Conducting a Multi Family Member Interview Study CORINNE RECZEK* To read this article in Chinese, please see the article’s Supporting Information on Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/famp).

Family researchers have long recognized the utility of incorporating interview data from multiple family members. Yet, relatively few contemporary scholars utilize such an approach due to methodological underdevelopment. This article contributes to family scholarship by providing a roadmap for developing and executing in-depth interview studies that include more than one family member. Specifically, it outlines the epistemological frames that most commonly underlie this approach, illustrates thematic research questions that it best addresses, and critically reviews the best methodological practices of conducting research with this approach. The three most common approaches are addressed in depth: separate interviews with each family member, dyadic or group interviews with multiple family members, and a combined approach that uses separate and dyadic or group interviews. This article speaks to family scholars who are at the beginning stages of their research project but are unsure of the best qualitative approach to answer a given research question. Keywords: Qualitative Research; Multi Family Member Interviews; Interview Methods Fam Proc 53:318–335, 2014

Q

ualitative family research aims to provide “rich enough” data to understand family life (Daly, 1994; Seymour, Dix, & Eardley, 1995). Family members’ complex and interdependent “linked lives” intertwine throughout the life course. Accordingly, a linked lives approach suggests that a rich enough account of family life is one that is informed by the perspectives of multiple people in the same family (Carr & Springer, 2010). Akin to a linked lives approach, a family systems approach (Aarons, McDonald, Connelly, & Newton, 2007; Burton & Hardaway, 2012; Ryan, Epstein, Keitner, Miller, & Bishop, 2012) suggests that family members experience differing family realities and thus obtaining the perspectives of multiple family members is necessary for understanding broader family dynamics. Despite widespread agreement that multiple family member perspectives are useful qualitative tools for capturing family dynamics, surprisingly few family studies have used interviews with more than one family member (hereafter referred to as a multi family member approach) (Bottorff, Kalaw, Johnson, Stewart, & Greaves, 2005; Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004; Marchetti-Mercer, 2012). At least in part, lack of attention to the methodology of whether, and if so how, to conduct interviews with multiple family members is an underlying cause of the lack of widespread multi family member studies (Valentine, 1999). Empirical studies that interview more than one family member often do not provide in-depth and instructive detail regarding their methodological approach (Beitin, 2009; for examples, see Bojczyk, Lehan, McWey, Melson, & Kaufman, 2011; Fingerman, 2001; Sassler & Miller, 2011). Additionally, while several articles outline methodological * Departments of Sociology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Corinne Reczek, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: [email protected]. 318

Family Process, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2014 © 2014 FPI, Inc. doi: 10.1111/famp.12060

/ 319

RECZEK

strategies for interviewing more than one family member (e.g., Forbat & Henderson, 2003; Matthews, Adamek, & Dunkle, 1993), these articles do not provide a clear account of why researchers undertake a multi family member study, nor the underlying epistemologies and research questions that guide a multi family member approach (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010). Thus, research in this area has failed to provide a comprehensive roadmap to assist researchers in deciding whether to undertake a multi family member study, and if so, the best practices for how to do so using a researcher’s chosen epistemological frame and research question. This article addresses this gap by providing a roadmap to assist researchers in developing and executing a multi family member interview study. To help researchers discern whether a multi family member approach is in line with a researcher’s own epistemological assumptions, the first section illustrates the three guiding epistemological perspectives that most commonly underlie a multi family member approach. The second section provides the “best practices” for using three of the most common types of multi family member methods: (1) separate interviews with each family member; (2) dyadic or group interviews; and (3) combining separate and dyadic/group interview techniques. To help researchers decide which method is most appropriate for their research aims, this section further specifies the thematic research questions best addressed with each approach and highlights the utility and tradeoffs of each method. Throughout this section, researchers are provided the tools to discern the best multi family member research strategy for their project based on their epistemology, aims, and priorities.

