Toward a More Expansive Understanding of Family Communication: Considerations for Inclusion of Ethnic-Racial and Global Diversity

Abstract

Building off essays by Gudykunst and Lee (2001) and Turner and West (2003), the purpose of this essay is to emphasize the need to be more inclusive in family communication research in terms of ethnic-racial and global diversity. After discussing the current state of scholarship, we outline important considerations for the field of family communication to achieve this goal.

In 2001, Gudykunst and Lee published an essay in the Journal of Family Communication titled “An Agenda for Studying Ethnicity and Family Communication.” In offering their model for studying family communication and ethnicity emerging from cross-cultural research, the authors emphasize that our understanding of family communication necessitates not only identifying similarities and differences between ethnic-racial groups in terms of family functioning but also understanding why these differences occur. Central to the argument in their article and other calls for inclusion of more diverse samples (Turner & West, 2003) is that our understanding of family communication, in general, is greatly hindered if research is homogenous in terms of the ethnic-racial makeup of our samples. Thus, more than 15 years after Gudykunst and Lee put forth this agenda, we use this essay to once again call on scholars to be proactive in the inclusion of not only ethnic-racial diversity in our research, but also more global perspectives and voice (i.e., literature, participants) in family communication research.

As Turner and West (2003) suggest in their introduction to a special issue on research on diverse family types and forms, scholars have an ethical obligation to address limitations of our research as “giving voice to those who have been silent or silenced is paramount in global society” (p. 182). Further, they argue and we agree that the validity of our theories and claims are challenged when we are not inclusive of diverse perspectives. In this essay, we provide a brief overview of the state of scholarship as it relates to ethnic-racial and global considerations, highlighting the implications of current practices. We conclude with a discussion of scholarly practices that we believe can facilitate a more expansive understanding of family communication as we move forward as a scholarly community.

We frame this essay with two caveats. First, we are not advocating for a specific theoretical or methodological approach to studying ethnicity-race and global perspectives. Our view is that all areas of inquiry are best informed by multiparadigmatic-methodological approaches. Second, we are not calling into question the value and scholarly significance of individual studies in particular. In fact, many of the points included in this essay emerge from a critical reflection on some of our own scholarship as well as insight gained during the editorial process for the 2015–2017 issues of the Journal of Family Communication. Thus, although our goal is not to critique individual studies, we do emphasize that, regardless of intent, the body of family communication scholarship as a whole implicitly constructs an idea of normative family behavior that is primarily based on nondiverse samples. Put differently, if we are being honest with ourselves as a field of family communication, we must acknowledge that, although the scholarship continues to flourish, our insight is predominantly about Western families (primarily in the United States) and also, very limited in the understanding of family functioning and relationships and processes in ethnic-racial minority families. We need to address this lingering gap in our research if we are to achieve our goals of using scholarship in a manner which addresses important aspects of our family lives, translates into practices that can benefit families, and continues to contribute to the larger discourse on families in and outside of the family communication area.

Current state of scholarship

Family communication scholarship, in general, has made great strides in the last decade in broadening the landscape of research. In addition to an increase in methodological pluralism as researchers see the value in various paradigmatic perspectives on understanding family communication (Droser, 2017; Suter, 2016), understudied family relationships and historically underrepresented groups are more pronounced in our research. For instance, Floyd and Mormon’s (2014) edited volume, Widening the Family Circle: New Research on Family Communication sheds light on understudied family relationships such as stepfamilies, aunts and uncles, in-laws, and grandparents. Likewise, there is a growth in empirical work on understudied and marginalized groups (e.g., sexual minorities) as well as inclusion in family communication texts (e.g., Diamond, Allen, & Butterworth, 2012). We encourage scholars to continue pursuits in this regard. As for ethnic-racial and global considerations, textbooks and edited volumes include information or chapters addressing ethnic-racial and cultural variations, (e.g., Harris & González, 2015) and we are seeing the emergence of specific volumes on ethnic-racial and cultural considerations such as Mediating Cultures: Parenting in Intercultural Contexts (González & Harris, 2013). With that being said, research in our discipline on ethnic-racial variations in family communication and, to a larger extent, global perspectives is still relatively minimal especially in relation to peer disciplines.

