STEPFAMILY DYNAMICS
narratives of stepfamily mothers
INTRODUCTION
Writing this Learning Agreement has been a challenge intellectually and emotionally and has brought me to focus my thinking in new ways. Before I started work on the doctorate programme I had no previous experience of research. My training programme for Gestalt psychotherapy in 1984 had a theoretical element but did not cover research and I do not have an MA. Through teasing out my abilities in my Review of Prior Learning I found that I have consistently put myself in positions where I learn through experience. This doctorate is no exception; my Practice Evaluation Project (PEP) was the first qualitative research project I have worked on. The doctoral journey so far has been in many ways a ‘learning experience’; one that I have enjoyed but on which I nearly gave up several times.
The proposed project is for an exploration of stepfamily dynamics as experienced by stepfamily mothers. This is an area where I have personal and professional connections. Stepfamily issues are of increasing relevance to psychotherapists as stepfamilies become more common. There is a growing awareness in this country that stepfamilies present challenges that differ from families where everyone is biologically related, however there is very little research taking place in the UK humanistic psychotherapy world. ‘Background’ briefly covers this.
Under ‘Rationale’ I describe how I moved from thinking about stepfamilies broadly, to focusing on Stepfamily Dynamics through the experiences of mothers. This focus has given me a clear way forward for research into an area where I already have some insight through my personal experience. I include a subheading ‘Empathy in Psychotherapy’ on the value of experiential learning and the importance of empathy where psychotherapists have no previous experience of stepfamily issues. This is followed by a list of ‘Aims and Objectives’.
The section on Gestalt Therapy describes some of my underlying thinking, and
shows how Gestalt theory provides a means of thinking about stepfamily mother’s
identity and how working with one family member can affect the whole family.
‘Method and Methodology’ describes my intention to dialogue with
stepfamily mothers and to provide a narrative description of how they experience
their stepfamilies. Their family structures will be presented in biograms that
illustrate the biological structures of participants’ stepfamilies and
these will be brought together through our conversations.
I finally discuss some of the ‘Ethical Challenges’ posed by the
project, including issues of confidentiality, impact of the research and consent.
The outcome will bring the understanding and practical knowing this generates into my work with stepfamily members and the wider humanistic psychotherapy field. This will be a narrative research study which will include data collected from interview transcripts, my own story and a reflexive journal of my process through the doctorate.
BACKGROUND
When a biological family is separated and a stepfamily formed, people who do
not share history or biology are brought together. The biological structures
in the family are also experienced on an emotional relational level and feelings
that may have been less apparent in a family where all are related become visible.
They may be experienced as conflict in the stepparent/parent couple (Salisbury
2004) when children being loyal to their parents become hostile towards their
stepparent, who is in the position of outsider in regard to biological relationships.
There are powerful feelings that exist between parent and child, and sexual
partners. These include some of the most difficult to manage emotions such as
jealousy, protectiveness, fear of loss, competition, hate and love. These emotions
are not connected with intellect and have a visceral quality. They appear to
be the consequences of biology and connected with actual physical relationships.
Mothers provide an example of this as being a mother is more than a biological
fact it also has emotional relational meaning, both towards her child and towards
those outside of her and her child (Winnicott 1965).
Focusing this research project on stepfamily dynamics and mothers continues
a personal and professional exploration and has a wider relevance in the humanistic
psychotherapy field. My family has been a stepfamily for twenty years. My partner
and I were both parents but have no children between us. This has been difficult
to manage as it evoked strong painful feelings in our relationship which were
unexpected. All of us found the situation difficult and although our children
have now grown up and time has passed, there are still unresolved issues between
us arising from our family situation.
Following my Gestalt training I worked for several years (1993-1996) with National Stepfamily Association (NSA) who used counsellors and psychotherapists to work as volunteers on their telephone helpline in return for training. Through this I found many stepfamily members struggling with similar issues to myself and my partner. I then set up and ran several Gestalt therapy groups for parents and stepparents in stepfamilies. I also have written articles on stepfamilies in humanistic psychotherapy and counselling journals, co-wrote a book (Salisbury & Walters 1997) and have presented workshops on stepfamilies for the Association of Humanistic Practitioners and at Gestalt conferences. I explored the impact of biological and non-biological relationships on the stepfamily couple for my Practice Evaluation Project (PEP).
