I choose to honor my First Nations friends who recognize today as a day of loss and mourning, as a day that celebrates colonization and oppression.

Today I choose to teach my children the real story behind this American holiday.

Today I choose to not let American consumerism diminish what this day is about.

Today I choose to be thankful for those who are fighting injustice.

Today I choose to be thankful for those who bravely stand up for what's right in the world.

Today I choose to be thankful for the friends and family members, both here
and across the world who are advocating on behalf of those who aren't
allowed to have a voice.

From political cartoonist Jeff Parker


Sweet 16.

Happy 16th birthday to my dear sweet daughter. You are the first person I have ever recognized myself in. You were the first person who shared my blood, my DNA, my heritage. Because of you I was able to understand the sacrifices my own mothers made. It has been a privilege to stand by your side and watch you grow into such a wonderful young woman. I can't wait to see what you are going to do as you move into the future.



Adoptions re-open in Guatemala

Just a quick update, thanks to Sarah who told me last night about this news story.

According to the Washington Post, Guatemala is re-opening their international adoption program. They say the "problems" have been resolved. According to the Post,

Legal reforms established during the suspension will prevent problems
in the future, according to the National Adoption Council, which said
in a statement on its Web page that it will start a pilot program
involving four countries.

The Council did not say when the program would start or which countries would be involved.

You can read the story here

And now, back to our regularly scheduled homework break.

“Cultural Tourism” – Beyond Culture Camps Part 2

One of the study's limitations is that those adoptees born/adopted in
the late 1970s to 1989 would have had much greater access or
opportunity to specialized Korean culture camps. Korean culture camps
did exist back then, and in fact Holt first started their camps in
1983. I, as a "2nd wave" adoptee would have been 15 years old that
year. A local family camp for Korean adoptees in Minnesota, Kamp
Kimchee, began in 1978. For me, I would have liked to have know what
the age breakdown was for those who attended camps and those who did
not, and if there were any correlations between ages/year adopted and
some of the other variables such as how one identifies
racially/ethnically. My hypothesis would be that it would make a

Deborah Douglas responds to the NYT article about Korean adoptee identity

From the Huffington Post

The Asian-adoptee identity crisis reported in Monday's New York Times might finally lend credence to what black social workers have been saying all along: Ethnic and racial identity matters.

In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a
statement emphasizing the importance of keeping black families intact
by encouraging black-on-black adoptions. Many took this stance to be
anti-white, racist rhetoric, insisting that all children need is love
to survive childhood healthy and intact.

So now we know — at least from an Asian-adoptee point of view.

You can read the article here.

What do you think folks? Is she right?

Korean adoptees advocate for adoption reform in Korea

From the JoongAng Daily

A generation fights to reform adoption laws

11011044 Six Korean adoptees filed an appeal with the Anti-corruption and Civil
Rights Commission last year to request a probe into irregularities in
their adoption documents and possible illegal procedures at local
adoption agencies.

Now, they’re involved in a full-fledged
battle to reform adoption laws and procedures, and they’re getting help
from some heavyweights.

Adoptee rights and community groups as
well as unwed mothers, the public interest law firm Gong-Gam and
Democratic Party Representative Choi Young-hee have joined forces with
the adoptees in an effort to convince lawmakers to revise the Special
Law Relating to the Promotion and Procedure of Adoption.

The National Assembly has now taken up the issue and is exploring changes through a series of hearings.

You can read the rest here.

Adult adoptees speak – Beyond Culture Camps Part 1

 The executive summary of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute study, Beyond Culture Camps: Promoting Healthy Identity Formation in Adoption begins with the quote from one of the study's Korean adoptee participants:

I realized I never could change my ethnicity/race. I also developed a pride in being Korean and Asian. I reviewed things I liked about being Asian that European Americans did not have. I also grew comfortable with things I did not like about being Asian. As an adult I learned how to deal with racism/stereotypes in a way that makes me feel OK about being a “border person” and a minority.

