Qualitative studies have examined runaway youth and their choices to leave home, their involvement living on the streets, and their lived experiences as stigmatized youth. For the present study, a Qualitative Interpretative Meta-Synthesis (QIMS) was conducted to synthesize the data from these various studies. A systematic search located qualitative research that focused on girls who were or had been runaways. They were synthesized in this analysis. The themes of power/control and stigma are analyzed with a Foucaultian lens with an eye toward informing social workers of their roles in the power/control structures that create stigma for runaway youth.
The concept of power/knowledge is introduced to describe the forms of social control that have been used to maintain control over society through the creation of these social norms (Foucault, 1980). The following review examines Foucault’s conceptualization of power/knowledge to provide a theoretical foundation for the synthesis of the runaway experience.
Power/knowledge
Power, according to Foucault (1980) is created and explored in all aspects of society and individual life from school to work to social gatherings. It is “power whose task [it] is to take charge of life needs [with] continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms” (Foucault, 1978: p. 144), the object of which is to “qualify, measure, appraise, and hierarchize” (Foucault, 1978: p. 145) the people around the established norms. Power, however, is not something that one can possess; rather, power is exercised (Foucault, 1977). Knowledge derives from power but also creates the mechanism by which power is wielded (Foucault, 1980). Social control then is the goal, with control being manifest through normalization by way of institutions of religion, science, education, and professionalization (Foucault, 1980).
Normalization is a pivotal piece of the power/knowledge structure, because it supersedes a system of law or personal power (Foucault, 1978). Foucault (1980) defined normalization as a system of judgment derived from power. Norms are established by social institutions for social cohesion, the creation of wealth, and the establishment of knowledge (Foucault, 1977). Examples include the age when children should learn to read, what terms are used to describe a person who is in a wheelchair, when young people begin driving a car, what is proper sexuality, or who should be the head of a household. Language, then, becomes a system of power/knowledge and control through the normalization system (Foucault, 1978, 1980).
This system of normalization acts as a way to structure society around values that everyone must accept. Through the establishment of norms such as the language that is used to describe other people, a system of control is established. “A normalizing society is the historical outcome of a technology of power centered on life” (Foucault, 1978: p. 144). Social institutions (family, schools, military, and government) were created through power/knowledge and become a self-sustaining system of control (Foucault, 1978). They perpetuate their control by normalization through power/knowledge. Those outside of the norm are identified and then corrected through institutional processes (Foucault, 1980). By accepting these norms, citizens acquiesce to a carceral society (Foucault, 1980). This is the structural creation of stigma designed to control people.
Correction of those outside of the norm often comes in the form of discipline. The idea that the person should be made to feel badly (i.e. stigmatized) for the indiscretion is central to the forms of discipline necessary for social control through technologies, such as the hospital, the school, factories, or the military (Foucault, 1977). This is often accomplished through punishment.
Foucault (1977) defined punishment as a “complex social function… a political tactic” (p. 23) typically done through the penal system in the past. The penal system is designed “not to punish less, but to punish better” (Foucault, 1977: p. 82). Despite punishment being a form of penal control, other forms of punishment are available through the power/knowledge base that are not negative. For instance, rewarding of good behavior as a form of punishment for bad behavior because those deemed unworthy of the favored treatment are excluded (Foucault, 1977). This is seen in education settings where high achievers receive rewards and others do not. Reward economies for behavior modification where tokens or stars can be used to purchase extra benefits are also common in group home settings. Doing this within the group creates a hierarchy where those who do well have the most and those who do poorly have the least. Using these methods will force conformity as they all seek to be like each other. Conformity leads to normalization (Foucault, 1977).
Power is about more than repression or correction though. While both are components of power, real power must be more than a negative force; it must also be a productive conduit to meet the needs of society (Foucault, 1984b). Power is balance of tolerance with punishment and repression. Power “needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression” (Foucault, 1984b: p. 61).
Runaway youth
Toro, Dworsky and Fowler (2007) estimated that runaway youth may number nearly 1.6 million in the United States. Physical and sexual abuse are often cited by youth as the catalyst for leaving home (Lin, 2012; Meltzer et al. 2012; Thompson et al., 2008), but other factors such as familial discord, substance use, and domestic violence are also given (Nebbitt et al., 2007; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Ackley, 1997; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Bao, 2000). Youth who leave home face increased risks for a host of concerns including physical or sexual violence and sexually transmitted infections (Cochran et al., 2002; Haas et al., 2011; Hong, Espelage, & Kral, 2011; Kidd & Carroll, 2007; Tyler et al., 2004; Unger et al., 1998). These risks are higher for girls who run away than for boys (Fasulo et al., 2002; Moskowitz, Stein, & Lightfoot, 2013; Walls, Potter, & Van Leeuwen, 2009). Self-harm, suicide, and death also increase for youth who runaway (Meltzer et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2004; Tyler et al., 2003; Walls et al., 2009). Girls are more likely to run away than boys (Jeanis, Fox, Jennings, Perkins, & Liberto, 2020).
Research informing social workers who assist this population contributes meaningful insight into meeting their needs. This study seek to broaden the social work understanding of the experiences of runaway youth by creating a body of evidence that advances social work practice in positive and affirmative ways. To further this goal, this research sought to answer the following question: How do the experiences of runaway girls inform social work practice in assisting this population?
Qualitative Interpretive Meta-Synthesis (QIMS) was developed by Aguirre and Bolton (2014) as a new methodology for social workers to synthesize qualitative data from multiple studies. By doing this, researchers gain a broader understanding of a topic. Because the methodology is still developing, a limited number of published articles are available utilizing this technique (e.g., Aguirre & Bolton, 2013; Bowers, 2013; Frank & Aguirre, 2013; Maleku & Aguirre, 2014; Nordberg, Crawford, Praetorius, & Hatcher, 2016; Robinson, Maxwell, & Rogers, 2020). The detailed outline provided by Aguirre and Bolton (2014) was utilized in this study.
The results of this study are separated into two articles to allow a richer synthesis of the findings. A comprehensive outline of the QIMS procedure and steps is provided in the other article (see: Crawford, 2021). A condensed outline is presented here. The QIMS requires a systematic search of the literature in order to capture all of the available qualitative articles on the subject. For this study, the researcher used Google Scholar, Social Work Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Abstracts. Search terms included in the search “female”, “foster” and “offender”. Additionally, the phrase “runaway youth” was added to narrow the search to articles about runaways. Screening criteria comprised the following: 1) English language articles, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) qualitative or mixed methods, 4) participant quotes used in the article, 5) and sampled females who were, or had been previously, runaways. The Quorum chart provides a step-by-step analysis of the process (see
Eight studies are represented in the 10 articles with a total sample of 122 individuals. Some studies included both males and females. For these, the researcher examined only the results from the females for the synthesis. While all studies had to be published in English, geography was not a criterion for inclusion. Studies were global, coming from the United States, Israel, Australia, and Canada. Demographic information is included in
| Author (Date) | Title | Qualitative Method | Sample (N) | Location, of interviews, Age range, race | Recruitment city, state, year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berman, Alvarez Mulcahy, Forchuck, Edmunds, Haldenby, & Lopez (2009) | Uprooted and displaced: A critical narrative study of homeless, Aboriginal, and newcomer girls in Canada | Narrative Interviews | 19 girls and women | Interview locations not provided, 14 to 19 years old, 6 Aboriginal, 6 homeless, 7 newcomer | Southwest Ontario Canada, dates not given |
| Maassen, Pooley, & Taylor (2013) | “You get forced to live with randoms… and that makes you stronger as a person”: Homeless Western Australian teenagers’ perspectives on their experiences of residing in crisis accommodation | Semi-structured Interviews, Interpretative phenomenology | 5 girls, 3 boys (Use if broken down by male and female experience) | 16 to 18 years old, 4 Caucasian, 1 Aboriginal, 2 African, 1 Asian | Perth, Australia |
| MacDonald (2013) | The paradox of being young and homeless: Resiliency in the face of constraints | Ethnography | 12 girl, 6 boy (Use if broken down by male and female experience) | Ethnography, on location with the youth | Ottawa, Canada, 2006 to 2010 |
| Mann, Senn, Girard, & Ackbar (2007) | Community-based interventions for at-risk youth in Ontario under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act: A case study of a “Runaway” girl | Case study, Interview | 1 girl | 16 years old | Ontario, Canada, 2006 to 2008 |
| Martinez (2006) | Understanding runaway teens | Interviews | 18 girls, 5 boys (Use if broken down by male and female experience) | 13 to 17 years old (FM = 14.4), 8 Hispanic, 1 NA, 5 AA, 3 White, 1 Asian | Midwestern United States city |
| Peled & Cohavi (2009) | The meaning of running away for girls | Semi-structured, naturalistic Interviews | 10 girls | Residential placements, 13 to 17 years old | Israel |
| Peled & Muzicant (2008) | The meaning of home for runaway girls | In-depth interviews, naturalistic qualitative approach | 15 girls and women | Location of interviews no provided, 13 to 21 years old (M = 15.9), 5 Israeli born, 4 from Ethiopia, 5 from former Soviet Union | Tel-Aviv, Israel, dates not provided |
| Wesley & Wright (2009) | From the inside out: Efforts by homeless women to disrupt cycles of crime and violence | Qualitative Interviews | 20 women | 2 homeless centers, 19 ton 64 years old (M = 40). 6 AA, 3 Hispanic, 1 mixed AA/NA, 1 mixed Puerto Rican/AA, 9 White | Purposive sampling, Southeastern metropolitan area in the United States, September 2003 to January 2004 |
| Williams & Lindsey (2006) | Spirituality and religion in the lives of runaway and homeless youth | Qualitative Interviews | 11 women, 7 men, 6 AA, 1 Cuban, 12 Caucasian (Use if broken down by male and female experience) | Shelters, drop in centers, 18 to 25 years old | Georgia and North Carolina, United States |
| Williams, Lindsey, Kurtz, & Jarvis (2001) | From trauma to resiliency: Lessons from former runaway and homeless youth | Qualitative Interviews | 11 women, 7 men, 6 AA, 1 Cuban, 12 Caucasian] (Use if broken down by male and female experience) | Shelters, drop in centers, 18 to 25 years old | Georgia and North Carolina, United States |
In a QIMS, the original themes and subthemes are extracted intact from the articles (see
Analysis of the ten articles resulted in six themes: power and control, stigma, physical needs, safety, belonging, and acceptance (see
Power and control
The theme of power and who controlled that power emerged from many of the articles as the youth discussed different aspects of their lives. Shahaf summed up the loss of power in her life briefly:
Sometimes I feel that I didn’t have much choice of doing things differently, because it’s like some God, supreme power, forced me. No one left me any possibility of solving what I feel differently. I really didn’t always want to run away (Peled & Cohavi, 2009: p. 744).
