This study analysed discussions with 20 non-resident fathers to find strategies for supporting fathers through the process of separation. The focus groups revealed that the men were unprepared for the separation process and were unable to find the right support when they most needed it. The men also identified a need for strategies to create and maintain a changed relationship with their children's mother and to redefine their parental role.
Purpose
Initially this project, supported by the Families Commission through its Innovative Practice Fund, aimed to:
Utilise an inductive, qualitative research process to uncover New Zealand fathers’ perspectives on what assisted, or could have assisted, a more positive process of separation from the mother of their children, as well as maintaining continued contact with their children. The themes of the Australian Child Support Agency’s ‘Staying Connected’ initiative would be used as a basis for focus group discussions.
The participants were asked what advice they would give to men moving through the process of separation from their partner to best manage:
- themselves
- the changed relationship with the children’s mother
- maintaining connection with their children. (These points were the main themes of the Australian ‘Staying Connected’ package.)
Secondly, the project aimed to utilise the information gathered from the focus groups to develop a workbook similar to the Australian initiative.
IIt was anticipated that many, if not all, of the participants would be severely distressed by the process of separation. In recognition of this the research design allowed for an extended period of time whereby participants could express and share their experiences before moving on to the research question(s). However, analysis of the focus groups’ discussions revealed that the participants believed there were more fundamental factors that needed to be addressed before developing a workbook. That is, the participants emphasised the need for better systems to be in place to provide personcentred support rather than a priority need for a written resource. (This point is further explained in ‘Findings and discussion’ and in ‘Conclusions’.)
Because of this finding, the second aim (the development of a workbook) was replaced with the aim of:
Developing conclusions and implications for fathers and services supporting fathers through parental separation.
Methodology
The project utilised a qualitative research process. Qualitative research investigates the why and how of a phenomena with the aim of description and understanding. In contrast, quantitative research typically looks at the relationships between a number of clearly defined variables with the aim of confirmation, prediction and/or control. Qualitative research is aimed at exploring more fundamental questions on a topic about which little is known. In this project, the questions were primarily aimed at uncovering knowledge about non-resident fathers’ experiences and thoughts around separation, an area where there is limited knowledge available.
It is noted that unlike quantitative research, there is no aim of generalising the results of qualitative research to a wider population. The aim of this exploratory project was to provide information that was authentic, credible and represented the considered perspectives of a convenience sample of non-resident fathers. In this context, ‘convenience’ means a group familiar with and experienced in the phenomena under study (that of separation and a non-resident status as a parent) but without any particular ‘expertise’. Their views cannot be considered representative of non-resident fathers in general. In this project, focus groups were used as the method of data collection and initial analysis. Focus groups are commonly used where there is limited information on a particular topic and where researchers need to explore the lived experience of the participants. The point of difference with focus groups is that they provide the opportunity for participants to share and co-construct meaning, what has been described as a ‘synergistic’ effect (Morgan, 1997). This effect could not be achieved by individual interviews. Thematic analysis is commonly used to summarise and organise data as it emerges, in this case from the group discussions. With this project, the design allows the participants themselves to manage the first stage of thematic analysis, that of prioritising the raw data (this is discussed in more detail later in this section).
It is important to appreciate that this research process is about uncovering and summarising a variety of opinion, clarifying and refining the main themes and having the participants rank these themes in order of importance. Another important aspect of the process is that the participants return for a second group. This allows for a period of reflection on the initial findings. This process provides a depth of insight and authenticity unlikely to be uncovered otherwise. Group discussion, combined with reflection over time, can produce insights that would not be uncovered through any other research process, especially ‘one off’ or ‘snapshot’ approaches to data collection such as in surveys or interviews.
Two focus group sessions, each of 90-120 minutes duration, were held in Nelson and Christchurch. The intention was to compare and contrast information from two areas with differing ranges of support services. Each participant attended two focus group sessions, purposely scheduled six weeks apart. This was so participants would have the opportunity to read a transcript and initial analysis of their first focus group discussion, and reflect on their experiences overall in preparation for the following focus group session.
Participants were asked to discuss what advice they would give to fathers moving through the process of separation from their partner to best manage:
- themselves
- the changed relationship with the children’s mother
- maintaining connection with their children. (These points were the main themes of the Australian ‘Staying Connected’ package.)
The researchers’ role was to facilitate group introductions, clarify the question(s) and refocus group discussion on the question(s) if discussion appeared to be moving off topic. Otherwise the facilitators did not take any active part in the discussions.
The group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed in the usual manner with summaries forwarded to the participants for critique. As well as being audiotaped, the main points arising from the group discussions were summarised on newsprint placed in a position so that the participants could view what was being written as they talked. They were encouraged to add or change anything that didn’t accurately reflect the discussion.
When discussion ceased, each participant was given a number of graded tokens (differing coloured stickers worth 1, 2 or 3 points). Each participant was allocated 10 points; one token worth 3 points, two worth 2 points and three worth 1 point. They were asked to allocate these tokens, without discussion, to the summarised points they considered most important on the newsprint. This had the effect of minimising the bias often present with group discussion, where the more vocal members control the nature and course of the discussion.
Initial analysis involved looking at where the tokens were more concentrated, with those summarised points that received the most tokens becoming the main themes. It is important to note that the participants undertook this first stage of data analysis themselves.
Further analysis involved collating the themes initially identified. Then, through a process similar to constant comparative analysis, these were collapsed into more broadly defined themes and subthemes, supported by quotations from the group discussions.
Key Results
The project concluded that:
- Due to a variety of factors the participants were generally unprepared for the separation process. This lack of preparedness resulted in a wide range of often negative outcomes that were experienced personally and interpersonally.
- The participants’ experience of a lack of support created a volatile situation (personally and interpersonally) at a time when the participants were least likely to develop or plan effective coping strategies.
- There is an urgent need for male-friendly services to support fathers moving through the process of separation.
- Maintaining a connection with their children required a more equitable base from which to begin negotiating access arrangements than that which exists at present.
Wider implications arising from the project were:
- The need for existing family support services to build their capacity in attracting and engaging with fathers.
- The need for services dedicated to the support of men. Participants voiced that services specifically reaching out to and meeting the needs of men needed to be identified and/or developed. Suggestions included a ‘Ministry of Men’s Affairs’, the advertising of current services and the development of Men’s Centres. It was also suggested that services should concentrate on the availability of male-facilitated separation coaching (counselling was a concept/practice that most participants found unhelpful), support groups and/ or mentoring services. The issues raised here by the participants reflect a problem central to this project and to the support of fathers in general. The problem is grounded in a contradiction between how fathers requiring support view agencies to be, and how agencies involved in family support view their preparedness to support fathers. The fathers in this project consistently voiced dissatisfaction with the ability of services to respect and respond to their needs. Conversely, service providers identify themselves as being present for all family members. Potentially, existing support agencies are best placed to support both parents through the process of separation. However, in order for this to occur the contradictory positions outlined above need to be reconciled.
- The need for development and/or strengthening of referral pathways. The isolation and lack of support experienced by all the participants point to the need for referral pathways between existing services to be strengthened. This is especially important in the early, more critical stages of separation.
- The need for verification of the project results. The project results need to be verified to establish if the findings are consistent across non-resident fathers, generally. Further broader-based research needs to be carried out and any future research needs to view ‘one-off’ data collection methods with caution. Participants can enter a deeper, more meaningful discourse, providing richer insights into their situation, when given the opportunity for facilitated reflection over time.