Beyondculturecamp-donaldson As a social worker, I immediately recognized the position this beginning quote meant to convey – what we call a "strengths-based approach" to an issue. My impression is one of, "hey, we may have had some identity issues, but now we're okay!" I wonder whether if this had been written for an academic audience in a peer-review journal, if that would have been the quote that opened the report. It's a bias – one can never quite remove bias – and I believe was intentionally framed this way. I'm not going to give an opinion as to the merits of this approach, but I did want to begin stating this because I think it's important for people to understand that all research has its biases and limitations. The questions that are asked, the way the report is written – even the fact, as Sang-Shil writes in her blog post here, that if this is about adult adoptees, why are children featured prominently on the cover? say something about the way a research study is framed.

I look at this study from multiple perspectives – as someone who fits the demographic of the study participants, as a social worker who has worked in the adoption industry, and as a new researcher.

Some of the feedback I've been reading centers on the idea that the findings aren't anything "new." Well, I both agree and disagree on that point. I agree that the results don't seem surprising to anyone who has been around a lot of transracial adoptees. If you've read my blog, or any of the other Korean adoptee/transracial adoptee blogs, or read Outsiders Within or participate in some of the Yahoo groups like IAT, then no, these findings are nothing new. We (meaning adult transracial and transnational adoptees) have been speaking out publicly for a good 20 years or so now. When I read the results, I just nodded my head in affirmation, like a non-verbal "yep."

From a research perspective, however, this report is significant, since in many disciplines these days (especially social work and psychology) the Very Big People want "evidence based research" and so this study goes a long way in providing some of that. Anecdotal stories are considered non-significant since they are just "one person's view." This study of 468 adult adoptees (of all race/ethnicity) so far is hailed as the largest sample of adult adoptees surveyed (and the Korean adoptees made up the largest portion of the adoptee respondents at 179 participants). This study now produces some "evidence" and even more important to me, evidence that reflects changes from some older studies that reported little or no struggle with identity for transracial adoptees.

One of my big criticisms of a lot of the previous studies on transracial adoption is that the questions they ask and the measurement instruments that were used (that is, surveys or interviews) were either misleading (to me), or did not ask the kinds of questions I thought were important, or relied on adoptive parent reports about the adoptee's identity or asked children and youth themselves. Why would I think asking the child/youth a problem? I've said it before, but for those of you who haven't heard it before I'll state it again – when it comes to asking transracial and international adoptees (or maybe even same race adoptees) questions about adoption and identity, the questions often seems framed in ways that make me wonder if the adoptee would answer honestly.

Remember, that for an adoptee there may be a subconscious worry that there is a "right" answer, and adoptees are often very protective of their adoptive parent's feelings. When I look at some of the older studies and see answers to different questions that seem to contradict each other, it makes me wonder if or how much the adopted child or youth answered more according to what s/he thought would be safe versus how they truly felt. I have no way of knowing and I could be way off base, but those are some of my concerns about some of the older studies I've read. I don't discount those studies all together, however, and I think it's important to consider the responses by younger transracial and international adoptees. I just think that we need to be critical thinkers and to realize that there are some limitations to those studies.

Beyond Culture Camp expands on the previous assumption that identity work is done mostly in adolescence and tapers off as the individual becomes a young adult. I was not at all surprised personally to see that in this study, the Korean adoptees reported that racial and ethnic identity development not just continues but grows throughout adulthood – 60% reported that racial/ethnic identity was important to them by middle school, 67% during high school, 76% through college and 81% by young adulthood. I might hypothesize that adult adoptees may feel less of a burden to answer in a way that protects their adoptive parent's feelings (of course, I could be wrong about that, but I think adults answering an anonymous survey would be more likely to be honest and less likely to try and protect adoptive parents).

