Qualitative Approaches to Dyadic Data Analyses in Family Communication Research: An Invited Essay

REFERENCES

• Adams, T. E., & Manning, J. (in press). Autoethnography and family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review.
   Google Scholar
• Alemán, M. W., & Helfrich, K. W. (2010). Inheriting the narratives of dementia: A collaborative tale of a daughter and mother. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 7–23. doi:10.1080/15267430903385784
   Google Scholar
• Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, J. C. (2014). Prostitutes as “sex workers:” A dramaturgical analysis of identity in a legal brothel. In J. Manning & A. Kunkel (Eds.), Researching interpersonal relationships: Qualitative methods, studies, and analysis (pp. 132–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Eisikovits, Z., & Koren, C. (2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1642–1655. doi:10.1177/1049732310376520
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellingson, L. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
   Google Scholar
• Forbat, L., & Henderson, J. (2003). Stuck in the middle with you: The ethics and process of qualitative research with two people in an intimate relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 1453–1462. doi:10.1177/1049732303255836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, E. (2014). Communicating beyond the discipline: Autoethnography and the “n of 1.” Communication Studies, 65, 446–450. doi:10.1080/10510974.2014.927296
   Google Scholar
• Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2014). Qualitative research on family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 451–459. doi:10.1177/0265407514520828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.) (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University.
   Google Scholar
• Hellstrom, I., Nolan, M., & Lundh, U. (2005). Awareness context theory and dynamics of dementia. Dementia, 4, 269–295.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig Kellas, J. K. (2010). Narrating family: Introduction to the special issue on narratives and storytelling in the family. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 1–6. doi:10.1080/15267430903401441
   Google Scholar
• Lannutti, P. J. (2013). Same-sex marriage and privacy management: Examining couples’ communication with family members. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 60–75. doi:10.1080/15267431.2012.742088
   Google Scholar
• Manning, J. (2010). “There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside you”: Communication research as interventive practice. Communication Monographs, 77, 437–439. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.523596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, J. (2013). Interpretive theorizing in the seductive world of sexuality and interpersonal communication: Getting guerilla with studies of sexting and purity rings. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2507–2520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, J. (2014a). A constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies. Communication Studies, 65, 432–440. doi:10.1080/10510974.2014.927294
   Google Scholar
• Manning, J. (2014b). Exploring family discourses about purity pledges: Connecting relationships and popular culture. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 15, 92–99. doi:10.1080/17459435.2014.955597
   Google Scholar
• Manning, J. (2015). Paradoxes of (im)purity: Affirming heteronormativity and queering heterosexuality in family discourses of purity pledges. Women’s Studies in Communication, 38, 99–117. doi:10.1080/07491409.2014.954687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014a). Making meaning of meaning-making research: Using qualitative research for studies of social and personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 433–441. doi:10.1177/0265407514525890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014b). Researching interpersonal relationships: Qualitative methods, studies, and analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, J., & Stern, D. M. (in press). Heteronormative bodies, queer futures: Surveillance, communication technologies, and theorizing interpersonal panopticism. Critical Studies in Media Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Messersmith, A., Kunkel, A., & Guthrie, J. (2015). Newlywed reports of social support during engagement: What worked and what failed. Communication Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10510974.2014.990046
   Google Scholar
• Morris, S. (2001). Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 553–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. A. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal of Research Practice, 6, Article-E1.
   Google Scholar
• Seigworth, G. J., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In M. Gregg & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 1–25). Durham, NC: Duke University.
   Google Scholar
• Stamp, G. H. (1994). The appropriation of the parental role through communication during the transition to parenthood. Communication Monographs, 61, 89–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 195–215. doi:10.1177/0261927X95141011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, K. L., & Dickson, F. C. (2004). An exploration of illness-related narratives in marriage: The identification of illness-identity scripts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 527–544. doi:10.1177/0265407504044846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar