Communication,indigenous culture and participatory decision making amongst foster adolescents

Abstract

This paper analyses the experiences of adolescents in foster care placement with specific reference to participatory decision making in an indigenous African cultural context in South Africa. The emphasis is on the voices of foster adolescents in an indigenous African cultural context and their experiences of inequality when communicating and expressing opinions. The theoretical framework adopted was Interactional Communication Theory in which individuals interact through the use of symbols to co-create and interpret meaning. This theory incorporates some elements of systems theory with the emphasis on the interrelatedness quality as integral to the communication processes. A qualitative exploratory research study was done with 29 adolescents in foster care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 adolescent participants and as well as enriching the data with two focus groups consisting of eight adolescents in each group. Findings indicate a lack of openness of the foster care system in terms of the communication approach, international covenants and legislation that was used. The approach used was not based on interactional practices and perpetuated inequalities amongst adolescents. Also, the socio-cultural context of the foster family played a major inhibiting and determining role for adolescents regarding the level of free and open communication in their placement pertaining to decision making.

Keywords

Participatory decision making African indigenous culture inequalities communication interrelatedness adolescence foster care

Introduction

Freedom of expression is a universally recognised human right (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General Assembly, 1948) which can be regarded as one of the key elements that characterise societies that are premised on a value system supported by democratic principles and practices. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC, 1999) endorses this position as well.

Against this background, this paper analyses the experiences of foster adolescents with specific reference to participatory decision making, as affected by inequalities in power relations through communication in an indigenous African cultural context.

Freedom of expression to communicate and express opinions openly is a critical part of people’s lives and their sense making in their daily existence. In this context, the rights of all children to receive information and express their views on matters affecting them are constitutionally and legislatively protected. However, infrastructural inequalities, insufficient resources and a diverse cultural community and family attitudes create challenges for the effective realisation of these rights (Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, 2013: 12). The effect of inequality on the well-being of children reveals that the greatest impacts are experienced by the poor and those who are living in deprived contexts of society (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2011). The UNICEF (2011) report indicates that children are most negatively affected in unequal societies that are plagued by poverty and the lack of sound support for vulnerable groups, such as the adolescents in foster care who were involved in the research. Such societies often suffer from poorly developed systems such as in education, health and in other areas of social development services. This position clearly stresses the need for participatory decision making and the right to open communication of those affected by their conditions. Participatory decision making can be defined as people’s involvement in development that ensures their control over or their contributions to decision making which would eventually empower them to realise their own well-being (Honkalaskar et al., 2004: 40). In turn, the UNICEF (2011) report postulates that participatory decision making should be an “ongoing process of children’s expression and active involvement in decision making at different levels in matters concerning them by using communication as a process to facilitate their well-being in this context”.

In South Africa, the Children’s Act (Act 38 of 2005) recognises the right of children to participate in matters concerning them and, without a doubt, the principles of free expression on matters affecting them are included in this regard. This is even more critical for children finding themselves in situations of vulnerability pertaining to poverty, education, health, family and judicial settings such as the participants in this study. In this respect state departments that are operating in the space of social development must ensure that they create the means and platforms to enable children to participate fully in decision making which impacts on their futures (Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, 2013: 18). In reality, Schiller (2015: 8) has found that working in the field of foster care indicates that children, and adolescents specifically, are not always included in decisions and matters affecting them and thus the opportunities to communicate freely and openly about their conditions, fears and aspirations are not taken seriously.

The interactional communication theory’s interrelatedness quality as communication activity was used as a conceptual framework to understand and analyse the complexities of the research in the context of an indigenous African culture. In this paper an exploratory qualitative research approach was followed to discover the opinions of adolescents in foster care (De Vos et al., 2011; Yin, 2003).

Conceptual framework: Communication, inequalities and power relations

The participatory decision making premise as discussed above defines the child’s rights and, in this paper, also the foster adolescent’s freedom of expression, including open communication and the challenges of inequality in matters pertaining to their well-being.

