Qualitative Social Work

Much of the literature on sexual abuse of males tends to emphasize the harmful effects of the abuse. ‘Deviants’ from assumed causal assessments do not seem to attract equal attention. Some abused males apparently manage remarkably well, even with a considerable amount of supposed risk factors in their history. This article explores how a man in his fifties appears to have managed to handle and make sense of highly complicated and difficult lived-through experiences during youth, including four years of sexual abuse. He is one of 15 men interviewed as part of a qualitative research project on sexually abused males. His story contains some surprising features and illustrates many aspects of sexual abuse otherwise dispersed throughout the entire research data. The article points in the direction of overcoming problems and hindrances, describes one possible solution, and hopefully contributes to the base of ‘non-tragic’ knowledge in the field of sexual abuse of males.

Prior to writing this article, the two authors (Bogolub, US and Thomas, UK) conducted separate qualitative research studies with foster children. After briefly describing their individual studies, the two authors engage in a cross-cultural dialogue based on their differing perspectives on the importance of birth parent consent for foster children’s research participation. The authors’ differences appear largely, although not exclusively, related to contrasts between a US academic culture, which often stresses the fiduciary relationship between parents and developing children, and a UK academic culture, which places more emphasis on children’s competence and independence. Conclusions center on the importance of cross-cultural dialogue as a way to promote considered decisions about the overlapping methodological and ethical questions that inevitably arise when doing research with children, particularly those involved with the child welfare system.

This article analyses claims about ‘family’ status made within narratives by and about lesbian and gay foster carers and adopters. The author asks how such claims work in order to challenge the view that lesbian and gay families are inherently conservative or radical. Instead this article analyses the uses to which conformity or rebellion claims are put, demonstrating that they are attempts to challenge homo-phobic practices, to assert the legitimacy of gay parenting, or to ask questions about standard kinship models. For social work, there is a need to recognize and work with these queer genealogies, and to develop reflexivity about the ways that ‘sexuality’ is theorized in and through practice.

Many women who leave welfare for work simply join the ranks of the working poor (Bowie et al., 2001; Edin and Lein, 1997; Gueron and Pauly, 1991; Levitan and Shapiro, 1987; Rank, 1994). Little is known about women who leave public assistance for a living-wage job or how they succeed in doing so. This article examines findings from in-depth interviews of women who successfully left public assistance for a living-wage job. The respondents suggested that formal assistance, such as a holistic job-training program, and informal assistance, such as the financial support of family and/or friends (with no expectations for reciprocity) are necessary for women to obtain and maintain a living-wage job. Implications for welfare policy are discussed.

The article considers the usefulness of the oral life (hi)story approach, and in particular its qualitative method of interviewing, to researching social work issues such as trans-racial adoption. In providing clarification on the decision to use the term life (hi)story in the given (bracketed) way, a descriptive outline of the reported study’s research design into trans-racial adoption is provided. This is followed by a critically reflective assessment of the key methodological issues emanating from the study’s use of oral life (hi)story, highlighting not only its limitations but also offering guidance on its use. In doing so, it is argued that despite some discrepancies, oral life (hi)story offers access to a deeper level of understanding about adoptees’ lives. It also empowers adoptees by giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves about their own lives.

The present article describes several methodological questions with which I have had to contend over the past four years regarding teaching a qualitative research seminar. The topic of the seminar is ‘Intimate Violence against Women’, and the students come from very diverse backgrounds (Arabs, Druze, Jews, young and mature students, and new immigrants from Ethiopia and Russia). The present article addresses two principal subjects: (1) The epistemological resistance, which discusses the basic difficulties my students, especially the younger ones, express in accepting qualitative epistemology; and, (2) various questions regarding my own difficulties in deciding what are the recommended limits of reflexivity at each stage of research. The question of reflexivity relates to the fact that the seminar’s subject matter is a ‘sensitive issue’ (Renzetti and Lee, 1993). The present article draws on examples and verbatim quotes from my students, presented with my own questions and reflections.