…………………………………………………………..........2 1.3.1 Foster care research in Spain……………………………………………………..4 1.4 Introducing the theoretical framework from family sociology………………………...5 1.5 Rational for the study……………………………………………………………..........5 1.6 The current study…………………………………………………………………….....6 1.7 Aims, objectives, and main research questions………………………………………...6 1.8 Overview of approach: PhD by publication…………………………………………....7 1.9 Definition of some key terms……………………………………………………..........8 2.0 Thesis outline…………………………………………………………………………..9 CHAPTER TWO: Research context……………………………………………………....10 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...10 2.2 Country and demographic profile…………………………………………………….10 2.3 The Spanish welfare state, and the changing political and social context of the family………………………………………………………………………………….12 2.4 The context of child welfare system in Spain………………………………………..14 2.5 The Spanish context of children’s rights and foster care……………….…….………15 CHAPTER THREE: Theoretical and conceptual discussion……………………………18 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...18 3.2 Family studies………………………………………………………………………...18 3.2.1 Social construction of family…………………………………………………..19 3.2.2 Theoretical perspectives on family……..............................................................20 3.2.3 Contemporary theorisations on family…………………………………………21 3.2.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………………22 vi 3.3 Theorising childhood, children, and agency………………………………………......23 3.3.1 The agentic child as a relational being of interpersonal interaction……………..25 3.4 Bridging the gap between contemporary family sociology and childhood studies………………………………………………………………………………….27 CHAPTER FOUR: Methodology………………………………………………………….29 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...29 4.2 Justification for a mixed-method qualitative design……………………………….....29 4.3 A comment on study sample……………………………………………………….....31 4.4 Gaining access to research participants ………………………………………………32 4.5 Methods of obtaining empirical data………………………………………………….33 4.5.1 Systematic review……………………………………………………………......34 4.5.2 The search strategy……………………………………………………………....35 4.5.3 Methods of data collection………………………………………………………35 4.5.3.1 Photos……………………………………………………………………37 4.5.3.2 Drawings………………………………………………………………...38 4.5.3.3 Social networks map…………………………………………………….40 4.5.3.4 Recall…………………………………………………………………….42 4.5.3.5 Semi-structured interviews………………………………………………43 4.5.3.6 Reflection on methods of data collection………………………………..45 4.6 Data analysis, transcription and translation……………………………………….......46 4.7 Methodological considerations………………………………………………………..47 4.7.1 Trustworthiness of the research………………………………………………….47 4.7.2 Positionality……………………………………………………………………...49 4.8 Ethical considerations……………………………………………………………........50 4.8.1 An ethical dilemma………………………………………………………………52 CHAPTER FIVE: Synthesis of articles…………………………………………………....54 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...54 5.2 Summary of articles…………………………………………………………………...54 5.2.1 Article I: Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis………………………………………………………………………………..54 5.2.2 Article II: The concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care……………………………………………………………………………..55 vii 5.2.3 Article III: “You’ve to got to love her” – Perceptions of birth mothers among children in long-term foster care……………………………………………….56 5.3 Overarching themes identified across the articles ……………………………………56 5.3.1 Blood ties (discourse and genetics)……………………………………………...58 5.3.2 Emotional dimension…………………………………………………………….60 5.3.3 Doing and displaying family……………………………………………………..62 5.4 Relevance of study beyond long-term non-kinship foster care……………………….63 5.5 Strengths and limitations of the study………………………………………………...64 5.6 Implications of study findings for policy and practice ……………………………….65 5.7 Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………………...67 References…………………………………………………………………………………...69 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………..89 Appendix 1 – Article I…………………………………………………………………….89 Appendix 2 – Article II……………………………………………………………………99 Appendix 3 – Article III…………………………………………………………………111 Appendix 4 – Ethical approval from Ethics Committee University of Valladolid……...130 Appendix 5 – Invitation letter for children………………………………………………131 Appendix 6 – Participant informed consent……………………………………………..132 Appendix 7 – Gatekeeper informed consent…………………………………………….135 Appendix 8 – Interview guide…………………………………………………………...138 List of Figures Figure 1. Maps of Spain…………………………………………………………………..11 Figure 2. Examples of participants’ family map drawings………………………………..38 Figure 3. The social network map used in this study……………………………………..41 Figure 4. ‘My week’ recall activity……………………………………………………….42 Figure 5. Origami…………………………………………………………………………52 List of Tables Table 1. Overview of articles included in this dissertation………………………………...8 Table 2. Overview of participants’ gender, age, and involvement in research tools……...36 Table 3. Themes identified across each individual articles article……………………….57 7 1. To explore how family is conceptualised among non-kinship foster children and young people in Spain, using a qualitative mixed-method approach. 2. To ascertain how contemporary concepts of family sociology can enhance our understanding of the ways in which non-kinship foster children and young people in Spain conceptualise and experience family. Based on the study aims and objectives above, this study seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What does international research say about the perspectives of foster children and young people on the concept of ‘family’? (Article I) 2. How do foster children and young people in non-kinship care perceive and ‘do’ family in Spain? (Article II) 3. Who counts as ‘family’ for children and young people in non-kinship care in Spain and why? (Articles II & III). 1.8 Overview of approach: PhD by publication This PhD has been completed ‘by publication’. Accordingly, this dissertation is structured around three interconnected Articles. The first Article was co-authored with my supervisors Professor Marit Ursin (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) and Professor Miguel Vicente Mariño (University of Valladolid). The second was single-authored, and the third was co-authored with Professor Ingunn T. Ellingsen (University of Stavanger). I identified the focus of each paper. When the first Article was at an advanced stage of development, my supervisors provided key feedback and guidance. For the second Article, I worked more independently from conception to publication. Article I relies on secondary data and presents a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis of previous studies on foster children’s views of family. Articles II and III rely on original empirical data gathered through photos, drawings, social network maps, recall, and semi-structured interviews with children and young people in foster care in Spain. Table 1 below provides an overview of the Articles. 8 Table 1 Overview of articles included in this thesis Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article title Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis The concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care “You’ve to got to love her” – Perceptions of birth mothers among children in long-term foster care Author(s) Judite Ie, Marit Ursin & Miguel Vicente-Mariño Judite Ie Judite Ie & Ingunn T. Ellingsen Research question 1 2 & 3 3 Methodology Systematic literature review and qualitative evidence synthesis Mixed method qualitative design approach Explorative study Journal Children and Youth Services Review Child & Family Social Work Child & Family Social Work Publication dates Available online December 2021 November 2022 July 2023 1.9 Definition of some key terms This thesis focuses on children and young people in long-term non-kinship foster care aged between 10 and 22. Children refers to participants aged 13 to 17, according to the UNCRC (1989). Young people refer to participants aged 15 to 24, according to the United Nations. In this study, I use the terms ‘children’ and ‘young people’ or ‘youth’ interchangeably. 9 Foster care (also known as out-of-home care) is an arrangement where adults provide for the care of children and young people in their families on behalf of social services (Spanish Law 26/2015). Long-term foster care refers to situations where the family accepts children and young people for permanent care and upbringing. Non-kinship foster care refers to situations where a family unknown to the child or young person is recruited through social services. 2.0 Thesis outline The remainder of this dissertation is organised into five chapters. Chapter Two provides cogent background information on the underlying political and sociocultural processes that shape foster children and young people’s conceptualisation of family and family life. It draws specific reference to characteristics of Spanish welfare systems, the organisation of foster care in the country, and the situation of foster children and young people in Spain. Chapter Three presents the theoretical and conceptual debates that this study draws on. It reviews and discusses existing literature on family sociology and childhood studies. The chapter highlights the existing disconnection between family and childhood studies and acknowledges gaps in knowledge and the contributions of this study. Chapter Four presents the methodology and methods utilised in the study. It introduces a multi-method qualitative research design as a choice for data collection and discusses specific issues that arise when conducting qualitative research with foster children and young people in Spain. Chapter Five introduces and provides a comprehensive, integrative discussion of the three Articles that form the basis of this PhD. It also discusses implications for policy, practice, and recommendations for future research. 10 CHAPTER TWO Research context 2.1 Introduction To understand the views about ‘family’ held by children and young people in foster care, it is necessary to provide information on some underlying characteristics of the Spanish welfare systems, which serve as a contextual background for this dissertation. This chapter establishes the context relevant to the main aim of the study: exploring the conceptualisation of family among foster children and young people in non-kinship care in Spain. This chapter is divided into five sections. After the introduction, Section 2.2 provides a brief country and demographic profile. Section 2.3 describes the Spanish welfare system and the changing political and social context of the family, which provide a background to understand how family relationships are shaped. Section 2.4 introduces the child welfare system in Spain, particularly referencing child protection policies and the initiation of foster care as a protective measure. Section 2.5 offers an overview of some aspects concerning foster care in the Spanish child welfare system. 2.2 Country and demographic profile Spain, or the Kingdom of Spain, is a southwestern European country mostly located on the Iberian Peninsula, bordered by Portugal to the west, France and Andorra to the north, and Gibraltar to the south. Its territory also includes the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean, the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean Sea, and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla, the so-called Plazas de Soberanía [Places of Sovereignty] in North Africa. Spain is a multilingual country; its 1978 constitution stipulates that while Spanish is the only official language for the country as a whole, it also recognises the right of regional languages (Basque, Catalan, and Galician) to be co-official in their autonomous regions (Balearic Islands, Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Navarre, and Valencian Community). Figure 1 below shows maps of Spain. The left map shows the location of Spain (dark green) within the European Union (light green), and the right map highlights the 17 autonomous regions. The large green circle on this map indicates the autonomous region of Castilla y León, where this study was conducted. Castilla y León comprises nine provinces: Léon, Zamora, Salamanca, Ávila, Burgos, Palencia, Segovia, Soria, and Valladolid. 11 Figure 1 Maps of Spain Source : Wikipedia Source: A world of dresses website Spain has the lowest total fertility rate among EU countries, and many families are becoming smaller (OECD, 2021). In 2020, there were approximately 47.3 million inhabitants in Spain (National Statistical Institute, 2020a). Of these, 5.1 per cent (2.4 million) resided in the Castilla y León region (National Statistical Institute, 2020b). While the ‘traditional’ nuclear family has declined over time due to a decrease in marriage and an increase in cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, divorce, remarriage, and extra-marital fertility (Lesthaeghe, 2010), it still remains the dominant family model in Spain. In 2020, there were approximately 18.7 million households housing 46.8 million people. Over 33 per cent of children under the age of 25 were living with both parents, and 10 per cent were with a single parent (National Statistical Institute, 2020a). Spaniards often perform similarly to or better than the OECD in work-life balance, health, social connections, and safety. However, a significant part of the population struggles with income scarcity and the risk of poverty, unemployment, and high housing prices (OECD, 2020). This is particularly true among families with children (Moreno-Mínguez, 2017), which tend to be more vulnerable than other population groups. According to the Spanish Office of the High Commissioner against Child Poverty, available data indicates that in 2020, an estimated 27.4 per cent of children under the age of 18 were considered poor (Gobierno de España, 2021). Cases of suspected child abuse are also on the increase, with 37.18 per cent of reported neglect, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse cases involving girls (Observatorio de la Infancia, 2021). 