Paloma Gay y Blasco, Sheena Macrae, Peter Selman and Huon Wardle1 challenge the methodology and findings of an article published in the previous edition of Adoption & Fostering (Chou and Browne, 2008). The debate continues with a letter from the USA, followed by Browne and Chou's response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrowneK, ‘A European survey of the number and characteristics of children less than three years old in residential care at risk of harm’, Adoption & Fostering29: 4, pp 23–33, 2005.
2.
CartrightL, ‘Images of “waiting children”: spectatorship and pity in the representation of the global social orphan in the 1990s’, in VolkmanT A (ed), Cultures of Transnational Adoption, Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2005.
3.
ChildONEurope, Report on National and Intercountry Adoption, Florence: Instituto degli Innocenti, 2006.
4.
ChouSBrowneK, ‘The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe’, Adoption & Fostering32: 1, pp 40–48, 2008.
5.
DickensJ, ‘The paradox of intercountry adoption: analysing Romania's experience as a sending country’, International Journal of Social Welfare11: 1, pp 76–83, 2002.
6.
JohnsonK, ‘Politics of international and domestic adoption in China’, Law and Society Review36: 2, pp 379–96, 2002.
7.
JohnsonK, Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son: Abandonment, adoption and orphanage care in China, St Paul, MN: Yeong & Yeong, 2004.
8.
JohnsonK, ‘Chaobao: the plight of the Chinese adoptive parents in the era of the one-child policy’, in Volkman (ed) T A, Cultures of Transnational Adoption, Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2005.
9.
LeifsenE, ‘Person, relation and value: the economy of circulating Ecuadorian children in international adoption’, in BowieF (ed), Cross-cultural Approaches to Adoption, London: Routledge, 2004.
10.
LeinaweaverJ, ‘On moving children: the social implications of Andean child circulation’, American Ethnologist34: 1, pp 162–80, 2007.
11.
KimE, ‘Our adoptee, our alien: transnational adoptees as specters of foreignness and family in South Korea’, Anthropological Quarterly80: 2, pp 497–532, 2007.
12.
KligmanG, ‘Abortion and international adoption in post-Ceausescu Romania’, Feminist Studies18: 2, pp 405–19, 1992.
13.
SelmanP, The Impact of Intercountry Adoption on the Well-being of Children in Europe, Paper presented at the final conference of the WELLCHI network, Barcelona, 8–10 February 2007.
14.
SelmanP, Intercountry Adoption in Europe 1998–2006, Paper presented at Annual Conference of the Social Policy Association, Edinburgh 23–25 June 2008a; available at www.crfr.ac.uk/spa_papers.html.
15.
SelmanP, ‘From Bucharest to Beijing: changes in countries sending children for international adoption 1990 to 2006’, in WrobelGNeilE (eds), International Advances in Adoption Research for Practice, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008b.