Based on a review of scholarship appearing in the Journal of Family Communication since 2001 as well as a cursory review of other communications journals, inclusion of diverse ethnic-racial and global samples can be categorized into three types of research. First, there are bodies of work that focus on family functioning in a specific ethnic-racial group or global context to address cultural aspects not represented in previous scholarship. For instance, Warren-Jeanpiere, Miller, and Warren (2010) examined intergenerational communication between mothers and daughters in African-American families as it relates to gynecological health given this perspective was not accounted for in previous research. In her study on women engineers, Dutta (2017) examined family discourses surrounding gender and professional-workplace identity in an Asian context to provide a non-Western perspective and insight into family-work balance.

Further, this category of research often addresses issues or family circumstances unique to specific ethnic-racial or cultural groups. Kam (2011), for instance, investigated stressors associated with language brokering in Mexican-heritage families and implications for mental health and risky behaviors for young family members. A second category of research takes a comparative orientation to inclusion of more diverse samples by identifying similarities and differences in family functioning across different ethnic-racial or cultural groups such as Buzzanell, Waymer, Tagle, and Liu’s (2007) interview study on work-family tensions as part of motherhood or Shearman, Dumlao, and Kagawa’s (2011) study of cross-cultural comparisons of young adult-parent conflict in American and Japanese families.

Both of these aforementioned types of research are beneficial in developing more comprehensive and inclusive understandings of family communication and family functioning. It is, however, this third category of research that is necessary to address as we move forward. Specifically, a vast majority of family communication scholarship simply does not actively sample and, therefore, include ethnic-racial or global diversity in studies. The reason for this is not surprising. The nature of the academy often necessitates research decisions that lead to expedited research and publication processes. Our reliance on convenience samples that do not typically result in diverse samples is a reflection of the proverbial “publish or perish” perspective and orientation that guides our methodological choices. As such, convenience sampling has become an accepted default in much of our scholarship.

Again, this is not to suggest that this research is invaluable or that researchers have not produced knowledge and insight into family functioning—far from it! On the other hand, in our review of the literature, the surprise was not so much the homogeneity of the samples in our research as it was the lack of explicit and in-depth discussion of these limitations. A vast majority of the studies do not address this limitation and, if it is mentioned, the discussion is often distilled to a statement or two in the limitations section without consideration of important theoretical or conceptual implications. As a field of study, we have to be cognizant of these implications. Specifically, we need to recognize that our current practices and the body of family communication scholarship, as a whole, leads to assumed normative processes of family functioning. To highlight this, we use family communication patterns as an example of how fairly homogenous samples in a corpus of research leads to assumptions about family communication processes that may be erroneous when considering diversity of family perspectives and experiences.

Family communication patterns as a case study

As a theoretical tradition, family communication patterns (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006) has been a framework of tremendous heuristic value in explaining how family communication—conversation and conformity orientation—has important implications for what Schrodt, Witt, and Messersmith (2008) labeled psychosocial (e.g., anxiety, relational satisfaction, communication apprehension), behavioral (e.g., family conflict, deception), and information processing (e.g., media processing) outcomes. Conversation orientation refers to “the degree to which families create a climate in which all family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interaction about a wide array of topics (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 85). Conformity orientation reflects the “the degree to which family communication stresses a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs” (p. 85). In Schrodt and colleagues’ (2008) meta-analysis of 56 studies and the vast number of studies that have been published since this meta-analysis, very few have explicitly focused on ethnic-racial differences or global perspectives.

Collectively, this body of research has, as Hesse, Rauscher, Goodman, and Couvrette (2017) point out, positioned conformity orientation as a fairly negative aspect of family communication whereas conversation orientation is often framed with more constructive implications. This framing of both orientations does come from empirical studies that demonstrate, for instance, the more negative implications for conformity orientation. Whereas these results can be attributed, in part, to how conformity is conceptualized (see Hesse et al., 2017), we believe that it is also likely that negative correlates of conformity orientation can be attributed to familial, cultural, and worldview assumptions concerning openness, directness, hierarchical structures, and individual-collective orientations (see Sillars, 1995). Family members’ perspectives on conversation and conformity orientation are linked to these cultural and worldview assumptions. Thus, if the samples in our research are homogenous, the conclusions we make regarding the collective findings of the research are not accounting for ethnic-racial and cultural variations.

