Abstract
More than 300 delegates attended ICAR4, which followed on from previous conferences in the US, UK and the Netherlands. The UK was well represented by around 30 people from UK domestic and international adoption agencies, academic research centres and treatment agencies. There were three UK-based keynote lectures: Susan Golombok and Michael Lamb on lesbian and gay adoptive families, Julie Selwyn on risk and protective factors in adoptions from care and I presented our long-term follow-up on behalf of the British Chinese Adoption Study team. Other keynote lectures were delivered mostly by noted US and Scandinavian researchers and topics included Reactive Attachment Disorder, paediatric perspectives, ethnic-racial socialisation, implementation of the Hague Convention, searching for origins and the neurobiology of adoption. The full programme is available on the website (www.icar4.com). Although I attended all 11 keynote lectures, it was not possible to cover all the numerous and overlapping symposia and workshops, so this report is necessarily selective and incomplete, and tends to reflect my interest in new research methods and in longitudinal and life-course studies.
Hearing about adoption from an international research perspective is always a salutary reminder of the huge variations in law, policy, cultural values and practices that exist across countries. In particular, it offers a reminder of the vastly different levels of regulation of adoption practice, of professional training and of funding for research. It also provides opportunities to seek out others of similar interests across the globe. Such meetings can help to log what is becoming established knowledge and to make us puzzle over discrepant findings.
Starting with general impressions, this is what struck me. International adoptions are reducing in number and the shift of focus to domestic adoption was noticeable by those of us who had been to previous ICAR conferences. In this regard it was cheering to see more recognition of UK research, especially follow-ups of maltreated ex-care children. Although there is huge interest in how early stress affects development and despite impressive advances in neurobiology, it was reassuring to learn that the researchers themselves are modest in their claims. Much more needs to be understood about the interaction of genes, environments and behaviour and attempts to promote recovery from adversity. Can the negative effects of neglect and maltreatment on young brains be repaired and, if so, how?
Valid and reliable measurement is crucial in research and imprecise concepts are gradually being more closely defined and turned into serviceable measures. For example, the nature of the adoptive family environment, surely an important influence on development, is beginning to be explored in more detail and we heard of attempts to assess such aspects as warmth and hostility in an adoptive couple's relationship over time and changes in the reciprocation of affection. Furthermore, the domains potentially affected by early deprivation are expanding, particularly in the assessment of deficits in social skills and the social networks of adopted children.
Not everyone was happy with the conference presentations. Some wished the basic developmental science findings could be translated more rapidly into programmes preventing adversity and into effective therapeutic interventions. Those expecting more on the content and strategies of promising interventions may have been disappointed. How do we help adopters to override a rejected child's resistance?
I had the impression that debates about the most contentious issues in adoption were rather muted – not the intention of the organisers, but perhaps by some silent wish in the audience to keep partisan politics at the margins. For example, although transracial adoption, birth parents' disempowerment, gay and lesbian adoption and malpractice in international adoption featured in presentations, the conflicts of viewpoint did not surface as much as might be expected. Such tensions have by no means gone away, but then the focus of this conference was on research.
Coming to my own special interest, I was impressed by a major project by Leslie Leve and colleagues from the Early Growth and Development Study (EGDS). The EGDS is a prospective longitudinal study of birth and adoptive families in the US, following their large cohort from infancy to age nine so far. The authors have linked triads of data that include the adopted child, birth mother and father and adoptive parents. The collection of data on birth parents (including DNA and cortisol measures) is rather rare and allows for tests of genetic influences that may emerge as the child grows up in an unrelated rearing environment. The study ranges across multiple academic and recruitment sites, using closely spaced repeat measures. The research team will have volumes of data with which to examine adoption outcomes, processes and contexts and genotype-environment interactions.
Jesus Palacios, of the University of Seville, was a most efficient conference organiser and a genial host who set the tone for a superbly organised, friendly and stimulating week of events. Of course, a visit to the spectacular Guggenheim Museum was a post-conference essential.