In recent years stepfamilies have become a more common family structure. In the UK they are the most rapidly growing family type and there is an increase in the number of men raising other people’s children (Ferri 2004 p12). In my psychotherapy practice I meet an increasing number of clients who are separated from the other parent of their children or who have grown up in a stepfamily and are confused by their family experiences.
Stepfamily issues are being researched in the domains of sociology, anthropology and family therapy. Gill Gorell Barnes a systemic family therapist has researched and written on growing up in stepfamilies and contemporary family structures (Gorell Barnes 1998; Gorell Barnes, Thompson et al. 1998). In America Patricia Papernow from the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland published an important book that shows the stepfamily as a process with a series of developmental stages (Papernow 1993) . In this country there is not to my knowledge any research taking place in the humanistic psychotherapy domain.
In regard to stepfamily services in the UK several organisations offer support to stepfamily members through help-lines, publications or counselling although stepfamily members do not always recognise themselves as such and may not seek help for family issues unless their problems are severe. (Salisbury 2004a) Relate offers couples counselling and has produced a guide for Stepfamilies (Hayman 1999). Parentline Plus is concerned with all aspects of parenting and recently produced a report on stepfamilies (June 2005) based on calls from stepfamily members to their helpline . The Stepfamily Association of Scotland developed from a focus group, publishes informational pamphlets and runs a helpline. The Tavistock Clinic in London offers a family service and takes National Health referrals.
Without stepfamily matters being highlighted in any UK humanistic psychotherapy organisation, access to psychological support for stepfamily members is most prominently available through couples counselling at Relate, the Parentline Plus helpline or systemic family therapy .
RATIONALE
Stepfamily members deal with situations and emotions that have an unexpected impact (Salisbury and Walters 1997). Without understanding how stepfamily feelings and situations are connected psychotherapists who have not got the experience of stepfamily life themselves might be biased, leap to incorrect conclusions about their clients and have difficulty in finding empathic resonance with them.
The issue of a growing diversity of family structures formed by the separation
of parents is important for psychotherapists of all orientations. It will arise
in most practitioners’ professional practices and affect many in their
private lives. Therefore there is scope for psychotherapists to have the opportunity
of gaining more awareness of stepfamily issues, for developing a higher potential
for empathic contact and for increasing the options for and effectiveness of
psychotherapy work with stepfamily members.
Why focus on mothers
There are many issues presented by stepfamilies which might be worthy of further
inquiry. I worked on an earlier design proposal which I presented to the Programme
Approval Panel (PAP). Their feedback showed me that I needed to narrow my focus,
that my design lacked integrity and that the project I envisaged was too large
and would have proved unmanageable. I write about this in further detail under
methodology.
At a later stage I saw that I had not recognised that I was already working with a focus. This was my interest in different feelings between stepfamily members who are biologically related, e.g. parents and children and those whose connection is through the partnership of one of their parents; e.g. stepparent and stepchild . I was left wanting to know whether this theory was born out in further exploration.
This led me to think about the potential relationships in stepfamilies. Of
biological relationships there can be parents, children and siblings and of
step-relationships there are stepparents, stepchildren and stepsiblings with
two genders of each (if we don’t include special circumstances such as
adoption). As it would be too large a project at this time to explore all variations,
I considered looking into stepfamily dynamics from the experience of one relational
perspective. I chose that of mother because: firstly mothers are central in
any family – families and stepfamilies don’t exist without a mother
somewhere either within the household, outside the household if she lives elsewhere
or behind the household if she has died. Secondly mothers are a clear example
of the physical/biological relationship that is also emotional thirdly because
I am a mother and therefore can bring myself firmly into the research through
an area that is close to me. The identity of a stepfamily mother is different
from a mother in a biological family. This is discussed further under ‘Gestalt
Therapy’.
Empathy in Psychotherapy
In psychotherapy practice an empathic non-judgemental stance contributes to
a relational environment that supports the therapeutic aims of deep personal
exploration and potential for change. Kim Etherington (2004), in her discussion
on narrative research describes how psychotherapy and narrative research may
be parallel (p227). ‘Our personal history, when it is known to us and
processed in ways that allow us to remain in contact emotionally and bodily
with others whose stories remind us of our own, can enrich our role as researcher’
(p180). In both cases it is essential to be able to allow ourselves to be affected
by our clients/co-researchers and to stay in contact and aware of our own responses.
Empathy for the experiences of stepfamily members will be most accessible to
therapists who have lived in a stepfamily themselves know their own feelings
and how they responded to their own situation. Others need to be introduced
to stepfamily issues in order to be able to understand their clients and the
families they represent. This can take place through evocative writing and narrative
or through ‘experiential’ workshops which evoke a bodily emotional
learning as well as theoretical. (I use the word experiential to mean a lived
sense, something experienced as opposed to thought about). An embodied experience
goes some way towards understanding the complexity of stepfamily dynamics.
Aims and Objectives
The aims of this project will be:
* To make a contribution to the understanding of stepfamily issues
* To explore the possible connection between physical/biological and emotional
dynamic structures in stepfamilies as identified in my PEP
* to increase empathy among psychotherapists who don’t have much –
or any – personal experience of stepfamilies
* To develop support for stepfamily members through my own work and with other
therapists
* To bring forward the awareness of issues brought about by stepfamily situations
among humanistic practitioners.
* To provide a window into the lived world of mothers in stepfamilies and engage
the reader/participant in the process.
Other objectives appear as I write. For example, looking at stepfamily relationships through one relational perspective – that of stepfamily mothers - may show how change in one person in a stepfamily influences all members. This would not preclude gaining insight into experiences of other family positions as stepfamily members (including mothers) have multiple roles; a mother may also be a stepmother and possibly a stepchild.
GESTALT THERAPY
…faith is knowing, beyond awareness, that if one takes a step there will be ground underfoot; one gives oneself unhesitatingly to the act, one has faith that the background will produce the means. (Perls, Hefferline et al. 1951 p343)
I have included this section about Gestalt therapy which is the theory behind my work as a psychotherapist. I would not describe my practice as purely Gestalt, however the basic theory influences how I view events, relationships and psychotherapy work and is present in my approach to research. The thinking behind Gestalt practice has much in common with many qualitative research methods, (Barber 2002). Examples are the valuing of heuristic and phenomenological inquiry (Moustakas 1994), paying attention to the body, emotions and thoughts of the therapist (researcher) in response to their client (Etherington 2004), theory that emerges from data (the emerging figure) (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
An important concept in Gestalt is the relationship between the organism and environment. Here I refer to the original Gestalt Therapy text which describes this relationship.
Now in any biological, psychological, or sociological investigation whatever,
we must start from the interacting of the organism and its environment. It makes
no sense to speak, for instance, of an animal that breathes without considering
air and oxygen as part of its definition.
(Perls, Hefferline et al. 1951 p228)
For example, considering the stepfamily mother, the field conditions are not just what surrounds her, they are part of her identity. She is in a stepfamily, she has a child (else she wouldn’t be a mother) she has an ex-partner who sired her child; all of these things make her who she is.
Let us call this interacting of organism and environment in any function the “organism/environment field”….and it is always to such an interacting field that we are referring, and not to an isolated animal. (ibid)
Again I consider the stepfamily mother. The identity of ‘mother’ has meaning in the context of the existence of children she has born and a father who at the very least provided the sperm. Mother does not and cannot exist in isolation. When a father has no contact, he is still part of what the mother is and she has a relationship with him; the relationship of no contact. Of course there is much more to the field of which she is part than her child or ex-partner; for example her field also consists of her family of origin, her current family household (with or without a new partner, children etc.), the larger family network, the city and country where they live, social/cultural/political setting and so forth. She is interacting, relating and responding to and part of all of these things and more. She is not separate and does not/cannot exist as an isolated being.
From this perspective a stepfamily mother is different than a mother in a biological family because the relationships in the family field are different. How this difference is experienced and managed by different stepfamily mothers will be one of the things to emerge from the narratives.
