Tarja Pösö uses memory work with professionals to examine the intercountry adoption of Finnish children that took place from the 1950s to the 1970s. Since then, however, Finland has been a receiving country for children adopted from abroad and even the domestic adoption of those born in Finland is rare. The aim of the study is to shed light on the time, space and culture-bound character of child protection and intercountry adoption. The data consist of group conversations with the social workers, now retired, who arranged the intercountry adoptions. The importance of the data is emphasised by the fact that no research or statistics exist on these adoptions; indeed, there is little knowledge that they ever took place. The Finnish example shows that the need and opportunities for intercountry adoptions may vary even within a relatively short period of time. The current global pattern of intercountry adoptions cannot be considered permanent.
AnttonenA.HenrikssonL.NätkinR. (eds), Naisten Hyvinvointivaltio [The Welfare State of Women], Tampere: Vastapaino, 1994.
2.
ChouS.BrowneK.KirkaldyM., ‘Intercountry adoption on the internet’, Adoption & Fostering31: 2, pp 22–31, 2007.
3.
ChouS.BrowneK. ‘The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe’, Adoption & Fostering32: 1, pp 40–48, 2008.
4.
EricssonK.SimonsenE. (eds), Children of World War II: The hidden enemy legacy, Oxford/New York: Berg, 2005.
5.
EydalB.SatkaM., ‘Social work and Nordic welfare policies for children: The present challenges in the light of the past’, European Journal of Social Work9: 3, pp 305–22, 2006.
6.
FergusonH., Protecting Children in Time, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2004.
7.
FesslerA., The Girls Who Went Away: The hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v Wade, New York: Penguin Books, 2007.
8.
Finnish Board of Intercountry Adoption Affairs, Suomen Kansainvälisten Lapseksiottamisasioiden Lautakunta, Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, 2006.
9.
FreundlichM., ‘Adoption research: An assessment of empirical contributions to the advancement of adoption practice’, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless11: 2, pp 143–166, 2002.
10.
FreundlichM.GerstenzangS.HoltanM., ‘Websites featuring children waiting for adoption: A cross-country review’, Adoption & Fostering31: 2, pp 6–16, 2007.
11.
GarrettP.SinkkonenJ., ‘Putting children first? A comparison of child adoption policy and practice in Britain and Finland’, European Journal of Social Work6: 1, pp 19–29, 2003.
12.
HearnJ.PösöT.KorpinenJ.SmithC.WhyteS., ‘What is child protection/lastensuojelu? Historical and methodological issues in comparative research on lastensuojelu/child protection’, International Journal of Social Welfare13: 1, pp 28–41, 2004.
13.
JunilaM., ‘Eri maata — vieraiden naiset ja lapset kansallisessa kertomuksessa’ [From another country — the women and children of strangers in the national narrative], Nuorisotutkimus26: 2, pp 32–45, 2008.
14.
KartovaaraL.RintanenH.SäkkinenS.et al, Suomalainen Lapsi [The Finnish Child], Helsinki: Tilastokeskus & Stakes, 2007.
15.
KitzingerJ., ‘Focus groups: Method and madness?’, in BoltonM. (ed), Challenge and Innovation: Methodological advances in social research on HIV/AIDS, London/Bristol: Taylor & Francis, 1994.
16.
LahtiI., Adoptiolapsi Nuoruusiässä: 90 adoptiolapsen ja heidän perheensä psykiatrinen tutkimus [An Adopted Child in Adolescence: A psychiatric study of 90 adopted children and their families], Sarja C: 84, Turku: Turun yliopisto, 1991.
17.
Lastensuojelu 2007 [Child Welfare in 2007], Statistical report 23, Helsinki: Stakes & Suomen virallinen tilasto, 2008.
18.
MisztalB., Theories of Social Remembering, Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003.
19.
MorganD., ‘Focus groups as qualitative research’, Sage University Paper, Qualitative Research Method Series16, Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1997.
20.
MorganD., ‘Focus group interviewing’, in GubriumJFHolsteinJ. A. (eds), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and method, Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage, 2002.
21.
NäreS., ‘Sotaorpojen uhri ja lunastajaidentiteetti’ [The sacrifice of the war orphans and the redeemer identity], Nuorisotutkimus28: 2, pp 46–50, 2008.
22.
NätkinR., Kamppailu Suomalaisesta äitiydestä [The Battle over Finnish Motherhood], Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 1997.
23.
NätkinR., ‘Moninaiset perhemuodot ja lapsen hyvä’ [Multiple forms of family and the child's interest], in ForsbergH.NätkinR. (eds), Perhe Murroksessa: Kriittisen perhetutkimuksen jäljillä [Family at a Turning Point: Striving for critical family research], Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2003.
24.
Pelastakaa Lapset/Save the Children Finland, Lapsen Kanssa: Pelastakaa Lapset 80 vuotta [With a Child: SCF 80 years], Helsinki: Pelastakaa Lapset, 2002.
25.
PulmaP., ‘Kerjuuluvasta perhekuntoutukseen’ [From permission to beg to family rehabilitation], in PulmaP.TurpeinenO. (eds), Suomen Lastensuojelun Historia [History of Finnish Child Protection], Helsinki: Lastensuojelun Keskusliitto, 1987.
26.
RafteryM.O'SullivanE., Suffer the Little Children: The inside story of Ireland's industrial schools, Dublin: New Island, 1999.
27.
RautanenE., Avioton äiti ja Adoptiopäätös [Unmarried Mother and the Adoption Decision], Helsinki: WSOY, 1972.
28.
SelmanP., ‘Intercountry adoption in the new millennium: The “quiet migration” revisited’, Population Research and Policy Review21, pp 205–25, 2002.
29.
SelmanP., ‘Trends in intercountry adoption: Analysis of data from 20 receiving countries, 1998–2004’, Journal of Population Research23: 2, pp 183–204, 2006.
30.
TriseliotisJ.ShiremanJ.HundlebyM., Adoption: Theory, policy and practice, London: Cassell, 1997.
31.
UkkonenT., Menneisyyden Tulkinta Kertomalla [Interpreting the Past Through Narrative], Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 2000.
32.
VariloE., ‘Ottolapsisijoitus arviointi- ja toimenpideprosessina’ [Adoption as a process of assessment and procedure], Monograph, Psychiatria Fennican Monografiasarja18, Helsinki: Psykiatrian Tutkimussäätiö, 1993.
