Reflexivity and Lived Experience of Out-of-Home Care: Positionality as an Early Parenthood Researcher

Abstract

Knowledge, beliefs, identities, and emotions influence the ways in which all researchers engage in their work. Research processes are uniquely impacted when researchers share the lived experience under investigation, known as insider status. Reflexivity is an ongoing process of scrutinizing and responding to the ways in which positionality and subjectivities impact each stage of the research process. It can provide transparency, strengthen data interpretations, and increase researcher self-awareness. Broader aims of reflexivity aligned with feminist epistemologies are to shape researcher integrity and address structural inequalities. This article explores the author's engagement in reflexive practices while undertaking a PhD investigating early parenthood within the context of out-of-home care. Excerpts from interviews with 3 young mothers, a foster carer, and 11 professionals illustrate how the author's own lived experiences of out-of-home care and new motherhood assisted with building rapport and shared knowledge creation. Strategies employed to manage the risks of over-identifying with participants’ feelings of stigmatization and anxiety are also discussed to demonstrate how appropriate recognition of personal history can enhance the research process. This article concludes by arguing for meaningful opportunities to involve care-experienced people in social work research.

Introduction

Feminist and social work research approaches are inextricably linked to reflexivity. Reflexivity is a continuous process of examining and responding to the ways in which our positionalities and subjectivities influence how we design, conduct, and analyze research (Ackerly & True, 2008; Whitson, 2017). This recognition of reality as a social construct, and of research as intertwined with ideology and identity aligns with feminist epistemology (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). Furthermore, social work and feminist research promote the rectification of power inequities and oppression through social change (Wahab et al., 2012). Social work researchers value the ability of reflexive practices to enhance transparency, knowledge production, researcher self-awareness, and integrity (Appleton, 2011; Probst & Berenson, 2014). From a feminist perspective, reflexivity also encourages researchers to consider emotional responses to research content and processes (Whitson, 2017).

Reflexivity encourages researchers to critically evaluate how their personal identity, life experiences, and beliefs impact the research process and outcomes (Berger, 2015). More broadly, it acknowledges the relevance of tacit knowledge, emotions, social status (D’Cruz et al., 2007), as well as the political and cultural environments of both researchers and participants (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). Reflexivity differs from critical reflection, which generates transferable knowledge from a past incident, in that “the reflexive practitioner or researcher is constantly engaged in the process of questioning (self-monitoring) their own knowledge claims and those of others” (D’Cruz et al., 2007, p. 83). Reflexivity is not limited to thinking about our feelings to know ourselves better or gain new understandings (Etherington, 2004), and requires constant consideration and action in the moment (Bondi, 2009). It provides transparency and context as a means to improve the credibility, rigor, and trustworthiness of social research (Etherington, 2004). From a feminist perspective, quality control is secondary to shaping researcher integrity (Appleton, 2011), and the acknowledgment and mitigation of broader structural inequalities (Pillow, 2010; Whitson, 2017).

Emphasis on reflexivity may be heightened when researchers share an identity or lived experience with participants (Liamputtong, 2007). This is commonly referred to as insider status and may present both advantages and disadvantages for researchers (Berger, 2015; Etherington, 2004). This article incorporates feminist ideas of reflexivity and the simultaneous positioning of researchers as insiders and outsiders (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009; Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013) as a theoretical framework to examine the author's use of reflexivity while conducting interviews for a PhD investigating early parenthood and out-of-home care in New South Wales, Australia. In Australia, out-of-home care consists of formal placements for children and young people ages 0–17 years for whom state or territory child protection departments hold legal responsibility (AIHW, 2019). I use the term “care-experienced young mothers” to describe young women who became mothers while in, or recently after exiting out-of-home care. By exploring the impact of being placed in out-of-home care as an adolescent and of becoming a mother while completing a PhD, this article demonstrates how appropriate recognition of personal history can enhance the research process.

Reflexivity and Feminist Research Approaches

Feminist epistemology challenges traditional research paradigms espousing positivism and objectivity by defining reality as shaped by social and historical constructs. This includes recognition of positionality, which comprises race, class, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, ability, and other social identities (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). The rejection of unchallenged “expert” analyses has also facilitated greater consideration of the ownership of interpretations and the importance of diminishing power imbalances during the research process (Etherington, 2004). Critics of reflexivity argue that it is self-indulgent and diminishes attention away from political agendas (Bondi, 2009). However, emphasis on reflexivity has led to strengthened recognition of the political nature of knowledge production, including how identities and lived experiences influence researchers’ choices of disciplines, frameworks, and methods (Beltran, 2019).

Feminist research has made substantial contributions to the advancement of reflexivity (Gringeri et al., 2010). The Women's Movement in the 1970s and 1980s sought equality within research by centering the views of women and other marginalized groups (Etherington, 2004). This coincided with increased representation among women and minority groups within academia, shifting qualitative research to a point where “no longer could researchers claim a fly on the wall approach” (Pillow, 2010, p. 272). Alternative knowledge claims by feminist scholars of color contest the elite White male perspectives dominating traditional scholarship. Feminist standpoint theory disputes patriarchal truth claims by defining knowledge as socially situated but neglects to account for the perspectives of Indigenous Australian women scholars, whose “experiences and ways of knowing about race produced problematics that at times were incommensurate, opposed to or differed from those of white middle-class feminists” (Moreton-Robinson, 2013, p. 342). As elaborated by Fredericks et al. (2018), this is because “the white academic world is not our world. Our culture is based on oral forms of communication and group sharing” (p. 84).

