CHAPTER 5 MAINSTREAMING ATTAINMENT: TRIANGULATION...

CHAPTER 5

MAINSTREAMING ATTAINMENT: TRIANGULATION

5.1. INTRODUCTION

The current research has been an in-depth study of children in street habitats using the

phenomenological and ethnographic methods. The analysis states that children in street

habitats can be mainstreamed through psychosocial interventions. The need for healing and

empowerment is made clear by the analysis of their life in the three phases: pre-street

stage, street stage and post-street stage. The two methods used have limitations and hence

the researcher uses the tool proposed by Schutz to assess their emotional congruence which

affects their psychosocial status as they live in a society as individuals. For Schutz every

individual belongs to a group and every individual orients himself in characteristic ways

towards other people and knowledge of these orientations allows for considerable

understanding of individual behaviour and understanding of people. In any situation the

human group enables the individual to fulfil his need for inclusion, control and affection.

The extent to which these needs are satisfied brings congruency in his performance. Thus

Schutz says that every person has his own fundamental interpersonal relationship

orientation (FIRO) (Schutz 1966).

5. 2. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION

Fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation is based on the fact that people need

people in a society. People need to remain well harmonised with themselves and others to

attain fulfilment. Schutz (1966) explains emotional wellbeing by assessing the congruency

230

of people in the areas of inclusion, control and affection. He proposes two sets of

questionnaires to assess the behaviour patterns and feeling levels of people: FIRO – B and

FIRO – F. The study made on children brings to light the differences that exist between

children in the streets and children who are mainstreamed from the street situations. Currie

(2002) explains details of the measurements. The explanations become an indication to

support the findings of the study that psychosocial interventions heal and empower

children in street habitats.

FIRO is developed as a measuring instrument to assess people in the areas of inclusion,

control and affection. In expressed, the person concerned initiates to control, to be included

and to show affection while in wanted the person does not take the first step though he

wants to be included, to be controlled and want people to get closer to him and be personal.

The person waits for others to make the move towards him.

FIRO-B takes care of the aspect of personality being explored in terms of behaviour

whereas FIRO-F concerned about a person’s feeling and it seeks to measure an

individual’s characteristic feelings towards others. Schutz’s ‘people need people’ theory

states that every individual is motivated by the three interpersonal needs (Schutz1966).

This need is common to all irrespective of places, classes or status of people. Assessing the

harmoniousness of these needs conveys the emotional status of people. Emotional status

affects behaviour. In the current study children are not really congruent with these needs

especially as they are brought up in situations that are negative for emotional wellbeing.

The understanding of the extent to which they are misbalanced can enable the care givers

to offer assistance for cure or promotion of mental balance

5.3. INTERPERSONAL NEEDS

Every person is meant to live in a society and everyone needs to the presence of the other.

Individuals grow as persons from the varied interactions in the family and in the society.

The growth process remains healthy when the interactions are able to meets interpersonal

needs. When needs for inclusion, control and affection are not fulfilled, children grow in

disharmony which affect their psychosocial integration.

231

5.3.1. Inclusion

This consists of the amount of belongingness, attention, recognition, importance,

participation that a person has. It expresses the way one relates in a group or to groups or

as desired in a social setting.

5.3.2. Control

The desired level of influence, capacity to lead, confidence and responsibility are

expressed by the term control. It assesses the person’s capacity for decision making. A

person is well when he is able to control and accept control in his life in a harmonious

manner.

5.3.3. Affection

Affection expresses the desired level of rapport, warmth, closeness sensitivity, openness

and support. This states the way the person relates to others in which he is able to love and

to be loved.

5.3.4. Expressed and Wanted

The three concepts of inclusion, control and affection are in two categories of expressed

and wanted. The expressed talks about the preference one has to initiate behaviour, actual

behaviour/feelings with respect to the three fundamental interpersonal needs. It can be

summarized as self to others. Wanted defines how much one prefer others to take their

initiative and the person takes the second position. The comfort level one enjoys when

others direct their behaviour associated with the three needs. It can be summarized as

others to self (Schutz, 1966).

5.3.5. Purpose

The FIRO-B assessment is a set of 54 questions, self-administered test that is designed to

identify an individual’s personal needs for inclusion, control and affection. The test

assesses how these needs influence a person’s behaviour towards others. The test results

are used in organizational exercises such as team building and team development,

individual development and conflict resolution. It sheds light on issues such as

compatibility, tension, openness, trust, decision-making, self-awareness, interpersonal

232

effectiveness, leadership style, personal growth, causes of conflict and how to manage

conflict effectively.

The FIRO-B assessment is a method used for individuals to gain self-awareness (Currie

2002). The test results indicate the environments in which a person is more likely to

succeed and also provides insight into the way one is perceived by others.

5.3.6. Advantages

The advantages of FIRO-B and FIRO-F can be summarized as follows. It is easy to

understand. It is non-threatening. It can help in understanding one’s behaviour and its

effects on others. The test can increase awareness of one’s natural strengths and

weaknesses. The results suggest possibilities for improving the way one relates to others

which can enhance the person’s social life.