As a way to address this, we are in the process of completing a study on correlates of family communication patterns in White, African-American, Latino/a, and Asian-American undergrad and nonundergrad samples in the United States. Not surprisingly, preliminary analysis suggests trends that do not reflect some of the findings in the larger body of scholarship on family communication patterns (Phillips & Soliz, 2017). Although theoretically orthogonal, discussion on family communication patterns often point to negative associations between conversation and conformity orientation. Whereas conformity and conversation orientation were significantly and negatively correlated for the White sample and, to a lesser degree, the Asian-American sample, there was no significant relationship for the Latino/a and African-American samples.

Congruent with findings from extant research, our preliminary analysis demonstrates that conversation orientation is positively associated with individual (i.e., self-worth) and relational (i.e., closeness) outcomes for all ethnic-racial groups. However, the story was quite different for conformity orientation. Whereas the results from the White sample supports the potential negative implications of conformity orientation (i.e., significant negative associations with positive individual and relational outcomes), the same associations are not found in the other ethnic-racial groups. Although these are just preliminary findings, these results support what Shearman and Dumlao (2008) found in their comparative study on Japanese and American young adults in that the negative implication for conformity orientation on communication satisfaction was evident in the American sample (majority White) but not the Japanese sample.

One could argue that family communication patterns is the most influential family communication theory emerging in our discipline. As such, the theory and findings from the scholarship are no doubt informing current research, discussions with students, and translational practices. We hope it continues to do so! But, as we have these discussions, develop this research, and work with families or communities, are we confident that the findings are truly representative of diversity in family as it relates to ethnic-racial and cultural variations? As we hope is evident, it is not enough to point out that we have to proceed with caution in terms of the claims we can make about conversation and conformity orientation. We need to be more proactive in providing more diverse perspectives and, in turn, refine and further develop the theory with these considerations in mind.

We use family communication patterns as an example of the limitations of our research as we continue to rely on homogenous samples. We recognize that the points we have been making are likely not new for those reading this essay and we are certainly echoing claims made by others. Likewise, we assume that most family communication scholars would agree with the limitations of our extant research the need to “cast a wider net” with the goal of increasing perspectives in our research. Yet, given this recognition and agreement, why is this still the norm in our research practices? As we stated before, much of this has to do with pragmatics of our professional trajectories. It is not that we, as researchers, are unconcerned with diverse perspectives. Rather, the current processes and disciplinary conventions do not promote an environment which makes it feasible for scholars to address this. As we state above, publication and productivity expediency supersedes time and resources necessary for obtaining more diverse samples. Likewise, there are larger aspects and practices in family communication as a field of research that we believe can be improved to facilitate development of a more expansive understanding of family communication. As Turner and West (2003) succinctly put it, “it’s one thing to say we need family communication scholarship that takes diversity into consideration. It’s another thing to explain how to achieve this” (p. 183). Adhering to this call, we use the final part of this essay to provide suggestions for moving forward as a field of study.

Moving forward: Considerations for the field of family communication

Ideally, we would address the limitations in the current body of scholarship by simply obtaining more diverse samples. Of course, it is “easier said than done.” We recognize that and, as such, devote the remainder of this essay to discussing how we can change practices for framing our research in light of restricted samples as well as disciplinary and academic consideration for creating a culture where this type of research is more valued and integrated into our scholarly conversations and work.

Framing of our research

Ideally, scholars will be able to conduct studies with more diverse samples and, in doing so, provide a more expansive understanding of family communication. Unfortunately, this is not always possible and we are not suggesting that researchers eschew studies if this is the case. However, regardless of the nature of the inquiry, researchers should be more purposeful in the framing of our research. First, we suggest scholars provide a more explicit discussion of the theoretical and conceptual implications and limitations of the study. For instance, rather than simply stating a lack of diversity as a limitation in one to two sentences at the end of the manuscript, authors should provide a discussion about the manner in which a more diverse sample might change the findings and/or theoretical consideration.