Intersectionality is an evolving theory first introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to articulate how racism and sexism are interrelated forms of oppression marginalizing Black women (Carbado et al., 2013). According to Beltrán and Mehrotra (2015), “these interconnected dynamics of oppression, power, and privilege can also be seen in the politics of academia, including in research, teaching, and service” (p. 108). Collins (2000) seminal work conceptualizes the credibility of knowledge claims as based on lived experience, connectedness, and personal values from the perspectives of Black women in academia sidelined by elites whose “interests pervade the themes, paradigms, and epistemologies of traditional scholarship” (p. 251). Prominent Indigenous Australian scholar Eileen Moreton-Robinson (2013) describes how an emphasis on “descent, country, place … reciprocity, obligation, shared experiences, co-existence, co-operation and social memory … is the anti-thesis of being a knower within the patriarchal confines of the academy” (p. 341).

Transformative research practices connect theory to professional practice and anti-oppressive action through feminist social work praxis (Daley, 2010; Wahab et al., 2012). At its most basic level, reflexivity from a feminist perspective necessitates that the research we conduct is “relevant to the actual lives of people who are affected by research” (Gringeri et al., 2010, p. 394). One way to help ensure this is to involve participants “as co-creators of knowledge and partners in social change” (Wahab et al., 2012, p. 469). Perhaps above all else, we must first accept that we cannot fully understand the perspectives of another person because “the world is mediated by the self” (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012, p. 560). Reflecting on our own identities in relation to those of participants may help clarify this distinction.

Researcher Identity

Researchers may position themselves as insiders if they share the identity or lived experience under investigation with participants (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Potential benefits as an insider researcher include recruitment advantages, increased sensitivity to the data, the ability to clarify participants’ implied meanings, and a greater awareness of which facets of the research topic to address (Berger, 2015). However, lived experience of the research topic does not eliminate the potential for misinterpretation (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). Researchers with insider status may over-identify with participants (Etherington, 2004), and avoid or prioritize personally meaningful facets of the research topic (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). These risks can be alleviated by separating our personal experiences of the phenomenon and maintaining awareness of our “thoughts and feelings about these concepts in order to be present” (Valandra, 2012, p. 208) throughout the research process.

Many feminist researchers consider the binary categorization of insider or outsider to be an oversimplification of positionality (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013). According to Dwyer and Buckle (2009), researchers occupy “the space between” insider and outsider, defined as “a space of paradox, ambiguity, and ambivalence, as well as conjunction and disjunction” (p. 60). Untangling this complexity requires that researchers give attention to both similarities and differences between themselves and the communities they investigate (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). For example, individuals differ in how they interpret and ascribe salience to particular life experiences or identities. Additionally, researchers may only share limited identity aspects with participants (Cosgrove et al., 2020; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013). Assuming commonality based on only one identity fails to recognize the relevance of intersecting experiences and positionalities (Hamilton, 2020; Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012) and “the inter-locking ways in which social structures produce and entrench power and marginalization” (Carbado et al., 2013, p. 312).

The research process itself may exacerbate identity differences between researchers and participants. Academic knowledge and social position of researchers can create unequal power relationships with participants and solidify boundaries (Ackerley & True, 2008; Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). For instance, some researchers have described how prestige associated with academic status led to alienation from the marginalized communities they identify with (Cosgrove et al., 2020). Participants may compare themselves to researchers who come from similar backgrounds of disadvantage, which might cause them to feel intimidated or inspired by their success (Berger, 2015). Just as any reaction to our presence as researchers will influence participants’ responses (England, 1994), so will what we disclose about ourselves (Etherington, 2004).

Researcher Self-Disclosure

As researchers who share a lived experience with participants, we must engage in reflexivity to ensure our insider status is used ethically to produce knowledge (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013). Self-disclosure honors the lived experiences of the participants and the researcher (Herrick & Piccus, 2005). It demonstrates trust, compassion, and may help portray the researcher “as “real,” authentic and genuine” (Janzen, 2016, p. 1504). Disclosing insider status demonstrates respect for participants and can facilitate deeper examinations of the research topic. It can increase rapport with participants, who may be more open in their responses, thus enabling greater shared understandings (Liamputtong, 2007). How and what we share requires careful consideration of the implications for ethics and data collection (Etherington, 2004).

Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2013) describe four strategies for managing insider research. These include maximizing, utilizing, incorporating, and minimizing insider status. Autoethnography maximizes self-disclosure, rendering the researcher's personal experience as the study's focus. Researchers with lived experience of the out-of-home care system have maximized the self as a case study to illustrate needs, including greater educational support (Michell, 2012; Morrison, 2016; Stadler, 2007); higher education opportunities (Watts, 2015; Wilson, et al., 2018); and ongoing sibling contact (Herrick & Piccus, 2005). Others have utilized their experience by describing how it can offer participants reassurance (Stabler, 2017); enhance understandings of the research topic (Mallon, 2007); and benefit the researcher by inspiring passion (Petrilli, 2015), and opportunities for healing (Michell, 2020) and self-reflection (Jurczyszyn, 2015). Conversely, Pengelese and Smith minimize their insider status as Forgotten Australians ¹ by divulging this identity without elaboration in a historical analysis of institutional care (Hil et al., 2008). The researcher may be incorporated as one of many participants, effectively contributing “both as researcher and as researched” (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013, pp. 253–254). Finally, strategic utilization limits disclosure to instances intending to benefit the researcher, such as in recruitment advertisements.

In the present study, I describe how I disclose my lived experience of out-of-home care and motherhood to establish trust with participants and facilitate shared meanings of out-of-home care and motherhood.