5.3.7. General Interpretation Guidelines

The findings rest on the assumption that the statements have been correctly understood and

honestly answered. It is important to keep in mind that the interpretations and suggestions

are presented as hypotheses or proposals about individuals and not a final verdict of their

behavioural style. The data and interpretations are indicators that can be used for honest

reflection and self-development. There are no good or bad results and no right or wrong

answers in this exercise. The option chosen by the individual is the answer. The scores

may be compared with actual behaviour; it would also be useful to look for relationships

within scales. (e.g. In Control - Low Expressed and High Wanted score is an indicator of a

dependent individual, who has need for supervision and prefers others to take decisions for

him). The data analysis is based on the explanations given by Currie (2002).

For the study two groups are the participant population. The first group is from street

situation between the age of 15 to 20 and the second group is the group that has been in the

street situation and weaned to be part of the mainstream. They are performing in the

mainstream like any other child born and brought up in the mainstream. They have been

mainstreamed as they are students or working group between the ages of 15 to 20. The

comparative study intents to delineate the differences noticed in inclusion, control and

affection.

233

The study explains the emotional congruency among children from the two situations. The

phenomenological and ethnographic study made with the presence and active participation

of children is further verified to give additional insights in the emotional status and

behaviour pattern of children. The extent of the woundedness of children in street habitats

is assessed through this study. This brings to light the progress in emotional wellbeing of

children who have become part of the mainstream from the street situations. Giving up the

street life to become part of the mainstream human situations where they experience love

and concern helps their emotional health to be better and be balanced. Emotional wellness

is linked to the psychosocial health and it is assessed through FIRO-B and FIRO- F.

Following the various steps as per guidelines of the study, brings to light definitive

conclusion regarding children. The researcher is aware of its weakness because of the

peculiar nature of children in street habitats and their rehabilitation process which is

complicated and difficult. The researcher tries to understand the progress that children

make to come out of their negative situations through psychosocial interventions which

heal and empower them. Schutz (1996) applies his theory for people in the mainstream; the

deficit that they have in the areas of affection, inclusion and control. This can be attributed

to the environment. In the study, the first group is the children in street habitats. It is

contrasted with children who have joined the mainstream from the streets. The differences

bring to light the result of psychosocial interventions that led them away from the streets to

the mainstream. Care givers who are more familiar with the children and their language,

assist the researcher in the different steps to facilitate the data collection and data analysis.

5.4. MODE OF ADMINISTRATION FIRO-B AND FIRO-F

The FIRO-B questionnaire is distributed and after completion the FIRO-F questionnaire is

distributed to the attending candidates. The test is conducted in a meeting hall where all the

children are gathered. For the children who live in the street situations it is conducted in

the Drop-In Centre (DIC) in Howrah Station. As the children are gathered they are

informed of the meaning and usefulness of FIRO. The children follow the local language,

234

Bengali and all the test details are explained to them in the presence of street educators

who help them to understand the different questions and statements.

5.4.1. Computation of Scores

The questionnaire set is divided into six segments, each consisting of nine statements with

six possible options to choose from. For example;

FIRO B

8. I try to have close personal relationships with people

1. Usually 3. Sometimes 5. Rarely

2. Often 4. Occasionally 6. Never

As per test procedure the candidate who chooses numbers in the brackets is marked with

one point to his Expressed Affection score (EA) following table numbers 5.1 and 5.2. For

any other choice, zero is marked for the statement. Hence the scores under all the six

categories are arranged in a table against each individual for both FIRO- B and FIRO-F

following the scores in the tables. Then each individual is categorized based on Expressed

and Wanted scores; 1-3 is considered low; 4-6 is considered medium and 7-9 is considered

as high (ref. table 5.4).

In each category the minimum and maximum scores are zero and nine. A respondent with

an expressed score of four and wanted score of five is classified in the medium category. A

respondent who scores two in the expressed and eight in the wanted category is classified

as being the low high range. When a respondent gets six and three in the expressed and

wanted categories respectively then he is classified as being in the high low range. Even

though five and sic are in the medium range, it ranks as a high score when paired with

another score which is not in the medium range. Conversely when four is paired with

another non-medium score it is taken to be a low score. The reason being four is at the

lower end and five and six at the high of the scoring spectrum. This method avoids

excessive categorization.

As an example in table 5.3, candidate no. 5 (respondent no.5) is categorized under low EI

and WI, low EC and high WC, low EA and WA. The number of the candidates under each

category is shown in the table 5.5. The categorization of low, moderate and high overall

235

scores based on the total of each individual is reflected in Table 5.4. Similar pattern is

followed in the remaining 3 scoring tables 5.8, 5.11 and 5.14. Charts 5.15-5.20 show the

percentage of children in the different categories in comparison. Finally the Charts 5.1 to

5.3 are constructed in Microsoft Excel explain the differences with Standard Deviation.