12 2.3 The Spanish welfare state and the changing political and social context of the family To understand the current Spanish welfare state and the role of the family, we must go back to the dictatorship of General Franco. The Franco dictatorship was established following the victory in the Spanish civil war (1936-1939) and lasted nearly 40 years (1939-1975). During this time, the family was profoundly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church doctrine and La Falange (Spain’s fascist party). Religious traditions and conservative ideologies privileged and promoted the ‘traditional’ nuclear family structure with a male breadwinner and a housewife. Parents and children were united by indissoluble ties under the patriarchal authority of the husband and father, while the wife and mother were confined to the home to give birth and care for the children (Meil-Landwerlin, 1995, 2006; Miret-Gamundi, 2000; Sanchez & Hall, 1999). Women working outside the home were perceived as a threat to the stability of the marriage and the family (Meil-Landwerlin, 1995). The male breadwinner family model was accepted among Spanish citizens, politically supported by institutions (Moreno-Mínguez et al., 2017), and reproduced through family policies during the Franco regime (de Ussel & Meil-Landwerlin, 2001). Family allowances (subsidio familiar) were introduced to encourage women to return from work to their families and assume responsibility for caring for their children and husbands. This family benefit was a monthly cash payment to employees as a complement to their incomes and depended on the number of children under the age of 14 (Valiente, 1996). Family policies were anti-feminist and pro-natalist (Valiente, 1996), and the fertility rate was high at the time due to restrictions on contraception (McQuillan, 2004). During the 1960s, the diffusion of post-materialism norms and values, which emphasise selffulfilment, along with shifting attitudes toward family, marriage, and parenthood, contributed to dramatic changes in family formation (Lesthaeghe, 2010). At the end of Franco’s dictatorship, marriage and divorce laws were liberalised, gender roles became more egalitarian, and ‘non-traditional’ family forms gained wider acceptance (Ayuso, 2019a,b; Flaquer & Garriga, 2009). After nearly four decades of the Franco dictatorship supporting the male breadwinner model and using legal provisions to reinforce traditional family relationships, successive democratic governments have prioritised other social problems, downplaying the importance of family economics as a means of social protection (Meil- 13 Landwerlin, 2006). This lack of attention can be attributed to the strong cultural expectations about the roles and responsibilities of families in caring for their members (ibid). Following the Constitution of 1978, the provision and implementation of welfare policies in Spain are decentralised. Basic social security exclusively belongs to the state (Article 149 no.1, xvii), whereas individual social assistance remains a regional policy area (Article 148 no. 1, xx). However, each region is obligated to ensure the protection of the family and children under the Spanish Constitution (Article 39, no. 1-4). In the autonomous region of Castilla y León, where this study took place, the Act 1/2007, 7.3.2007 (BOE no.76) is the legal instrument for the support of families. Although local authorities operate under the regulatory framework provided by the state or regional governments, they have the power to develop certain policies, such as children and youth services. Esping-Andersen’s (1990) influential Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, which describes how different welfare states (liberal, conservative, and social democratic regimes) support individuals’ reliance on labour markets, has been criticised for ignoring the distinctive characteristics of welfare systems in the Mediterranean countries (Ferrera, 1996). For instance, his typology did not include countries such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain, while Italy was grouped among the conservative regimes. Others also argued that his typology has a limited focus on the role of the family and women (O’Connor, 1993; Pérez-Caramés, 2014). Hantrais (2004) provides an alternative typology and arranges countries into four different welfare regimes, reflecting de-familiarized, partially de-familiarized, familiarized, and refamilialized states. These types of welfare states focus on different ways of balancing state and family responsibility. Spain has been identified as representing a familiarized welfare state regime, where state involvement is limited and welfare responsibility rests more on families themselves, compared, for example, with Norway (de-familiarized). The role of the family and women in the provision of family services has been privately assumed as a guarantee of stability and the functioning of familiarized welfare states (Moreno-Mínguez, 2007). 14 2.4 The context of child welfare system in Spain Until the 1980s, the Spanish child welfare system was based on a charity model in which large residential institutions run by religious orders were the only response when it was necessary to separate children from their families (del Valle, Bravo & López-López, 2009). Following the Spanish Constitution of 1978, democracy was restored and the contemporary child welfare system was founded on social services characterised by territorial decentralisation. Correspondingly, Spain was divided administratively into 17 autonomous regions, each with their own government, parliament, and array of different powers (Kosher et al., 2018). In 1987, state legislation on child welfare, Law 21/1987 of the Civil Procedure in Relation to Adoption and Other Forms of Child Protection (21/1987 Reforma del Código Civil y de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil en Materia de Adopción y de Otras Formas de Protección de Menores) was passed, giving regions and municipalities responsibility for child protection services. The legislation aimed to establish a community approach to intervention with families, to enhance child welfare workers’ ability to detect cases of severe and non-severe abuse, and to ensure that children and young people are being cared for in a family environment rather than being institutionalised. Foster care was introduced for the first time in Spain’s Civil Code, simultaneously establishing adoption processes as a protective measure. Although foster care was already present in Spanish society as an informal social practice, the legislation facilitated and recommended its use as a preferential protective measure for out-of-home care placements (del Valle et al., 2009). A 2015 state-level legislation reform of the Organic Law 1/1996 (Ley Orgánica 1/1996 de Protección Jurídica del Menor) sought to modify the child and adolescent system at the national level and unify the definitions and criteria used by the different autonomous regions, starting from the premise that foster care should be preferred to residential care (Law 26/2015). The reform reflects the desire to introduce common criteria regarding the definition of risk situations and the more serious cases of abuse or neglect. Only the latter leads to a child’s separation from his or her birth parents. The legislation states that children under the age of six must be placed in foster care unless it is proven that this alternative is not viable. The national administrative body responsible for child protection is the Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality, and Law 14/2002 (Ley 14/2002 de Promoción, Atención y Protección a la Infancia) regulates child protection in the autonomous region of Castilla y León. 15 2.5 The Spanish context of children’s rights and foster care In the last three decades, growing attention has been given to the rights of children, and their legal status as individuals in their own right has been strengthened in Spain as in many other countries (Alanen, 2010; Massons-Ribas et al., 2021). The UNCRC, adopted in 1989, has been of great importance in this development. The UNCRC (1989) views children as human beings with the rights to participation, autonomy, and self-determination. For example, Article 12 gives children the right to participate in decisions that concern them. Similarly, Articles 13 and 5 focus on, respectively, the right of children to be heard and their right to proper guidance in accordance with their ‘evolving capacity’ (UNCRC, 1989). Changes in Spanish law concerning out-of-home care have been made in line with the UNCRC. The right of foster children and young people to be heard in all matters concerning them has been stipulated in Spanish law in 2015 (Organic Law 26/2015), as has the regulation about serving ‘the best interest of the child’, which means that the implementation of children’s rights has been slow, unlike in Norway, for example, where it began in 1953 (Lov om barnevern av 1953). In 2019, approximately 18 per cent of the Spanish population were children under the age of 18 (National Institute of Statistics, 2019). Among these, 0.5 per cent (42,529) were in out-of- home care as of 31 December 2019. Residential care comprised 55 per cent (23,209) of these cases. Kinship foster care was the most common placement option at 29 per cent (12,600), and non-kinship foster care accounted for about 16 per cent (6,720). The predominance of kinship foster care placement may be due to Spanish cultural values, which place significant emphasis on family ties (Massons-Ribas et al., 2021, p. 4). Of these 19,320 foster care placements, 90 per cent were ethnically Spanish, and children under the age of 15 represented 81 per cent of foster care placements (15,574). Boys accounted for 51 per cent of placements (Observatorio de la Infancia, 2020). The placement of a child in foster care occurs through an administrative order. If the birth parents oppose, the placement occurs through a judicial order. López-López et al. (2010) found that children enter foster care in Spain due to a diverse range of birth parents’ experiences, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, parental imprisonment, mental health problems, and in the case of birth mothers, prostitution. Foster care placement can be for (1) emergency, where the child can stay with the foster family for up to 6 months, (2) temporary 16 – up to 2 years, and (3) long-term – up to legal age, with the goal of creating permanence. This placement can be extended beyond the age of 18. If birth parents are unable to care for their child, there is a possibility to apply for temporary care of the child. In addition, public authorities act as the legal guardians of children placed in foster care and only permanent foster parents may be judicially granted full parental responsibility. Foster parents in Spain often consist of a mother, a father, and their biological children, and generally have a higher level of schooling compared with foster parents in Portugal (López-López et al., 2014). Furthermore, foster parents can be remunerated and compensated for the costs of raising foster children. Law 26/2015, in accordance with the Spanish Civil Code, pays considerable attention to the biological bond between foster children and their birth families. Children are expected or encouraged to have regular contact with their birth families during placements (Law 26/2015 Article 20 no. 2) unless safety reasons advise against it. Furthermore, the legislation prescribes temporary foster care placements with the aim of reuniting the child with his or her birth family. However, the rate of family reunification in Spain is less than 20 per cent of children in foster care cases, which means that more than 80 per cent of children do not return to their birth families before they reach the age of 18 (Observatorio de la Infancia, 2020). Parental visits are regarded as an important predictor of family reunification in non-kinship foster care placements (Bernedo et al., 2016; López et al., 2013). López-López et al. (2011) reported that children in kinship foster care experienced greater placement stability than children in non-kinship foster care, and outcomes were more favourable for children in kinship foster care with regard to behavioural problems, academic performance, and well-being. Over a period of six years, non-kinship foster parents requested a change in fostering arrangements in approximately 42 per cent of cases (Bernedo et al., 2016). Children in non-kinship foster care seem to have experienced more cumulative adversity than children in kinship foster care placements (Montserrat et al., 2020; Palacios & Jiménez, 2009). Data from Catalonia and the Balearic Islands between 2008 and 2018 from 1,255 cases of non-kinship foster care placements showed that the rate of placement breakdown was greater in temporary foster care (34%) compared to long-term foster care (29%), with no differences found regarding the sex of the child ending the placement (Montserrat et al., 2020). The placement of older children is an important risk factor for placement stability (Bernedo et al., 2016). Furthermore, having previously been in residential 23 developmental psychology and the general absence of children and young people’s views. To my knowledge, no empirical study in Spanish literature has applied these concepts to explore the meanings and practices of family in foster care. This thesis addresses this gap. 3.3 Theorising childhood, children, and agency Childhood, as a distinct human category, can be traced back to the end of the fifteenth century (Brockliss & Montgomery, 2013). However, its understanding is socially and culturally contextualised, with no universal validity. Some scholars focus on the natural and biological fixed categories and explore how these are challenged globally (Abebe, 2019; Hammersley, 2017). In contemporary Western societies, it is commonly assumed that childhood should be a happy “time devoted to play and learning rather than work” (Ansell, 2017, p. 15), and children are viewed as an emotional investment (Zelizer, 1994). Historically, the conceptualisation of childhood was influenced by the development of compulsory schooling and the belief that children and young people should be sheltered from adult concerns regarding sexuality and work (Brockliss & Montgomery, 2013). In the early nineteenth century, the upper classes began to perceive childhood as a distinct category from adulthood because families had the time and money to keep their children from social and economic responsibilities. When the ideal of childhood was normalised, child labour became illegal, and mass schooling was popularised, childhood came to be distinguished from adulthood even among the lower classes, and the social, historical, and political role and position of children and childhood in society and research was strengthened (Ariés, 1962). The new social studies of children and childhood emerged in the 1980s as a counter-paradigm to dominant theories of children and childhood in developmental psychology and family sociology (Prout & James, 1990; Tidsdall & Punch, 2012). Influential theories in developmental psychology, such as those of Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson, depicted childhood as a set of universal stages where the successful completion of one stage forms the basis for the next one (Walkerdine, 1993). Hence, children were viewed not so much as ‘human beings’ (complete, stable, rational, and competent individuals) but as ‘human becomings’ (changeable, incomplete, and incompetent individuals) (Qvortrup, 2002). 24 In family sociology, children were seen as born completely ignorant of social values, and growing up was a process in which they gradually learnt about and internalised social conventions to become full members of their culture and society (Gallacher & Kehily, 2013). Both psychology and sociology view children as biologically and socially incomplete at birth, exploring the processes through which they develop and are socialised into fully formed adults (Gallacher & Kehily, 2013). However, it’s noteworthy that developmental psychology had voiced concerns about the role and place of children and childhood in research (Qvortrup et al., 2011). The new social studies of children and childhood, joined by anthropology, history, education, law, and social work, among others, became the interdisciplinary field that has come to be known as childhood studies (Canosa & Graham, 2020; Hammersley, 2017; Tisdall & Punch, 2012). The interdisciplinary field of childhood studies was highly critical of developmental and socialisation theories, which viewed children as passive recipients of adult influence and dependent on the private family (Mayall, 2002; Qvortrup, 1993). Instead of ‘being socialised’, researchers in childhood studies have called attention to how children actively and independently construct their own lives (Prout & James, 1990). They argued that children should be given a voice in research, seeing them as their own right; for what they are here and now, not as apprentices of their families, and not what they will become. This has led to a body of literature that tends to offer explanations about children rather than of children (James et al., 1998; Prout & James, 1990). As Sutterlüty and Tisdall (2019) note, children’s voices “should be heard and not only spoken for by their parents or concerned professionals” (p. 183). By taking children seriously and listening to their voices, researchers in childhood studies have demonstrated the diversity of ways in which children actively influence their own and other people’s lives and well-being (e.g., Corsaro, 2003, 2005; Christiansen et al., 2006). The theories developed within the new social studies of children and childhood, focusing on children’s agency, independence, and voices, have become greatly influential in childhood studies (Tisdall & Punch, 2012). However, early critiques of the new social studies of children and childhood addressed a key concept - that being agency, with children viewed as social actors who are rational and autonomous individuals (Lee, 1998). Mayall (2002) observed differences in meaning between actor and agent: 25 A social actor does something, perhaps something arising out of a subjective wish. The term agent suggests a further dimension: negotiation with others, with the effect that the interaction makes a difference – to a relationship or to a decision, to the working of a set of social assumptions or constraints (Mayall, 2002, p. 21). Some scholars have argued that agency should be understood as something more than a question of whether children produce change. Agency is – much accomplished in the reproduction of social situations, in children’s contributions to the continuous ordering of interactions […] A notion of agency which is centred on the idea of children’s visible impact devalues this permanent contribution (Bühler-Niederberger & Schwittek, 2014, p. 506). In childhood studies, there is a consensus that children are often portrayed as competent, active, and meaning makers - words carrying connotations of determination and power, which aligns well with the intention of childhood studies in terms of how children are viewed and perceived. However, there has been concern that the concept of agency is largely unexamined (Mizen & Ofusu-Kisi, 2013; Tisdall & Punch, 2012). This can be linked to the dichotomous construction of children as either autonomous and competent or vulnerable and dependent, requiring protection (Kjørholt, 2004). Some scholars who have problematised agency point to the potential loss of focus on the importance and role of imposed structure and how these affect children (e.g., Benwell, 2013; Tisdall & Punch, 2012). Others suggest a strong emphasis on structural factors, where personal agency largely depends on and is regulated by family contexts and interpersonal relationships (Abebe, 2019; Punch, 2016; Plows, 2012). 3.3.1 The agentic child as a relational being of interpersonal interactions Recent approaches to the theorisation of agency critically discussed how dominant ideas of agency and independence have overshadowed states of vulnerability and dependency, as well as the relational, contextual, gender regimes, and embodied processes in which children and young people’s agency unfolds (Burkitt, 2016; Lee, 2019; Reader, 2007; Tisdall, 2016). Such understanding underlines that the notion of agency cannot be detached from the social world 26 and relationships (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), and that agency is socially produced and culturally constructed (Raithelhuber, 2016). Drawing on sociology, an agency in this thesis is understood as the interdependency of lives embedded in larger social structures and institutions and, therefore, subject to the norms and values therein (Landes & Settersten, 2019). The concept of agency within a structure (Landes & Settersten, 2019) reminds us that there is often some degree of individual choice, even in situations where agency is bound and that this choice is influenced by significant others with whom our lives are linked. In Landes and Settersten’s (2019) understanding, social relationships and structural contexts can promote or restrict agency, and the level of restriction depends on how much power an individual holds in society. Agency can thus not be conceptualised as absolute power but must be understood as a matter of active engagement and resistance to more subtle forms of negotiation, backstage influence, and even endurance, depending on the recognition of and support for their contributions, whether material, financial, or social (Reader, 2007). As Landes and Settersten (2019) explain, linked lives can also bound human agency. In instances where individuals are dependent on support or care from others – a characteristic of the human condition that is universal but more obvious in familiarised welfare states and particularly in the lives of many foster children and young people – the ability to engage in agentic family relationships is directly related to the quality of these relationships (Ie, 2022; Ie & Ellingsen, 2023). Within the family context, researchers have explored the interdependence of individuals’ agency and the contexts of shared meanings (Boden-Stuart et al., 2021; Lee, 2019; Finch & Mason, 1993). These studies not only see children’s agency as relational but also constituted in social contexts and negotiated through social interactions with adults (Abebe, 2019). For children in foster care, their entire context, such as family, community, and friends, can change through the placement, something that may (dis-)qualify their agency (Hammersley, 2017)? That is, the capacity of foster children to construct their own meaning of family is dependent on their daily circumstances with individuals in their everyday lives, in which these individuals can either constrain or expand their agentic capability (Abebe, 2019). 27 3.4 Bridging the gap between contemporary family sociology and childhood Studies A recent scoping review has shown that while childhood studies is a widely accepted variable of social analysis, it remains on the margins of other fields such as family sociology and social work (Canosa & Graham, 2019). Graham (2011) argues that social work has been slow to engage with childhood studies and is still very much based on models of childhood that emerged from psychology, for example, the child development framework, which operates within a ‘deficit paradigm’. Holland and Crowley (2013) explore the collaborations that can be developed between contemporary family sociology and childhood studies to enhance our understanding of the family life of foster children and young people, as both fields prioritise children’s voices and perspectives. In this section, I highlight the existing disconnection between family sociology and childhood studies and show how my study attempts to bring the two together. Early work in family sociology around the mid-twentieth century presented the family as a static institution, and a bound unit with a defined purpose, most commonly that of children (Parsons, 1951; Parsons & Bales, 1955). Parsons’ approach is typical within the field of family sociology in that definitions of family are restricted to the ‘nuclear family’, where adults take the primary role in the socialisation of children, and men and women play distinct and complementary roles (Parsons, 1951). Men were ‘designed’ to provide sustenance, working away from home as necessary, and women to stay at home to fulfil their biological role of bearing and caring for children and be a domestic support for the male worker (Parsons & Bales, 1955, p. 23). This hegemonic ordering of social relations provoked feminist analyses to argue that reducing family relations into functions and roles artificially perpetuates the oppression of women (Gittins, 1993; Thorn, 1992), and the powerlessness of children (Gittins, 1993). According to Jenks (2009), children were viewed as products constituted through the society in which they find themselves. Children were seen as apprentices of their families or as future adults, and childhood as a construct, which positioned children as valuable only in their becoming rather than as social actors with agency (Prout & James, 1990). Perceiving parents and carers as primary informants about family relationships and viewing children as lacking cognitive skills to express their feelings and emotions concerning events in their family lives should be avoided. Hence, in this study, the concept of relational agency 28 is beneficial in understanding family life, as children (as all family members) draw upon family life and depend on these relations in their everyday lives. In some cases, family relations and life restrict their scope of agency, but in others, they enable and strengthen it (Ie & Ellingsen, forthcoming). On the one hand, this study considers aspects of the Spanish familiarised welfare regime that contextualises embodied family relationships of children and young people. On the other hand, it considers family expectations and responsibilities placed on children and the ways in which children and young people navigate those family expectations and responsibilities along with their individual agency. This is done by going beyond recognising children and young people’s individual agency to document their relational agency through their understanding and experience of family life that shapes their everyday experiences. Therefore, this study attempts to unravel the understanding of family and family relations within the context of contemporary childhood among children and youth in long-term non-kinship care in Spain. 29 CHAPTER FOUR Methodology 4.1 Introduction This chapter builds upon the short methodological discussions featured in each of the three journal Articles. It outlines the personal challenges I faced while conducting interviews to generate data and answer research questions. Heeding Punch’s (2010) call for increased awareness of personal challenges to enhance reflexivity and positionality of one’s work and to consider the role of emotions during research, this chapter discusses how these factors influenced the research design and methods applied. The interpretations and arguments presented in this thesis are value-laden, partial, situated, and socially embedded, reflecting my own positionality (Levitt et al., 2020). The remainder of this chapter is divided into six sections. Section 4.2 presents the rationale for the study’s qualitative and multi-method approach. In Section 4.3, I provide information about sampling. In Section 4.4, I discuss the process of gaining access to research participants. Section 4.5 presents the methods used for obtaining empirical data. In Section 4.6, I provide information on data analysis, transcription, and translation, and in Sections 4.7 and 4.8, I discuss methodological and ethical considerations, respectively. 4.2 Justification for a mixed-method qualitative design Changes in the conceptualisation of family and children/childhood (see Chapter Two) have necessitated a reconstruction of research practices and methodologies within family sociology and childhood studies. This section briefly reviews the development of different methodological approaches within both disciplines before presenting the methodology used for this study. Historically, scholars within family studies, starting with Parsons (1955, 1959), have debated the use of suitable approaches to explore children’s family relationships (Cummings et al., 2014; Gabb, 2010). Traditional family research, primarily employing quantitative measurement of relationships focusing on a specific relationship set (e.g., parent-child relations), has been criticised for not adequately representing individuals’ family experiences (Kosko & Warren, 2000; Wampler & Halverson, 2009). Critics argue that the emphasis on 30 generating quantitative results fails to capture the complexity of family life (Lippold & McNamee, 2014; Wampler & Halverson, 1993). The limited focus on children’s voices in quantitative research has also been deemed oppressive as it overlooks children’s rights and full participation in family life (Scott, 2000). The development of contemporary family research in the mid-1990s and its criticism of the functionalist approach generated a shift towards qualitative research practices that concentrate on the dynamic interactions and diversity of everyday family experiences (Gabb, 2010; Morgan, 1996; McKie & Callan, 2012). As Chapter Two demonstrated, the experiences of family and everyday family life are complex. According to Gabb (2010), qualitative approaches have the potential to explore and better understand complex family interactions in the lives of children. A mixed-method qualitative approach aims to generate an in-depth understanding of different contexts and forms of interaction in which family is constructed (Gabb, 2010; Ursin et al., 2017). It also seeks to facilitate empowering research relations for children (Berson et al., 2019). A foundational premise in the mixed-methods approach is that the researcher is not the sole expert in the knowledge production process (Berson et al., 2019). This approach can be particularly useful in social work research addressing complex understandings of family and family relationships (Ursin et al., 2017; Winter, 2010). This principle informed the research approach of this study in an attempt to foster dialogue with foster children and young people who have often experienced parental neglect, abuse, or maltreatment (Leloux-Opmeer et al., 2016; Lindquist & Santavirta, 2014). Research on children and young people has also witnessed an increased interest in methodologies that foreground their voices and highlight their role as competent social actors, mirroring the methodological shift within family studies (Berson et al., 2019; Hammersley, 2017; Punch, 2002). Within foster care research, Holland (2009) emphasised the need for mixed methodologies that enable young people’s individual accounts of their experiences. Common research methods include open-ended interviews, drawings, photographs, and videos, which are then used to gain insight into children’s lives and understand their experiences (Hammersley, 2017). Such methods respond to critiques of quantitative methodologies that are characterised by limited interaction between the researcher and the young people and a focus on ‘objectivity’ (Holland, 2009). 31 Researchers are increasingly using various qualitative research methods to explore the experiences of foster children and young people (Holland, 2009). Methodological debates within foster care research often revolve around allowing room for young people’s meaning construction and issues of positionality (Holland, 2009; Kiili & Moilanen, 2019). Using a variety of methods allows for consideration of the perspectives of children and young people in foster care and detailed understanding of their family experiences (Goodyer, 2016; Scofield et al., 2010). In the context of child welfare research with children at risk in Spain, Inchaurrondo et al. (2020) highlight the usefulness of mixed methods. It is important to conduct research with rather than on children and young people, ensuring that participants have the opportunity to express their own views on issues that affect them (ibid). Traditionally, research on foster care in Spain has been influenced by quantitative scholarship, primarily concerned with measuring aspects such as children’s and young people’s well-being related to placement type (e.g., kinship versus foster care) and trends in outcomes (del Valle et al., 2009). Holland (2009) asserts that quantitative approaches rarely provide opportunities to understand the lives of foster youth or explore the nuances in individual cases. In light of this, this study applied a multi-method qualitative approach to provide a rich account of different individual experiences and interpretations of family by foster children and youth in Spain. This approach was deemed the most suitable to address the study’s aim. It was particularly advantageous in understanding social-emotional phenomena such as feelings towards family members and how an individual’s experience of family depended on their subjectivity. 4.3 Comment on the study sample As is often the case in qualitative research, I identified an anticipated sample size before data collection (Young & Casey, 2018). This was necessary to secure ethical approval and plan the research project. Initially, I planned to conduct a study comprising young people with both ethnic majority and minority backgrounds in foster care in Spain. I aimed to capture the experiences of young people with ethnic minority backgrounds, given that existing research on foster care and family life often focuses on the views and experiences of young people with ethnic majority backgrounds. For this purpose, I targeted a sample of 28-32 participants. After familiarising myself with the literature and considering the initial focus and aim of the study, I deemed this to be a reasonable and achievable number that would enable me to 32 gather enough data to sufficiently answer the research questions guiding this study (Kuzel, 1992). By approaching a variety of foster care organisations in 14 autonomous regions, I had hoped to achieve this diversity in ethnicity, as the vast majority of children placed in foster care in Spain are from the ethnic majority (del Valle et al., 2009). However, due to slow communication and the Spanish national and regional government lockdown restrictions in response to Covid-19 in March 2020, I focused on the autonomous region of Castilla y Léon. While I initially hoped to recruit approximately 28 participants, I managed to recruit 14 participants. According to Terry and Braun (2011), between 15 and 30 interviews are common in research seeking to identify patterns and themes across data. However, there is generally little guidance regarding the minimum sample size needed to adequately identify the themes and codes in an area of inquiry (Young & Casey, 2018). After actively recruiting for five months between March and August 2021, I decided to end the recruitment for several reasons. First, I had reached a point of saturation where no new information was emerging (Low, 2019). Second, I felt the stories were diverse enough to produce meaningful findings (Young & Casey, 2018). Lastly, I needed to be mindful of the time I had available to conduct this study (Young & Casey, 2018). 4.4 Gaining access to research participants Gaining access to research participants presented several challenges and required both persistence and creative thinking. I attempted to contact the regional Red Cross via email and phone calls, and I even submitted a written application physically. Unfortunately, these efforts were not successful. This was a point of frustration but also an important lesson about the difficulty of gaining access to children in child protection services and navigating the research process. Accepting that I was venturing into uncharted waters, I found sharing my concerns and discussing with my supervisors to be helpful during this process. My supervisor, Professor Miguel Vicente-Mariño, provided me with a contact from his professional network, which I used to gain access to Castilla y León child protection authorities. From there, contact was made to access the regional Red Cross, which oversees child protection cases. Castilla y León authorities act as the legal guardian of children and young people in child protection services. Therefore, no contact was made with the children and young people’s biological families. 39 Once completed, they would identify each figure in the drawing, and I would note any additional information the participant shared. Drawings helped capture both practical and emotional relationships (Wissö et al., 2019), offering insights into why certain experiences take on specific forms, values, and understandings of what constitutes a family. Drawings facilitated a detailed understanding of children and young people’s relational experiences within the family (Cherney et al., 2006; Gernhardt et al., 2013). This method finds additional value in the foster care context where young people’s construction of family is presented as being complex (Wissö et al., 2019). In some cases, the family map was changed, which gave the participants more control over their form of expression. Drawings have been used to explore young children’s views and gain insight into their experiences since it is a popular method among many children (Punch, 2002). Some, however, noted that “[they were] very bad at drawing”, yet they insisted on drawing after being given an option to write names, as the following example demonstrates: Pilar: [Writing] the names is better; I draw very bad[ly]. Judite: Okay. Pilar: I don’t know how to draw [laughs]. From the left to the right: Me, [foster] daddy, [foster] mummy, [foster] little sister –Pilar (girl, aged 10) From the bottom to the top: My [foster] parents; [foster] cousins, uncles, grandparents, etc.; friends; psychologists and teachers – Beltrán (boy, aged 18) 40 Judite: You can write down the names instead of drawing. Pilar: I’ll write them down when I finish [drawing]. Punch (2002) argued that drawing might be popular with some children but not suitable for others, and researchers should not assume that just because they are children, they enjoy drawing. Some children may feel uncomfortable with their drawing skills, especially older ones. I was careful not to provide clear instructions about how these drawings should look to avoid directing the activity in a specific way. Instead, I asked participants to explain their drawings of family members afterwards. Eldén (2012) argues that drawings as a research tool have been underutilised in the sociology of family research, which has primarily focused on family relations within the nuclear family. Drawings allow children to articulate complex thoughts, challenging their understanding of family and family relationships beyond the nuclear family. Perceptions and experiences of family vary by gender, social class, ethnicity, and age (Chambers, 2012; Morris et al., 2008; Morrow, 1998). Individual perceptions of family are shaped by experiences and cultural understandings. Therefore, drawings help to recognise that children and young people’s construction of family in long-term foster care are socioculturally related (Ie, 2022). Drawings have also been used in social work research to explore children’s sense of family belonging in long-term foster care, shedding light on their feelings towards key people in their lives (Biehal, 2014). 4.5.3.3 Social network map A social network map provided an initial visual tool for evaluating the strength and quality of participants’ relationships with, among others, members of their foster and birth, friends, romantic partners, teachers, and social workers. The map was pre-planned and divided into seven different parts: immediate family, family of origin, family of choice, friends, social contacts, neighbours, and diverse acquaintances (see Figure 3). 41 Figure 3 The social network map used in this study Participants were asked to write the names of people they considered important to them. I ensured that participants understood that they could include not only individuals but also organisations or groups or even family pets. They then described their relationships with these people, and I asked further questions such as: Whom do you like spending time with? Whom do you ask for economic or emotional support? Whom do you ask for advice? This information significantly contributed to the data because discussing the network facilitated conversation about their relationships, and the map helped visualise the people important to them (see Scheff, 1997). Overall, the social network maps enabled me to better understand participants’ social support and gain knowledge of foster children and young people’s embodied support in different social environments. It also helped me understand how children and young people are aware of the emotional and material benefits provided by their social support network. Crossley (2010) describes the social network analysis method as encompassing “a social world’s shared meanings, purpose, knowledge, understanding, and identity” (p. 7), all of which affect how and with whom an individual interacts. Traditionally, this method was developed within the quantitative paradigm to measure the number and frequency of connections between individuals (Tubaro et al., 2016). However, in qualitative sociological research, a social network map is used to locate participants within their broader social relationships (Ryan et al., 2014). Therefore, it has been particularly useful in studies focusing on children and families (Eldén, 2012; Mason & Tipper, 2008; Sousa, 2005). It offers a visual representation of participants’ interactions with other individuals and groups in 42 society (Ryan et al., 2014). In the context of long-term foster care, Mahon and Curtin (2012) argue that focusing on young people’s social networks provides a clear understanding of the individuals and groups they relate to and depend on for support. 4.5.3.4 Recall This study employed the recall method to gain insights into the participants’ everyday lives. The recall method involves “remembering past events or routine activities, which can be recorded immediately after they have occurred, often using a chart or a table” (Ennew et al., 2009b, p. 5.24). Before the interview, each participant was sent an A4 table via email or WhatsApp (see Figure 4). They were asked to fill in the data of their daily activities and who participated, over a seven-day period. Figure 4 ‘My week’ recall activity Participants were reminded that the set hours provided were not binding, and they were free to make entries as they wished. Based on the shortcomings of earlier attempts with two participants to arrange a second interview to recount their activity and check if statements were correctly understood, the recall method with the 12 participants was used on the same day as other methods. I had to fill out one participant’s recall document at the interview because they had forgotten. As an exploratory method, I did not have a specific research question connected to it, but it was guided by the broad aim of identifying elements relevant to a description of the participants’ family routines, rules in the family, when they feel like a ‘family’, and their relationships with other people. Participants tended to record how their life was lived in the 43 foster family. This included morning routines, sharing regular family meals, doing homework and household chores, and spending time and talking together with family. They also recorded their after-school activities, including hobbies or sports, private tutoring, and their relaxation time before bed. They commented on feelings about being together with, for example, foster family members, peers in school and during leisure times, doing activities together with them, or simply being alone. The use of the recall method, sometimes overlapped school with participants' school work, as they had to allocate extra time to complete the activity. The following quote from one of the participants demonstrates this situation: Now that I am in the exam period, my work hours are replaced by studying. Also, on Mondays and Tuesdays, I don’t have classes in the afternoons either, so those hours are used to revise the syllabus. This quote illustrates how the recall method could compete with participants’ academic commitments, potentially influencing the depth and quality of the data generated. Some participants recorded their events very briefly, so the richness of the data varied, depending on their time and commitment. Young participants (aged 10-13) tended to make detailed recordings of their everyday life activities, while older participants focused more on specific occurrences, such as time spent with family, friends, or doing homework. Nonetheless, this method allowed me to gain insights into participants’ different interpretations of relationality (McCarthy, 2012), and learn about their experiences based on the places they spent time in and with whom they interacted. Generally, this should cover the children and young people’s ‘lived daily world’ (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014) and the meanings they attached to their daily lives (see Holstein & Gubrium, 1999). Furthermore, it allowed me to capture not only the participants’ interactions with other people in everyday life and emotions connected to them (Scheff, 1997), but also what they were doing at specific moments (Morgan, 1996). 4.5.3.5 Semi-structured interviews 44 The interviews took place in different venues chosen by participants. Six of the interviews were conducted in a quiet room in the Red Cross Head Office provided by social workers. Four other interviews took place at my university campus, where I reserved a quiet room for the purpose. Both the Red Cross Head Office and the university campus were conveniently located for participants. Two interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes, and two were conducted remotely via Zoom while I was conducting research in Norway. One interview at the Red Cross Head Office was interrupted, causing me to stop the voice recording. At the end of the interview, I realised the recorder had been turned off, and the second part of the interview was not recorded. However, the participant offered to meet again to continue the interview. The participants and I chose interview times that were convenient for us. The length of the interviews varied from 45 to 90 minutes, with an average of 60 minutes. The shorter interviews were those conducted via Zoom. During the first interview, I overheard the voice of the participant’s foster parent and sensed that the participant was uneasy. Consequently, I decided to conclude the interview. The second interview was shortened due to a poor internet connection. All interviews started with some informal chatting, followed by thanking the participants for deciding to participate in the study. Then, I used an interview guide (Appendix 8) consisting of open-ended questions to explore their experiences and feelings. This approach allowed the participants to control the direction of the conversation and tell their stories in their own way (Ennew et al., 2009b). It also balanced the power dynamic between the children and myself and allowed me to seek more information if needed (Solberg, 2002). The questions revolved around themes such as understanding family, relationships with the foster family, contact and relationship with the birth family, and other significant relationships. I also asked for reflections on how life is lived in the foster family compared to the participant’s birth family. Participants were guaranteed the freedom to express their views on the themes discussed. The semi-structured interview guide helped me keep the participants on track while giving them the opportunity to express their own observations, feelings, and perceptions. Conducting the interviews was an enjoyable experience, and my background in psychology and working with children helped build a rapport with participants, enabling them to speak openly. However, I found it challenging when some participants began to complain about some behaviours of their foster family members. In these cases, I emphasised not judging 45 behaviours and tried to examine the reasons behind the behaviours. This approach resulted in mixed feelings during the interview process. Upon reflection, I acknowledged the importance of my role as a researcher in maintaining a non-judgmental attitude in order to gain a holistic view of the participants’ views and experiences of family. I consider it a positive aspect of my interviewing style that participants felt comfortable enough to share these thoughts and feelings with me. During the interviews, the participants generally seemed more relaxed when talking about their life in the foster family compared to their relationship and contact with the birth family. I tried to end the interview in a positive way to make them feel comfortable and appreciated for participating in the study. 