Out-of-Home Care, Early Motherhood, and Trauma

Out-of-home care is associated with trauma and adversity. It is often precipitated by “chronic, recurrent, or multiple traumas within a chaotic family environment that lacks sufficient buffering and protection” (Forkey & Szilagyi, 2014, p. 1061). These may include physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, neglect of basic needs, abandonment, or parental death. Out-of-home care entry may also relate to trauma resulting from exposure to violence, coercion, poverty, homelessness, and familial mental health or substance abuse issues (Forkey & Szilagyi, 2014; Stephens & Aparicio, 2017). Repeated or prolonged exposure to traumatic events during childhood adversely affects neurodevelopment, leading to toxic stress and a range of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and physical health issues (Forkey & Szilagyi, 2014). Common trauma symptoms include depression, anxiety, anger, hypervigilance, and avoidance (Prévost-Lemire et al., 2021).

Out-of-home care entry may exacerbate trauma symptoms (Forkey & Szilagyi, 2014). Removing children and young people from their families of origin disrupts primary attachments and community connections, leading to intense feelings of grief, loss, and insecurity (Stephens & Aparicio, 2017). Instability due to placement changes, turnover among caseworkers and other service providers, differing expectations between carers, and uncertainty regarding reunification or other decisions are additional stressors common within out-of-home care (Forkey & Szilagyi, 2014). Trauma histories may help account for the disproportionate rates of early motherhood among care-experienced young women, Sexual disturbances can increase impulsive behaviors potentially leading to unintentional pregnancy. Early motherhood can also be an intentional strategy to heal from the loss of primary attachments (Prévost-Lemire et al., 2021). Other potential contributing factors include limited sexual health knowledge and contraception access, a desire to give and receive unconditional love, and cultural or social norms celebrating early parenthood (Gill et al., 2020).

Many care-experienced young mothers describe motherhood as a positive and fulfilling life transition. A strong desire to ensure their children have a better childhood than they did gives many care-experienced young mothers a sense of purpose and achievement (Connolly et al., 2012). However, the context of out-of-home care adds additional challenges to the responsibilities of parenting at an early age. Care-experienced young mothers are subjected to a double stigma due to their age and child protection history (Horrocks, 2002). Practitioners report deficit views and concerns about intergenerational cycles of maltreatment as related to heightened surveillance. Policies limit young mothers’ autonomy about parenting while in out-of-home care, but demand self-sufficiency after transitioning to independence (Gill et al., 2020). Motherhood often reignites old wounds related to broken family ties causing relationship insecurities (Stephens & Aparicio, 2017). But healthy, supportive relationships are crucial when transitioning to independence, parenting, and healing from trauma (Prévost-Lemire et al., 2021).

Present Study

This study explores reflexivity as an insider researcher investigating early parenthood within the context of out-of-home care. The focus is on stakeholder interviews drawn from my ongoing PhD study aimed at identifying the need for, and availability of, supports and services for young parents with an out-of-home care experience in New South Wales, Australia. Although very little Australian research on this topic is available, numerous qualitative studies conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom have explored practitioners’ (Gill et al., 2020) and young parents’ experiences (Connolly et al., 2012). My decision to conduct reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) of stakeholders’ support needs, rather than a narrative or phenomenological study of lived experience, was intended to both fill a gap in the body of research and reduce the possibility of generating emotionally triggering data.

The research topics we choose often reflect our personal interests, values, and desired self-image (Whitson, 2017). My interest in out-of-home care research arises from my own experiences in out-of-home care as an adolescent in the United States. In both group and foster family placements, I lived with young women who became mothers while in out-of-home care. After exiting care, I began an undergraduate degree as most of my care-experienced peers established growing families. My own entry to motherhood began near the beginning of my PhD candidature. I chose the topic of early parenthood and out-of-home care based on my view that care-experienced young parents and their children deserve appropriate support options to ensure they have the same life chances as those without a care experience. Research with the potential to inform care leaver policy and practice development appeals to me as a former care leaver. As a first-time mother, I recognize that all mothers and children stand to benefit from supports which meet their needs.

Design

Pragmatism is a research paradigm well-suited to mixed methods research exploring complex topics. This approach is flexible, welcomes unexpected data, and focuses on addressing real-world problems (Feilzer, 2010). The study includes multiple types of data to address research questions that cannot be answered using solely a qualitative or quantitative approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Its sequential explanatory design is intended to generate quantitative data to develop a general understanding of early parenthood and out-of-home care in New South Wales before exploring stakeholders' perceptions in greater depth. An exploratory survey using a convenience sample of professionals and foster carers was followed by semi-structured interviews including additional stakeholders. As the topic of this study is reflexive interview practices, the design and ongoing analysis of interviews is discussed in greater detail.

Participants

The purposeful sampling strategy was intended to identify interview participants best equipped to respond to the research questions, which included care-experienced young mothers, and support providers for this cohort (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Two interviews were conducted with self-nominating survey respondents, and 13 participants were indirectly recruited over an 11-month period concurrent to data analysis. Personal contacts and relevant organizations were requested to act as interlocutors, including providers of out-of-home care; sector advocacy and training; services for young parents; and crisis accommodation. Emails requested that an advertisement be shared with individuals believed to have the time, interest, and capacity to participate (Fujii, 2018). Potential participants were offered an information sheet, consent form, and opportunity to ask questions after they initiated contact by phone or email. Professionals discussed the project with young parents they considered likely to benefit from participation and returned their consent forms. This required that professionals valued the project, had time to assist, and could convey information to enable young peoples’ informed decision-making (Moore et al., 2011).