Charts 5.4 and 5.5 presents the comparison which shows that greater difference is seen in

behaviour and less in feeling level between the two groups.

The tables indicate categorizations under Inclusion, Control and Affection whereas Charts

display the overall comparison between street situation and children in foster care

homes/main stream society from street society based on their total FIRO scores as shown

in tables. Questions in bold under each segment is marked with the given scoring choices

in brackets. If the choice of the candidate matches the numbers in the brackets 1 point is to

be added and if any other a zero is added.

236

Table 5.1

FIRO-B Scoring Sheet

1 2 3 4 5 6

EI WI EC WC EA WA

1 (1-2-3) 28 (1-2) 30 (1-2-3) 2 (1-2-3-4) 4 (1-2) 29 (1-2)

3 (1-2-3-4) 31 (1-2) 33 (1-2-3) 6 (1-2-3-4) 8 (1-2) 32 (1-2)

5 (1-2-3-4) 34 (1-2) 36 (1-2) 10 (1-2-3) 12 (1) 35 (5-6)

7 (1-2-3) 37 (1) 41 (1-2-3-4) 14 (1-2-3) 17 (1-2) 38 (1-2)

9 (1-2) 39 (1) 44 (1-2-3) 18 (1-2-3) 19 (4-5-6) 40 (5-6)

11 (1-2) 42 (1-2) 47 (1-2-3) 20 (1-2-3) 21 (1-2) 43 (1)

13 (1-2) 45 (1-2) 50 (1-2) 22 (1-2-3-4) 23 (1-2) 46 (5-6)

15 (1) 48 (1-2) 53 (1-2) 24 (1-2-3) 25 (4-5-6) 49 (1-2)

16 (1) 51 (1-2) 54 (1-2) 26 (1-2-3) 27 (1-2) 52 (5-6)

Table 5.2

FIRO-F Scoring Sheet

1 2 3 4 5 6

EI WI EC WC EA WA

1 (6) 4 (6) 5 (1-2) 10 (5-6) 2 (5-6) 17 (4-5-6)

3 (6) 8 (5-6) 9 (1-2) 15 (6) 6 (5-6) 23 (5-6)

7 (1) 13 (5-6) 14 (5-6) 21 (5-6) 11(5-6) 28 (5-6)

12 (1-2-3-4) 19 (5-6) 20 (6) 26 (5-6) 16 (1) 32 (5-6)

18 (1) 24 (5-6) 25 (5-6) 30 (5-6) 22 (1-2) 35 (5-6)

45 (1-2-3) 29 (5-6) 39 (1-2) 33 (6) 27 (5-6) 37 (1-2)

46 (5-6) 36 (4-5-6) 47 (5-6) 40 (3-4-5-6) 31 (5-6) 41 (5-6)

48 (5-6) 38 (3-4-5-6) 50 (6) 42 (3-4-5-6) 34 (1) 43 (3-4-5-6)

51 (6) 49 (4-5-6) 52 (6) 53 (6) 54 (1) 44 (5-6)

237

5.4.2. Use of Standard Deviation (SD)

The Standard Deviation indicates how variable a set of scores is (Rumsey, 2015). The

larger the Standard deviation the more spread out the scores are. For instance the standard

deviation of children in street habitat is 4.28 (WI, FIRO-B) as compared to 1.85 for

children who have given up street life. This indicates that there is less variability from the

desired range among the second group of children; their scores are more clustered around

the desired range. In this case deviation just means how far from the normal or desired

range. Higher the score further is the distance from the desired range.

To work out the Standard Deviation the Mean of the distribution and the individual scores

is taken into consideration. In this case the Mean is taken to be 5 for inclusion, control and

affection scores which is the exact mid-points of the desired range of the said categories.

The formula for calculating SD is: SD = √Ʃ(X-M)²/N

Where X-M stands for the “individual score minus the mean” and is commonly known as

the deviation score. The mean is subtracted from each score and each resulting score is

squared (to eliminate negative values). Then the mean of these deviations is summed up

(Ʃ) and divided by the number of observations (N). Finally the square root (√) of the

resultant value is taken to obtain the Standard Deviation.

