Communicatively Constructing Birth Family Relationships in Open Adoptive Families: Naming, Connecting, and Relational Functioning

References

• Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). “About as solid as a fish net”: Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 201–220. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_3
   Google Scholar
• Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. The Sociological Review, 27, 651–677. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00354.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 46–59. doi:10.1080/15267431.2012.742089
   Google Scholar
• Colaner, C. W., Halliwell, D., & Guignon, P. (2014). “What do you say to your mother when your mother’s standing beside you?” Birth and adoptive family contributions to adoptive identity via relational identity and relational–Relational identity gaps. Communication Monographs, 81, 469–494. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.955808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colaner, C. W., Horstman, H. K., & Butauski, M. (In press). Sustaining and draining? Adoptive mothers’ enactment of rituals in open adoption relationships. In A. M. Alford, & M. Miller-Day (Eds.), Constructing motherhood and daughterhood: Communicating across generations. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Colaner, C. W., Horstman, H. K., & Rittenour, C. (2017). Negotiating adoptive and birth shared family identity: A social identity complexity approach. Western Journal of Communication [online publication first], 1–23. doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1384564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colaner, C. W., & Scharp, K. (2016). Maintaining open adoption relationships: Practitioner insights on adoptive parents’ regulation of adoption kinship networks. Communication Studies, 67, 359–378. doi:10.1080/10510974.2016.1164208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565–572. doi:10.1037/a0026265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Docan-Morgan, S. (2017). Korean adoptees’ discursive construction of birth family and adoptive family identity through names and labels. Communication Quarterly, 1–26. doi:10.1080/01463373.2017.1299192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. Turner, & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Galvin, K. M., & Colaner, C. (2013). Created through law and language: Communicative complexities of adoptive families. In K. Floyd, & M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle (2nd ed., pp. 191–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gore, P. A., Jr. (2000). Cluster analysis. In S. D. Brown (Ed.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 297–321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grotevant, H. D. (2009). Emotional distance regulation over the life course in adoptive kinship networks. In G. M. Wrobel, & E. Neil (Eds.), International advances in adoption research for practice (pp. 295–316). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Grotevant, H. D., Wrobel, G. M., Von Korff, L. A., Skinner, B., Newell, J., Friese, S., & McRoy, R. G. (2008). Many faces of openness in adoption: Perspectives of adopted adolescents and their parents. Adoption Quarterly, 10, 79–101. doi:10.1080/10926750802163204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hays, A. H., & Colaner, C. (2016). Discursively constructing a family identity after an autism diagnosis: Trials, tribulations, and triumphs. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 143–159. doi:10.1080/15267431.2016.1146722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays, A. H., Horstman, H. K., Colaner, C. W., & Nelson, L. R. (2016). “She chose us to be your parents”: Exploring the content and process of adoption entrance narratives told in families formed through open adoption. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 33, 917–937. doi:10.1177/0265407515611494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig Kellas, J., LeClair-Underberg, C., & Normand, E. L. (2008). Stepfamily address terms: “Sometimes they mean something and sometimes they don’t.”. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 238–263. doi:10.1080/15267430802397153
   Google Scholar
• Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151. doi:10.2307/351302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274–287. doi:10.1080/00335638409383697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, D. H., & Smith, S. L. (2012). Openness in adoption: From secrecy and stigma to knowledge and connections. Retrieved from http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/research/2012_03_openness.php
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Suter, E. A. (2012). Negotiating identity and pragmatism: Parental treatment of international adoptees birth culture names. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 209–226. doi:10.1080/15267431.2012.686940. New York, NY
   Google Scholar
• Suter, E. A. (2014). The adopted family. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 137–155). New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar