Fifty-one solo mother families were compared with 52 two-parent families all with a 4–9-year-old child conceived by donor insemination. Standardized interview, observational and questionnaire measures of maternal wellbeing, mother–child relationships and child adjustment were administered to mothers, children and teachers. There were no differences in parenting quality between family types apart from lower mother–child conflict in solo mother families. Neither were there differences in child adjustment. Perceived financial difficulties, child’s gender, and parenting stress were associated with children’s adjustment problems in both family types. The findings suggest that solo motherhood, in itself, does not result in psychological problems for children.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat are the perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation regarding their conception and the third party involved?SUMMARY ANSWERThe majority of adolescents described feeling indifferent about their conception, and yet simultaneously reported an interest in the third party involved, or were in contact with them.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThere is an assumption that children conceived through reproductive donation will feel negatively about their origins in adolescence. However, little is known about the views of adolescents who have been conceived through different types of reproductive donation.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONForty-four adolescents, all of whom had been told about their conception in childhood, participated in a semi-structured interview as part of the sixth phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of assisted reproduction families in the UK.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSAll adolescents were aged 14 years, had been conceived using surrogacy (n = 22), egg donation (n = 13) or sperm donation (n = 9) to heterosexual couples, and varied in terms of their information about, and contact with, the third party involved in their conception. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in participants’ homes. Interviews were analysed qualitatively to determine adolescents’ perceptions of their conception, and their thoughts and feelings about the surrogate or donor involved.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEAdolescents were found to feel positive (n = 7), indifferent (n = 32) or ambivalent (n = 5) about their conception. Amongst adolescents not in contact with the surrogate or donor, most were interested (n = 16) in the surrogate or donor, and others were ambivalent (n = 4), or not interested (n = 6) in them. Adolescents in contact with the surrogate or donor expressed positive (n = 14), ambivalent (n = 1) or negative (n = 1) feelings about them.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONOf 56 adolescents invited to take part in the study, 47 consented to take part, giving a response rate of 84%. It was not possible to obtain information from adolescents who do not know about their conception.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe findings contradict the assumption that children conceived through reproductive donation will feel negatively about their origins in adolescence and suggest that it may be helpful to draw a distinction between adolescents’ feelings about their conception in general, and their feelings about the surrogate or donor in particular.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [097857/Z/11/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Drawing on historical, theoretical and cultural knowledge, this introduction explains and justifies the importance of generalisation from dialogical single case studies. We clarify the meaning of dialogism and dialogicality, differentiate between single case studies and dialogical single case studies, identify the dynamic and ethical features of dialogical single case studies, and articulate the problem of generalisation as it pertains to this topic. We suggest that the question of generalisation ought to be viewed as an effort to resituate knowledge and its dialogical features, for example values, ethical standards or levels of engagement, in other dialogical single case studies. Dialogism and dialogicalityThroughout historical and cultural development, language and symbolic communication have been vital for humans' evolving capacities to conceive themselves and others as beings who can think, who have knowledge and beliefs, who experience, use symbols, tell stories, and otherwise. Individuals, groups and societies create intersubjective bonds, struggle for their social recognition, and evaluate and judge their intentions and actions. These capacities not only privilege speech and symbolic communication as vital, but they also have ethical qualities. Although these capacities have been concerns of humankind throughout history, with the emergence of the social sciences in the 18th century, they became the subject of explicit research. Among scholars, Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) emphasised the inventive power of language and the ethical nature of common sense thinking. Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1801) viewed language through the power of self-consciousness and self-realisation. Wilhelm Humboldt (1767-1835) conceived of language as an organic whole, which is never a finished product but an everchanging and dynamic process. We could view such scholars as predecessors of the concepts of 'dialogical existence' and 'dialogical thinking', which were later developed in the post-Hegelian Marburg School, Bakhtin's dialogism, Vygotsky's sociocultural approach, and American pragmatism. These theoretical influences led, during the second half of the last century, to the development of a number of approaches in which dialogue has become the central concept and thus, such approaches often call themselves 'dialogical'. At the same time, the emphasis on dialogue, in which professionals and clients/patients mutually co-construct meanings of their concerns, has become influential in professional practices such as psychotherapy, family therapy, and the care of people with communication difficulties. Moreover, the focus on mutualities in dialogue has penetrated other domains of social interactions, for example in education, services and politics.The main presupposition of dialogical perspectives is that the mind of the Self and the minds of Others are interdependent in and through the sense-making and sense-creating of social realities, in interpretations of the past, experiencing the present and imagining the future. Some d...

STUDY QUESTIONHow do single mothers who have conceived a child via anonymous or identity-release sperm donation represent the donor?SUMMARY ANSWERWhile the majority of mothers described their anonymous and identity-release donors as symbolically significant to their families, others were more likely to emphasize that their lack of information limited their thoughts about him.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThere is limited understanding of the factors that impact upon how single mothers represent the donor, and whether or not they are determined by specific donor programmes (anonymous or identity-release).STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONQualitative interviews were conducted with 46 women who had treatment at a UK licensed fertility clinic during the years 2003–2009. Twenty mothers (43%) had used an anonymous donor, and 26 (57%) had used an identity-release donor.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSAmong the 46 mothers interviewed, all had at least one child conceived via donor insemination who was between the ages of 4 and 9 years. Mothers were heterosexual and were currently without a live-in and/or long-term partner. Interview data were analysed qualitatively according to the principles of thematic analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEFindings indicated marked diversity in single mothers' representations of the donor. Most (n = 27) mothers talked about the donor as symbolically significant to family life and were likely to describe the donor as (i) a gift-giver, (ii) a gene-giver and (iii) a potential partner. Others (n = 16) talked about the donor as (i) unknown, (ii) part of a process and (iii) out of sight and out of mind. There were mothers with anonymous and identity-release donors in each group. Several mothers explained that their feelings about the donor had changed over time.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONAll mothers conceived at a licensed fertility clinic in the UK. Findings are limited to individuals willing and able to take part in research on donor conception.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe study offers greater insight into the factors influencing the donor narratives produced in single-mother families. It has implications for the counselling and treatment of single women seeking fertility treatment with donor gametes in both anonymous and identity-release programmes. Given that the number of clinics offering identity-release programmes worldwide seems to be increasing, the finding that single women may have varying preferences with regard to donor type, and varying interest levels with regard to donor information, is important. It is recommended that clinicians and other fertility clinic staff guard against making assumptions about such preferences and any thoughts and feelings about the donor or donor information on the basis of marital status.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [097857/Z/11/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Scholarly attention has recently been given to the ways in which gender and parenting identities intersect, yet little is known about how children and adolescents with a trans à parent experience family life and relationships. This article reports data from a qualitative study in the UK based on interviews with 29 children and adolescents aged 5-18, all of whom have at least one parent who is trans Ã. Drawing upon theories of symbolic interactionism, the study investigated children and adolescents' meaning-making and experiences of family life and relationships in the context of their parent's gender identity. Data were analyzed using a theoretically informed thematic approach, which resulted in the identification of four main themes. Overall, findings suggest that parental gender identity does not adversely impact upon how children and adolescents perceive their relationship with their parent, but may be otherwise relevant to their experiences both within and outside of the home. Findings are discussed in relation to theories of family display (Finch, 2007) and discourse dependence (Galvin, 2006), suggesting that combining and extending these perspectives might be useful for understanding the perspectives of children and adolescents in different contexts of family diversity.