238

5.5. FIELD WORK

Table 5.3: FIRO –B Scores: Children in Street Habitat

S N NAME FIRO - B

EI WI EC WC EA WA Total

1 Respondent no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5

2 Respondent no. 2.

2212Kumar Sinha

0 0 1 0 0 1 2

3 Respondent no. 3 3 0 9 3 4 4 23

4 Respondent no. 4 3 2 6 2 3 3 19

5 Respondent no. 5

2212Kumar Sinha

2 1 6 0 1 0 10

6 Respondent no. 6 2 1 5 2 2 0 12

7 Respondent no. 7 0 0 0 0 2 5 7

8 Respondent no. 8

2212Kumar Sinha

1 0 3 2 5 7 18

9 Respondent no. 9 5 0 0 3 3 0 11

10 Respondent no. 10 0 3 3 1 4 7 18

11 Respondent no. 11

2212Kumar Sinha

1 0 4 4 3 1 13

12 Respondent no. 12 2 0 0 3 1 0 6

13 Respondent no. 13 2 0 9 3 4 4 22


2212Kumar Sinha

2 0 0 0 1 0 3

15 Respondent no. 15 3 0 5 1 2 2 13

16 Respondent no. 16 3 7 2 0 1 6 19


1175172212Kumar

Sinha

0 0 3 3 0 0 6

18 Respondent no. 18 5 0 1 1 2 0 9

19 Respondent no. 19 2 0 4 2 0 1 9


2212Kumar Sinha

3 0 1 1 8 7 20

21 Respondent no. 21 0 0 0 4 2 0 6

22 Respondent no. 22 0 4 3 1 3 4 15


2212Kumar Sinha

2 3 2 1 2 2 12

24 Respondent no. 24 1 0 5 3 0 2 11

25 Respondent no. 25 1 0 4 4 1 0 10

26 Respondent no. 26 5 0 0 3 5 0 13


2212Kumar Sinha

2 2 0 1 1 0 6

28 Respondent no. 28 2 3 1 2 1 1 10

29 Respondent no. 29 2 0 0 2 2 1 7


2212Kumar Sinha

3 0 1 1 1 5 11

31 Respondent no. 31 3 1 1 1 1 1 8

32 Respondent no. 32 4 4 2 2 2 4 18


2212Kumar Sinha

2 3 1 2 8 1 17

34 Respondent no. 34 1 2 0 0 2 3 8

35 Respondent no. 35 1 0 1 0 7 7 16

239

Table 5.4

Table 5.5

Number & per centage of children under each category

Total Scores

Category No per cent

Low < 24 35 100

Desired: 24 - 36 00 0

High >36 00 0

INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

No

per

cent No

per

cent No

per

cent

Low EI & WI 30 85.7 Low EC & WC 26 74.3 Low EA & WA 24 68.6

Low EI High

WI 01 2.9

Low EC High

WC 00 0

Low EA High

WA 04 11.4

High EI Low

WI 03 8.6

High EC Low

WC 07 20.0

High EA Low

WA 02 5.7

High EI & WI 00 0 High EC & WC 00 0 High EA & WA 03 8.6

Medium/desired 01 2.9 Medium/desired 02 5.7 Medium/desired 02 5.7

240

Table 5.6 FIRO-F Scores: Children in Street Habitat

S N NAME FIRO - F Total

EI WI EC WC EA WA

1 Respondent no. 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 5

2 Respondent no. 2.

2212Kumar Sinha

0 1 2 0 1 0 4

3 Respondent no. 3 3 7 3 4 7 6 30

4 Respondent no. 4 3 2 0 1 2 4 12

5 Respondent no. 5

2212Kumar Sinha

2 1 2 0 2 0 7

6 Respondent no. 6 2 1 2 3 1 0 9

7 Respondent no. 7 0 4 1 3 2 1 11

8 Respondent no. 8

2212Kumar Sinha

1 3 8 4 9 8 33

9 Respondent no. 9 5 9 1 6 4 8 33

10 Respondent no. 10 0 1 1 1 4 9 16


2212Kumar Sinha

1 7 2 4 3 7 24

12 Respondent no. 12 2 5 1 2 1 1 12

13 Respondent no. 13 2 8 3 4 8 7 32


2212Kumar Sinha

2 8 0 2 4 8 24

15 Respondent no. 15 3 8 1 6 4 8 30

16 Respondent no. 16 3 4 2 2 7 8 26


1175172212Kumar

Sinha

0 4 2 2 3 4 15

18 Respondent no. 18 4 8 2 6 4 7 31

19 Respondent no. 19 2 8 1 2 2 5 20


2212Kumar Sinha

3 9 2 0 8 9 31

21 Respondent no. 21 0 2 2 0 6 3 13

22 Respondent no. 22 0 3 0 3 1 0 7


2212Kumar Sinha

2 2 1 2 7 9 23

24 Respondent no. 24 1 5 2 6 3 3 20

25 Respondent no. 25 1 4 1 6 3 4 19

26 Respondent no. 26 4 8 3 7 4 6 32


2212Kumar Sinha

2 1 1 2 1 0 7

28 Respondent no. 28 2 3 2 2 4 5 18

29 Respondent no. 29 2 5 7 1 7 7 29


2212Kumar Sinha

3 3 1 1 2 6 16

31 Respondent no. 31 3 2 8 1 1 5 20

32 Respondent no. 32 3 3 3 0 0 1 10


2212Kumar Sinha

2 1 8 1 2 0 14

34 Respondent no. 34 1 3 4 3 4 2 17

35 Respondent no. 35 1 1 1 0 9 5 17

241

Table 5.7

Table 5.8

Number & per centage of children under each category

Total Scores

Category No per cent

Low < 24 23 65.71

Desired: 24 - 36 12 34.29

High >36 00 0


No

per

cent No

per

cent No

per

cent


Low EI High

WI 12 34.3

Low EC High

WC 06 17.1

Low EA High

WA 09 25.8

High EI Low

WI 00 0

High EC Low