The final sample size was a pragmatic decision based on the perceived likelihood of recruiting additional participants and the extent to which collected data addressed the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Fifteen interviews were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders with personal or professional experience of early parenthood and out-of-home care. This included the foster mother of a young mother in her care; 11 professionals from out-of-home care, aftercare, early parenting support, and legal services; and three young mothers who had recently exited out-of-home care. Similar to a study conducted by Schelbe et al. (2018), professionals identified that unexpected crises and scheduling difficulties prevented participation from additional care-experienced young mothers.

Method

Individual interviews were chosen over focus groups due to the sensitive nature of the research topic. Although focus groups may facilitate peer support and help reduce power imbalances between young parents and researchers, individual interviews allow participants to speak about personal matters in greater depth (Liamputtong, 2007). The aim of interviews was to increase the study's depth and context by building on themes identified in the survey (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The importance of individual context in decision making for young parents was a prominent theme among the 53 survey respondents. Therefore, interview topics included placement decision-making factors and the extent to which available services meet existing needs. A semi-structured interview approach encouraged open discussion in a conversational manner conducive to mutual self-disclosure (Liamputtong, 2007).

Interviews were conducted by video conference and telephone due to pandemic restrictions. Although an inability to conduct in-person interviewers may limit the ability to gauge or respond to non-verbal cues, some individuals, and particularly young people, may be more comfortable and familiar with communicating via technology (O’Reilly & Dogra, 2017). Video conference interviews also provide advantages for parents, who have described feeling more comfortable discussing parenting topics in a familiar environment, and may easily leave the interview at any time as needed (Gray et al., 2020). All but one interview was recorded and transcribed with the assistance of automated transcription software. One participant did not consent to recording and notetaking was used. The study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Interview participants were offered a $30 gift card in recognition of their contribution to the research.

Analysis

The study employs reflexive thematic analysis (TA) to actively construct themes by systematically identifying patterns of meaning across the interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Reflexive TA consists of a recursive coding process centering researcher subjectivity and deep engagement with data. Unlike other TA approaches, there is a strong emphasis on the researcher's role in knowledge production. It considers data interpretation as situated and context-bound and thus requires researcher transparency regarding the analytic process and its underlying assumptions. The main assumption underlying this research is that equity for care-experienced young parents necessitates the availability of comprehensive, high-quality services. The study's overall themes are being developed through a recursive process of revising codes and comparing responses to identify abstract concepts to offer a coherent narrative about participants’ views of supports for this cohort (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

The themes discussed in this study were constructed to demonstrate my reflexive interview practices as a PhD candidate with lived experience related to the study topic. Coding for this purpose was primarily deductive and began at the semantic level using key concepts identified in the literature on researcher reflexivity. These codes were refined through an iterative process that did not include a codebook (Braun & Clarke, 2021). For example, I began by coding emotional expressions about personal experiences to convey needs within the cohort as ‘reflections’. Then, I further analyzed this coded data alongside corresponding notes to conceptualize the theme: ‘mutual self-disclosure facilitated shared understandings'. Finally, I examined the evidence for each theme and selected the most compelling examples to best portray “stories about particular patterns of shared meaning across the dataset” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 592).

Reflexive Practices

Reflexive practices are an explicit component of designing, conducting, and analyzing this research. These include extensive reading, personal writing, and interactions with others. Reading widely about qualitative research is necessary because “Reflexivity can only be as strong, as rigorous, as our own knowledge base” (Pillow, 2010, p. 275). I take extensive notes while reading about methods and theory, informally discuss what I read with other beginning researchers, and engage in critical reflection with other care-experienced researchers. Studying texts by social work academics, including those with lived experience of out-of-home care helps me to understand strategies for engaging in reflexivity as an insider researcher. I frequently engage in what Probst and Berenson (2014) describe as “tuning into intuitive or subconscious processes while going about one's regular life” (p. 821) and use these musings as the basis for written notes. Research logs or memos are important tools to document “confusions, mistakes, any sense of a breakthrough, and reflections on matters of reflexivity” (Shaw & Holland, 2014, p. 214) for ongoing analytic use. My written notes include interview reflections and thoughts about how my experiences as a former care leaver and new mother are influencing my PhD journey.

Opportunities to obtain feedback and discuss feelings about my research with others arise regularly. Appleton (2011) describes how trusted “critical friends” can “act as sounding boards, and offer challenges, ideas and encouragement” (p. 6). When individuals with diverse professional backgrounds and experience levels are included, critical friends may be engaged for varied purposes and to differing extents. My supervisory team helps me to explore my interpretations, challenge assumptions and verbalize my thought processes. I regularly discuss uncertainties about research processes with fellow PhD candidates, explore positionality with other care-experienced researchers, and debrief with a therapist about the emotional impact of researching a highly personal topic. Examples of my reflexive practices are discussed in the following section.

Findings

The following sections describe my engagement in feminist principles of reflexivity while conducting interviews with early parenthood and out-of-home care stakeholders. I provide examples of how my lived experiences as a young person in out-of-home care, and more recently as a new mother, influence my position as a researcher within the insider/outsider spectrum. Excerpts from interviews with care-experienced young mothers, foster carers, and professionals highlight examples of how I have established rapport, facilitated mutual understandings, responded to power dynamics, and managed the risk of over-identification with participants.

Establishing Rapport

During the planning stages of my research project, I did not intend to disclose my status as a former care leaver to participants. But after becoming a mother shortly before beginning data collection, my life experiences more closely overlapped with my research topic. As I embraced a new identity as a mother, my approach to completing a PhD evolved. Increased recognition of feminist principles of openness and reciprocity (Berger, 2015; Liamputtong, 2007), and encouragement from others led me to be more transparent about my positionality. At the beginning of every interview, I informed participants that I spent my adolescence in out-of-home care in the United States, several of my peers became mothers while we were in care, and that I had recently become a mother. Although welcomed by all, participants who also had personal experience with the out-of-home system appeared to be more responsive to my disclosure. In some instances, my disclosure led to professionals describing their own childhood experiences of child protection involvement. This mutual self-disclosure changed the interview dynamic by facilitating a more intimate atmosphere and candid conversation.