4.5.3.6 Reflection on methods of data collection It is crucial to reflect on the research methods used and their potential impact on the findings. In this study, the majority of participants engaged in a combination of different qualitative research methods – photos, drawings, social network maps, and semi-structured interviews – all within a single session lasting an average of 60 minutes. The duration of interviews varied from 45 to 90 minutes, mainly influenced by the extent of engagement in each method. For instance, participants who brought many photos and created elaborate recall methods may have utilised the full 90 minutes, while others required less time. It’s also important to note that a single interview session was designed to respect participants’ time and comfort, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this study uses multiple data collection in an attempt to empower children in the research process (see Section 3.2), not every participant had the chance to take part in each method due to individual circumstances (or personal preferences). For example, some participants mentioned during the interview that they did not have photos of members of their biological family. In hindsight, I also realised that I didn’t offer every participant the same opportunity to take part in the photo-elicitation method due to a lapse in judgement. This became particularly apparent when I assumed that soliciting photos of ‘dear ones’ was ‘appropriate’ for children who had been separated from their biological families. This situation illuminates how my subjectivity as a researcher can influence the data collection process and, albeit unintentionally, perpetuate exclusionary research practices. However, I did prioritise the inclusion of participants in all stages of the research process, including their decision to participate in different data collection methods. 46 Furthermore, the choice of interview location and the use of recall methods may have influenced the depth of data gathered. Interviews conducted in participants’ homes might have elicited more candid responses, while the recall method could have affected the level of detail in their narratives. 4.6 Data analysis, transcription, and translation The three Articles in this doctoral thesis are intended to enrich and complement each other, covering a review (Article I), a first comprehensive analysis of the concept of family in the context of Spain (Article II), and adding to the rapidly expanding field of contemporary family sociology in foster care research (Articles II and III). These studies also provide contextual circumstances. We began with a review of the whole research synthesis of evidence, which also highlighted the lack of Spanish children’s views of family in foster care (Article I). This formed the basis for the subsequent in-depth analysis of family and family life, considered to be an interplay between biological preference and foster family affective practices in children and young people’s life narratives (Article II). Some categories had emerged by then, which helped in the subsequent analysis of participants’ relationships with their birth mothers (Article III). This reflection was largely facilitated by engaging in a community of validation (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014), with my supervisors for Article I and co-author for Article III acting as interpretive communities. All interviews were recorded on a digital tape recorder and transcribed verbatim. I organised all data on each participant in a personal folder, including drawings and discussions from the social network map and recall, which were added to the life narrative interview transcript. I repeatedly listened to the audio recordings until I was confident that I understood the oral text, the written material, and their respective contexts. To preserve the subtlety of the narrative provided by the children and young people, I transcribed all interviews in Spanish. The transcriptions also included all non-verbal utterances such as mmmm“, “uh huh”, laughs, and pauses to maintain the content, meanings, and structure in their original form. Then, I translated the data into English (the language in which the study is narrated). All utterances were removed during this process to ensure the translated material was readable (Lingard, 2019). This process required considerable time, patience, and energy. If certain concepts or words were difficult to translate into English, such as the Spanish term Comunidades 47 Autónomas, which literally translates to “autonomous regions”, I retained the original term but provided an explanation for the reader. In this way, I was able to present some terms more accurately (Liamputtong, 2010). However, translating the Spanish word pueblo into the English word village” may have resulted in a loss of meaning in the children’s and young people’s narratives about going to the “pueblo”. In this study, the village was not just a sign of geographical space but a sense of geographical belonging, even if they didn’t live there. In the Articles, key themes were identified according to the study’s objectives and research questions and organised first according to the thematic codes (Articles I, II, and III), and then organised into a thematic narrative analysis (Articles II and III). However, there are several ways of analysing qualitative data (see Creswell & Poth, 2018). The former involves sorting and organising the categories of data into themes that emerge from the study, making interpretations, and creating sub-themes that follow the same patterns (see Braun & Clark, 2006, 2019). The latter considers the content, context, and structure through which meaning is constructed as a whole (Herman & Vervaeck, 2019; Riessman, 2008). The process of analysis was facilitated by the use of a qualitative data analysis software package, ATLAS.ti, and guided by the research questions (Articles I, II, and III) and theoretical concepts (Articles II and III). 4.7 Methodological considerations In the following section, I address methodological considerations, specifically the trustworthiness of the study, and reflect upon my own positionality. This information will provide the reader with the necessary context to assess the trustworthiness of this research. 4.7.1 Trustworthiness of the research Criteria such as reliability and validity are suitable measures for assessing the quality of quantitative research (Bryman, 2012). However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose alternative criteria for qualitative research, arguing that principles such as validity and reliability “presuppose that a single, absolute account of social reality is feasible” (Bryman, 2012, p. 390). They identify four criteria central to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research: dependability, credibility, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By trustworthiness, I refer to the extent to which the findings accurately reflect the phenomenon being investigated (Pratt et al., 2020). 48 Dependability concerns the degree of consistency in the findings and is closely related to the research process, particularly interpretation. This study’s dependability is demonstrated through a careful description of the study’s conceptual framework and procedures used throughout the research process. These include participant selection criteria, data collection methods, findings, and interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Pilot & Beck, 2014). We provided comprehensive descriptions and used quotations to illustrate how data analysis and interpretations were made. In some instances, alternative interpretations were also presented (Connelly, 2016). Regarding credibility, the use of different methods, as described in section 3.3, aimed to create a more holistic picture of participants’ interpretations and meaning-making (Creswell, 2013). Photos brought by nine participants provided useful insights into how they perceive their family world. A drawing exercise helped ensure we didn’t overlook whom children and young people consider to be their family. The use of a social network map visualised participants’ connections, or lack thereof, more explicitly than verbal descriptions. It also facilitated conversation about relationships while they were filling it. The twelve recall sheets illustrated different situations in children and young people’s everyday life in various social contexts. It allowed to capture explicitly family environment and the importance of ‘doing’ everyday family life. The use of interviews seemed to facilitate discussion. Even though their responses sometimes were short, they provided good information about, for example, their feelings in various situations and with different individuals. This triangulation of methods provided a consistent picture of children’s and young people’s perspectives. When inconsistencies arose, they became topics for reflection to understand why (see Connelly, 2016; Patton, 1990). The preparation of the thesis by publication, with the various studies being based on each other, also qualifies to analyse almost all data and to find categories and themes as a basis for the following studies. Furthermore, we also explored alternative or negative findings (Connelly, 2016) to provide a sense of credibility, which was to some extent facilitated and done by analysing all empirical data. Another aspect of trustworthiness is the confirmability of the data analysis. As mentioned, I did not have the opportunity to check with participants about their insights on research findings due to time and practical constraints. While this might have provided stronger 55 ‘ideal’ family type, a significant number of children construct a family based on a variety of factors, including emotional support and everyday family practices. A few defined family by choice. In defining family and creating a sense of family belonging across multiple settings, we found concepts family sociology useful in conceptualising families not based on biological or kinship ties. 5.2.2 Article II: The Concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care Judite Ie Published in Child & Family Social Work on 2 November 2022 The second Article drew on concepts of family sociology and childhood studies, employing a multi-method approach with study participants to answer the research questions outlined in Chapter One: How do foster children and young people perceive and ‘do’ family in Spain? Who counts as ‘family’ for children and young people in foster care in Spain, and why? In an attempt to expand previous research and advance our understanding of the meaning of ‘family’ and family relationships of Spanish children in foster care, this Article explored how concepts in the field of family sociology and intimate life could illuminate the less-known views and experiences of foster children. The interviews with 14 children and young people in long-term non-kinship care that participated in this study were first analysed using thematic coding, then thematic narrative analysis. Based on the children and young people’s family narratives, the empirical material revealed that most construct family as shared affective practices, emphasising that love creates family, and commitment, consistency in care, and reciprocity are requirements of families The study illustrates how some of these children and young people show a preference for biological connections. Simultaneously, I discovered that their understandings of family are often determined by family rituals and family displays. I found that their family narratives revealed previously ignored dimensions of biological preference as means for identity construction rather than the ideal family type, emphasising the crucial significance of family belonging emerging in a complex web of family relationships. Their sense of family belonging is deeply embedded in their everyday life in foster families. Based on the study, I demonstrated the fluidity and changing character of notions of family when some children and young people recognised the value of blood relations but, at the same time, felt sadness when their relations were viewed as less valid than blood relations. 56 5.2.3 Article III: “You’ve Got to Love her” – Perceptions of birth mothers among children in long-term foster care Judite Ie and Ingunn T. Ellingsen Published in Child & Family Social Work on 15 July 2023 The third Article employed a family sociology perspective, thematic, and inductive analysis of interviews with study participants to further answer the third research question outlined in Chapter One: Who counts as ‘family’ for children and young people in foster care in Spain, and why? Empirical data provided key insights into the complexity and ambivalent views of how children and young people perceive their birth mothers as a central component of family construction. We found most participants – whether they had contact with their birth mother or not – to define a birth mother as a “life-giver”. This view mostly concerned younger participants, possibly a symbolic representation; hence, it can be viewed as a way of expressing gratitude and an idealisation of their birth mothers. Older female participants with contact with their birth mother expressed a more critical and complex understanding of the role of their birth mother. This seems to be because of the feeling of responsibility and expectation imposed upon them by themselves and others. Some participants expressed loving their birth mother despite previous negative experiences, even after moving into foster care. The love for their birth mother sometimes felt forced upon them, resulting in complex and ambivalent feelings. This Article demonstrates how age and gender seem to influence how participants perceive their birth mother’s role in their lives and that caring expectations may be socioculturally related. 5.3 Overarching themes identified across the articles In Table 3 below, I illustrate the core themes that connect the three Articles presented in this thesis, together with an overall reflection and contribution of this study. 57 Table 3 Themes identified across each individual article Themes Art. I – Review Art. II Art. III Overall reflections/ contribution Blood ties (discourse and genetics) Ideal: Biology or discourse? Biological understanding: childhood vs. adulthood. Cultural significance. Loss of status: absence, lack of support. Biological connection: identity construction. Preference vs. validity: biological relatedness, emotional impact. Birth mother: life-giver, limited contact. Life-giver symbolism: gratitude. Intergenerational relations: influence definitions. Relational rights: blood ties not granted. Younger children: bound by policies, prone to mainstream discourse. Heterogeneity in blood ties discourse. Emotional dimension Mutual acts: love, care, support, and tolerance. Essentials: communication, conflict resolution. Birth family: supportive status. Affection: constitutes, creates family. Love: essential, natural. Foster family: real, security, stability. Valued in foster family: all aspects of self. Girls: higher expectations, internalised responsibilities. Caring expectations: socio-cultural, gender, agedrelated interplay. Love for birth mother: sometimes forced. Creating family: efforts, maintaining relationships. Cultural expectations: challenges in family relations. Doing and displaying family Shared activities, holidays, meals, events (ball games, weddings, celebrations, funerals), cards. Choice vs. gender: individual agency, gender differences. Behavioural and affection: family constituents. Involvement and inclusion: day-to- day practices, sense of family Birth parent contact: policypractice gap. Family practices: strengthening children relationships. 