WC 04 11.4

High EA Low

WA 02 5.7

High EI & WI 01 2.9 High EC & WC 00 0 High EA & WA 07 20

Medium/desired 00 0 Medium/desired 00 0 Medium/desired 02 5.7

242

Table 5.9. FIRO-B Scores: Children in Foster Care

S N NAME FIRO - B Total

EI WI EC WC EA WA

1 Respondent no. 1 5 2 4 4 7 4 26

2 Respondent no. 2.

2212Kumar Sinha

5 4 3 5 6 6 29

3 Respondent no. 3 7 7 4 1 8 9 36

4 Respondent no. 4 3 7 5 9 7 8 39

5 Respondent no. 5

2212Kumar Sinha

7 5 3 4 7 7 33

6 Respondent no. 6 7 3 3 0 7 2 22

7 Respondent no. 7 6 6 6 5 6 3 32

8 Respondent no. 8

2212Kumar Sinha

8 7 5 6 6 3 35

9 Respondent no. 9 4 3 4 5 5 4 25

10 Respondent no. 10 8 7 4 3 6 7 35


2212Kumar Sinha

7 3 4 5 7 7 33

12 Respondent no. 12 8 6 5 6 7 7 39

13 Respondent no. 13 7 4 5 6 6 4 32


2212Kumar Sinha

4 7 4 5 6 7 33

15 Respondent no. 15 7 5 7 5 9 6 39

16 Respondent no. 16 4 6 4 5 6 8 33


1175172212Kumar

Sinha

7 3 4 6 7 5 32

18 Respondent no. 18 7 6 3 5 7 9 37

19 Respondent no. 19 9 4 8 3 3 8 35


2212Kumar Sinha

2 6 5 5 4 6 28

21 Respondent no. 21 5 2 4 5 3 3 22

22 Respondent no. 22 4 6 7 7 4 6 34


2212Kumar Sinha

7 4 3 5 6 9 34

24 Respondent no. 24 5 1 5 5 7 7 30

25 Respondent no. 25 7 2 5 6 2 4 26

26 Respondent no. 26 5 5 4 5 7 7 33


2212Kumar Sinha

3 1 7 4 0 4 19

28 Respondent no. 28 6 5 5 8 6 7 37

29 Respondent no. 29 4 6 4 5 7 5 31


2212Kumar Sinha

7 6 6 6 6 6 37

31 Respondent no. 31 5 6 4 6 7 7 35

32 Respondent no. 32 4 7 3 4 2 5 25


2212Kumar Sinha

8 6 9 4 9 8 44

34 Respondent no. 34 7 3 4 8 8 6 36

35 Respondent no. 35 2 6 4 3 6 7 28

243

Table 5.10

Table 5.11

Number & percentage of children under each category

Total Scores

Category No per

cent

Low < 24 03 8.57

Desired: 24 – 36 24 68.57

High >36 08 22.85


No

per

cent No

per

cent No

per

cent


Low EI High

WI 05 14.3

Low EC High

WC 04 11.4

Low EA High

WA 02 5.8

High EI Low

WI 11 31.4

High EC Low

WC 03 8.6

High EA Low

WA 04 11.4

High EI & WI 09 25.7 High EC & WC 04 11.4 High EA & WA 20 57.1


244

Table 5.12 FIRO-F Scores: Children in Foster Care

S N NAME FIRO - F Total

EI WI EC WC EA WA

1 Respondent no. 1 1 3 0 4 2 2 12

2 Respondent no. 2.

2212Kumar Sinha

4 5 3 4 7 7 30

3 Respondent no. 3 9 8 6 8 8 8 47

4 Respondent no. 4 6 6 7 0 6 6 31

5 Respondent no. 5

2212Kumar Sinha

5 7 4 4 7 7 34

6 Respondent no. 6 3 0 3 1 4 4 15

7 Respondent no. 7 3 7 4 6 2 2 24

8 Respondent no. 8

2212Kumar Sinha

7 8 6 7 5 5 38

9 Respondent no. 9 6 4 3 4 8 8 33

10 Respondent no. 10 8 7 3 7 6 6 37


2212Kumar Sinha

6 8 4 4 4 4 30

12 Respondent no. 12 7 8 6 5 8 8 42

13 Respondent no. 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 18


2212Kumar Sinha

7 6 6 4 7 7 37

15 Respondent no. 15 5 7 5 7 6 6 36

16 Respondent no. 16 5 4 3 1 9 9 31


1175172212Kumar

Sinha

3 6 1 3 6 6 25

18 Respondent no. 18 6 8 4 6 9 9 42

19 Respondent no. 19 3 4 2 6 8 8 31


2212Kumar Sinha

6 1 4 8 1 1 21

21 Respondent no. 21 8 5 4 6 2 2 27

22 Respondent no. 22 6 5 6 2 6 6 31


2212Kumar Sinha

8 7 4 6 8 8 41

24 Respondent no. 24 6 8 5 4 7 7 37

25 Respondent no. 25 3 4 2 2 3 3 17

26 Respondent no. 26 6 4 6 3 6 6 31


2212Kumar Sinha

3 8 5 5 5 5 31

28 Respondent no. 28 5 3 3 4 5 5 25

29 Respondent no. 29 4 5 3 3 5 5 25


2212Kumar Sinha

8 7 7 4 7 7 40

31 Respondent no. 31 4 5 4 4 3 3 23

32 Respondent no. 32 4 7 2 3 6 6 28


2212Kumar Sinha

6 7 5 6 6 6 36

34 Respondent no. 34 7 7 4 4 7 7 36

35 Respondent no. 35 5 2 6 5 3 3 24

245

Table 5.13

Table 5.14

Number & per centage of students under each category

Total Scores

Category No per

cent

Low< 24 06 17.14

Desired: 24 - 36 19 54.28

High>36 10 28.57


No

per

cent No

per

cent No

per

cent


Low EI High

WI 04 11.4

Low EC High

WC 03 8.6

Low EA High

WA 00 0

High EI Low

WI 03 8.6

High EC Low

WC 04 11.4

High EA Low

WA 00 0

High EI & WI 15 42.8 High EC & WC 03 8.6 High EA & WA 13 37.1


