This chapter looks at the importance of the family working together to adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not doing so.
In most parts whether it is Triple-P, The Incredible Years or PEEP, usually only one parent attends the parenting group. However as part of my study I did meet several parents, especially for the PEEP programme, where either both parents attended together or they alternated around their work schedules. One PEEP parent commented that her partner wanted to see what all the fuss was about and co-ordinated his work so that he could join a session. He enjoyed it so much that he decided to factor this in when booking in his work. During my visits, specifically PEEP ones, it was really good to see that it was not only the mums, childminders or grandparents that were taking their children along but also the dads. For many it was that they had taken on the role of the main carer whilst their partner went to work; for others it was a shared role and was dependent on work timetables and for some it was because they wanted to take an active role in their child’s activities.
The interview data revealed that some of the parents considered that whole family engagement was an important element in ensuring the success of parenting programmes. Parents reported that different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children, displaying a fractured unit—one that the children could play upon. When only one parent attends a parenting programme my research highlighted that there is the danger of that parent becoming the “expert”, leading to an imbalance in parenting.
An interesting aspect of this theme, the significance of the family working together, is that it developed from the analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this.
Before I share the parents’ views which led to the development of this theme, I will first refer to the literature which discusses some of the concerns around parenting programmes.
Parenting Programme Critique
There have been a number of research findings that have identified potentially negative aspects of parenting programmes. In terms of such critiques, Furedi (2008) proposes that research into parenting is inevitably influenced by what is considered to be culturally normal. Forehand and Kotchick (1996) also identify that the significance of cultural values on parenting is not yet taken into account within parenting training. This highlights the danger of parenting programmes being designed with one view of what is culturally normal and applied universally without taking into consideration local social expectations. This sense of normalisation implies there is a need to correct the individuals and turn them into normal parents (O’Malley 1996)—although referring to schools, Foucault’s (1977) description of “disciplinary power” could equally be applied to parenting programmes as they are trying to ensure parents comply with the criteria of the programmes.
The prescriptive nature of many accredited structured parenting programmes means that they are not designed in a way that allows trainers the flexibility to respond or adapt the programme in acknowledgement of what a parent already knows, how they already interact with their child or even their cultural or religious background. In fact they tend to operate from the microsystem paradigm, mainly focusing on “changing or improving the one-on-one interaction between child and parent” (Mapp and Hong 2010, p. 350) suggesting that they bring skills to the parent. This would place parenting programmes within the Expert classification of Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert, Transplant and Consumer models: “Professionals use this model if they view themselves as having total expertise in relation to the parent. Here essentially professionals take total control and make all the decisions” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 10). In my experience trainers often identify more with the Transplant model “where they view themselves as having expertise, but also recognize the advantage of the parent as a resource” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 11), however the prescriptive nature of many programmes can make this difficult.
Ideally a parenting programme would have sufficient structure to ensure that the relevant expertise was passed on but would be flexible enough to take account of parents’ existing knowledge and accommodate alternative social and cultural norms. West et al.’s (2013) exploratory study of three major evidence-based parenting programmes (Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families, Triple-P and The Incredible Years) found that the six urban local authorities taking part in the study did try to address the diverse range of cultures and faith of the families within their community. For those local authorities that had a particularly large ethnically mixed community they chose the Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families programme as it was considered more flexible in meeting the needs of families from different faiths, cultures and settings. Miller (2010) suggests the need for trainers to look for opportunities to tailor the support so that they meet the individual circumstances of the parents.
Another concern with parenting programmes is the potential for them to be perceived as a corrective measure for “inadequate parents”. Recommending attendance on a programme suggests that the parent is not doing their best for their child or that they lack the basic skills required in parenting. Indeed it could be seen as though the parent is failing their child thus disempowering them in their parental role (Furedi 2008; Cottam and Espie 2014). Such a perception could then result in lower parental engagement with the programme leading to poorer outcomes or potentially the parent dropping out of the programme altogether. Furthermore the parent is often perceived as “hard-to-reach” (Feiler 2010; Mapp and Hong 2010), a secondary negative implication towards the parent. Miller (2010) proposes that all parents at some point could find that they do not have the finances or physical, mental or emotional energy to meet their child’s needs. This idea that parents are failing in their role and need to attend specialised classes characterises parenting programmes within a deficit model; this is supported by Goldberg who found parenting programmes assumed “a parenting skills deficit” (Goldberg 2000, p. 358) through their delivery. Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) agree that parents seemed to consider that by attending a parenting programme this would be considered as an admission of failing as a parent. However Miller (2010) suggests that parents should be encouraged to seek out help when they need it and that by doing so it is not an indication that they are failing in their role.
Crozier (1998) raises the issue that sometimes partnership with parents actually looks like surveillance on the ground and that professionals have a deficit view of parents and that they, the professionals, know best; this sits comfortably within Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model. This deficit view of parents was something I needed to be very cautious about addressing in my research: I specifically constructed my interview schedules with parents to examine the extent to which this theme emerged and the extent to which this was perceived as a negative aspect of the programme. Additionally I included opportunities for parents to discuss any elements from the programme that they liked or disliked and whether they felt their own skills were taken into account, moving away from the Expert model and instead towards the Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985).
The ride is never straight-forward, there will be good times and bad ones and parents will, at times, feel elated and at others desperate.
(Miller 2010, p. 72)
Miller and Sambell (2003) interviewed 37 parents (25 parents with teenage children, six parents with children with special needs, four parents with preschool and primary aged children and two parents who were teenagers themselves) from seven focus groups to find out their views on their parenting needs and their perceptions of how they felt they were being addressed. From the analysis of the interview data Miller and Sambell (2003) reported that parents identified three distinct models of parenting support and learning: the dispensing model, whereby the child is targeted directly; the relating model, where the parent is the recipient of the attention and the reflecting model, in which the parent develops an understanding of the parent–child relationship. My research similarly sought the views of parents regarding the effectiveness of the parenting programmes, and investigated the subsequent changes in parental behaviour and child development.
Given the potential for a parenting programme to be disempowering, it was particularly interesting that the significance of the family working together was a notable finding that developed within my research. This was highlighted by the unforeseen consequence of one parent attending the programme, creating an imbalance in the parenting structure within the family; inconsistent parenting and the perception of one parent being the “expert” could potentially lead to conflict. But what do the parents say?
What the Parents Say
Some of the parents considered that whole family engagement is an important element in ensuring the success of the strategies learnt on the parenting programmes; this was particularly evident in the responses from parents attending The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. Although there was no explicit question asking whether the parents felt it important or necessary that there was a whole family engagement in the parenting programme, three out of the eight parents spontaneously referred to this topic, commenting on the importance of both parents being engaged in the programme.
The older sibling as well, so that actually if we’re not rememb-, you know if different members of the family are not remembering the right strategy someone else can say ‘mum go away and sit down’.
Well when I did the ASK one we took it in turns to go, so that the other half had some exposure, um and that’s why I’m thinking now, I think you need to do things, you need probably a couple of sessions as a whole family. So.. so that the.. the child can see that these are some of the suggestions for parents got to follow. So that the child could come along and say to mum ‘you haven’t been following that strategy; you haven’t been putting my rewards up on the wall. Why haven’t you been putting my rewards up on the wall? You should be!’ I would really like some family sessions.
When I forget it’s more chaotic because they haven’t got any expectations of what they they’re supposed to be doing when you go somewhere.
Strategies which Emily had previously used which were effective, but had not used for several months, were now forgotten. Had her partner attended then maybe these would not be lost.
Olivia, a mother of four who attended The Incredible Years parenting programme, also commented that “it would be beneficial for partners” to attend the programme.
I think it’s helpful if you both to go ‘cause it’s harder for one parent to tell the other parent what to do.
Emily went on to share that she had a very different parenting style to her partner, however for her it would always be her partner’s position that would be enforced.
Um I realise now when he starting to get tired, that’s a flash, that’s a real anger flash point when he’s starting to get tired. So because he had a very sporty day yesterday, I tried to get him to bed early; I say early I mean eight o’clock. And at quarter to nine I’m telling his dad off because they’ve been up there playing games, and I said ‘I’m trying to get him to go to bed’… That’s why I think the group, the group work, the family and child together is probably quite important.
…was absolutely brilliant, ‘cause all these changes were happening and I felt I was equipped but he wasn’t, and it’s a very difficult um time to tell your husband… it can be a bit condescending isn’t it.
From talking to one of the other mothers on this programme, it became evident that her husband was also going to be working with the same trainer on a one-to-one basis. Having both parents taking part in the programme and adopting the same positive strategies would certainly promote continuity and consistency in their parenting.
Although this theme developed from the interviews with parents attending the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, PEEP parents could equally find it important. The reason it was not discussed was that there were no specific questions included in the interview schedule that investigated their thoughts around this. A note to self or other interested researchers in this area: this would certainly be worth further exploration.
What This Tells Us
An interesting aspect of this theme is that it developed from the analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this. Conversely, at this stage of the data gathering, PEEP parents did not mention during their interview that they considered it important that the whole family took part or were involved in the programme. This could be attributed to the parents not considering PEEP to be a parenting programme; several parents wrote on their questionnaire that they did not realise or did not know it was a parenting programme. However on one of my visits a mum commented on how her husband adjusted his work hours one week to attend the PEEP group as he was keen to find out what all the excitement was about. He enjoyed it so much that he regularly co-ordinated his hours so that he could attend the group.
From both the literature review and my own professional experience, it was expected that certain themes would probably develop from the analysis of the questionnaire and interview data as they had been the focus of previous research: themes such as an improvement in children’s behaviour (Thomas et al. 1999; Barlow and Parsons 2005; Hutchings et al. 2007; Furlong et al. 2012) or parents adopting positive parenting strategies (Coren and Barlow 2009; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012). What was interesting from the interviews with Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the programme; a completely new and unexpected finding. This is important because it is about providing continuity and consistency in parenting and reducing family conflict, and was identified by the parents as being more likely to take place if both parents adopted the same positive parenting strategies. For one parent to be perceived as the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting, could place a strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel disempowered.
It seems the concerns raised in the literature review around Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model could apply more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship.
You may ask how could I identify this as a theme when it arose in just three out of the eight interviews. It is important to note that the number of occurrences of a topic does not alone make it a theme; rather it is about whether the topic has captured something important that is related to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). The questions on the questionnaires and the interviews did not specifically ask anything around whole family engagement yet the subject was introduced by three of the parents during their interview; three out of the four Triple-P and The Incredible Years interviews. You will have noted from Chapter 2 that I carried out a rigorous analysis of both the questionnaire and interview data, and seeing this theme develop from the data and the significance and impact it can have on the family, I made sure this was recognised within my findings.
My research progress was guided by Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model: from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the experiences of parents and trainers to understand more about the underlying reality of parenting programmes; through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the data with a recognition of how absences and negative power are an important part of the process regarding changes in parenting behaviours and child development; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at the whole picture through multiple perspectives, identifying themes that represent the totality. This finding, of the value placed on whole family engagement in the parenting programme, is an important aspect of my research and has taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) of Bhaskar’s MELD model: it provides us with new knowledge and understanding which could lead to the refocusing of how parenting programmes are offered and delivered by integrating a whole family philosophy into their design.
To summarise, parents, particularly those who attended the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, consider it important that both parents should have the opportunity to attend at least some parts of the programme, be it in a joint group or separate one-to-one sessions. This would promote continuity and consistency in parenting. This in turn could promote a more relaxed, calm home environment.