As a psychotherapist working with an individual or sub-group of a family then I am working on the whole family field. If my work is with a stepfamily mother, her changes through the therapy process will have a ripple affect among other stepfamily members. The following is a crude example:
Through her work in psychotherapy a mother may realise that she has been protecting her children from the ‘otherness’ of their stepfather/her partner; this may be related to her personal history and working on that frees her up to be able to do something different. She stops intervening in arguments between them and this in turn means that her partner and children become more involved with each other. This may then bring to the forefront their relationship with their father – who may have feelings about their being involved with another man in his place. The crisis this brings about could mean that new arrangements are made between all of them that acknowledge the father and gives the stepfather a firmer place in the family. The children also become clearer about their relationship with their father and stepfather who are no longer fighting over them.
If a stepfamily mother is my client or co-researcher I will be part of her interacting field and she of mine and we will be interrelating – client exists in relation to therapist, co-researcher in relation to researcher. To recap: the individuals in a stepfamily are an interacting group and change in one will affect the whole group. Furthermore that family is part of a society – a far larger group made of many individuals, families and other groups. As we work with individuals, in a small but potent way we are working with the larger groups of which they are part and which is part of them.
METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
Narrative theory with its processes of witnessing stories and thick personal description is a form of research that is validated through experience and empathy (Speedy 2003)
Having decided to look at stepfamily dynamics through the experience of mothers I am in a better position to think about methodology and research design. I have decided to use narrative research to describe through their voices the worlds of stepfamily mothers and to draw on my own experience as a stepfamily mother. To find out more about the possible link between biological and emotional dynamic structures I will illustrate the biological structures with ‘biograms’ which I developed for my PEP.
I intend to increase empathy among humanistic psychotherapists through a written
research outcome that is resonant (Etherington 2004 p 213), descriptive and
encompassing difference as opposed to theoretical and general so that it communicates
a felt sense of what it is like to be living in a stepfamily and what differences
in biological and non-biological stepfamily relationships feel like.
Finding my way
At an earlier stage of designing this project I wrote the following: ‘It
has been difficult to commit myself to a set methodology as I am reluctant to
tie myself down and thereby limit the potential for improvisation. I resonate
with the description of the Qualitative Researcher as bricoleur or quilt maker,
(Denzin and Lincoln 2003).’ This approach was confusing, I found myself
involved in ever widening circles of inspiration and nothing practical. Before
I could progress I had to ‘bite the bullet’ and focus the research.
I considered the possibility of exploring stepfamily dynamics using Cooperative Inquiry and ran two groups based on this consisting of stepfamily members and psychotherapists . Peter Reason and John Heron created Cooperative Inquiry as a means of working with others as equal participants in developing theory and action (Reason 1988) . It takes the form of a group where research is shaped and directed by all group members. It is ‘instigated’ rather than led, and the leader’s role is transferred to the whole group who decide together such issues as qualities needed for participation, the content of the group discussion (within a common interest) how the research is to be conducted, length of group, venue and shared facilities. The appeal of working in this way is the potential of being collectively creative, of emergent findings, outcomes that belong to the group rather than the instigator and a means (through the group) of measuring accessibility and usefulness of outcomes (ibid p18).
I felt I could use such a group as a way to think together with co-researchers
and to initiate action, that I might use the parallel process of the group as
theoretical information and that the group may decide to create something practical
such as theoretical papers, or therapeutic exploratory exercises. However I
found the challenges of allowing research to be truly co-created entailed my
giving up a level of control which I found difficult to justify to myself and
others. I therefore stopped running the focus groups, although I am still excited
by the ideas behind Cooperative Inquiry and hope to use it in my work at a future
date.
This was the design I presented at my PAP, and it reflected how, without clear
objectives or focus I was unclear about methodology and what I might realistically
achieve. I was in effect hurling myself at the subject of stepfamilies and hoping
for a focus to emerge. This fitted with my view of myself as an improviser (Salisbury
2004b) but avoided the possibility of my clearly owning the project content
and direction.
The issue that I now find myself grappling with is how to combine mothers ‘stories’
with theory, so that I can produce both evocative, resonant writing and inform
my psychotherapy work and presentations.
Inspired by its philosophical links with Gestalt therapy (Barber p82) I considered Phenomenological Heuristic Research as developed by Moustakas (1994) from Husserl’s phenomenological philosophy. This approach extracts and distils the meaning of an experience using the person of the researcher to do so. The outcome is a concentrated evocative description. I felt that this process, where meaning can become divorced from the original material was too general for my purpose in that I am not intending to find out the meaning of stepfamily mothers, I want to describe and communicate an understanding of their experience as it is lived.
I therefore looked into Narrative Research in which the researcher seeks to mirror and reflect accurately the experiences of co-researchers, actual voices remain in tact and differences are described and cherished. In the Narrative Research process the researcher may achieve a sense of their co-researcher’s world, however as the written outcome is unavoidably filtered through the researcher it will be coloured by her perspective and biases so that she stands between the narrative material and her audience.
Narrative approaches vary and include the use of groups for using audience as outsider witness (Speedy 2003), interviews, conversations, discussion and writing – in common is the valuing of narrative as a means of authentically presenting life as experienced and of conveying depth and complexity through description rather than interpretation. It is fundamentally descriptive and sometimes the ‘story’ lacks added insight that interpretation can provide.
Etherington’s descriptions of narrative approaches (2004) reflect the gritty visceral quality of stepfamily mothers experiences (Salisbury 2004a p23). In this regard I was struck by the following passage:
Narrative Analysis views life as constructed and experienced through the telling and re-telling of the story (Bruner 1987, 1990, 1991; MacIntyre 1981 in Etherington p213) and the analysis is the creation of coherent and resonant stories. The analysis does not seek to find similarities across stories, and is not interested in conceptual themes, but instead values the messiness, depth and texture of experienced life. (Etherington p81)
Engaging with ‘messiness, depth and texture’ and communicating through ‘story’ and the actual voices of participants, would do justice to the complications and contradictions of stepfamily mothers’ experience.
However I don’t accept this Narrative view of stories which I see as our interpretation and construction of experience rather than experience itself. We need them to make sense of life for ourselves and in communication with those around us. Our accounts to do not always tally with the accounts others might have. In this respect I agree with Etherington who describes different narratives as representative of different realities (Freeman 1993; Gergen 1994 in Etherington p75) and see part of the texture of relating and life being created through how we meet in our difference.
Comparing Narrative Research and Phenomenological Heuristic Inquiry, both work towards impossible goals. For narratives to be compelling they need to be edited and ordered, otherwise they can be difficult to engage with. In other words the researcher needs to weave them into a story of her own making. In which case the story is not a true reflection it is a creation; a work of art woven with the material of the research data by the researcher. In the same way, a researcher will never be able to be an untainted crucible in the way that phenomenological research is described by Moustakas. There will always be biases; knowledge that is bracketed doesn’t disappear it stays there and informs. In both instances the best that can be hoped for is an approximation. Of the two, narrative research offers outcomes closest to what I want to achieve and I have decided to use this methodology through reflexive interviews. This is described further in the next section.
In regard to how I might include my own material, I considered autoethnography
which ‘incorporates elements of one’s own life experience when writing
about others’ (Scott-Hoy 2002, p276 in Etherington 2004 p139).
As counsellors and psychotherapists we have been taught to think about the cultures
and family systems within which clients operate. Likewise we have been trained
to examine how our own culture and family systems impact on our life stories
and on our relationships with others. However, autoethnography does not merely
require us to explore the interface between culture and self; it requires us
to write about ourselves. (p140)
Writing about myself is part of what I intend to do, however if the main thrust
of the research were to be based on my story then I would lose the variety of
experiences beyond myself. My intention is to use my own story as a means of
comparison, empathy, evaluation of difference and as an equaliser with my co-researchers
where I will be a stepfamily mother among stepfamily mothers; and for the reflexive
account of that to be part of the methodology. I am therefore more interested
in bringing myself into the research through interaction with my co-researchers
narratives and dialogue with my co-researchers than for my story to be the main
source of data.
Data Collection
My primary source of data will be the transcripts from reflexive interviews
(Etherington). These will be a joint exploration through conversation or dialogue
of the participants’ stories in which I will be interested in the content
of what is being said and the lived experience of my co-researchers. In order
to do so I will be present to myself (as I am in my psychotherapy work) and
work with my co-researcher to deepen and clarify what is being said so that
I might arrive at a felt sense of my co-researchers world. This ‘reflexive
interviewing’ follows ‘the usual format of the researcher asking
questions that the participant answers: where it is different is that the interviewer
also notices and/or shares personal experience of the topic and comments on
the unfolding communication between both parties’(p77). The interview
will become an encounter between equals – a process of thinking through
together. I envisage the interviews being fairly lengthy and possibly taking
place over more than one meeting.