246

5.6. ANALYSIS

5.6.1. Inclusion

Table 5.15

Table 5.16

FIRO-B

INCLUSION

Per centage of children in various

Expressed Inclusion (EI) & Wanted Inclusion (WI) combinations

Category

Low

EI &

WI

Low

EI

High

WI

High

EI

Low

WI

High

EI

&

WI

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 85.7 2.9 8.6 0 2.9

Children in Foster Care 5.8 14.3 31.4 25.7 22.8

FIRO-F

INCLUSION


Expressed Inclusion (EI) & Wanted Inclusion (WI) combinations

Category

Low

EI &

WI

Low

EI

High

WI

High

EI

Low

WI

High

EI

&

WI

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 62.8 34.3 0 2.9 0

Children in Foster care 14.3 11.4 8.6 42.8 22.9

247

0

1

2

3

4

5

EI WI EI WI EI WI EI WI

FIRO B FIRO F FIRO B FIRO F

Children in Street Habitat Children in Foster Care

2.76

4.28

3.36

2.82

1.98 1.85 1.89 2.16

Inclusion - SD

Chart 5.1

A very high per centage of 85.7 per cent (Table 5.15) of the children in street habitats have

Low Expressed and Wanted Inclusion indicating severe difficulties in social adjustment.

They find it extremely difficult to adapt to socially acceptable behaviour norms and

therefore may be shunned by others further deepening their sense of isolation (Currie

2002).

A high SD of 4.28 in Wanted Inclusion is a pointer to extreme compulsive quality to their

behaviour. High SD scores in FIRO-B and FIRO-F indicates that it is incredibly hard for

this group to initiate contact with people and they probably feel threatened in presence of

people other than their own and prefer to work in small groups. They avoid forming many

friendship groups and discourage any invitations for friendship. They find it hard to relate

to persons outside their own group because of very low trust factor. In contrast only 5.7 per

cent of the foster care home children are in this category. Moreover the SD being much

lower than the station children the compulsive quality of behaviour is infrequent and may

arise only in certain situations.

Children in street habitats and foster care children have Low Expressed Inclusion and High

Wanted Inclusion measuring to 2.9 per cent and 14.3 per cent respectively. This category

248

forms relationships based on common interests and skills. They have difficulty in

communicating their feelings and their pride prevents them from reaching out to others and

they would rather wait for others to invite them. This often leads to frustrating situations as

they may be keen to join groups or participate in activities but unable to express their

feelings freely.

Only 8.6 per cent of children in street habitat and 31.4 per cent of foster care children have

high Expressed Inclusion and low Wanted Inclusion indicating that this category is choosy

about friends and social settings otherwise there is an interest in initiating and sustaining

social relationships. They seek opportunities to participate in group activities which they

like and feel comfortable in. They prefer to work with a select group of persons and are

likely to decline invitations or not turn up for events or occasions which are not to their

liking. The high SD score of the children in street habitat indicates that they develop

aggressive attitudes and feelings when situations do not turn out to their advantage.

None or zero per cent of the children in street habitat and 25.7 per cent of foster care home

children have high Expressed and Wanted Inclusion. This category is always daring to go

and eager to initiate relationships, and participate in group activities. They happily include

others and like to be included as well. They are supportive of friends and enjoy any

opportunity to provide inputs. They are happiest among people and in happening places.

They feel extremely agitated and depressed if they are cut off from people and activities.