GUIDING EPISTEMOLOGIES The decision of whether to utilize a multi family member approach, and if so, which type, first begins with articulating the researchers’ guiding epistemology, or, “assumptions about how to know the social and apprehend its meaning” (Fonow & Cook, 1991, p. 1). Epistemology drives the type of questions a researcher asks about family life, which in turn determines whether a multi family member methodology is a useful research tool (Gilgun, Daly, & Handel, 1992). A range of epistemologies can lead to the use of in-depth interviews, including naturalist, poststructuralist, positivist, post-positivist, social constructionist, and critical types. While a review of these epistemologies is beyond the scope of the present article (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Esterberg, 2002, for reviews), this section demonstrates how three principal and illustrative epistemologies can guide a multi family member approach: (post)positivist, social constructionist, and critical. This section offers a basic illustration of the first step in determining the appropriateness of a multi family member approach for any researcher based on the chosen epistemology. A positivist approach suggests that the aim of social research is to understand and capture an objective reality. A postpositivist approach—sometimes called “practical” positivist (Wiley, 1990)—agrees with positivism that there is an objective reality but with the caveat that this reality can never be fully apprehended, only approximated (Guba, 1990, p. 22). Positivist and postpositivist scholars (hereafter, (post)positivist) would use a multi family member approach to obtain a closer view of the “truth” of family life through the collection of multiple perspectives. For example, (post)positivist scholars may compare and contrast individual family interviews to triangulate family members’ accounts to get a closer and more complete approximation of true family relationships. Social constructionist epistemologies are the most widely utilized in multi family member qualitative research and assert that a (post)positivist approach is based on faulty assumptions of objectivity. Social constructivism draws in part from symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) to suggest that meaning is created and recreated through interaction and interpretation. Rather than attempt to ascertain an objective family “truth” or obtain Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

320 /

FAMILY PROCESS

complete knowledge of family life by triangulation, the goal of a constructionist scholar is to understand how family members construct and interpret their own social reality in the context of shared family realities (Holstein & Gubrium, 1997; Marchetti-Mercer, 2012). Social constructionists view family reality as fluid: stories told by different individuals are equally “true,” even if they appear to contradict one another. In contrast with a (post)positivist approach, then, the goal of interviewing more than one family member under a social constructionist frame is not to unearth which family member is telling the truth, but rather to understand partial truths and fissures as social artifacts and data. Constructionists try to capture the process through which people come to understand their social identities as individuals and as a part of a group. For example, a scholar may conduct multiple individual family member interviews to highlight how individuals’ experiences of family life are similar or divergent as a key way to understand family processes and dynamics. Thus, while (post)positivists and social constructionists both may obtain the family members’ varied perspectives through individual interviews, the ultimate empirical purposes and outcomes differ. Additionally, social constructionists may utilize dyad/ group interviews, or a combination of dyad/group and individual interviews, to directly view family dynamics and the cocreation of the joint account. (Post)positivists may obtain this joint account because they believe it will be more accurate or more complete, while social constructionists obtain a dyadic or group account to see how joint accounts are mutually constructed as data and in itself. Critical research, which broadly includes feminist epistemologies, also rejects (post)positivist assumptions of objectivity and asserts that the goal of research is to facilitate social change (Esterberg, 2002). Advocating for improving individuals’ lives and uncovering the mechanisms through which oppression and inequality occur are key in this approach. Social justice efforts may be focused onto interviewees, or more broadly onto members of a disadvantaged social group (Esterberg, 2002; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007). Critical scholars may utilize a multi family member approach to obtain sensitive information from multiple members of a family while taking care to protect respondents’ confidentiality. Critical scholars also use this approach as a way of privileging multiple family voices, or as a way to undermine power dynamics in a relationship. Research grounded in this epistemology most often uses a multi family member approach when scholars aim to either call attention to or diminish issues of power and inequality. For example, dyad/group interviews, or a combination of individual and dyad/group interviews, can provide unique opportunities for critical scholars to witness power dynamics in family life with the ultimate aim of alleviating such power imbalance within that family or families more generally. As illustrated, researchers with varying epistemologies can use a multi family member approach to meet different study goals. Informed by these epistemologies, the next section systematically outlines the specific thematic research questions best addressed by different multi family member approaches. The section critically reviews the advantages and disadvantages of each multi family member interview method and provides key information for how to decide the appropriate approach for a given research question. Because the majority of the in-depth interview research reviewed below emerged from a social constructionist epistemological frame, the review is developed from this vantage point. (Post) positivist and critical frames are discussed when they are uniquely suited for a specific research approach. The overarching themes presented below are summarized in Table 1.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS Family scholars have utilized individual in-depth interviews with multiple members of a family to gain insight into such topics as the birth of a child, death of a family member, relationship quality, and caregiving for an ill family member (Curran, Ogolsky, Hazen, & www.FamilyProcess.org

