To plan or not to plan: The internal conversations of young people leaving care

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to characterise the internal conversations of individual young people in transition from state care, with a goal of supporting practitioners’ approaches to ‘pathway planning’, and contributing to theories of agency in emerging adulthood under conditions of long-term adversity. We used Margaret Archer’s theory of agency, in which internal conversations are regarded as playing a central role in mediating between structure and agency. Archer describes three different modes of (actively agential) internal conversation: communicative reflexivity, autonomous reflexivity and meta-reflexivity; and one mode of passive agency: fractured reflexivity – associated with adverse contextual constraints. In a qualitative design, using Archer’s open-ended interview framework we met nine participants, aged 19–24, varying considerably in outcome, recruited at a specialised service for care leavers in London UK. Analysis of the interview data included an extended phase of individual case analysis. Two participants experienced emerging active agency (however, both experienced elements of fractured reflexivity). Three participants experienced fractured reflexivity, with limited internal conversation, and low planning agency (however, each experienced green shoots of focused internal dialogue). Four participants experienced a survival-oriented mode of internal conversations, a category not found in Archer’s previous work. All four of these participants showed some elements of fractured reflexivity, but narrated rich internal conversations, including accounts of adverse experiences in which self-reliance was seen as having been essential. The majority of participants (across modes) found the idea of planning (beyond day-to-day) anathema.

Anchors for deliberation and shared deliberation: Understanding planning in young adults transitioning from out-of-home care

“…Second, for young people in transition from care (or ‘leaving care’ or ageing ‘out of care’ – I use the terms interchangeably), multiple barriers may frustrate attempts to ‘get a life’ (Pryce et al., 2017). Third, there is preliminary evidence that at least some young adults who are leaving care may be sceptical about future-oriented planning (Barratt et al., 2019; Hung and Appleton, 2016).…”

Personal resilience and identity capital among young people leaving care: enhancing identity formation and life chances through involvement in volunteering and social action

“…Stein (2006) suggests three types of care leaver resilience: those 'moving on' have had stable experiences and are the most capable of transitioning to independent living; a vulnerable 'survivor' group have experienced disruption and instability of care, while 'victims' have had negative pre-care experiences and a cycle of difficult behaviour and placement failures. 'Survival' was typically found by Hung and Appleton (2016) among care leavers exhibiting day-to-day survival mentality and profound self-reliance, while care leaver 'resilience' for Samuels and Price (2009) tends to be a survivalist mentality, engendered by lack of support and others' expectations of needing to be independent.…”

Psychological Well-Being and Youth Autonomy: Comparative Analysis of Spain and Colombia

“…In this regard, Xi et al (2018) have stressed the importance of having a purpose in life to achieve psychological well-being, which correlates with good physical and mental health during all stages of life. Hung and Appleton (2016) reported on the significance of formulating one's purpose in life for young people in caregiving situations; the authors conclude that the possibility of achieving such an ideal becomes an engine of proactivity that motivates the individual toward development within his or her context using different skills connected with the achievement of the purpose, such as their ability to reflect on the problems that they face or to achieve autonomy.…”

“…The first endorsement of autonomy resides in the social rights that come with being part of a community; they are defined and protected by the legal system and, therefore, associated with the enactment of citizenship (Balluerka et al, 2016;Krys et al, 2019). Therefore, autonomy acquires a political and social dimension associated with the mechanisms that guarantee the possibility of exercising self-determination in society; being aware of such rights is a first step (Hung and Appleton, 2016).…”

“…In the academic literature, autonomy is also positively associated with freedom, and negatively associated with the obstacles individuals face in order to fully enjoy their civil rights and participate in community life ( Inguglia et al, 2015 ; Merrill et al, 2017 ; Vinayak and Judge, 2018 ; Carneiro et al, 2019 ). Hung and Appleton (2016) and Van der Kaap-Deeder et al (2015 , 2017) highlight the roles played by environmental conditions and social agents to encourage self-determination as a prerequisite to achieve autonomy. In an adverse context, where individuals experience deficiencies or inequalities with respect to others, community tools can eradicate these shortfalls by generating spaces for dialog and information in which young people can identify advantages or, at least, strengths to exploit in order to maximize their capacity to act toward the achievement of their own goals.…”