Very significantly implied is the role of communication which facilitates these processes and, in this instance, contributes towards the strengthening of equality and the countering of particular inequalities in the decision making process. The participatory decision making premise strives to counter inequalities as entrenched by cultural practices as well as those defined by policies, declarations and legislation, both nationally and globally. The focus on communication in this context refers to interpersonal communication between the system, which is the child protection system/welfare system represented by the social work profession, and the child as client in foster care.

This institutionally enshrined recognition of the rights of the child creates particular expectations among the involved parties regarding the obligation to communicate openly about children’s needs and opinions. This rewards the adolescents as active participants (UNICEF, 2011) with an equal status and presence in the interpersonal communication context. The emphasis is on equality through the provision of a participatory set of values, principles and processes. One such provision is the quest for dialogue and open communication. Interpersonal communication represents much more than a pragmatic or operational process; it rather should be viewed as an existential process through which an expression of choice can be made which leads to a sense of equality and well-being (Wood, 2004). This should be viewed as an expression of their value as human beings and a strengthening and confirmation of humanity. Bekalu (2014: 189) poses the point that “… communication inequality could be one of the factors that mediate or moderate the social effects in health outcomes”. This can equally be said about adolescents in foster care and their desires to be part of an inclusive decision making process. The embedded power relations in indigenous cultural decision making get expressed in the communication or the lack of communication.

Communication as construct can be defined in many different ways depending on the approach and contextual situation. The communication approach adopted in this respect is one that views communication as an interactional process (Watzlawick et al., 1967, 2011: 99–116) in which individuals interact through the use of symbols to co-create and interpret meaning (Griffin, 2000: 151–160; Wood, 2004: 9–11). This approach acknowledges that people have lived experiences which are unique.

In terms of the interactional theory principle of interrelatedness isolating adolescents from their contextual situation, which, in this case, includes the institutionally enshrined systems, policies and processes, as well as the socio-cultural context, is highly problematic for open communication. Wood (2004: 162) states that “an interactional theorist believes that any useful insight into communication must consider the context in which it occurs, because those contexts affect communication and what it means. Interactional theorists claim we can’t understand group leaders, so-called dysfunctional individuals, or conflict episodes unless we examine them in the context of the relationships in which they exist”.

The importance of context as a determining factor in the analysis and understanding of how and why people behave communicatively in a particular way was discovered by Von Bertalanffy in 1951 (Von Bertalanffy, 2003; Von Bertalanffy et al., 2015). In this respect, four communicative systems’ propositions are integrated constructs: all parts are interrelated; systems are organized wholes; openness and systems strive for equilibrium. This paper focuses on the system quality of interrelatedness and its associated implications.

A system can be viewed as an entity of interrelated communicating parts that function as a whole. The interdependency of different parts affects one another in both direct and indirect ways. This premise leads to systems being viewed as organized wholes which mean that one cannot understand the complexities of systems in isolation from other parts of the system. The consequences of introducing, for example, the space for free and open communication for adolescents in foster care would have particular consequences on how they would behave in such spaces, more so where the emphasis is on risk taking by daring to express views that may be contrary to the expected cultural norm (Bekalu, 2014: 189–191).

The communicative context is clearly informed by the individuals’ interrelatedness with the system in which they find themselves, including the cultural norms, values and practices. This is further augmented by the realization that people are always communicating, and that, in fact, we cannot communicate (Griffin, 2000; Wood, 2004: 166).

