Unveiling the Gaps:

Australia’s Lack of Understanding in Adoptee Identity & Inclusion.

Shane Bouel
Thoughtless Delineation
4 min readFeb 29, 2024


Unveiling the Gaps: A Comparative Analysis of Adoption Identity Frameworks and Early Childhood Education Perspectives
AI Art By Thoughtless Delineation

After evaluating “Identity: A Child’s Place in the World” in comparison to the “Empowerment in Action: Implementing the Adoptee Voice and Visibility Framework,” several noteworthy adoption-related concerns become apparent.

Concerns in “Identity: A Child’s Place in the World”:

Identity: A child’s place in the world
Identity: A child’s place in the world

1. Lack of Explicit Focus on Adoption:
The document primarily concentrates on positive identity development in early childhood education, but it doesn’t explicitly address adoption-related perspectives or experiences. This could be a limitation, considering the significance of adoption as part of children’s identities.

2. Limited Cultural Inclusivity:
While the document emphasizes cultural competence, it doesn’t specifically address the unique cultural considerations related to adoptees or families with adoptive children.

Concerns Highlighted by the “Empowerment in Action Implementing the Adoptee Voice and Visibility Framework for Lasting Change” and the “Adoptee Voice and Visibility Framework”:

1. Stakeholder Analysis:
In terms of stakeholder analysis, the adoptee frameworks underscore the critical need for a thorough examination of stakeholder recommendations in order to assess feasibility, potential impact, and associated challenges with implementing suggested actions. Moreover, a significant concern is the apparent lack of tangible, real-world applications specifically designed to address the unique needs and challenges faced by adoptees.

2. Global Comparative Analysis:
The adoptee frameworks suggest a comparative analysis with international practices. Examining how other countries have addressed adoption-related challenges and incorporating successful strategies could provide valuable insights, which are not explicitly addressed in “Identity.”

3. Quantitative Data and Statistics:
The adoptee frameworks recommend incorporating quantitative data to strengthen the analysis. While “Identity” provides qualitative insights, the inclusion of prevalence rates, demographic information, and long-term impact statistics related to adoption could enhance the document.

4. Personal Testimonies:
The adoptee frameworks suggest including personal testimonies from individuals affected by historic forced adoption. Integrating firsthand accounts in “Identity” could add a powerful human element, helping policymakers and the public better understand the emotional impact and nuances of adoption experiences.

5. Implementation Roadmap:
The adoptee frameworks emphasize the need for a clear implementation roadmap in reports. While “Identity” discusses recommendations, a more explicit roadmap outlining steps, timelines, responsible entities, and potential challenges associated with the suggested actions could enhance its practicality.

6. Engagement with Diverse Perspectives:
The adoptee frameworks stress the importance of engaging diverse perspectives. Ensuring that “Identity” reflects a diversity of adoptee experiences, including socio-economic backgrounds and ethnicities, would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of adoption-related identity issues.

7. Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation:
The adoptee frameworks recommend establishing a long-term monitoring and evaluation plan for recommended actions. “Identity” could benefit from defining key performance indicators and milestones to track progress and impact over time.

8. Accessibility of Information:
The adoptee frameworks highlight the importance of making reports accessible to a broad audience. Ensuring plain language use and providing summaries for non-expert readers in “Identity” would facilitate wider public understanding and engagement.

9. Global Best Practices in Redress: The adoptee frameworks recommend delving into global best practices in redress for historic forced adoption. “Identity” could explore how other jurisdictions have approached compensation, acknowledgment, and support for adoptees to inform its strategies.

10. Stakeholder Consultation in Action Plans:
The adoptee frameworks emphasize engaging with relevant stakeholders in the development of action plans. Incorporating input from adoptees, advocacy groups, and professionals in “Identity” could enhance the inclusivity and robustness of proposed strategies.

Inconsistencies, Issues, and Omissions:

1. Absence of Adoption-Specific Content:
“Identity” lacks specific content addressing adoption-related issues, resulting in a notable omission considering the frameworks’ emphasis on adoptee perspectives and experiences.

2. Cultural Nuances of Adoption:
The frameworks stress cultural sensitivity related to adoption, while “Identity” focuses on broader cultural competence but may not address the specific cultural nuances associated with adoptive families.

A Complete Lack of Adoptee Inclusion & Recognition!

In summary, while “Identity: A Child’s Place in the World” provides valuable insights into positive identity development, however, it lacks a specific focus on adoption-related concerns highlighted by the “Empowerment in Action: Implementing the Adoptee Voice and Visibility Framework for Lasting Change” and the “Adoptee Voice and Visibility Framework.”

This puts notice to the Australian Government Department of Education’s Inclusion Support Program and Related Inclusion Agencies:

Addressing these concerns will contribute to a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of identity issues for past, current, & future adoptees.



Shane Bouel
Thoughtless Delineation

Using creativity to lift standards of ethics & morality by questioning half-truths and denouncing the conservancy of inhumane ideologies.