I will make diagrams of participants’ families in order to have a visual representation of their relational field. The biograms developed for my PEP (Salisbury 2005) illustrate the biological relationships in families. This will be important information in regard to thinking about the connections between how the family is experienced and how it is constructed in relation to the mothers I interview.
Another source of data will be the transcripts and biograms from the two focus groups I ran while looking into Cooperative Inquiry.
As part of the research I will keep a reflexive journal, recording my process, my feelings and any serendipitous pieces of information that may or may not have a place in the final written project such as dreams relating to the project, conversations with people, how I am feeling about and responding to co-researchers narratives etc. I will also write about my own experiences.
I am in therapy myself and since I have been working on this project have used
this to talk about the work I am doing and how I feel about it. It has become
a place where I gain perspective on the emotional and practical processes of
creating, writing and researching. I feel this is particularly important as
I am researching an area that is close to me and where I am in some respects
unresolved.
Participants
I will conduct between 6-10 interviews depending on the length and depth of
those that take place. Co-researchers will be stepfamily mothers and will include
those mothers who are in stepfamilies by virtue of their ex-partner being in
a new relationship. They will need to be emotionally robust and articulate.
I will invite the mothers who took part in my focus group if they wish to participate. Some have indicated that they are still interested in being part of the research. I will also post a request on my website and let colleagues around the country know who I am looking for. I have had several offers of help and will contact these people as well.
Because the study will be descriptive and qualitative rather than quantitative
and comparative I am not concerned about finding a representative sample of
stepfamily mothers although I intend to talk to mothers from a variety of stepfamily
situations. As stepfamily structures vary greatly I imagine that this will not
be a problem.
Analysis
The narratives of the interviews will be recorded and transcribed. I will do
the transcription and this will put me further in touch with the material. I
will listen for voice changes, my response, my feeling as well as the actual
narrative. I will also create illustrations of the biological/physical structure
of participants’ stepfamilies and these will show connections, disconnections
and imbalances that may be reflected in the narratives. The final written document
will be a collection of stepfamily mothers’ stories of themselves in their
families, told through their own voices, with commentary and discussion.
At all stages I will discuss with participants how I am proceeding with the transcribed material so that the process is collaborative and the writing agreed by my co-researchers to be representative.
I will listen to the transcripts from the two focus groups I ran with a view to extracting participants’ stories and the key issues that arose. These may indicate potential areas for future research.
Material from my journal will be used to provide a reflexive account of the research project which will frame the narratives.
Some of the complications of conducting this project are described under ‘Ethical
Challenges’.
Overview
* I will record and transcribe the interviews before writing up and will at
all stages of writing go back to my co-researchers to make sure that I am accurately
representing their narrative.
* I will listen carefully to transcripts from earlier Focus Groups to extract the stories of stepfamily mothers.
* I will make biograms and genograms of participants families which will provide a visible representation of co-researchers’ family relationships.
* I will write a journal (Etherington 2004 p133) in which I record my thoughts, feelings, connections, dreams (since embarking on this doctorate I have at times had dreams that directly relate to my process).
* I will remain in psychotherapy in order to process the emotional impact of the research, keep me on track with my doctorate journey and as a resource for my personal reflection.
* The combination of transcribed interviews, biograms/genograms and my reflexive commentary of the process will provide the data of the research
ETHICAL CHALLENGES
Some aspects of qualitative research methods parallel psychotherapy practice. As in the relationship between therapist and client, the relationship between researcher and co-researcher, has the potential for mutual affect so that both are changed by the encounter. (Etherington p109). I will discover more about the differences between being a psychotherapist and researcher as I get involved in the research. Some of those I am aware of now.
As a therapist, if a stepfamily mother were to approach me, she would have sought me out and together we would ‘re-search into herself and her life’ (Etherington p110). The aim would be her development and growth. The focus of our work together would remain on her and for her primary benefit while at the same time I would be learning from her about myself in relationship with her and this would be an aspect of our work together. In most circumstances the outcome would be private, personal and unpublished.