58 Having outlined the core themes that connect the three Articles presented in this thesis, I will now progress to discuss them. 5.3.1 Blood ties (discourse and genetics) A key finding across Articles I and II is that biological family can contribute to foster children and young people’s lives in varying ways and degrees. The findings suggest that there is substantial heterogeneity in how children and young people in foster care perceive blood ties, varying from ‘the ideal’, ‘being loyal’, to ‘identity construction’. Within Articles I and II, children and young people’s understanding of family reflects the traditional view that family is built around and based on blood and genetic ties. From a social constructionist perspective, the ways in which children in foster care define family is embedded in larger societal assumptions of what constitutes a family (Crotty, 1998). When a family is socially constructed based on biological relatedness, it is perhaps not surprising that some children and young people in foster care are placed in a different social status. This may explain the feeling of sadness when they are viewed as less valid than biologically related kin by the children of their foster parents (Article II). Study findings highlight that the societal message of what a family is can be complex and multifaceted. The meaning of family based on biological ties places children and youth in foster care in a complex position in their relations with members of their foster family. Although studies show diversity in family meanings, the majority of child welfare policies in Western society, including Spain, appear to privilege and promote the biogenetic conception of family (Spanish Law 26/2015; UNCRC, 1989). When the government fails to provide the family with sufficient support, these policies still include a focus on the family of origin by making an effort to reunite the child with the biological family. In Article I, we found that children’s relationships with their birth family in foster care can be challenging, with continuous disappointments for the children. Despite disappointments, younger children rarely engage in distancing themselves from their birth family compared to adults (former foster children). This suggests that younger children’s relations with their birth family are bound by structural policies, legislations, regulations, and social work practices. Consequently, their relationships can be involuntary compared to adults with foster care experience. The younger children may believe that they have no choice but to maintain these relationships based on biological ties. They may also be more prone to believe in the 59 traditional view that a family is based and built around blood ties, have less negative experiences with the biological family, and have fewer positive experiences with the foster family, friends, and others for support and love in life. This may explain why they feel a high sense of loyalty, forgiveness, and honour towards their biological family compared to adults with foster care experience. A longitudinal study in Norway suggests that some young people in foster care romanticise their relationship with their birth parents through adulthood (Skoglund et al., 2019). My study shows that this is not necessarily the case (Article III). In similar studies, Andersson (2009, 2018) gathered data at three-to-five-year intervals in Sweden. Andersson suggests that the role of the birth family could become less significant in the lives of foster children as they grow older. Children can redefine their relationships with their birth families according to their preferences when they gain more independence. This suggests that adults (former foster children) may rely less on biological ties and that adulthood may provide the emotional space to distance themselves from their birth families (Article I). As shown in Article III, older foster children revealed a more complex and nuanced understanding of their relationships with their mothers. However, Andersson (2009) found that young adults who became parents themselves talked about parents in a conciliatory way and stressed the importance of having good relationships with their birth families. Thus, this suggests that age and time might change the sentiments and views of the study participants about their birth mothers. Though the significance of the biological family may diminish if its members are absent or unsupportive, children show agency in their family relations with their birth families, as demonstrated in the narratives of the study participants (Article II). Their apparent involuntary relations, embedded in child welfare policies, can become acts of choice, creating an opportunity for children in foster care to redefine what it means to be a family. In this study, when considering the discourse on blood ties by study participants, it seems that the focus on biological ties could be decentralised in policy by emphasising other definitions and functions of family rather than attempting to refute the importance of biological family relations. Specifically, in a child welfare system that positions a cultural understanding of family based on biological ties as best practice and in the best interest of a child, it is at times difficult to undermine the significance of biological understandings of family. Rather, within this system, the biogenetic conception of family can be temporarily suspended to 60 accommodate children in foster care’s definitions of their ‘ideal’ family - that differ from, but are not incompatible with, biological ties - to take priority at a given moment. In fact, the ECtHR is increasingly shifting towards a more child-focused interpretation of ‘family life’, thereby giving more consideration to the situation of the child in the foster family (Breen et al., 2020). This is consistent with the ‘best principle that Banda and Ekeelaar (2017) highlight in changing conceptions of the family in international legislation. 5.3.2 Emotional dimension Biological relatedness is not the only discourse that helps children and young people in foster care make sense of family and create a sense of family belonging. Across each Article’s findings (Articles I, II, and III), the concept of family is also constructed through shared affection and behavioural practices that form individuals’ everyday life. Positive emotions challenge the blood ties’ understanding of family and offer an alternative ideology for making sense of what it means to (not) be a family. The emotional dimension counters the biological principle that children and their birth families belong together by pointing out that creating a family relies on the efforts of its members to maintain a (close) relationship. In Articles I and II, this was initially outlined when children and young people voiced that a (close) family relationship does not just ‘happen’; instead, it needs to be nurtured. Children and young people tended to emphasise the importance of reciprocal love, care, and support on one hand and commitment and consistency on the other. These findings align with Mason and Tipper (2008), who found that these emotional dimensions were perceived as meaningful in defining a “real” or “proper” family (p. 451). However, reciprocal love, care, and support pointed towards multiple relations regardless of biological connections or shared residence, while commitment and consistency pointed towards their foster family. For some study participants, as presented in Article II, foster parents provide emotional and moral support, including listening, talking, giving advice, and helping them to put their own lives in perspective (see Finch, 1989). The emotional aspects of creating a sense of family belonging for children in long-term nonkinship foster care through support and care, security, and predictability have been highlighted by Schofield (2002). The current study also suggests that there is a wider positive emotional dimension in non-kinship foster families for providing study participants with a sense of family belonging. This was often prominent when study participants used terms such as ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘brother’, and ‘grandparents’ to define foster family members as a 61 symbol of closeness and a form of kinship status (see also Mason & Tipper, 2008). Therefore, the focus on biological families can mean a denial of the role of relationships and family membership in non-kinship foster care. The fact that the study participants define family as not consisting of biological characteristics but as the provision of constant and reliable affection and care shows evidence of a shift in our understanding of family. As we are moving towards a more inclusive definition of family (Chambers, 2012), so are the children in non-kinship foster care arrangements. As such, it can be argued that a more flexible approach to the meaning of family by policymakers and practitioners in child welfare in Spain will aid the acceptance of foster care as a flexible family form that includes foster and birth families in the wider community in general. The preference for the emotional dimension in defining family provides us with an opportunity to deconstruct what it means to be a family in long-term non-kinship care (Articles I, II, and III). The emotional aspects allow some study participants to distance themselves from their biological family and make the concept of family and family relations meaningful (Articles II and III). This seems a significant move, as it creates opportunities in which children and youth in foster care no longer have to acknowledge harmful and/or unwanted relationships. In Article III, study participants provide accounts in which they explained that despite feeling love for their birth mothers, even when this love felt forced at times, their birth mother was not performing as she ‘should’. Thus, some participants actively engaged in practices to maintain distance from their birth mothers, such as bestowing the title of ‘mother’ to ‘just’ a name or word. However, the current study findings also show that not all participants engage in distancing themselves from their birth mothers despite having bad experiences. One important finding that this study reveals is how certain values are embedded in contemporary childhood in Spain and how these shape the familial expectations placed on children and young people. Some study participants mentioned feeling obliged by their foster and birth families, as well as social workers, to display affection and care towards their birth mothers (Articles II and III). Within this context, it seems that the importance of emotional and practical support is more about following cultural expectations. In addition, gender is also an essential dimension in caregiving practices in family relationships. Girls mentioned more often that they care for their own birth mothers in childhood and adulthood compared to boys. This reflects gender roles in contemporary Spain, where women tend to fulfil caring responsibilities in the family 62 (Moreno-Mínguez et al., 2017). As caring expectations and gender are sociocultural constructs, this may encourage scholars to examine the ways in which such practices of intimacy can be problematic for children and young people in foster care, forcing them to stay in negative, even unhealthy relationships with their birth mothers (Articles II and III). 5.3.3 Doing and displaying family A key theme across Articles I and II is that for children and young people in foster care, family is defined by how individuals ‘do’ family through routines and interactions embedded into daily family life practices. Family practices identified in Article I involve participation in family routines and activities, such as shared holidays, eating together, attending ball games, and joining in celebrations. In Article II, study participants acknowledged becoming part of the foster family because they were included in the family’s practices, such as spending time in the pueblo (village), partaking in family holidays and outings, joining in (religious) celebrations, watching television together, and being included in household chores. These activities represented the ‘doing’ of family and the young person’s inclusion as a member. The way study participants ‘do’ family through interactions and routines becomes a way to display family – for themselves as reassurance they belong to the foster family and for others, like members of their foster family communities. These displays demonstrate how family is shown, similar to a window display, and that these activities in the family are not only an activity itself but also a reflection of “ideas, values and norms of what counts as a ‘proper’ way of doing family” (Ursin et al., 2017, p. 933). The findings of this study suggest that some children and young people engage in family displays to achieve validation and recognition from a specific audience (Walsh, 2018). They exercise their agency by engaging in displays associated with “the core value attached to” a “type” of family (Morgan, 2011, p. 63); in this case, the reassurance of belonging in the foster family. These children and young people develop creative strategies to support a desire to ‘belong’ in their foster families by attending mass or having their photos displayed at their foster grandparents’ home. The findings also suggest that in the context of foster care, the displays may be interpreted as cultural, as Morgan (2011) suggests, since family practices are partially shaped by cultural definitions. Drawing on previous research (Mahat-Shamir et al., 2018), it can be surmised that doing and displaying family is cultural, and for family display to be recognised it must occur in a given cultural context. The study findings show how some 63 activities, such as spending time in the pueblo and attending mass (Article II), are interdependent and blurred in the cultural understanding of study participants’ definition of family membership. Morgan’s (1996) concept of ‘doing family’ and Finch’s (2007) concept of ‘displaying families’ highlight the importance of understanding family through social and relational practices. The study participants, however, also managed ‘doing’ family, being “separated yet connected” (Smart & Neale, 1999, p. 67) with their birth family. This included regulated visitations by birth parents, telephone calls, and WhatsApp messages with family members. The findings show how family members ‘do’ and ‘display’ differently when they lack opportunities for more common everyday displays. In the absence of family displays, such as ‘being always there’ if they had a problem or needed to talk, phone calls on birthdays or ‘check-ins’, some study participants excluded their birth family from their family map. Hence, such displays are important to be recognised as family members by some study participants. This necessitates a potential reconceptualisation and rethinking of how we research, discuss, and consider what it means to be a family. With the increasing fluidity, diversity, and multifaceted nature of family, doing and displaying have become significant aspects of family life (Heaphy, 2011). 