The interactional context is further punctuated by power relations. Communication in this context gets established and it reflects the power relations between, for example, the adolescent in foster care and the social worker. Power in the classical sense of the word (Eaton et al., 2009; Weber, 1947: 252) is when someone in a social relationship can carry out his or her will against resistance irrespective of the context in which it occurs. Their identity in such a context gets socially constructed (Zaaiman, 2007: 363). Eaton et al. (2009: 1648) add a significant insight when they say “the strength of people’s attitude depends in part where they stand in power relations to others”. For the adolescent in foster care being subsumed by the power relations in the context of the cultural values and norms, the family and the institutional systems, it can be a very alienating position to be in when one cannot express one’s own needs and aspirations. This is supported by Huberta-Noble (2010: 256) who says “power as posited operates not only at the individual’s level of experience …” Moir and Leyshon (2013: 1019) concur with Helwig and Kim (1999) by saying that such context is influenced by the whole socio-cultural and political context in which such a person finds him or herself and communication and decision making processes cannot take place in isolation from these contexts.

One can say that communication and decision making is an ongoing negotiated process whereby meaning and its significance are co-constructed. Sakakibara and Kimura (2013: 83) refer to this situation as “communication for understanding and what do others want, and what we can do, play an important role in finding a solution”. This view is also supported by Holtzhausen and Petersen (2003: 309) when they argue that specific cultural and societal factors impact on the use of communication.

It is clear that the cultural context has profound implications for communication practices, for example in situations of choice in foster care placement situations. These inter-connecting cultural systems are the very complex products of unique histories, values, norms, approaches, expectations, fears and visions of the future, just to mention a few. In this respect, states Ting-Toomey (1992: 119), “dimensions of cultural variability influence the underlying social structures and norms of a situation, and the social norms, in turn, influence how one should or should not behave in a certain manner”. And the obvious consequence is that it would dictate the communication approach that such people would use.

In the decision making context it is important to understand the cultural variability dimensions that have been identified by the seminal studies of Gudykunst (1987) and Hofstede (1980). The classical work of Hofstede (1980) included four dimensions originally, namely: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance and masculinity-femininity, but for the purposes of this paper only the individualism-collectivism dimension will be considered. The cross cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism refers to a “culturally grounded cluster of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours towards a wide variety of people” (Ting-Toomey, 1992: 119; Wu, 2006). Individualism has two stable factors which demarcate very clearly expected communicative behaviours. This refers to the separation from the in-group with a high level of self-reliance and, secondly, the individual in such contexts would be much more prepared to communicate freely and express views and needs more openly. Wu (2006: 34) adds “… individualism-collectivism, refers to how people value themselves … and people with high individualistic values tend to care about self-actualization” and people with low individualistic values, thus with more collectivistic preferences, tend to value group benefits more than their own interests. The collectivism dimension on the other hand emphasises strong connections with the family and an inter-dependability with sociability and hence a much stronger emphasis on closing in on their own and focusing inwards. Mhlongo and O’Neill (2013: 961–962) say in this respect that “the cultural principle of communal cohesion seems to be a dominant feature in African ethnic society”. Moyo (2012: 143) states that in such communities or cultures the “best interest of the child may not be served”. This principle (the best interest of the child) may be of limited relevance to communitarian societies. These societies are built on the importance of the group with collective interests. The emphasis on collectivity has obvious communicative challenges where maintaining the status quo would be the safer communication behaviour to endorse. Risk taking in terms of expressing counter views or the needs of adolescents in foster care in such contexts may thus not be the order of the day. The African indigenous cultural context of this study can be described as one that shows the typical qualities of a community that can be classified as communal or collectivistic in nature.

Research methodology

The research problem dealt with the following question: What experiences of inequalities were incurred by indigenous African adolescents in foster care regarding participatory decision making as affected by communication in such cultural context?

Research design

The primary aim of this study was to explore the experiences of adolescents in foster care, with specific reference to participatory decision making, as effected by power relations through communication in an indigenous cultural context in South Africa.

A qualitative exploratory research methodological orientation was utilized. Terre Blanche et al. (2006) state that qualitative researchers want to make sense of feelings, experiences, social situations, or phenomena as they occur in the real world, and hence researchers want to study such participants as individuals or groups in their natural settings.

According to De Vos et al. (2011) and Creswell (2009), a qualitative approach benefits the researcher by providing the ability to keep focus on observing emerging themes from what the participants say about the problem or issue. In order to categorise qualitative data for analysis purposes, discourse analysis was used to analyse the data.

The research design was informed by a series of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Marlow (1998) states that in semi-structured interview situations there is more freedom to use hunches so the researcher can improvise the questions to be asked. Semi-structured interview schedules consist of general types of questions to ask, but they are not in a questionnaire format. Focus groups, however, provide the opportunity to generate new insights and viewpoints that enriched the data. Extra care was taken to ensure that the vulnerability of the participants was at all times taken into consideration (Bryman, 2012).

Sampling

A purposive sampling technique (Marlow, 1998) was used in the study focusing on a group of adolescents in foster care who belonged to a specific indigenous African cultural group that, according to Hofstede (1980), can be defined as collectivistic in nature. De Vos et al. (2011: 392) state that “in purposive sampling a particular case is chosen because it illustrated some feature or process that is of interest for a particular study”.

De Vos et al. (2011: 392) add that “this form of sampling is used in qualitative research and that participants and sites are selected that can purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem of the study”.

Sampling was conducted at two sites in East London, South Africa. Both sites were Child Protection Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). These children without exception came from deep rooted poverty stricken communities where families and their traditional support systems have become dysfunctional and thus they were in need of child protection. They were carefully selected and the reasons why they were chosen were explained. The first sample consisted of 13 adolescents for semi-structured interviews and, in addition, 16 adolescents were sampled and two focus group (of eight each) were held to enrich the data.

The study was directed at the predominant indigenous African culture group that the NGOs delivers services to as limited literature exists about the experiences of such adolescents and their roles in participatory decision making in foster care.

Adolescents ranging from ages 12 to 18 with at least two years of experience in foster care were eligible to participate in the study with 19 girls and 10 boys taking part.

Vulnerability and ethical challenges were of deep concern to the researchers thus assent was obtained from the directors of the two NGOs as well as from the presiding social workers which is in line with the South African Department of Health’s Act on Ethics and Research (South African Constitution Act, 1996; Act No. 108 of 1996). Informed consent was obtained from all the caregivers and assent from the adolescents. All the participants voluntarily consented to take part in the study and, as described by one of the participants, “the study was empowering as our voices were heard”.

Trustworthiness and data collection

To ensure that the principles of trustworthiness of the research process were observed, a number of precautions were introduced. The data was gathered by conducting the two focus groups and by the semi-structured interviews under conditions required to observe the highest levels of trustworthiness. The nature of the topic required that culturally sensitivity and compatibility were ensured and the research was conducted in safe and known venues to the adolescents. It is important to note that the interviews were conducted by trained interviewers who belong to the same culture and cultural context as the participants and this contributed to more openness and a willingness to participate. Data collection was undertaken by the use of audio recordings, supported by field notes and the use of independent observers in the focus groups, all to ensure the integrity of the process. Data obtained was later transcribed and validated by checking the recordings and field notes. Trustworthiness was further ensured by the use of triangulation where the theoretical framework and methodological orientation were benchmarked (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).

Both the focus groups and the semi-structured interviews were conducted by introducing and posing questions which were based on a literature review. The following broadly stated topics were used:

Communication challenges faced by adolescents in foster care and participation in decision making;

Cultural practices in adolescents’ participation in decision making.

Data analysis

The recorded focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the methods of discourse and rhetorical analysis and the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews was firstly ‘cleaned up’ and grouped according to the interview schedule used in the research. This enabled the introduction of the multi-phased data analysis processes (Terre Blanche et al., 2006).

The data was analysed through discourse analyses using some key concepts and principles from the Interactional Communication Theory in a descriptive way. This was further supported by the legislative national and international covenants on the rights of the child and democratic decision making as, for example, express by the South Africa Children’s Act (Act 38 of 2005) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989). This approach allows for deep reflection on the data which produces invaluable insights into the complexities of the foster child in situations of decision making and their well-being.