It is seen in the analysis that 2.9 per cent of the children in street habitat and 22.8 per cent

of foster care home children have desired Expressed and Wanted Inclusion signifying a

balanced approach to others. They are eager to initiate contact with people but at the same

time sufficiently cautious not to allow others to intrude in their space. They have respect

for others and are able to build and sustain healthy and long term relationships.

249

5.6.2. Control

Table 5.17

Table 5.18

FIRO-B

CONTROL


Expressed Control (EC) & Wanted Control (WC) combinations

Category Low EC & WC

Low EC

High WC

High EC

Low WC

High EC & WC

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 74.3 0 20.0 0 5.7

Foster Care Children 17.1 11.4 8.6 11.4 51.5

FIRO-F

CONTROL


Expressed Control (EC) & Wanted Control (WC) combinations

Category Low EC & WC

Low EC

High WC

High EC

Low WC

High EC & WC

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 71.5 17.1 11.4 0 0

Foster Care Children 31.4 8.6 11.4 5.6 40.0

250

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

EC WC EC WC EC WC EC WC



3.65 3.48 3.44

3.22

1.54 1.76 1.88 2.01

CONTROL - SD

Chart 5.2

A significantly large number of 74.3 per cent (Table 5.17) of children in street habitat and

only 17.1 per cent of foster care home children neither seek to control nor be controlled

with a strong preference for being left alone. They deeply resent any interference in their

lives, the high levels of deviation in EC and WC (FIRO-B) amongst the children in street

habitat indicates that any such interference may be met with violence. They are also not

inclined to take responsibilities for others and their own lives as well indicating a

compulsive quality in their behaviour like aggression, stubbornness, rebelliousness or

addictive behaviour. They prefer not to make any decisions and deeply resent any form of

supervision.

With high Expressed Control and low Wanted Control 20 per cent of the children in street

habitat and 8.6 per cent of foster care home children exhibit a capacity for taking on

responsibilities and leadership roles. This is also an indicator of lack of dependence on

others and a remarkable amount of resilience. They enjoy taking control and being

recognized and are extremely uncomfortable in delegating tasks. They can be highly

competitive and impatient with others. They find it suffocating to be in structured

environments with rules and regulations. High SD scores of children in street habitat

251

suggest their leadership style is more likely to be authoritarian with low tolerance level for

disagreement or dissent. Comparatively lower SD scores suggests that students in the

foster care home group are inclined to be consensual type leaders and capable of operating

within a given framework.

None or zero per cent of the children in street habitat and 11.4 per cent (Table 5.17) of

foster care home children have high Expressed and Wanted Control. They are eager and

capable of providing leadership as well as cater to the needs of the team. They crave

recognition from peers and authorities and go out of their way to help others. They are

cooperative and expect the same in return and are often disappointed or depressed when

others do not offer the expected level of support and cooperation. Persons belonging to this

group often end up taking more responsibilities than they can handle as they find it

extremely difficult to say ‘no’.

In the desired range 5.7 per cent of the children in street habitat and a significant number of

51.5 percent in foster care homes are noticed indicating a healthy respect for rules and

regulations and at the same time having the ability to assert their identity. They are capable

and slip into leadership roles quite easily. They are excellent team players with genuine

regard for other’s skills and abilities. They are responsible and hardworking and willing to

share the credit for success with other members of the team.

252

5.6.3. Affection

Table 5.19

Table 5.20

FIRO-B

AFFECTION


Expressed Affection (EA) & Wanted Affection (WA) combinations

Category Low EA & WA

Low EA

High WA

High EA

Low WA

High EA & WA

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 68.6 11.4 5.7 8.6 5.7

Foster Care Children

8.6 5.8 11.4 57.1 17.1

FIRO-F

AFFECTION


Expressed Affection (EA) & Wanted Affection (WA) combinations

Category Low EA & WA

Low EA

High WA

High EA

Low WA

High EA & WA

Desired

range

Children in Street

Habitat 42.9 25.8 5.7 20.0 5.7

Foster Care Children

22.9 0 0 37.1 40.0

253

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

EA WA EA WA EA WA EA WA



3.31 3.66

2.90 3.18

2.17 2.15 2.20 2.20

AFFECTION - SD

Chart 5.3

A big number of 68.6 per cent (table 5.19) of the children in street habitat and only 8.6 per

cent of foster care children have low expressed and wanted affection indicating that

persons in this group are loners and not adept in developing close and personal

relationships. They feel very uncomfortable in expressing or receiving emotions. They tend

to approach relationships in a business-like manner with clear elements of give and take.

The high SD scores of children in street habitat suggest that they are withdrawn and not

easily approachable and may come across as arrogant to others. They do not easily trust

people and are suspicious of any affectionate gestures.

In the low expressed and high wanted affection category there are 11.4 per cent of children

in street habitat and 5.8 per cent in foster care home children. They are in the low

expressed and high wanted affection category. They crave attention and affection.