Independent interviews with individual family members (i.e., one-on-one) either concurrently or sequentially

Dyadic/group interviews with more than one family member at the same time

A combination of both individual and joint interviews with family members

Dyadic/Group

Combined Individual and Dyadic/ Group

Description

Individual

Interview Type

Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014 Both individual and dyadic/group perspectives; Utilize previous interview as tool for subsequent interviews

Creation of dyadic/group account; Observing family dynamics; Using family member as interviewer

Obtain partial truths; Obtain sensitive information; Obtain independent accounts; Secured privacy; Linked data across interviews

Strengths Do not obtain dyadic/group account; Other family members contaminate interview space; One member’s earlier interview influences other member’s sequential interview; Interviewer bias from previous family interview Do not obtain independent accounts; Undesired disclosure in interview; Reproduction of inequality among family members; Possibility for coercion and in interview by other family member; Engendering conflict in interview Contamination of previous interviews; Focus group effects; Undesired disclosure in interview

Limitations

TABLE 1 Multi Family Member Interview Types

Baker et al. (2010); Brimhall and Engblom-Eglmann (2011); Reed (2006); Sniezek (2005); Valentine (1999)

Badgett (2009); Bennett and McAvity (1992); Braun et al. (2010); Eggenberger and Nelms (2007); Lewin (2009); Morris (2001)

Black et al. (2011); Bojczyk et al. (2011); Corbin and Morse (2003); Eisikovits and Koren (2010); Handel (1994); Fingerman (2001); Sassler and Miller (2011); Tolich (2004)

Notable Studies

RECZEK

/ 321

322 /

FAMILY PROCESS

Bosch, 2011; Inman, Altman, Kaduvettoor-Davidson, Carr, & Walker, 2011; MarchettiMercer, 2012; Ngu & Florsheim, 2011; Eisikovits & Koren, 2010). Regardless of the topic of research, individual interviews are most constructively used for obtaining three types of data: (1) partial truths and fissures in family accounts; (2) sensitive information; and (3) independent versions of joint experiences. Notably, different facets of these three research goals are best answered with individual interviews that are either concurrent (i.e., family members interviewed separately but at the same time) or sequential (i.e., family members interviewed one after the other).

Obtaining Partial Truths and Fissures Qualitative scholars have long argued that each individual in a family has a different perspective, viewpoint, or “partial truth” on the same experience. As such, individual interviews with family members can be used to capture both agreement and disagreement regarding everyday experiences, either to obtain a closer version of the truth of family life (e.g., (post)positivism), or to demonstrate the potentially contradictory notions of family accounts (e.g., constructionism) (Bojczyk et al., 2011; LaSala, 2002; Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2002). For example, Fingerman (2001) explored how mothers and daughters deal with conflict, writing: Individuals provide limited data on issues that are embedded in the context of a relationship. To understand a given relationship, both members of the dyad should be interviewed. Some variables, such as power and conflict, can only be conceived at the dyadic level, not at the individual level. Interpersonal tension, by definition, involves discrepancies in point of view. Therefore, both parties’ perspectives must be examined. (Fingerman, 2001, p. 215)

Similarly, Eisikovits and Koren (2010) performed separate interviews with each individual in an intimate relationship to examine how adults cocreate an intimate tie. This approach can benefit scholars who wish to obtain independent accounts of family life that will highlight fissures or agreement in family experiences (e.g., social constructionism), or to discern a more complete version of family from multiple perspectives (e.g., (post)positivism). Employing a constructionist frame, the above authors used separate interviews to examine how the two perspectives on the intimate tie were similar or different, capturing the “dynamics of ‘I-ness’ and ‘We-ness’” (p. 4). The independent narratives produced by each respondent highlighted congruency and disagreement as dynamic family processes (Hertz, 1995), a view uniquely obtained through separate individual interviews with multiple family members.