Presentation and discussion of findings

The two major themes that emerged from the data were: participatory decision making and its links with communication at the institutional and family levels and, secondly, the cultural context and its role in participatory decision making.

Theme 1: Participatory decision making

In this context participatory decision making refers to the adolescent’s situation in foster care. He or she should be actively involved in foster care decisions which impact on his or her future and well-being. The premise is that interactive communicative practices between the relevant entities and interest groups should ideally result in decisions that are taken with open minds and which affirm the values of mutual respect for one another as human beings with particular rights as legislated by conventions nationally and globally. The institutionally enshrined recognition of the agency of the adolescent is clearly articulated locally and globally through numerous policies, declarations and legislation (ARWRC, 1999; UNCRC, 1989). This recognition cuts across institutional systems, the experience of adolescents in foster care and their agency as well as the contextuality of their culture’s embeddedness (Moyo, 2012). Ideally the emphasis that is placed on the ability to express their needs and opinions forms the basis of the agency being promoted by the various interrelated systems (Huberta-Noble, 2010).

Sub theme 1.1: Communication and exclusion from participation in the institutional system

The exclusion of adolescents from the participatory decision making process manifested clearly at the institutional systems level. In line with the interactional communication theory a key element, namely that of interrelatedness, describes that all processes and systems are interconnected (Wood, 2004), however due to the unequal power relation this results in an asymmetrical relationship between the institutional system and the adolescent. Hitzler and Messmer (2010: 221) contextualise this position by stating that “participation (in the interaction) thus does not safeguard a partaking (in the decision)”. A disconnection between decision making, the institutional system, and the adolescent in foster care clearly emerged and this perpetuates inequalities, including opportunities for self-empowerment, open communication and freedom of expression. This experience was expressed by a number of participants. Expressing such sympathy very touchingly one of the participant voiced the frustration clearly: “One time I was placed with a family, the next thing the social worker came to remove me and I was placed with a different family with no explanation. They (social workers) did not explain anything to me”. The disregard by the system for the adolescent’s need to be consulted and informed about the decision illustrates the hopelessness of many of the adolescents in such situations. Although in a different context, some participants voiced that the frustrations they experienced at school as children were the same in foster care: “Our complaints are not taken seriously by teachers, they are discriminating against us (foster children)”. This quotation illustrates the complexity of the interrelatedness between the two systems that intersect with the institutional system and the individual foster adolescent as the interrelated parts of this system.

The disregard of the adolescent’s views or opinions by the institutional system was highlighted by how social workers conducted their investigations. This specific aspect of the foster care experience has been a serious matter of concern for the specific group of adolescents. This sentiment was captured by one of the participants as: “The social workers told me they were going to remove me and place me with a new family; maybe they saw that my mother was not taking good care of me or maybe because I was not attending school regularly as she used to say she does not have transport money. I don’t know why”. Not being included in decision making resulted in uncertainties (Mhlongo and O’Neill, 2013). This is disregard for the agency of the child and a disregard for the contextual situation of the family with no open communication. This illustrates the rupture of the interrelated alignment between systems, namely that of the state, family and adolescent (Moyo, 2012). The unequal power relations in this respect perpetuates a situation of domination and subjugation which is very far removed from the core values of open and inclusive communication and the universal recognition of the rights of the child (UNICEF, 2011).

Sub theme 1.2: Communication and exclusion from participation in the family system

The communicative interrelatedness between the institutional and family system levels cannot be ignored since these systems are closely intertwined (Bekalu, 2014: 190). A rupture of the interconnectedness will cause serious damage to the security and safety of adolescents. Sound interactive communication would lead to lowering of risks and a better sense of stability. Through a process of open communication inequalities at the family system level can be addressed in a positive way. The interactional communication theory describes the interconnecting of systems which leads to the strengthening of power relations in a symmetrical way. The application of this is supported by section 10 in the South African Children’s Act that states that all children should participate in matters concerning them. The majority of adolescents state that their opinions and views were not taken into account in decision making situations. This can be illustrated by the following expression by an adolescent who said, almost in a sense of desperation wanting to be recognised, “I would like to have a say in some of the decisions that my mom makes, because sometimes I want to say something but I get scared … that she would be cross with me. You know we have to do what the adults decide …” This was also supported by another participant stating “what I want to change is that for children to be part of the decision making when they are being removed and the child has to decide whether they want to go to that specific family”.

Expressions by the participants further indicated frustrations at not being valued and that decisions were taken on behalf of them rather than with them: “they could have asked us where we wanted to go …” and some said “talk to us …” The same sentiment of frustration was expressed by a number of the adolescents when referring to their foster parents’ approach and parenting style. One participant said, “I’m not given a chance to say what I what I need – I would rather keep quiet”. One of the participants also mentioned, “Sometimes I feel like my wishes are not respected because in most cases I do not get what I wish for”.

A better connectivity between the family and the institutional system could promote the values and practices of participatory decision making as a mechanism to counter inequalities experienced by adolescents in foster care. The foster family that creates open communication practices of security and involves the adolescents in such practices leads to adolescents being much more content because their opinions are valued and respected (Helwig and Kim, 1999; Moir and Leyshon, 2013). This aligns directly with some of the opinions expressed by the participants when they said that their lives are secured in terms of the provision of their basic needs, indicating some form of contentment as compared to their previous homes. “Granny (foster parent) always makes sure there is food in the house. I know I can call this home …” From an interactional communication perspective this expression affirms that a sense of dynamic equilibrium can be reached if a sense of security can be provided by the family system.

Theme 2: Cultural dynamics and foster care

The research problem in this paper indicated that communication and culture play intricate roles in the participatory decision making process. Culture as a system permeates the lives of people in profound ways. The interactional communication theory recognises the role of context very definitely as a key variable in decision making, more so where there are asymmetrical power relations between adolescents and the institutional systems and functionaries. The indigenous cultural context of the adolescents clearly plays a major role as a determining factor in decision making contexts as is illustrated in the next section.

Sub-theme 2.1: Collective culture dynamics and participatory decision making

Hofstede (1980) and Wu (2006) state the importance of cultural variability dimensions in participatory decision making situations where the nature of communication and the underpinning value system play decisive roles in the understanding of societies and their practices. In this regard Hofstede (1980) and Wu (2006) refer to the cross-cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism which refers to a culturally grounded cluster of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours towards a wide variety of people. Cultures with a high level of collectivism have very strong inward looking values which means that there is little tolerance for change and deviation from these norms and values (Mhlongo and O’Neill, 2013). This orientation with a strong isolation premise discourages open communication and diversity of opinions (Moyo, 2012). The fact that some of the participants expressed a need for openness of communication and the value of their own opinions is illustrated by the following: “children in my culture must participate in decision making from a younger age because sometimes that limits us from knowing why we were removed from the biological families. We are not listened to. It is so nice to have this opportunity (focus group discussion) to talk about all these things”. Unequal power relations between the adolescents and the predominant culture within which they are embedded illustrate the effect that such a situation has on equality and free expression. Weber (1947: 252) says that power in the classical sense means when someone in a social relationship can carry out his or her will irrespective on the basis it’s premised on. Huberta-Noble (2010) supports this as a key determining factor for the promotion of agency of an individual such as an adolescent in foster care. This viewpoint was captured by one of the participants: “I wanted to go to a certain high school but my mom said it was not going to be possible, so I suggested that I go to another high school but was told that because I come from an indigenous culture speaking a specific language I would not be admitted”.