In another example, a foster mother described how threats from her child protection agency to separate a young mother and baby in her care caused her significant emotional distress. Halfway through the interview, she related her internal dialog stating, “[I was] thinking oh my gosh, I’ve said that, and I probably shouldn't have. That might be taken the wrong way.” My response unintentionally strengthened our rapport by relating to her apprehensions.

I:

I found myself having that fear, too. And I don't know if that's because I had the out-of-home care experience myself … but that fear of intervention from child protection, it kind of stays with you.

After describing my anxiety about the threat of child protection as a mother, we discussed the value of having people in the foster mother's support network who could also empathize with her struggle. In this way, my openness not only increased our rapport, but also the depth of the interview. Disclosing my personal history proved particularly meaningful in interviews with care-experienced young mothers. In the following example, a young mother reflected on how she felt after learning that I had also been in out-of-home care.

YM:

It definitely did set an ease, like a level of understanding, when you mentioned you were also a care kid because, you know, there's a lot I do not have to explain … It's very hard to explain being in care to people who haven't because they can understand the gist of it, but there are parts that even if they tried their best they will never understand.

I:

No, you’re right, and there's a lot of things that are just the norm for us … things that other people take for granted.

The young mother emphasized that our shared experiences of out-of-home care gave us a mutual understanding which would not be possible otherwise. She also expressed a sense of relief about not having to try and convey intangible aspects of living in out-of-home care.

Facilitating Shared Understandings

Disclosing lived experience of the research topic may enable the researcher and participant mutually creates new understandings (Liamputtong, 2007). At times during the interviews, I felt that my lived experience enabled me to examine aspects of early parenthood and out-of-home care with participants more deeply. For example, a young mother initially described feeling stigmatized by social workers who assume that care-experienced young parents will be unable to properly care for their children.

YM:

They literally said to me because your parents were, um, not that great that they didn't think I would be that great of a mother.

She later shared her anger and frustration about a social worker visiting her in hospital with safety concerns about her newborn.

YM:

Like as soon as you have the baby, you’re pregnant or you have a baby, [child protection] are the first ones to know … They were there as soon as I started breastfeeding …

I:

Yeah, that's not the kind of thing you want to be dealing with because, I mean, breastfeeding's hard, and that's like a time when you want to bond with your baby.

My ability to relate to her need for privacy after giving birth may have contributed to the young mother's decision to describe the incident in greater detail.

YM:

They actually got in trouble for coming into that room while I was breastfeeding …

I:

Wow, and so what happened with that?

YM:

So, they were not allowed in that room any longer. But they still were allowed to come and see me at the hospital and go to, like, a family room and speak to me.

I felt privileged that this young mother was willing to share a deeply personal and potentially humiliating experience with me. It demonstrated a sense of trust and enabled our shared understanding of the need for professionals to respond to child safety concerns with sensitivity and respect. Another example of building mutual understandings arose when a professional described how her childhood care experience became an asset to professional practice.

P:

I find only now in my career that I’ve done my journey, my healing, that I can speak to my clients about my lived experience. I feel like it just creates such deep trust and deep rapport … You would even know. Like, you would have your workers that have reached you and workers that haven't done that, you know, right?

I:

Absolutely. And I think you brought up a good point too, that the professional needs to have processed some of their own experiences to then be able to use them as an asset.

This interaction demonstrates what Hesse-Bibber and Piatelli (2012) describe as a role exchange between the researcher and participant, which enables space for creating shared knowledge. Being asked to reflect on my past relationships with professionals solidified the idea that empathy and trust are central to supporting care-experienced young parents.

Influence of Power Dynamics

The influence of power dynamics arose in unexpected ways in some interviews. Disclosing my lived experience of out-of-home care appeared to increase my legitimacy as a researcher to some participants. This was most apparent towards the end of one interview, when I discussed addressing my life history as part of the study with a professional who does not have lived experience of out-of-home care.

P:

Are you keeping the fact that you were in out-of-home care anonymous within your PhD?

I:

Even though this isn't about me … I’m still a part of it because I’m the one doing it …

P:

I would say that you would be the expert … I think, in many ways, you can, you know, put your flavour on to it … And I think that's incredibly, incredibly important, actually in your research.

I did not anticipate that a participant would out rightly validate the significance of my lived experience during an interview. My interpretation of this comment was that it intensified a power imbalance by ascribing greater authority to me as a researcher. Although not an explicit part of my interview plan, the topic of power dynamics emerged spontaneously with one young mother. It began with my remark about the young mother's eloquent description of her views about foster carers’ training needs, then led to a deeper discussion about self-presentation as a means of overcoming stigma as a young person in out-of-home care.

I:

You have so many … really important things to say and you say them very well. You’re very articulate.

YP:

That can be a side effect of growing up in care. You have to learn how to articulate yourself, as they say eloquently, otherwise you can be deemed you know, hysterical, not knowing what you’re talking about. Stuff like that.

While not necessarily referring to our interaction, I saw this as an opportunity to follow up with questions about the young mother's strategies for managing unequal power relationships. My intention was to give recognition to her feelings about speaking to people in positions of authority.

I:

That makes very good sense. So, do you feel that you have to prove, in a way, prove yourself maybe to the people who you’re speaking to?