Obtaining Sensitive Information Individual interviews promote the confidential disclosure of individual narratives without the immediate influence or coercion from other family members (Esterberg, 2002). This is crucial as research suggests that family members may not talk openly to an interviewer in front of one another for fear that criticisms, complaints, or bringing up certain topics may elicit hurt feelings and even damage relationships (Clifford, 1986; Corbin & Morse, 2003; Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Morris, 2001; Ortiz, 2001). For example, Matocha (1992), wanting to uncover how caregivers of people with AIDS coped with the stress of caregiving, interviewed participants separately because the participants were more comfortable discussing their thoughts and feelings one-on-one without having to be concerned that anything said would create family conflict or hurt feelings. Similarly, for scholars who aim to obtain sensitive information while protecting respondents—a key component of critical epistemologies—identifying areas of family discord in individual interviews is also an advantage of this multi family member approach (Jory & Anderson, 1999). For www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 323

example, Bottorff et al. (2005) performed individual interviews with women who smoke and their partners to understand the decision-making process for women who continued to smoke during pregnancy. The authors write: Some women are reluctant to let their partners know details about their smoking habits.… In the environment of a confidential interview, we believed that participants would be frank, unguarded, and free from the potential stress caused by interactions with their partners. Moreover, we wanted to take precautions to ensure that participation in the study did not jeopardize the mothers’ safety or increase the risk of abuse that mothers might experience within their relationships. (p. 566)

Scholars with research questions that explore potentially conflict-engendering topics (e.g., caregiver strain, sexual satisfaction) or topics that may elicit information not shared between family members (e.g., infidelity, smoking habits) may obtain controlled and confidential access to this information via individual interviews.

Obtaining Independent Accounts of Joint Experiences Individual interviews also provide a space for researchers to create a view of a family event or topic through more than one vantage point—a view that both emerges from, and goes beyond, independent accounts. Family members experience the same events (e.g., parenthood, dinner preparation, caregiving) differently; thus, each individual’s account is “an actively produced version of the [family] reality” (Bottorff et al., 2005, p. 572; also see Black, Moss, Rubinstein, & Moss, 2011; Moss & Moss, 2001; Reimann, 1997). Combining these family realities can provide useful data for understanding the family dynamic, whether for the (post)positivist to compare and contrast accounts and obtain a clearer, more objective account of family life, or for the constructivist to obtain a more nuanced and possibly contradictory account of these processes. Sassler and Miller (2011) provide a clear illustration of how to utilize individual interviews to create a joint account. In their study of how couples jointly decide to become committed to one another, the authors recognized that joint decision-making processes can be a sensitive topic charged with power dynamics, and that therefore interviews with both partners together may not reveal independent accounts from each partner’s vantage points. Sassler and Miller therefore interviewed the partners separately and simultaneously, after which both accounts were analyzed in tandem to construct a “couple-level” analysis. Where individual narratives differed, the authors did not attempt to discern which partner was telling the truth; rather, in line with a social constructionist perspective, they viewed each point of contention as insightful data to be analyzed and understood together. Similarly, Morris (2001) and Forbat and Henderson (2003) interviewed caregiving and care receiving dyads to understand how they negotiated their everyday relationships. Rather than focus on either the care provider or the care receiver, these scholars set out to explore the “relationship in which the care exchange takes place” through individual interviews with both parties (Forbat & Henderston, p. 1453, italics added). The authors obtained a view of the relationship—an object of study that is forged from, but goes beyond, individual accounts—via individual interviews. Deploying this approach brought together each family member’s view, creating a richer view of family life. Individual interviews become more complex when moving beyond the study of dyads. For example, Hansen (2005) explored how families care for children, and included individual interviews with multiple family members to obtain a view of the total network. She writes: I chose to study connected individuals who are part of a parent’s network of care. My method is motivated by my desire to analyze particular networks in their entirety and to get a fuller picture,

Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

324 /

FAMILY PROCESS

from multiple vantage points, of approaches to caring for children and to supporting parents.… [I study] a web of people, rather than a collection of separate individuals.” (p. 13)

As Hansen suggests, scholars who use this approach are able to gain an understanding of family dynamics beyond individual accounts, allowing for a view of the complex set of relationships between individuals. Overall, conducting individual interviews with family members is a useful strategy for obtaining an analytical view of family processes and dynamics that goes beyond the sum of the independent interviews while still preserving the independent accounts.