Returning to our previous example of family communication patterns, for instance, we envision a discussion about how variations in family cultural assumptions such as family centrality and hierarchy of roles (Sillars, 1995) might lead to varying understandings and evaluations of conformity and conversation orientation. Second, we need to title our research in a manner that does not continue to create a notion on what constitutes “standard” family communication research. Currently, we tend to include the ethnic-racial make-up or nationality of the sample in titles only when they either focus on an underrepresented group (e.g., “… Among African-American Mothers”) or for samples outside of the United States (e.g., “… in an Australian Sample”). Although not intentional and it may seem a somewhat trivial point, this practice presumes that ethnic-racial and nationality considerations need only be explicitly discussed when it deviates from the U.S.-focused research primarily on the majority ethnic-racial group. As such, this process can reify the idea of what is normative or standard family communication research. Put differently, by not designating a White sample or a sample in the United States in titles when applicable, the assumption is that this is normative research and these designations only need to be put in when we deviate from this norm. Likewise, researchers should include more detailed information in the sample discussion especially about the country and nationality of the sample for the reasons discussed above and so readers can gain a more accurate assessment of the study. We believe these suggestions for better framing of our research can be integrated into our current practices without substantial addition to our workloads. Yet, the payoff will be extremely beneficial for making scholars and readers of research consider the implications of the findings.

Framing of scholarly books

Students and established scholars rely on our textbooks and edited volumes as important resources for introductions and/or general overviews of a variety of family communication topics, contexts, relationships, and processes. Therefore, we need to continue publishing edited volumes such as Mediating Cultures: Parenting in Intercultural Contexts (González & Harris, 2013) and Communication, Race, and Family: Exploring Communication in Black, White, and Biracial Families (Socha & Diggs, 1999) that speak to the diversity of family experiences. We would benefit greatly from a book on global perspectives on family communication. Further, if we want to orient scholars to a more expansive consideration of family communication in terms ethnic-racial and global diversity, we also need to consider the framing of our general family communication books.

Often our scholarly texts—including some undergraduate family communication textbooks—will include a separate chapter or sections on ethnic-racial or cultural variations in the family. Obviously, this is beneficial in terms of introducing readers to these important considerations. However, by separating chapters or sections of a book on ethnic-racial or cultural variations from chapters on family forms, relationships, and processes, we are in some ways constructing the very issue at the heart of this essay in that these variations are not integrated into the discussion of family communication as a whole. For instance, any book may have a chapter or section on parent-child communication followed by ethnic-racial and cultural considerations later in the volume. In doing so, the chapter on parent-child communication may not explicitly discuss these ethnic-racial and cultural considerations as it relates to this family relationship. Thus, distinguishing the standard majority family from families of minority ethnic-racial backgrounds. We, therefore, suggest that as scholars draft textbooks and put together edited volumes, we integrate discussions of ethnic-racial and cultural variations into chapters on family relationships (i.e., aunting, parent-child, sibling, etc.) and theoretical frameworks (i.e., family communication patterns), instead of segregating ethnic-racial and cultural considerations solely into separate chapters.

Student education and inclusion of diverse literatures

Related to the framing of scholarly books, we need to consider how undergraduate and graduate students are introduced to the field of family communication. If the field is limited in the inclusion of diverse samples and perspectives, then the readings and discussions in undergraduate and graduate courses are also going to be limited. As such, we must break this cycle if we are to create a more inclusive and expansive understanding of family communication. Of course, this puts burden on instructors and faculty to seek out these literatures and perspectives that speak to ethnic-racial variations and global considerations (e.g., research and theories on families from the global south). As such, we believe that Turner and West’s (2003) suggestion to work in research teams with scholars from different backgrounds from those of the researcher as well as scholars from different disciplinary traditions is a productive method for familiarizing oneself with new insight and different bodies of research. Likewise, these collaborations and discussions can be incredibly enriching for scholars and students alike.