The maintaining of privacy and respect between therapist and client is hugely important and care is taken by therapists to ensure anonymity and confidentiality, that material is treated with respect, and that in circumstances where a third party is involved such as supervision that anonymity is preserved. In most circumstances this creates a special environmental condition within which fruitful therapy can take place.
As a researcher, such care is equally important. Co-researchers will need to feel that they can trust me to receive them openly, that I will be respectful, honest and transparent and that I will not use material they have given me in ways that have not been negotiated between us. A distinctive feature of research is that the outcome is intended to be visible in the public domain. Inasmuch as the project includes an intention to inform others, the outcomes will be published, written about and discussed. Therefore preserving anonymity and a respectful, consensual relationship between me and co-researchers will need to be a continual aspect of how I conduct the research.
In regard to visibility, neither researcher nor co-researchers can know what will be revealed in the process of research. Even where consent for involvement has been clearly negotiated the willingness for this to be made visible may change if what arises touches on unforeseen areas. Therefore, it is important for co-researchers to know that every aspect of their involvement will be voluntary and that they will be free to withdraw at any time. I would hope to create a relationship where if it were to arise that a participant wants to withdraw, we could talk about it. Etherington states ‘we need to take responsibility for the skills and knowledge we hold as therapists: if we stumble carelessly into intimate personal research relationships we take the risk of leaving participants worse off by our encounters with them’ (p227). This would be particularly pertinent in a study such as mine where the intention is to use skills developed as a psychotherapist in my style of interviewing.
In order to minimise the likelihood of people being surprised by how I work and to be as informed as possible prior to participation I will meet potential co-researchers beforehand and talk through what I am hoping to do, what their concerns are and how we might proceed before obtaining written consent . I hope that this would go some way towards informing them and being transparent in terms of the research process. Consent therefore would be as far as possible informed, although the actual research process will remain unpredictable.
Meeting people before they become involved in research would allow me to assess their robustness emotionally. I am concerned that people may be churned up or disturbed by their research work with me especially as I am intending to look into possibly difficult relationships that may evoke defensiveness or shame. In this regard I want to offer co-researchers some support in the form of confidential time with me should they wish, to process the experience of their involvement in the research.
Thus consent is not as simple as getting an agreement form signed . I will ensure at each stage that what I am proposing accurately represents co-researchers experience and that I have their agreement to proceed. Stages I envisage include agreeing the transcript, agreeing any description of their feelings and circumstances and finally consenting to how their material has been included in the study.
More difficult in regard to consent is that the data I gather from co-researchers inevitably will refer to other family members who have not agreed to be part of the research. Even though they will not be directly involved in my research there may be a secondary impact through the person that I am working with in the same way as there would be if one of the family were in psychotherapy. I therefore will encourage participants to discuss their involvement with their families, wherever that is possible. Where it isn’t I will discuss with my co-researcher the best way of proceeding.
In regard to the written text I can ensure that names are changed and that disguises are in place so that co-researchers remain anonymous. In regard to my family however I will not be able to write about myself without it being possible to identify them even though I will change their names. I have talked to my husband, daughter and stepson about this and they have all agreed that I can write about myself and understand that I will probably refer to them. They have supported my exploration and are willing. However I haven’t got the consent of my son or my ex-husband and am unlikely to be able to obtain that. I have not at this stage answered for myself whether or not that means text about my family will have to be left out. I will think this through as I work on this, it may be possible to refer to my experience from a very personal viewpoint, making it clear that this is my perspective, and as far as possible not talking about others.
People offer to be involved in research for personal reasons which may be out of awareness as well as altruistic ones. Examples of such reasons, are: the opportunity to tell one’s story, revenge – telling someone how bad things are, hope for clarity. Often the out of awareness motivations are a hope for resolution. I hope that co-researchers find their involvement valuable and that they gain useful insight or development through our contact. This is not something I can guarantee; I cannot predict what will arise through our interaction and the interview may stir up difficult feelings.
I have deliberately chosen to look into an aspect of stepfamily experience
that I am close to. This will mean that I ‘risk over-identification’
(Etherington 2004 p180), and this is something that I will have to take into
account, especially when someone’s experience appears to closely match
mine. It is this risk that inspires me to remain in psychotherapy as a means
for me to gain insight into myself as well as an outlet for expressing difficult
and painful feelings.
OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT
This project will result in the following:
i) Final project to include narratives of stepfamily mothers, discussion of
links between physical/biological structures and emotional dynamics in stepfamilies,
reflexive account of research process.
ii) Groups for stepfamily members
iii) Workshops for humanistic psychotherapists aimed at building empathy for
and understanding of stepfamily members
iv) A contribution to the Gestalt and humanistic family theory in regard to
mothers’ identity in stepfamilies
v) Articles published in psychotherapy journals aimed at raising awareness among
humanistic psychotherapists and counsellors on stepfamily and parenting issues
as well as on my website. (www.gestaltworks.co.uk)
The document that I deliver to the University and Metanoia Institute will describe the process of the work with an ongoing reflective commentary. It will include the narratives of my co-researchers, analysis of their family structures in regard to their stories, the account of my personal journey through the research process, the findings of the research and the different influences and a critique of the overall project. Thus it will combine narrative and theory.
It has been encouraging that as I talk and think about this doctorate project people continue to come forward with a wish to support the study.
Engaging in this project will mean that I become more visible and expert in
understanding stepfamilies and research processes. This will change my work
in that I will be involved in presenting this and promoting awareness of the
issues in the professional community as well as working with stepfamily members.
There has always been a secondary aim in doing this doctorate which is that
of personal change, to start thinking and talking about what I do and developing
the confidence to present my understanding publicly. That has already started;
I have run workshops at two conferences on stepfamily relationships, am running
another one in Canada and am negotiating a programme for counsellors in Lafayette
Louisiana. I am planning to run a fortnightly group for stepfamily members.
Being visible opens the potential for criticism, evokes my fears of inadequacy
but also provides the opportunity for others to join me in thinking about this.
REFERENCES
(June 2005). Stepfamilies; New relationships, new challenges. A report by Parentline
Plus.
Barber, P. (2002). "Gestalt - a Prime Medium for Holistic Research and
Whole Person Education." British Gestalt Journal 11(2): 78-90.
Burgoyne, J. and D. Clark (1984). Making a Go of It: Stepfamilies in Sheffield.
London, Routledge.
Byron, D. T. (June 2005). Tiny Tearaways, BBC.
Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. (2003). The Qualitative Researcher as
Bricoleur and Quilt Maker. The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications.
Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher
Using Our Selves in Research. London and Philadelphia, Jessica Kingsley.
Ferri, E. (2004). The fourth age
Thirty-something; time to settle down? Seven Ages of Man and Woman
A look at life in Britain in the Second Elizabethan Era. I. Steward and R. Vaitilingam,
Economic & Social Research Council: 22.
Gorell Barnes, G. (1998). Family Therapy in Changing Times, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gorell Barnes, G., Thompson, et al. (1998). Growing up in Stepfamilies. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Hayman, S. (1999). Step-families: Living Successfully with Other People's Children,
Ebury.
Moustakas, C. R. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage Publications.
Papernow, P. L. (1993). Part II The Stepfamily Cycle
The Early Stages. Becoming a Stepfamily
Patterns of Development in Remarried Families. Cleveland, Gestalt Institute
of Cleveland.
Perls, F., R. Hefferline, et al. (1951a). Gestalt Therapy
Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. London, Souvenir Press Ltd.
Reason, P. (1988). Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research.
P. Reason, Sage Publications: 18.
Salisbury, C. (2004a). Couples in Stepfamilies
The impact of differing roles and relationships on the parent/stepparent partnership,
Middlesex.
Salisbury, C. (2004b). Review of Prior Learning. Metanoia, Middlesex University.
Salisbury, C. and C. Walters (1997). All Together Now
What to expect when Stepfamilies get together, National Stepfamily Association.
Sanders, P. M. (2005). Driving Mum and Dad Mad, ITV.
Speedy, J. (2003). Definitional Ceremony as Inquiry into Psychotherapy Outcomes.
European Society for Research in the Education of Adults (ESREA. Basingstoke.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Family and Individual Development. London, Tavistock/Routledge.