Concurrent versus Sequential Individual Interviews Scholars who choose individual interviews must next decide whether to conduct interviews concurrently, with family members interviewed separately in different rooms by different interviewers at the same time (Gerstl-Pepin & Gunzenhauser, 2002; Hellstrom, Nolan, & Lundh, 2005), or sequentially interviewed one after the other whether by the same or a different interviewer (Forbat & Henderson, 2003; Pearce, Clare, & Pistrang, 2002). Each strategy may result in different experiences and ultimately different data. While the decision to interview concurrently or sequentially can be prompted by logistics (e.g., family members’ time obligations), it should also be informed by the researchers’ primary research goals and their awareness of the tradeoffs and advantages of each strategy. Concurrent Interviews: Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of concurrent interviews are greater privacy (a focus of critical epistemologies) and more highly independent accounts of family life. These advantages may be especially useful if scholars are attempting to ascertain an objective family account (e.g., (post)positivist). Qualitative family interviews are commonly conducted in the home, both for convenience and to allow researchers to view the family environment (LaRossa, 1981; LaRossa, Bennett, & Gelles, 1981). Concurrent interviews remove the possibility that a respondent will discuss his or her interview with a family member who is to be interviewed at a later time. Moreover, this approach removes the possibility that the researcher will be unknowingly influenced by a previous interview, which can be particularly important when studying highly stigmatized issues (e.g., family violence, incest). In addition, performing interviews concurrently in the home reduces the risk of eavesdropping and interruption from family members who are not being interviewed (Tolich, 2004). For example, in a study on Mexican immigrant parents, Dreby (2010) points to how sequential individual interviews led to interviewees holding back information: “One mother met with me first in her living room, where a number of relatives walked in and out during our conversation. The next week she disclosed many more details sitting at my kitchen table” (p. 223). As an alternative to Dreby’s use of interviews outside of the home to increase privacy, scholars might consider interviewing multiple family members simultaneously so that all family members are occupied (Hertz, 1995; Sassler & Miller, 2011). Researchers who are most interested in obtaining data that is not shaped by any inter-interviewee discussion to increase objectivity or to prevent undesirable bias may consider concurrent interviews. Concurrent interviews are not void of confidentiality issues (Tolich, 2004). For example, the Relationship Quality Study (Reczek, 2012; Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009; Reczek & Umberson, 2012) examined how relationship quality changes across the life course for individuals in long-term intimate relationships. Individual interviews were undertaken to gain insight into the dynamics of relationship quality as appraised by both individuals in a couple. It is important to be diligent about choosing private locations for concurrent interviews. Respondents were most commonly interviewed concurrently in different rooms www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 325

in the same house. However, interviewees would often interrupt one another when, for example, one partner finished earlier and checked in on the other interview. Additionally, some events occurring in one interview (e.g., loud laughter) created disruption in the other and left open the potential for a breach in confidentiality. Such events created hesitancy in interviewees to speak candidly, as evidenced by an interviewee who talked in a whisper and became more rigid after being interrupted. To remedy this issue, interviewers initiated conversations with respondents at the start of the interview to set the parameters of confidentiality, including a discussion that detailed a protocol for interrupting interviews and preventing eavesdropping, and an agreed upon spot where respondents would meet after the interview to avoid interruption. An additional risk is script-sharing. For example, two participants in the Relationship Quality study told their interviewers that they had discussed their answers to any potential questions about their sex life prior to their interview. The interviewers asked what was discussed and why the interviewees had discussed this topic. The answers provided important insights into couple dynamics in regard to their feelings about their sex lives. For social constructionists, contamination is something to be aware of, but it can also be seen as a unique opportunity to gain new insight into relationship dynamics. Thus, constructionist scholars may find it useful to directly ask respondents if they engaged in pre-interview conversations, and if so to highlight the issues discussed; this may provide a new view into a relationship’s dynamics that would not be revealed otherwise. In contrast, for (post)positivists such contamination is seen as wholly negative, and thus these scholars attempt to prevent such contamination. Importantly, because concurrent interviews must be performed by more than one researcher, there are issues of reliability between the interviewers; this consideration is discussed in previous work (Boutain & Hitti, 2006). Sequential Interviews: Advantages and Disadvantages A primary advantage of sequential interviews is that information gained from an earlier interview can be linked to a subsequent interview for methodological and theoretical purposes (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007; Forbat & Henderson, 2003; Pearce et al., 2002). This may be particularly useful for (post)positivist scholars who want to ensure that they cover the same topics and circumstances for all involved family members to obtain the most complete account, as well as for social constructionists who wish to obtain all family members’ insight into the same topics to build a joint account. For example, during the analysis stage of the Relationship Quality Study, one family member described a very important family experience that was not mentioned in the partner’s interview. While the absence of this event in the partner’s interview is clearly important data in and of itself suggesting discordance in the appraisals of important events (Forbat & Henderson, 2003), the research team believed it would have been theoretically and empirically useful to have asked the partner about the event to have both accounts. If the study design had allowed for a more systematic use of a previous interview, this insightful data could have been used in the second interview. Additionally, sequential interviewing may be an important procedure to gain access to family members (Black et al., 2011). For example, Bacallao and Smokowski (2007) interviewed parents and adolescents to understand how immigration processes influence family dynamics, but strategically interviewed parents first to allow them to become comfortable with the idea of their child’s being interviewed. However, this advantage of sequential interview may also be a disadvantage due to heightened confidentiality concerns (Esterberg, 2002). In a key cautionary example, Forbat and Henderson (2003) performed sequential interviews with spouses. In the first interview, the husband described “one very tense episode” that suggested violence between the couple. The authors described their desire to hear the wife’s account of the same event, because it appeared to be a transformative moment in the spouses’ marriage. Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