YP:

Definitely, when I was younger. I did feel like at the start of the conversation you have with someone you need to get in quickly to show them you know what you’re talking about and that, you know, you can't put one over me.

We continued our conversation by drawing similarities to the young mother's perceived need to prove herself as a good mother to professionals who assumed that she lacked an understanding of parenting tasks. In this way, the interaction potentially helped mitigate power imbalances and offered insight regarding the importance of a strengths-based approach to service delivery for care-experienced young parents.

Risk of Over-Identification

Researchers with lived experience of the topic under investigation may find their perceptions hindered by difficulties separating participants’ experiences from their own (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). My biggest struggle with over-identification began when a young mother described her anger towards child protection workers who assumed that spending time in out-of-home care diminished her parenting capacity. As she was speaking, I was suddenly reminded of an interaction I had with a hospital social worker which made me deeply empathize with her frustration, which I briefly described.

I:

I mean, I’m an older mother but they knew that I had been in care… They said, “Oh well, we have concerns that you don't have support here in Australia,” and it was really, yeah, really hard to hear.

YM:

Yeah, they said like, I didn't have any family support. And I was like, “Yes I do! They are just in different parts of New South Wales.”

While I did not share any context of my own situation, painful memories briefly resurfaced at that point in the interview. Due to a cancer diagnosis during pregnancy, I was referred to a hospital social worker who identified in my records that I disclosed a childhood history of out-of-home care. She repeatedly expressed concerns to me about our lack of assistance from biological family despite my strong assertions that I had a wide social support network. Clinicians expressed concerns about my baby and I's health in the aftermath of a traumatic birth, but I was quietly suspicious that delays to our hospital discharge were also motivated by the social worker's deficit-based opinions. This recollection prompted my follow-up question about the young mother's views on the quality of care she received in the maternity ward. Her overwhelmingly positive response about her hospital caregivers reminded me to completely focus on the participant's response without over-identifying with her experiences. In other interviews, I was keenly aware of how my experience of becoming a mother many years after exiting out-of-home care sets me apart from care-experienced young mothers. For instance, I was reminded that my economic privilege allowed me to hire a doula when a foster mother expressed disappointment that case funds would not be approved for this type of support. Additionally, a young mother's praise for her specialized school for young parents highlighted one of the unique struggles of becoming a mother at an earlier age.

YM:

It is really good in the sense that up until they’re like, six to eight months old, you can have your child in class with you. And nobody is judgmental if you got to stop and breastfeed, or if you’ve got to change their bum or anything because we’re all parents.

These indicators of how circumstances related to age can impact one's experiences of motherhood reminded me that I am not fully an insider in this research.

Discussion

Conducting research exploring the needs of care-experienced young parents has thus far increased the salience of my identities as a former care leaver and new mother. Reflexive practices in the form of personal writing (Shaw & Holland, 2014) and guidance from “critical friends” (Appleton, 2011) have helped me understand the significant extent to which my lived experiences are shaping this study. Researchers typically fluctuate in how they understand themselves as insiders or outsiders in relation to any research setting (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). I did not originally intend to disclose my care history to my PhD supervisors or participants because this is how I managed a previous study on education and out-of-home care (Gill & Oakley, 2018). Initial reticence about disclosing an out-of-home care background in professional settings is not uncommon (Morrison, 2016). My decision changed as I developed a better understanding of reflexivity, and in particular, the ways in which transparency can enhance social research (Etherington, 2004). Although participants may assume that a woman conducting research on motherhood is a mother herself (Hamilton, 2020), I also wanted to make this status explicit because becoming a mother during the early stages of my PhD has fundamentally influenced my research process.

Disclosing my identities as a former care leaver and new mother has helped me establish rapport during interviews with early parenthood and out-of-home care stakeholders. Self-disclosure is conceptualized among feminists as a means to honor and respect participants with similar lived experiences (Herrick & Piccus, 2005; Liamputtong, 2007). Researchers who share sensitive details about their lives demonstrate reciprocity with participants requested to divulge the same. One young mother described how our shared identity as care leavers created “a level of understanding” unknowable to individuals who have not lived in out-of-home care. While often directly unacknowledged, this connection became most clear when our discussions spontaneously veered to more sensitive topics, such as stigma and anxieties about child protection involvement. Other researchers have identified how disclosing their shared experiences of living in out-of-home care (Michell, 2020; Stabler, 2017) can enhance rapport during interviews on related topics.

Being open about my background has created an interview dynamic in which professionals have also felt comfortable enough to discuss their own trauma histories and personal experiences with the child protection system. Being open and authentic with participants can enable more meaningful interactions and thus deeper examinations of the research topic (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). While I anticipated that my disclosures might facilitate rapport with young mothers, it was a surprise to me when this happened during interviews with professionals. By starting from a place of shared understanding, we were able to explore the complexities of navigating professional practice as survivors of childhood trauma, including the necessity of processing one's own experience to order to effectively draw on it in professional settings. This is a valuable research finding in that care-experienced young parents may benefit when professionals effectively apply lived experience to inform their practice. It also highlights the importance of self-care among survivor-researchers, who are at risk of re-traumatization while exploring topics which may elicit painful memories (Michell, 2020).

Professionals with and without lived experience of out-of-home care generally agreed that it could be an asset to conducting social work research. But in one instance, my disclosure appeared to increase power differences. When a professional stated that my lived experience added value to the research, I interpreted this as an indication of perceived authority on the topic. This demonstrates the relationship between knowledge and power, and of lived experience as an indication of understanding (Collins, 2000; Hamilton, 2020). At the same time, openly discussing my personal history helped acknowledge a difference between us, which can help minimize power differentials (Hesse-Bibber & Piatelli, 2012). The potential impacts for researchers who share lived experiences of the study topic with participants are well-documented (Berger, 2015; Etherington, 2004). The ways in which care-experienced social work researchers position themselves when participants have only professional knowledge of child protection involvement are less known. Further examination of this topic may offer insights into mitigating power differences in research relationships.

Despite having lived experience of out-of-home care and motherhood, these two major life events were not simultaneous. While I had once shared congregate care and foster home placements with young mothers, I did not have a child until graduate school. This significant difference between myself and participants did not prevent me from over-identifying with their descriptions of stigma and anxiety surrounding child protection services. Researchers with lived experience of the study topic may over-identify with participants by conflating their viewpoints with those of participants. Bias towards exploring personally significant elements of the phenomenon may diminish focus on what is most salient to participants (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Remaining conscious of this possibility, and intentionally differentiating personal experiences from those of participants can help researchers remain present during interviews (Valandra, 2012).

After listening to a young mother describe her privacy being violated by a child protection worker almost immediately after giving birth, I had to take a moment to separate her description from my own negative experiences with a hospital social worker during my postnatal stay. The need to listen rather than assume understanding is crucial when a participant's experiences of motherhood overlap with those of the researcher (Elliott, 2011). Follow-up questions revealed the young mother's satisfaction with the support she received from hospital staff, in stark contrast to how I feel about my own experience. Much like Elliot (2011), who describes efforts to not impose her own motherhood anxieties during interview analysis, I responded to the propensity of conflating my feelings with those of participants by intentionally avoiding internal comparisons.

A researcher's subjectivities are constantly evolving through the completion of a study (Whitson, 2017). Taking time to make sense of my life experiences in relation to my research topic has increased the salience of my identity as a care-experienced person. I had wrongly assumed that being an older mother who was well-educated, married, had a stable home and steady income meant that my entry to motherhood would not be subject to scrutiny. When perinatal medical complications drew the attention of a hospital social worker who questioned the extent of my social support, I regretted disclosing my out-of-home care history on a hospital intake form. But while I could have chosen to withhold this information, younger mothers cannot hide their out-of-home care history so easily. From a life-course perspective, an early transition to the role of motherhood among young women exiting out-of-home care is associated with social stigma and surveillance (Horrocks, 2002). Conversely, the social timing of my life has matched age expectations and the conventional sequence of education completion, career development, and marriage prior to motherhood (Elder Jr., 1995). Nonetheless, I found I could not escape a preconceived notion that the circumstances of my upbringing still constrained the extent of social support available to me as a new mother.

Reflexive practices are intended to help researchers understand how personal experiences and identities impact each stage of a study (Berger, 2015). My personal familiarity with the stigma associated with an out-of-home care history and the anxiety it can bring to new motherhood is profoundly shaping the interview and analysis processes. When this topic emerged in interviews, participants’ openness in their responses was potentially influenced by the fact that I had disclosed my identities as a former care leaver and new mother (Liamputtong, 2007). My knowledge of topic further directed the course of the discussion through the follow-up questions I asked. It also impacted my interpretations of the data because “what a researcher brings to fieldwork and data analysis affects what she can know” (Elliott, 2011, p. 4). If the pitfalls of over-identification and projection are managed effectively, lived experience of a research topic can add a meaningful and unique layer to data analysis. It can facilitate an awareness which can only be reached by “having been through it” (Berger, 2015, p. 230).

Limitations

A primary limitation of this article is that reflexivity can never be complete. Any understanding of how positionality influences the research process is subjective and imperfect. Furthermore, a researcher's knowledge of participants’ perspectives will always be partial. Finally, reflexive practices may bring recognition to power differences within research relationships but cannot eliminate them (England, 1994). A limitation of the study described in this article is that logistical issues prevented the inclusion of care-experienced young parents in the design and analysis of this study. This does not align with feminist and social work research ethics which emphasize participant empowerment through self-advocacy (Ackerly & True, 2008). Active involvement throughout the research process from individuals with lived experience of out-of-home could have posed an opportunity for research skill development within this cohort (Wilson et al., 2018). It may also have strengthened the study's potential to guide policy and practice improvements (Herrick & Piccus, 2005).

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

Findings from this study highlight how lived experience of out-of-home care can meaningfully inform social work practice and research. As one care-experienced young mother described, knowing that I had also been in care facilitated “a level of understanding” between us which would otherwise not be possible. Similarly, a care-experienced professional emphasized the importance of healing from childhood trauma before disclosing her care history to young mothers, and the “deep trust and deep rapport” which it enables. Many care-experienced young mothers disengage with service providers, potentially due to a lack of trust and long histories of insecure relationships (Gill et al., 2020). Appropriate recognition of shared history may enable care-experienced professionals and young mothers to develop secure relationships based on mutual understandings and shared trust. This requires careful consideration from the researcher or professional regarding what and how to disclose lived experience (Liamputtong, 2007). Consistent relationships with trusted professionals can help ensure that care-experienced young mothers and their children benefit from formal support (Connolly et al., 2012).

A common interview theme described in this article is that care-experienced young mothers feel that some practitioners lack sensitivity and engage in deficit-based practices. At times, this facilitated mutual disclosure about my experiences as a new care-experienced mother. In other instances, it prompted me to engage in reflexive practices to confront my feelings of over-identification with participants. Strengths-based, trauma-informed care should be at the core of all support delivery for care-experienced new mothers (Prévost-Lemire et al., 2021; Stephens & Aparicio, 2017). Care-experienced new mothers are disempowered when professionals undervalue their existing support networks or question their parenting capacities in the absence of evidence. Social work, maternal health, and early intervention service providers need to be better equipped to recognize and appropriately respond to the presence of trauma, and avoid potentially retraumatizing practices (Prévost-Lemire et al., 2021). Service providers may benefit from engaging in reflexivity to challenge any underlying assumptions about care-experienced mothers, and to consider the impact of professional power when engaging with this cohort (D’Cruz et al., 2007),

This study also demonstrates the importance of established procedures to enable care-experienced researchers and professionals to best navigate the added sensitivities associated with lived experience of the subject matter. While this study highlights many benefits that disclosure can offer, it also underscores the value of reflexive practices in managing the risks of over-identification. This includes preparing for insider research by studying research methods and theory (Pillow, 2010), and mindful listening during interviews to consciously differentiate participants’ responses from our own thoughts and feelings (Valandra, 2012). Writing memos or reflexive logs (Shaw & Holland, 2014), and advice from “critical friends” (Appleton, 2011) are helpful for insider researchers at all stages of the research process. Debriefing with other researchers who also have lived experience of the study topic may be particularly beneficial. At the institutional or policy level, emotional safety protocols should be in place to formalize opportunities for self-care, including adequate supervision, regular de-briefing, access to counseling, and allocated time for processing emotional responses (Michell, 2020). Social work and research professions should foster greater opportunities for networking and collaboration between care-experienced colleagues.

In describing the lead author's tokenistic involvement as a research participant while in out-of-home care, Wilson et al. (2018) advocate for “the fully equitable inclusion of care-leavers in research teams … as designers of research projects and full partners in conducting the research so that they can develop the skills and research networks to lead their own projects in the future” (p. 602). Given that significant levels of education and professional experience are commonly required for lead researcher roles, this objective is largely contingent upon care leavers being enrolled in higher education and supported on a pathway to becoming independent researchers. It begins with the provision of comprehensive, individualized supports to address the complex educational disadvantaged young people in out-of-home care encounter to be better prepared for, and succeed in, post-secondary education (Gill & Oakley, 2018). Particularly when support from families of origin is limited, care-experienced people pursuing higher education deserve advocates who convey high expectations (Stadler, 2007), offer encouragement, and promote confidence to overcome “crises of doubt about … abilities [and] the right to be at university” (Michell, 2012, p. 54).

A shared experience of marginalization in academia exists between feminist scholars of color and those who are care-experienced. An aim of intersectionality is “to bring the often hidden dynamics forward in order to transform them” (Carbado et al., 2013, p. 312), thus advancing solidarity between disadvantaged identity groups. Influential contributions to the literature on reflexivity by feminist scholars of color interrogate historical and contemporary structural inequalities within higher education. Collins (2000) Black feminist epistemology articulates how marginalization is perpetuated because “a scholar making a knowledge claim typically must convince a scholarly community controlled by elite White avowedly heterosexual men” Collins (p. 253). In discussing how neoliberal university practices marginalize feminist scholars of color, Beltrán and Mehrotra (2015) highlight the “many unspoken norms in the culture of academia that are subtly communicated and integrated into academic socialization” (p. 107). Similarly, Indigenous Australian academics Fredericks et al. (2018) define “secret academic business” as “the unspoken rules and processes that are passed on to some and not others” (p. 87). Moreton-Robinson (2013) suggests participation in White, patriarchal academic practices can be an opportunity for subversion with the aim of resisting hegemony.

Reflexivity renders explicit typically unspoken issues of power, privilege, and the importance of social and cultural capital within academia. Advances in feminist and social work research should be directed towards nurturing scholars from underrepresented backgrounds in academia, including those who are care-experienced and/or from minority racial or cultural backgrounds. Beltrán and Mehrotra (2015) emphasize collaborative scholarship and by engaging in allyship “from the places where we have agent status in the interest of empowering those who are marginalized” (p. 114). As a hidden, or invisible identity, an advantage of care-experience is the choice of self-disclosure (Cosgrove et al., 2020). Disclosing my care-experience challenges “the neoliberal, Western, masculinist culture of academia [which] does not often encourage a culture of transparency or open communication” (Beltrán & Mehrotra, 2015, p. 111). In doing so, I aim to amplify appeals by feminist scholars of color for greater appreciation of the value of diverse lived experiences in academia and increased development opportunities for those from underrepresented backgrounds (Beltrán & Mehrotra, 2015; Fredericks et al., 2018).

Conclusion

My experiences of living in out-of-home care as an adolescent and of later becoming a mother while completing a PhD are inextricable to my research topic of early parenthood within the context of out-of-home care. Excerpts from interviews with young mothers, a foster carer, and professionals reflect how disclosing my lived experience facilitated rapport and shared understandings about support needs among care-experienced young parents. I also described key examples of how of my disclosures influenced interview power dynamics and strategies for managing the risk of over-identification with participants' experiences. These findings demonstrate the importance of reflexive practices as a researcher with lived experiences similar to the study topic. This research also reflects the need for meaningful involvement from care-experienced people in feminist social work research to contribute to social change.

When compared to the general population, educational attainment among care leavers is disproportionally low, particularly among those who become parents at an early age (Mallon, 2007). This is something I am conscientious of when disclosing my out-of-home care experience to study participants. Many care-experienced scholars have argued for structural improvements to ensure care leavers greater equity within higher education. Some have ascribed their school achievement to encouragement and support (Michell, 2012; Stadler, 2007), and others to perseverance in the face of adversity (Jurczyszyn, 2015; Petrilli, 2015). Both of these are themes which I can relate to in reflecting on my continuing journey from care leaver to PhD candidate, and on how my life experiences are shaping my research.