The idea that the youth needed the power to control their lives was evident in three distinct areas: Living Rules, System Rules, and Legal rules.
Living Rules. The participants discussed why the rules of various places they stayed generated impediments to their success. One teen said, “I want to do my
| Study | Themes |
|---|---|
| Berman et al. (2009) | 1) Displacement and disconnection in dangerous places 2) Tenuous connections amid spaces of hope 3) Negotiating spaces of belonging |
| Maassen et al. (2013) | 1) The homeless teenage need for safety a) Fears for physical safety b) Fears for psychological well being 2) The homeless teenage need to belong a) Sense of community belonging b) Bonded through conformity c) Intimacy 3) The homeless teenage need for autonomy and self-esteem a) Regimented routines b) Strict curfews c) Rigid rules 4) The homeless teenage need for self-actualization a) Identity b) Individuality c) Integrity |
| MacDonald (2013) | 1) Structural constraints that promote a climate of risk taking a) Social assistance b) Housing 2) Survival and identity experimentation 3) Stigma, power, and complex social representations |
| Mann et al. (2007) | 1) Initial risk: Family violence 2) Being kicked out and running away 3) Youth violence: Rape, rage, retaliation 4) Youth violence: Escalation 5) Dangerous/desperate pathways 6) Youth supports: The police 7) Youth supports and responsibilizations: Child protection services 8) Youth supports and responsibilizations: The schools 9) Youth supports and responsibilizations: Student welfare 10) Youth supports and advocacy: Counselling services 11) Youth resources: Connectedness 12) Youth resources: Identity |
| Martinez (2006) | 1) Changing the situation 2) Creating new affiliations 3) Learning from experience |
| Peled & Cohavi (2009) | 1) The home a) Mother, father, and siblings b) The extended family c) The girl 2) Outside the home a) School and friends b) Helping professionals 3) The moments before |
| Peled & Muzicant (2008) | 1) There is a home a) The ideal home b) The actual home as a prison c) The home as a women’s prison d) Extinction of the self 2) There is no home a) Homeless in their own home b) Running away c) The search for an alternate home d) Vulnerability and being different 3) And still there is a home |
| Wesley & Wright (2009) | 1) Childhood victimization and lessons learned 2) Struggling with the cycle of violence 3) Acts of recognition and resistance |
| Williams & Lindsey (2006) | 1) Divine intervention 2) Personal relationship with God or a higher power 3) Role of prayer 4) Participation in traditional and non-traditional religious practices 5) Finding meaning and purpose in life |
| Williams et al. (2001) | 1) Determination 2) Meaning and purpose to life a) Spiritual connection b) Hope and gratitude c) Helping others and giving back 3) Caring for self a) Recognizing and meeting own needs b) Development of effective problem-solving skills 4) Accepting help from others a) Readiness for help b) Quality of help |
own thing, for once I want to choose what time to get up, what time to go to bed, what time to eat dinner and when to do chores” (Maassen, Pooley, & Taylor, 2013: p. 62). Another added, “I don’t actually mind doing chores… but on Sunday I get really angry and pissed off, coz it’s like Sunday… I just want to sleep and chill” (Maassen et al., 2013: p. 62). Chores in the facilities were not the only complaints. Curfew was a concern, especially for those youth who were already 18 or over. One teenager described curfews thusly:
Curfews are stupid. The night time curfews are way too early. Stops me doing my own thing. I’m going all the way out to Morley tonight and I had to check in for the 5:00 pm curfew. By the time I get back to Morley I’ll have to come back to make (the night) curfew (Maassen et al., 2013: p. 62).
Another teen stated, “Now that I’m 18 the curfews like are still the same when I was 17. I can go to pubs now, I wanna stay there … and go clubbing and not have to worry about being home at a certain time” (Maassen et al., 2013: p. 62).