5.4 Relevance of study beyond long-term non-kinship foster care While the primary focus of this study is on children and young people in long-term nonkinship foster care, the findings may also hold relevance for individuals who have experienced separation from their birth parent (s) and/or who have not been placed in longterm non-kinship foster care. The definitions of the concept of ‘family’ observed in this study are unlikely to be exclusive to children and young people in long-term non-kinship foster care. Evidence suggests that family definitions based on biological relatedness, doing and displaying family are observed among children and young people in care or care experienced backgrounds, as seen in studies by Boddy (2019) Gwenzi (2020), and Skoglund et al. (2022). Moreover, research on adopted children by Jones and Hackett (2011) and MacDonald (2017) reinforces the importance of recognising the significance of flexible family definitions. This underscores the importance of allowing flexibility in defining ‘family’ to provide adequate support to children and young people in different care arrangements. This flexibility should align with their personal experiences, encompassing both past and present, without rigidly 64 adhering to a fixed definition based solely on one defining characteristic, such as biological or legal ties. Such efforts align with existing ‘widening’ understanding of family, which aims to increasing our understanding of family dynamics that do not stem solely from innate reproductive or socialisation roles (Smart, 2004; McCarthy, 2012). 5.5 Strengths and limitations of the study This study provides unique insights into the ways the concept of family is defined and experienced by children and young people in long-term non-kinship care in the Spanish context. Given the considerable dearth of knowledge in this area in Spain (Article I), especially when compared with other Western countries, this contribution to knowledge is significant and hopefully represents the first of many studies and data collection efforts in this area of research in Spain. This study gathered information about the views and experiences of 14 children and young people in long-term non-kinship care. The findings, therefore, cannot be deemed representative of the wider population of foster children in long-term non-kinship care. The findings in this study emerged in a context-specific and relational setting between me and the participants. Therefore, I acknowledge that the findings presented in this study may differ if another researcher conducted the study and interviewed the participants. However, the findings here provide insights that can prompt reflections within other contexts, thereby contributing to understandings and practices in other contexts (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014). This study has drawn on core concepts of family sociology – ‘doing family’, ‘family practices’, and ‘family displays’ – to examine the views of long-term non-kinship foster children and young people on family. While these concepts provided valuable insights, it’s essential to acknowledge that the strong emphasis on micro-level aspects may have limited the interpretation of findings. For example, the focus on ‘doing family’ and ‘family display’ may have overshadowed broader communicative dimensions such as non-verbal cues and shared narratives among family members. This may suggest that the study findings do not fully capture the depth of family dynamics experienced by participants, potentially missing elements contributing to their understanding of family. Moreover, focusing on family practices from children and young people’s perspectives may have portrayed these practices as solely driven by their individual choices, possibly neglecting the influence of broader structural and societal constraints (Heaphy, 2011). According to the research findings, social norms about what defines (or does not define) a family pose a significant obstacle for those 71 Comunidad de Castilla y León. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/03/29/pdfs/A13650- 13662.pdf Bourdieu, P. (1996). On the family as a realized category. Theory, culture & society, 13(3), 19-26. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597. Breen, C., Krutzinna, J., Luhamaa, K., & Skivenes, M. (2020). Family Life for Children in State Care: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Reasoning on Adoption Without Consent. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 28(4), 715- 747. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2014). Interviews – Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Brockington, D. & Sullivan, S. (2003). Qualitative research. In R. Scheyvens, & D. Storey (Eds.) Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp. 57-74. Brockliss, L., & Montgomery, H. (2013). Childhood: a historical approach: In Kehily, M. J. (Eds.). Understanding childhood: A cross disciplinary approach. Policy Press, pp. 53 – 98. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods (4th Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bühler-Niederberger, D., & Schwittek, J. (2014). Young children in Kyrgyzstan: Agency in tight hierarchical structures. Childhood, 21(4), 502-516. Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European journal of social theory, 19(3), 322-339. Cameron, C., Holligsworth, K., Shcoon, I., van Santen, E., Schröer, W., Ristikari, T., et al. (2018). Care leavers in early adulthood: How do they fare in Britain, Finland and Germany. Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 163–172. Canosa, A., & Graham, A. (2020). Tracing the contribution of childhood studies: Maintaining momentum while navigating tensions. Childhood, 27(1), 25-47. Carrington, V. (2002). New times: New families. Springe. Carmona, C. A. (2014). Familia, escuela y clase social: sobre los efectos perversos de la implicación familiar. Revista de Sociología de la Educación-RASE, 7(2), 395-409. Carrera, P., Jiménez‐Morago, J. M., Román, M., & León, E. (2020). Differential associations 72 of threat and deprivation with emotion understanding in maltreated children in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 25(4), 973-982. Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casas, F., & Bello, A. (2012). Calidad de vida y bienestar infantile subjetivo en Espana. Que afecta al bien estar de ninos y ninas españoles de 1o de ESO? [Quality of life and children's subjective well-being in Spain. What affects the children's well-being in the first year of compulsory secondary education in Spain?]. UNICEF Chambers, D. (2001). Representing the family. Sage. Chambers, D. (2012). A sociology of family life. Change and diversity in intimate relations. Polity Press. Chawla, D. (2006). Subjectivity and the “native” ethnographer: Researcher eligibility in an ethnographic study of urban Indian women in Hindu arranged marriages. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(4), 13-29. Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational psychology, 26(1), 127-142. Christiansen, C., Utas, M., & Vigh, H. (2006). Youth (e)scapes: Introduction. In C. Christiansen, M. Utas, & H. Vigh (Eds.), Navigating youth, generating adulthood: Social becoming in an African context (pp. 9–30). Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Ciurana, A., Pastor, C., & Fuentes-Peláez, N. (2014). The significance figures in the foster care system as a source of resilience for adolescents. From Person to Society, 111. Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg nursing, 25(6), 435. Corsaro, W. A. (2003). We're friends, right? : inside kids' culture. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The Sociology of Childhood (2nd Eds.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (3rd Ed.). California: Thousand Oaks. Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. (4th Ed.). Sage. Croghan, R., Griffin, C., Hunter, J., & Phoenix, A. (2008). Young people's constructions of self: Notes on the use and analysis of the photo‐elicitation methods. International journal of social research methodology, 11(4), 345-356. Crossley, N. (2010). Towards relational sociology. Routledge. 73 Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage. Cummings, E. M., Bergman, K. N., & Kuznicki, K. A. (2014). Emerging methods for studying families as systems. Emerging methods in family research, 95-108. Davies, J., & Wright, J. (2008). Children's voices: A review of the literature pertinent to looked‐after children's views of mental health services. Child and adolescent mental health, 13(1), 26-31. Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. International journal of nursing studies, 46(10), 1386-1400. Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1-9. de Ussel, J. I., & Meil-Landwerlin, G. (2001). La política familiar en España. Ariel. del Valle, J. F., Bravo, A., & López, M. (2009). Foster care in Spain. Its establishment and current challenges. Papeles del Psicólogo, 30(1), 33-41. Dermott, E., & Seymour, J. (2011). Developing ‘displaying families’: A possibility for the future of the sociology of personal life. Displaying families: A new concept for the sociology of family life, 3-18. Dermott, E., & Fowler, T. (2020). What is a family and why does it matter?. Social Sciences, 9(5), 83. Dinisman, T., Andresen, S., Montserrat, C., Strózik, D., & Strózik, T. (2017). Family structure and family relationship from the child well-being perspective: Findings from comparative analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 80, 105-115. Eldén, S. (2012). Inviting the messy: Drawing methods and ‘children’s voices’. Childhood, 20(1), 66-81. Ennew, J., Abebe, T., Bangyai, R., Karapituck, P., Kjørholt, A. T., & Noonsup, T. (2009a). Manual 1: Where do we start? The right to be properly researched. How to do rightsbased, scientific research with children. Bangkok, Thailand: Black on White Publications, Knowing Children. Ennew, J., Abebe, T., Bangyai, R., Karapituck, P., Kjørholt, A. T., & Noonsup, T. (2009b). Manual 5: How are we going to find out? The right to be properly researched. How to do rights-based, scientific research with children. Bangkok, Thailand: Black on White Publications, Knowing Children. Ennew, J., Abebe, T., Bangyai, R., Karapituck, P., Kjørholt, A. T., & Noonsup, T. (2009c). 74 Manual 5: How do we protect children? The right to be properly researched. How to do rights-based, scientific research with children. Bangkok, Thailand: Black on White Publications, Knowing Children. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency?. American journal of sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2006). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children's perspectives. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(3), 1-11. Ermisch, J. & Brynin, M. (2009). Changing Relationships. New York: Routledge Escapa, S. (2017). Los efectos del conflicto parental después del divorcio sobre el rendimiento educativo de los hijos [Effects of Post-Divorce Parental Conflict on Children's Educational Achievement]. Reis: Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 41-57. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Esping-Andesen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Oxford: Polity. Ferrera M (1996). The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 6: 17–37. Fernandez, E., & Barth, R. P. (2010). How does foster care work?: International evidence on outcomes. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Few‐Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(2), 169-183. Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Finch, J. & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London: Routledge Finch, J. (2007). Displaying families. Sociology, 41(1), 65–81. Flaquer, L. & Garriga, A. (2009). Marital disruption in Spain: class selectivity and deterioration of economic conditions. In H.J. Andress & D. Hummelsheim (Eds.), When marriage ends: economic and social consequences of partnership dissolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 178 – 210. Fuentes-Peláez, N., Amorós, P., Mateos Inchaurrondo, A., Balsells, M., & Violant, V. (2013). The biological family from the perspective of kinship fostered adolescents. Psicothema, 2013, vol. 25, núm. 3, p. 349-354. 75 Fuentes‐Peláez, N., Balsells, M. À., Fernández, J., Vaquero, E., & Amorós, P. (2016). The social support in kinship foster care: a way to enhance resilience. Child & Family Social Work, 21(4), 581-590. Gabb, J. (2010). Researching intimacy in families. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gahan, L. (2018). Separated same-sex parents: Troubling the same-sex parented family. Sociological Research Online, 23(1), 245-261. Gallacher, L., & Kehily, J. (2013). Childhood: a sociocultural approach. In Kehily, M. J. (Eds.). Understanding childhood: A cross disciplinary approach. Policy Press, pp. 211 – 266. García-Presas, I. (2010). El derecho de familia en España desde las últimas reformas del código civil [Family law in Spain since the latest reforms of the Spanish Civil Code]. Actas del I Congreso Ibero-asia tico de Hispanistas Siglo de Oro e Hispanismo general. Delhi: Publicaciones digitales del GRISO/Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, pp. 237–265. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.). The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books. Gernhardt, A., Rübeling, H., & Keller, H. (2013). “This Is My Family” Differences in Children’s Family Drawings Across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(7), 1166-1183. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gilding, M. (2010). Reflexivity over and above convention: The new orthodoxy in the sociology of personal life, formerly sociology of the family. The British journal of sociology, 61(4), 757-777. Gillies, V. (2003). Family and intimate relationships: A review of the sociological research. Families & social capital ESRC Research Group Working Paper No. 2. London: South Bank University. Gittins, D., & Gittins, D. (1993). What is the family? Is it universal?Macmillan Education UK, pp. 60-72. Graham, M. (2011). Changing paradigms and conditions of childhood: Implications for the social professions and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 41(8), 1532-1547. Gobierno de España (2021). Tasas de riesgo de pobreza infantile Espana (2008-2020) [Child 76 poverty risk rates Spain (2008-2020)] . Retrieved from https://www.comisionadopobrezainfantil.gob.es/es/tasas-de-riesgo-de-pobreza-infantil- en-espa%C3%B1a-2008-2020 Goodyer, A. (2016). Children's accounts of moving to a foster home. Child & Family Social Work, 21(2), 188-197. González, M. M., & López, F. (2009). Relaciones familiares y vida cotidiana de niños y niñas que viven con madres lesbianas o padres gays [Family relationships and daily life of boys and girls living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers]. Cultura y educación, 21(4), 417-428. Gubrium J. & Holstein J. (1990). What is Family?. California: Mayfield Gwenzi, G. D. (2020). Constructing the meaning of “family” in the context of out-of-home care: An exploratory study on residential care leavers in Harare, Zimbabwe. Emerging Adulthood, 8(1), 54-63. Gypen, L., Vanderfaeillie, J., De Meayer, S., Belenger, L., & Van Holenm, F. (2017). Outcomes of children who grew up in foster care: Systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 74–83. Häggman-Laitila, A., Salokekkilä, P., & Karki, S. (2018). Transition to adult life of young people leaving foster care: A qualitative systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 134-143. Hammersley, M. (2017). Childhood Studies: A sustainable paradigm?. Childhood, 24(1), 113-127. Hantrais, L. (2004). Family policy matters. Bristol, UK: Polity Press. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual studies, 17(1), 13-26. Heaphy, B. (2011) Critical relational displays. In E. Dermott & J. Seymore (Eds.), Displaying Families — A New Concept for the Sociology of Family Life. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Herman, L., & Vervaeck, B. (2019). Handbook of narrative analysis. University of Nebraska Press Holland, S. (2009). Listening to children in care: A review of methodological and theoretical approaches to understanding looked after children’s perspectives. Children & society, 23(3), 226-235. Holland, S., & Crowley, A. (2013). Looked‐after children and their birth families: Using 77 sociology to explore changing relationships, hidden histories and nomadic childhoods. Child & Family Social Work, 18(1), 57-66. Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. (1999). What is family? Further thoughts on a social constructionist approach. Marriage and Family Review, 28, 3-4, 3-20. Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Grey literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2). Ie, J., Ursin, M., & Vicente-Marino, M. (2021). Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Children and Youth Services Review, 132, 106337. Ie, J., & Ursin, M. (2022). The Twisting Path to Adulthood: Roma/Cigano Youth in Urban Portugal. Social Inclusion, 10(4), 93-104. Ie, J. (2022). The concept of family: perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 28(2), 503–514. Inchaurrondo, A. M., Tió, E. V., Monclús, A. U., & Ramajo, B. P. (2020). Contar con la infancia en situación de riesgo en los procesos de investigación: pasos hacia la coproducción. Sociedad e Infancias, 4, 87-98. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press Jamieson, L. (2011). Intimacy as a concept: explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentricism?. Sociological research online, 16(4), 151-163. Jamieson, L., Morgan, D., Crow, G., & Allan, G. (2006). Friends, neighbours and distant partners: extending or decentring family relationships?. Sociological research online, 11(3), 39-47. Jenks, C. (2004). Constructing childhood sociologically. In: Kehily, M. J. (Ed.). An Introduction to Childhood Studies. Open University Press, pp.77-95. Jones, C., & Hackett, S. (2011). The role of ‘family practices’ and ‘displays of family’in the creation of adoptive kinship. British Journal of Social Work, 41(1), 40-56. Kääriälä, A., & Hiilamo, H. (2017). Children in out-of-home care as young adults: A systematic review of outcomes in the Nordic countries. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 107–114. Kiili, J., & Moilanen, J. (2019). Participation as a methodological and ethical issue in child protection research. Journal of Children's Services, 14(3), 143-161. Kjørholt, A. T. (2004). Childhood as a social and symbolic space: discourses on children as 78 social participants in society. PhD Thesis. Trondheim: NTNU Press. Konijn, C., Admiraal, S., Baart, J., Van Rooij, F., Stams, G. J., Colonnesi, C., ... & Assink, M. (2019). Foster care placement instability: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 483-499. Kosco, M., & Warren, N. A. (2000). Critical care nurses' perceptions of family needs as met. Critical care nursing quarterly, 23(2), 60-72. Kosher, H., Montserrat, C., Attar-Schwartz, S., Casas, F., & Zeira, A. (2018). Out-of-home care for children at-risk in Israel and in Spain: Current lessons and future challenges. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(1), 12-21. Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Research Methods for Primary Care, Vol. 3. Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 31-44). California: Sage Publications. Lahad, K., Sabar, G., & Sabar Ben Yehoshua, N. (2018). Doing and displaying gendered boundary work among blended families in Israel. Sociology, 52(1), 95-110. Landes, S. D., & Settersten Jr, R. A. (2019). The inseparability of human agency and linked lives. Advances in Life Course Research, 42, 100306. Lee, N. (1998). Towards an immature sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(3), 458-482. Lee, S. (2019). Two adult women managing career and family after mature higher education: alternative notions of agency?. British Journal of sociology of Education, 40(1), 83-97. Leloux-Opmeer, H., Kuiper, C., Swaab, H., & Scholte, E. (2016). Characteristics of children in foster care, family-style group care, and residential care: A scoping review. Journal of child and family studies, 25, 2357-2371. León-Manso, E. (2011). Desarrollo, adaptación y ajuste psicológico de los niños y niñas adoptados internacionalmente: factores de riesgo y de protección, dinámica familiar y procesos de recuperación y resiliencia [Development, adaptation and psychological adjustment of internationally adopted children: risk and protective factors, family dynamics, recovery and resilience processes]. [Doctoral tesis, University of Sevilla]. Sevilla. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and development review, 36(2), 211-251. Leve, L. D., Harold, G. T., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J. A., Fisher, P. A., & Vostanis, P (2012). Practitioner review: children in foster care–vulnerabilities and evidence‐based interventions that promote resilience processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(12), 1197-1211. 79 Levitt, H. M., Surace, F. I., Wu, M. B., Chapin, B., Hargrove, J. G., Herbitter, C., ... & Hochman, A. L. (2020). The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: From the perspective of methodologists. Psychological methods. Liamputtong, P. (2010). Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Lindquist, M. J., & Santavirta, T. (2014). Does placing children in foster care increase their adult criminality?. Labour Economics, 31, 72-83. Lingard, L. (2019). Beyond the default colon: effective use of quotes in qualitative research. Perspectives on medical education, 8, 360-364. López-López, M., Montserrat, C., del Valle, J. F., & Bravo, A. (2010). El acogimiento en familia ajena en España. Una evaluación de la práctica y sus resultados [Non-relative family foster care in Spain: Practice and outcomes assessment]. Infancia y aprendizaje, 33(2), 269-280. López-López, M., del Valle, J. F., Montserrat, C., & Bravo, A. (2011). Factors affecting foster care breakdown in Spain. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 111-122 López-López, M., del Valle, J. F., Montserrat, C., & Bravo, A. (2013). Factors associated with family reunification for children in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 18, 226–236. López-López, M., Delgado, P., Carvalho, J., & Del Valle, J. F. (2014). Características y desarrollo del acogimiento familiar en dos países con fuerte tradición de acogimiento residencial: España y Portugal. Universitas psychologica, 13(3), 865-880. López-López, M., & del Valle, J. F. (2016). Foster carer experience in Spain: Analysis of the vulnerabilities of a permanent model. Psicothema, 28 (2). Low, J. (2019). A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociological Focus, 52(2), 131-139. Lippold, M. A., & McNamee, C. B. (2014). Capturing the complexity of families using innovative methods. In Emerging methods in family research. Springer, Cham, pp. 263- 280. Llosada-Gistau, J., Casas, F., & Montserrat, C. (2020). Factors influencing the subjective well-being of adolescents in out-of-home care. A mixed method study. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 835-863. MacDonald, M. (2017). ‘A picture of who we are as a family’: conceptualizing post‐adoption contact as practices of family display. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 34-43. 80 Mahat-Shamir, M., Davidson Arad, B., Shilo, G., Adler, R., & Leichtentritt, R. D. (2018). The family in the view of Israeli adolescents in foster care. Journal of Social Work, 18(2), 201-221. Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research synthesis methods, 5(3), 221-234. Marí-Klose, M., & Marí-Klose, P. (2010). Las nuevas modalidades familiares como contexto de transición a la vida adulta: el logro educativo en hogares monoparentales [New family arrangements as a context for transition to adulthood: educational attainment in single-parent households]. Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 2010, num. 90, p. 161-179. Martin, F. S., & Zulaika, G. (2016). Who cares for children? A descriptive study of carerelated data available through global household surveys and how these could be better mined to inform policies and services to strengthen family care. Global Social Welfare, 3(2), 51-74. Mason, J., & Tipper, B. (2008). Being related: How children define and create kinship. Childhood, 15(4), 441-460. Massons-Ribas, A., Balsells, M. À., & Cortada, N. (2021). The participation of children and adolescents in the protection system: The case of the Spanish legislation. Social Sciences, 10(7), 268. Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis, In U. Flick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540 – 553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. May, V. (2013). Connecting self to society: Belonging in a changing world. Bloomsbury Publishing. Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: thinking from children's lives. Maidenhead: Open University Press. McCarthy, J. R. (2012). The powerful relational language of ‘family’: Togetherness, belonging and personhood. The Sociological Review, 60(1), 68-90. McCarthy, J. R., Evans, R., Bowlby, S., & Wouango, J. (2020). Making sense of family deaths in urban Senegal: Diversities, contexts, and comparisons. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 82(2), 230-260. McDonald, T., & Brook, J. (2009). Typologies of children in foster care for reasons other than abuse or neglect. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3(4), 391-408. McKie, L., & Callan, S. (2012). Understanding families: A global introduction. Sage. Mc Mahon, C., & Curtin, C. (2013). The social networks of young people in Ireland with 87 vasectomy among New Zealand men. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 29(3), 276-291. Thomas, D. L., & Wilcox, J. E. (1987). The rise of family theory. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum, pp. 81– 102. Thorne, B. (1992). Feminism and the family: Two decades of thought. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some Feminist questions. Ann Arbor: Northeastern University Press. Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children's geographies, 10(3), 249-264. Tisdall, E. K. M. (2016). Subjects with agency? Children’s participation in family law proceedings. Journal of social welfare and family law, 38(4), 362-379. Tubaro, P., Ryan, L., & D’Angelo, A. (2016). The visual sociogram in qualitative and mixedmethods research. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 180-197. UNCRC. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Retrieved from https:// www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx UNICEF (2022). Children in alternative care. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/children-alternative-care/ United Nations. (2009). Guidelines for the alternative care of children. 65th Plenary Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/protection/alternative_care_Guidelines_English.pdf Ursin, M., Oltedal, S., & Muñoz, C. (2017). Recognizing the ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ in child protection cases. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 932-941. Valiente, C. (1996). The rejection of authoritarian policy legacies: Family policy in Spain (1975–1995). South European Society & Politics, 1(1), 95-114. Valiquette-Tessier, S.-E., Vandette, M.-P., & Gosselin, J. (2016). Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? A systematic review of stereotypes and parenthood. Journal of Family Studies, 22(2), 162–181. van Holen, F., Clé, A., West, D., Gypen, L., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2020). Family bonds of foster children. A qualitative research regarding the experience of foster children in longterm foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105593. Vaquero, E., Balsells, M. À., Ponce, C., Urrea, A., & Navajas, A. (2020). “If I’m Here, It’s Because I Do Not Have Anyone”: Social Support for the Biological Family during the Foster Care Process. Social Sciences, 9(3), 31. 88 Walkerdine, V. (1993). Beyond developmentalism?. Theory & Psychology, 3(4), 451-469. Walsh, J. (2018). Migrant family display: A strategy for achieving recognition and validation in the host country. Sociological Research Online, 23(1), 67-83. Walsh, J., & Mason, W. (2018). Walking the walk: Changing familial forms, government policy and everyday social work practice in England. Social Policy and Society, 17(4), 603-618. Wampler, K. S., & Halverson Jr, C. F. (1993). Quantitative measurement in family research. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp.181 – 194. Welch, V. (2018). Talking back to ‘family’, ‘family troubles’, and ‘the looked-after child’. Sociological Research Online, 23(1), 197-218. Wilson, S., Hean, S., Abebe, T., & Heaslip, V. (2020). Children’s experiences with Child Protection Services: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 104974. Winter, K. (2006). The participation rights of looked after children in their health care: a critical review of the research. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 14(1), 77-95. Winter, K. (2010). The perspectives of young children in care about their circumstances and implications for social work practice. Child & Family Social Work, 15(2), 186-195. Wissö, T., Johansson, H., & Höjer, I. (2019). What is a family? Constructions of family and parenting after a custody transfer from birth parents to foster parents. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 9-16. Wyn, J., Lantz, S., & Harris, A. (2012). Beyond the ‘transitions’ metaphor: Family relations and young people in late modernity. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 3-22. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429-442. Young, D. S. & Casey, E. A. (2018). An examination of the sufficiency of small qualitative samples. Social Work Research, 43(1), 53-58. Zelizer, V. A. (1994). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Princeton: Princeton University Press 89 APPENDICE Appendix 1 – Article I 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Appendix 3 – Article III 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 135 136 Appendix 7 – Gatekeeper informed consent 137 138 139 Appendix 8 – Interview guide General questions 1. Age years spent in foster care, country of origin, age when placed in foster care, who lived with before being placed in foster care. Interview questions 2. Can you draw your family map with people that are most important to you and whom you consider family? - What makes this into your family? - Why do you reckon him/her as your family? - Have you always seen him/her as part of your family? 3. I would like to talk to you a little bit more now about your time in foster care/birth family if that’s ok. - Can you tell me a bit more about your foster family? - Do you still have contact with your birth family? If yes, how is your relationship with your birth family? - Can you tell me about the time you spend with your foster/birth family? - What is a typical family situation?