Disciplinary practices for journals and conventions

The primary outlets for presenting our research are scholarly journals. We have no doubt that editors—past and present—recognize the importance of ethnic-racial and global diversity in research. However, we need to move beyond this simple recognition of the limitations of our research to the point where editors (and reviewers) value diversity of voices (i.e., participants) just as much as they value sound methodology, theoretical and conceptual framing, and integration of relevant literature in making editorial decisions and recommendations. Further, in expanding to more global research on family communication, the editorial process needs to be more inviting and collaborative to scholars who traditionally publish and teach in languages others than English and have methodological conventions that may vary from Western norms.

In addition to scholarly journals, research is most commonly presented and discussed at academic conventions and the points we introduce concerning the editorial process also apply to the review and acceptance process for conventions. However, conventions offer another disciplinary practice that we can improve upon as it relates to diversity and family communication research. As is the standard for most disciplines, our academic associations are segmented into various divisions and interest groups. Doing so is valuable as it allows for a more focused discussion of research and teaching as it relates a specific area of inquiry (e.g., family communication). The flip-side of this organizational practice is that it can create scholarly silos with socially constructed notions of what constitutes research for respective divisions and interest groups often reifying the norms in a specific area.

In conversations with colleagues and in some of our own experiences, research on family and interpersonal communication, for instance, that takes a cross-cultural approach or focuses on a specific ethnic-racial group has, at times, been considered more appropriate for divisions and interest groups focusing on intercultural communication or those centered on scholarship related specific ethnic-racial groups. Although we do not believe this is the dominant thinking in the area of family communication, the perspective that integration of culture or an emphasis on ethnic-racial groups shifts research to a nonfamily or interpersonal communication area of inquiry still remains in academic communities. Needless to say, this is a hindrance to achieving the goals laid out in this essay and we call on scholars to stifle this perspective when it does emerge in our discourses.

Department and disciplinary support

Although we believe all of the aforementioned suggestions are important for increasing an appreciation and, most importantly, inclusion of diverse samples in our research, the most important step that can be taken to advance this goal is a shift in department and disciplinary support and appreciation for inclusion of diverse samples in our research. As we mentioned previously, a major factor for why our research is often homogenous is because of the value we place on expediency of research. A tenure-track professor, therefore, has to weigh the time it takes to produce scholarship vs. the time it takes to obtain diverse samples and/or develop partnerships for more global perspectives. Often, this results in convenient sampling methods (i.e., undergraduate subject pools) that do not often lead to diverse perspectives.

As with any research that is nonnormative (e.g., community based participatory research, field methods), it can be time-consuming and may not always offer the assurances of other more conventional and convenient sampling methods. Specifically, our processes of merit, promotion, and tenure still too often focus on quantity of research over the nature of research especially the recognition of the time and resources it can take to advance scholarship by focusing on these more diverse samples. If this research is not valued on a department or disciplinary level, we cannot expect scholars to devote the necessary attention to this. Put simply, until the tenure and promotion process understands and values the process of scholarship as it relates to purposeful designs for diversity, the change will likely not come.

Conclusion

As we point out in the introductory comments of this essay, we are not the first to highlight the need for more ethnic-racial and global diversity in family communication scholarship. However, we believe that it is important to take stock of where we have been and where we are heading as a discipline or emphasis area every few years. Doing so reminds us to be cognizant of the direction and implications of our research. We recognize that much of what we discuss is applicable to other underrepresented groups in family communication research. Thus, we hope the arguments and suggestions we provide in this essay are viewed as an opportunity to reflect on our own scholarship individually and to consider ways that we, as a community of scholars, can create practices that create a more inclusive and expansive understanding of family communication.

Acknowledgments

Ideas and preliminary findings presented in this essay emerged from research funded, in part, by the 2016 Central States Communication Association Federation Prize. The authors would like to thank Jaclyn Marsh and Carol Tschampl-Diesing as well as members of Fall 2017 Family Communication graduate seminar at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for ideas concerning diversity in family communication research.