In addition, what children and youth think about race and ethnicity when they live in a home where they are the minority is likely going to be very different than what they think if as a young adult or an adult they move to a more diverse place and have a diverse group of friends and acquaintances. The study states:

"most Korean adoptees grew up in communities that were less than 10 percent Asian, but almost half (47%) indicated there are larger numbers of Asians in their current communities. This shift  also was reflected in the fact that 67 percent of the Koreans described the extent of diversity in their childhood communities  as “not at all” to “not very much,” whereas many (42%) indicated there is “very much” diversity in their communities as adults. This indicates a shift for most from living in settings where they were very much in the minority as a child to living in communities with greater racial diversity. This change may be reflective of overall shifts in the American population, as well as the choice of Korean adopted adults to live in more diverse communities." (p.25).

In this study, I think it's important to consider that it was aimed at adoptees 18 years or older. The study was conducted from October 2006 to February 2007, so the youngest of the adoptees who responded would now be about 20-21 years old (if they were <1 year at the time). Adopted adults responding to this study would h
ave been adopted in 1988-1989 or so or earlier.

One note – the NYT article and other folks have been writing as if this study was of the "first wave" or "first generation" of Korean adoptees, but that is not true. Many of us who study Korean adoption or are part of the Korean adoptee community would classify the first generation of Korean adoptees as those born and/or adopted during or in the first decade after the Korean War, so those from 1950-the mid 1960's. I just barely escape that designation because I was born in 1968.

A few other notes about this study – the average age of the respondent was 31 years old, and 82% were women. Fifty percent married or partnered at the time of the survey, 26% had children and of those with children, 31% had adopted children (I find that fascinating and would like to see more research done on this topic!). Of the 88% of the respondents who had siblings, 74% of them had at least one sibling who was also adopted (although the findings do not specify if they were of the same race/ethnicity or not).

It is important to keep in mind that the participants in this study are not a randomized sample and therefore the findings cannot be generalized beyond the scope of the study participants. For example the report states that 62% of the respondents belong to an adult adoptee organization, 73% are members of an adoptee listserve or e-group, and 49% had participated in an adoption conference. Frankly, that seems awfully high to me. It makes me wonder if these numbers reflect an active participation in adoption related organizations and groups led to participating in this study, and if so whether these findings say more about adoptees that interact with other adoptees. I wonder about the adoptees who are more isolated or don't care about or don't participate in transracial or international adoption related activities. I myself saw the call for participation on several list-serves and on blogs and or adoption-related newsletters.

So this ends my first blurb of random thoughts about the study, and I apologize if it doesn't flow well. I didn't really have time to edit it. Over the rest of the month I will continue to post on the findings of this study.

What the research says about Me

The big news, if you haven't heard, is that November is National Adoption Month and that means it's an extra busy month for me, being all about adoption, ya know. I've wanted to respond to a number of things I've seen around the blog world, but wow, that would take me more time than I have right now. I really do wish I had time though, there is some interesting stuff being written.

Although I wasn't quoted, I spoke to the reporter of the New York Times piece at length about the Evan B. Donaldson study that was released on Monday. This study is actually so big and there are so many aspects to it that I think it will take me a few blog posts to get all (most) of my thoughts written down.

I'm going to try and tackle the Korean adoption identity part first; later on I do want to address some of the other aspects of the study, namely the white, domestic, same-race cohort that was used as a comparison to the Korean adoptee cohort, and I also want to address the New York Times piece itself, and then discuss the policy and practice recommendations from the report. I'm not sure if anyone else cares, but I want to mention aspects of the methodology as well, since it matters to anyone who is attempting to interpret the findings. The report is insanely long, at 113 pages so I hope this will help break it down for people who don't love to read research articles!!

So hang on folks and please be patient as I try to carve out time to get these posts written (as it is, I'm taking a break from working on my final presentation for one of my doctoral classes, Ethical Issues and Moral Dilemmas in Family Life. For those who are interested, my presentation will be a case study look at the situation of the Nyberg adoption story featured on This American Life last spring).