In our next installment of the Voices Project, we are honored to introduce Jesús Palacios, Ph.D., a professor of developmental psychology at the University of Seville, Spain. He has conducted research on both domestic and international adoption in Spain, especially focusing on issues of parent-child relationships and parenting stress. He has published numerous books and articles on foster care and adoption, including /Psychological Issues in Adoption: Research and Practice, co-edited with David Brodzinsky (2005). He has also co-authored a preadoption training program for prospective adopters as well as a book for adoptive parents (/Adelante con la /adopción [Ahead with Adoption]). He consults regularly with governmental agencies about how to improve systems of foster care and adoption on behalf of children, and he has played a leadership role in connecting adoption researchers around the world.
I would like to thank Dr. Jesús Palacios for his participation, and for helping us break down the barriers between research, practice, and the community.
- Quade French
What brought you into the field of adoption research?
I came into adoption research just by chance. In the early 90’s, I was commissioned by the child protection department of our Government to conduct a study on the epidemiology of the different forms of child maltreatment. The study turned out well. The adoption unit is part of the child protection department and they said that they also wanted a study, in this case about adoption. Since then, adoption research has trapped me. Well, later on, the foster care department also wanted a study, so I am also involved in foster care, and not only in basic research, but also in developing tools for professionals (adoption and foster care preparation programs, tools for the assessment of suitability for adoption or foster care…). I spend as much time working on professional intervention as I do as a researcher.
What is the most pressing issue in the field of adoption today?
Adoption research is, so to speak, full of “empty holes”. Almost nothing is known about birth parents after relinquishment or the termination of parental rights; very little is known with precision about the exact circumstances of children before adoption; very little is known about areas such as adopted children’s integration into their peer group; the extant knowledge about the search for origins is scarce and with contradictory results; adopted persons as parents is a promising area waiting for researchers… We only know small parts of a very wide landscape. Identifying new relevant areas and gaining knowledge about them is, I believe, one of the tasks awaiting researchers in the field. From the point of view of professional intervention, the most pressing issue has to do with the quality of professional interventions. The study of adoption breakdown cases has consistently shown that one of the factors involved is the lack or the poor quality of some professional interventions, from pre-adoption to post-adoption support.
What do you think adoption will look like 50 years from now?
The field will be much more mature, obviously. Adoption research is now in its early childhood. I hope that most of the gaps mentioned before will be filled with good data. And I hope that there will be more integration between basic research and professional intervention. Finally, I hope that the interdisciplinary perspective keeps growing, as any single discipline is not sufficient to give an account of the complexity of the processes involved.
What theories and methods show the most promise?
The resilience paradigm has been extremely relevant in the last decade. The neuro-biological perspective has started to shed light on very relevant matters concerning genes, hormones and brain functioning, and about the genes [by] environment interactions.
The perspective of family dynamics and interactions has always been present in adoption research. Theories and methods for the study of attachment related issues are gaining popularity among researchers. The ecology of adoption is an essential perspective, as it covers from the macrosystem (where disciplines such as anthropology or sociology are so relevant) to the exosystem (where the social work perspective is critical) to the microsystem (where psychology is fundamental).
The complexity of adoption calls for the use of multiple perspectives, multiple theories, and multiple methods. The more diverse we are in our approach, and the more able to integrate the contributions from the different perspectives, the better will be our understanding of adoption and our capacity to help all those involved.
Can you tell us about one major project or area of focus that you are currently involved with?
Our first adoption study was aimed at understanding the differences between adopted and non-adopted children. Our second big project was about recovery after initial adversity in intercountry adoption, covering mainly growth and psychological development. We are now doing something similar but in the areas of attachment and social competence. We have just got a grant to do a follow-up of the subjects we studied three years ago, and that is going to keep us busy for a while. In terms of professional intervention, I am updating the parent preparation program that was developed a few years ago.
What is one research project or publication that you are most proud of, and why?
Together with my colleague and friend David Brodzinsky we have just published a review piece identifying the trends in adoption research since its beginning to the present day (International Journal of Behavioral Development). Working on that paper was a nice exercise and something fun to do with David, and my key-note at ICAR3 was based on it. I also greatly enjoyed preparing my key-note address at ICAR2 about the ecology of adoption, an attempt to (again) review adoption research, this time from Bronfenbrenner’s analytical perspective. The paper on the extent and timing of recovery in intercountry adoptees, in press in Child: Care, Health and Development, summarizes a lot of our recent work and contains, I believe, some relevant information. From the professional intervention point of view, our parent preparation program has been followed by thousands of families in Spain, and now in Portugal as well. And the protocols for the assessment of the suitability to adopt or to foster are being used widely by professionals. Altogether, it represents an attempt to improve our understanding of adoption and our work with adoptive families and adopted children.
What are your thoughts on the progression of adoption research and/or practice since you began your work?
As I mentioned in my key-note address at ICAR3, my own work has progressed in parallel with the progress in the field, as summarized in the article with David Brodzinsky. Adoption research started with the study and description of the differences between adopted and non-adopted persons (or between children in open versus confidential adoptions, to mention just another area). Now, we are more and more interested in explanations. This is nothing original, as in all disciplines the first steps tend to be descriptive, moving on to deeper and more causal analysis subsequently.
What is one question about adoption that you are asked most frequently, and how do you respond?
The question asked depends, basically, on to whom you are talking. Adoption researchers always want to know about methods and data. Adoption professionals always want better tools for their interventions. Adoptive parents always look for good solutions to the problems they are facing with their adopted children. Policy makers are interested in the organization of services and professional interventions, and students want to know how is it that I have such enthusiasm for my work.
What are the most pressing issues facing your country in regards to the future of adoption and adoption research?
Intercountry adoption grew exponentially in Spain for a number of years (the figures are now changing, as elsewhere). According to Peter Selman’s data, in the decade between 1996 and 2006, there was a 275% increase in the intercountry adoption numbers in Spain. I have analyzed the figures for domestic adoption and, during the same years, there was a decrease of around 40%. We need a better balance between intercountry and domestic adoptions, as there are many children waiting in our children’s homes. And we need to be very strict regarding the ethics of intercountry adoption. Some prospective adopters are ready to do whatever is needed to bring a baby into their homes, but there must be limits (basically, ethical ones) and those limits must be implemented in the policies and practices surrounding intercountry adoption.
Another pressing issue is the organization and the quality of the interventions in the post-adoption services. As for adoption research, more research teams are needed, and more diversity in the research topics covered. An adoption research network is now in place (coordinated by Dr. Berástegui, from Comillas University, Madrid) and this is promising. Finally, from a policy perspective, once adoption by gay and lesbian parents is possible, our next step will be to make open adoption a possibility.
From your perspective, what is the prevailing social attitude towards transracial, inter-country adoptions in your country?
So far, the social attitude has been extremely positive. Actually, our data consistently show a very good and rapid integration of children from all races and cultures. In this, intercountry adoption has been extremely useful in promoting family diversity and making it visible.
And towards domestic adoption?
Unfortunately, domestic adoption is a big unknown. If you talk about adoption in Spain, most people will assume that you are talking about intercountry adoption. When [intercountry adoption] happens while we have so many children waiting in our [group] homes, I do not think that it is the responsibility of the lay citizens. Rather, it is a responsibility of the child protection authorities, who are more oriented towards responding to the demands of prospective adopters than to the needs of the children under their care. This needs to be changed as soon and as radically as possible.