These kinds of opinions by the adolescents epitomise what Louw and Louw (2013) state as a situation of rejection that contributes to a sense of powerlessness and deprivation as can be seen in the following statement, “My decisions are not always considered in terms of schooling because sometimes I skip classes because I have to undergo diviner training, so my social worker does not consider this at all, forcing me to go to school”.

Discussion

From an interactional communication perspective (Wood, 2004) the interrelatedness between the three interconnected systems, namely that of the institutional system, family system and the adolescent as a system, describe a dynamic interface or equilibrium between these systems in which the different elements would operate as interconnected collective wholes that rely for their success on open communication practices underpinned by the values of freedom of speech and recognition for the value and dignity of the parties involved. It is clear that we are dealing here with conflict between the ideal situation and the reality of the adolescents’ life world.

There was a communicative disconnection of the adolescents from the institutional system and also the disregard of seeing the need for including the adolescents in matters concerning them (South African’s Children’s Act, 2005). Such poor communication at the personal level cascades systemically through the various system levels such as the family system as well as the institutional state system. A disregard for the individual and his or her rights to be actively involved in decision making at the personal level can be viewed as a system sanctioned position as affirmed by the family as a cultural system and by the state as an institutional system (Helwig and Kim, 1999; Moir and Leyshon, 2013). Conflict between the cultural value system and the participatory decision making premise was evident due to the different value systems that underpin these processes and systems. This was clearly demonstrated by the disregard for the value of open and interactive communication between the various actors and systems in the foster care context.

Furthermore, the lack of interactive communication leads to exclusion in terms of participative decision making by the adolescents in the institutional foster care system as a result of the unequal power relations between the foster care system and the adolescent and this is sanctioned by the cultural context. In turn, the lack of openness of the foster care system in terms of the communication approach further resulted in disregard for the human rights of the adolescent to be actively involved in decision making regarding their own well-being. There was a lack of understanding of communication as an interconnecting process that can integrate different interrelated systems from the local to the global context enhancing universal values of equality and dignity of adolescents. This was evident in the disregard shown by the institutional and the family cultural systems for the values of freedom of expression by the adolescents. The voices and narratives of the adolescents lived experiences need to be brought into the public domain that would contribute to a socially conscientious developmental approach (Cunningham, 2012: 600).

The cultural context in which all of this takes place, though, has major consequences for the quest for equality and the open expression of needs without fear of rejection. Participation in decision making by the adolescents in foster care on equal footing in collectivistic cultures with the institutional system and representatives of power seems to be at this stage an unrealistic expectation due to asymmetrical power relations underpinned by sets of values, norms and rights prevalent in such communities.

The role and function of communication in foster care which empowers all the role players and functionaries must be included in training programmes for social workers and other institutionally linked stakeholders.

The democratic principles of open and free expression of needs and opinions as prescribed by national and global conventions and legislation must be aligned with sound principles of open communication practices. This must be incorporated in training programmes for all stakeholders.

Communication as facilitating an interactional process between the various layers or systems must be analysed contextually. The cultural context within which foster care is managed and its challenges must be included in developmental programmes for social workers.

Emphasis should be placed on the unification qualities of sound communication policies and practices in the foster care system by the introduction of communication for development programmes in such policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, communication as interactional process has the potential to connect systems that seem to be varied and which appear to be in conflict with one another. This can be achieved by the analysis of cultural systems and relevant policies as underpinning processes of foster care provisions. Communication is a value laden process which is socially constructed and as such carries with it the potential to be misused to the detriment of foster care. Intervention programmes must always be aware of the potential negative effects of the embedded power struggles in such contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Asanda Manana, Linda Manisi, Nokuzola Mavubengwana, Nomatshawe Ngqele, Thembakazi Ndwandwa, Nolufefe Molefe, Thembeka Tshofela, Nosivewe Nkushabana, Sinazo Nkumbi.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) (1999) OAU Document: CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), entered into force, 29 November 1999.

Bekalu

(2014) Communication inequalities and health disparities. Information Development 30(2): 189–191.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell

Plano Clark

(2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cunningham

(2012) Aging out: Youths’ perspectives on foster care and the transition to independence. Qualitative Social Work 12(5): 587–602.

Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities (2013) South African Periodic Country Report on the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. Pretoria, South Africa.

De Vos

Strydom

Fouche

et al. (2011) Research at Grass Roots: For Social Sciences and Human Service Professions, 3rd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Eaton

Visser

Krosnick

et al. (2009) Social power and attitude strength over the life course. Personality and Psychology Bulletin 35(12): 1646–1660.

10.

Griffin

(2000) A First Look at Communication Theory, 4th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Gudykunst

Kim

(1992) Readings on Communicating with Strangers, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

12.

Helwig

Kim

(1999) Children’s evaluations of decision-making procedures in peer, family and school contexts. Child Development 70(2): 502–512.

13.

Hitzler

Messmer

(2010) Group decision making in child welfare and the pursuit of participation. Qualitative Social Work 9(2): 205–226.

14.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.

15.

Holtzhausen

Petersen

(2003) Exploding the myth of the symmetrical/asymmetrical dichotomy: Public relations models in the New South Africa. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(4): 305–341.

16.

Honkalaskar

Sohoni

Bhandarkar

(2004) A participatory decision making process for community-level water supply. Water Policy 16: 39–61.

17.

Huberta-Noble

(2010) Promoting worker-owned cooperatives as a CED empowerment strategy: A case study of colors and lawyering in support of participatory decision-making and meaningful social exchange. Clinical Law Review 17: 255–284.

18.

Louw

(2013) Child and Adolescent Development, Bloemfontein: ABC Printers.

19.

Marlow

(1998) Research Methods for Generalist Social Work, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

20.

Mhlongo

O’Neill

(2013) Family influences on career decisions by black first-year UKZN students. South African Journal of Higher Education 27(4): 953–965.

21.

Moir

Leyshon

(2013) The design of decision-making: Participatory budgeting and the production of localism. Local Environments 18(9): 1002–1023.

22.

Moyo

(2012) Reconceptualising the ‘paramountcy principle’: Beyond the individualistic construction of the best interest of the child. African Human Rights Law Journal 12: 142–177.

23.

Sakakibara

Kimura

(2013) Experimental study on negotiating process in participatory decision making process in a community. Group Decision Negotiation 22: 71–84.

24.

Schiller

(2015) Exploring adolescent’s participation in decision-making in related foster care placements in South Africa. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 50(2): 3.

25.

South Africa (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No.108, Pretoria: Government Printers.

26.

South Africa (2005) Children’s Act No. 38. Government Gazette, Pretoria: Government Printers.

27.

South Africa (2005) Department of Social Development. Framework for Social Service Delivery, Pretoria: Government Printers.

28.

Terre Blanche

Durrheim

Painter

(2006) Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences, Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

29.

Ting-Toomey

(1992) Identity and interpersonal being. In: Gudykunst

Kim

(eds) Readings on Communication with Strangers, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 119–132.

30.

United Nations General Assembly (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York: UN General Assembly.

31.

United Nations General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights (accessed 3 December 2015).

32.

Von Bertalanffy

(2003) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, London: George Braziller.

33.

Von Bertalanffy

Hofkirchner

Rosseau

(2015) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, London: George Braziller.

34.

Watzlawick

Beavin

Jackson

(1967) The Pragmatics of Human Communication, New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

35.

Watzlawick

Beavin Bavelas

Jackson

et al. (2011) Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

36.

Weber

(1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York, NY: Macmillan.

37.

Wood JT (2004) Communication Theories in Action: An Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.

38.

(2006) Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies XV(1): 31–42.

39.

Yin

(2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

40.

Zaaiman

(2007) Power: Towards a third generation definition. Koers 72(3): 357–375.