Persons in this group have great difficulty in expressing emotions and feelings and as a

result undergo deep anxiety and stress.

In the category of high expressed and low wanted there are 5.7 per cent of the children in

street habitat and 11.4 per cent of foster care home Children have. This group is generally

254

sociable but extremely choosy and selective about close relationships. They limit

friendships and working relationships to a select few.

As regards High Expressed and Wanted affection (table 5.19) children in street habitat

have 8.6 per cent and foster care home children have a significant per centage of 57.1 per

cent, signifying that persons in this group are open, friendly and optimistic. They value

trustworthiness and are loyal to their friends and loved ones. They find it extremely

difficult to spend time alone and constantly seek and feel stimulated in company of others.

They have a hard time saying ‘no’ and are easily distracted by interruptions during

study/work and often tend to lose focus. Ironically their friendly and trusting nature leaves

them vulnerable to manipulation by others.

The study further shows that 5.7 per cent of the children in street habitat and 17.1 per cent

of foster care home children have moderate expressed and wanted scores indicating that

this group is warm, friendly and optimistic and are able to build and sustain long term

relationships. They themselves are trustworthy and loyal but do not harbour unrealistic

expectations from others. They are comfortable with emotional expressions and genuinely

value people. They are assertive but at the same time mindful of the pride and dignity of

others. This group is emotionally well adjusted and balanced in behaviour.

High Deviation of children in street habitat in EA and WA indicates that they are likely to

either act out or completely suppress their feelings notwithstanding the outcomes whether

positive or negative. Comparatively foster care home children with similar expressed and

wanted scores suggest that they are better balanced in emotions and behaviour.

255

5.7. COMPARATIVE CHART AND ANALYSIS

Chart 5.4

Chart 5.5

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

FIRO B

Station Children Rehabilitated Children

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

FIRO F

Station Children Rehabilitated Children

256

As mentioned earlier FIRO measures the total score of a person denoting the strength of an

individual’s interpersonal needs. The total of inclusion, control and affection (both

expressed and wanted) gives the overall need score of an individual.

In the chart 5.4 (FIRO B) a clear difference is observed between the behaviour of children

in street habitat and foster care home children. The low scores of the children in street

habitat suggests that involvement with others may sometimes be a source of satisfaction

depending on the people and the context, but more often it is a source of anxiety or

discomfort. They are most likely to be comfortable alone or within a close circle. They are

unlikely to be proactive or initiate action and tend to be reactive and in some cases reliant

on others. They value their freedom and have very little interest in rules and regulations.

Chart 5.5 (FIRO-F) shows mid-level scores for the children in street habitat which is

higher than their FIRO-B scores indicating that their affection needs takes precedence over

inclusion and control needs. Within their close circle or group they are likely to be

supportive, loyal and take personal interest in each other. They are also likely to go out of

the way to accommodate the group needs. The higher FIRO-F scores as compared to the

FIRO-B indicate that they find it very difficult to share feelings of sadness or loneliness

and undergo acute anxiety and discomfort due to the inability to express their feelings.

In contrast, most foster care home children exhibit moderate FIRO-B scores indicating that

they are comfortable in groups and eager to initiate and sustain contact with others.

Involvement with others is usually a source of satisfaction and they seek opportunities to

participate in group activities and events. Some of them are eager to assume positions of

authority while most others with a few exceptions are happy and content in structured

environments with rules and regulations.

The FIRO-F scores indicate that they are warm, friendly, loyal and responsive. They are

flexible and accommodating and have genuine concern for others. They are affectionate

and value relationships to the extent of deferring to the wishes, needs and requests of

others. Some of them may harbour unrealistic expectations from others leading to

frustration and disappointment later on. Their own openness and trusting nature may leave

257

them vulnerable to manipulation by others. Most of them are comfortable in sharing and

expressing feelings with peers and superiors.

5.8. CONCLUSION

The comparison statements can validate the study as the percentage of mainstreamed

children in desired range is higher than the children in street habitats. Referring to charts

above the percentage of children in the desired range is measured as follows:

Affection

FIRO– F FCHC 40 SHC 5.7

FIRO- B FCHC 17.1 SHC 5.7

Control

FIRO– F FCHC 40 SHC 0


Inclusion

FIRO– F FCHC 22.9 SHC 0


As regards emotional congruence children mainstreamed from street habitat score 32.38

per cent and children still living in street habitat who have not had an access or who have

not accepted psychosocial interventions score 3.33 per cent (total score divided by 6). An

earlier study made of mainstream children of a similar age group scores 8.3 per cent

(George et al. 2014). Thus, this tool clearly states the impact of psychosocial interventions

as it heals and empowers children in street habitat. Children who have gone through street

life and got mainstreamed have better congruence as regards their emotional wellbeing.

They score more than the children who are in the mainstream having access to all its

facilities.

Date post:	22-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngoquynh
View:	227 times
Download:	4 times

CHAPTER 5 MAINSTREAMING ATTAINMENT: TRIANGULATION...

Documents