326 /

FAMILY PROCESS

The authors grappled with whether it was ethical to ask the wife directly about this episode but ultimately decided not to do so, arguing that a previous interview should not inform a subsequent interview when there is a risk of compromised confidentiality and/or physical, mental, or emotional distress. While Forbat and Henderson concede that failing to bring up such a topic meant “lost” data, doing so ethically protected their research subjects, which is the common practice that contemporary researchers take when this issue arises. If scholars strongly believe that they will obtain unprecedented data by bringing up topics from a previous interview, ethical research standards suggest this can be done— but only with complete assurance that confidentiality is not compromised. For example, researchers would not mention the previous interview when asking about a topic, but instead seamlessly interweave the question into the interview in a way that avoids breaking confidentiality. A sequential approach also leaves open the possibility that interviewees will inquire to the interviewer about their family members’ responses to questions. For example, interviewees whose family member was interviewed first may ask, “Did he mention this?” or “How did she tell that story?” Scholars whose research questions relate to respondents’ perceptions of their family members’ beliefs may take this opportunity to ask why it is important for the respondent to know what another family member said. Another tactic for protecting confidentiality is to ask the respondent what they believe their family member might say about a particular topic (Black et al., 2011). Overall, the decision to conduct sequential or concurrent interviews can be made intentionally at the onset of the study by engaging one’s research question and theoretical, epistemological, and methodological goals, not primarily for convenience.

DYADIC OR GROUP INTERVIEWS Individual interviews are an ideal approach to obtain independent accounts from more than one family member. Dyadic or group interviews, where multiple family members are present at the same time, are another key approach that can serve other research aims. While the strategy of interviewing family members together has been utilized in family studies since the 1970s (Arksey, 1996; Edgell, 1980; it is used by relatively few scholars (e.g., Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Morris, 2001; Song, 1998). For scholars who aim to (1) observe the creation of a dyadic or group account; (2) observe family dynamics as they happen; or (3) use a family member as interviewer, dyadic or group interviews with more than one family member present are a useful methodological tool (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Harkness-Hodgson, Garcia, & Tyndall, 2004; Holmberg et al., 2004; Morris, 2001). The advantages and trade-offs of a dyadic/group approach are described below.

Observing the Creation of a Dyadic or Group Account Dyadic and group interviews reveal the production of a collaborative, coconstructed family reality in the interview setting (Valentine, 1999). This approach has been used to examine how family members cocreate a mutual understanding of daily life, such as how financial decisions are made (Eardley & Corden, 1996; Huby & Dix, 1992; Pahl, 1989), labor market participation (Jordan, James, Kay, & Redley, 1992), health (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Gerhardt, 1991; Parker, 1993), child-rearing (LaRossa, 1981), and the division of labor (Arksey, 1996; Valentine, 1999). For example, Badgett (2009) and Hull (2006) used dyadic interviews with same-gender intimate partners to understand the ways the partners negotiated and coconstructed the meaning of commitment and marriage. These scholars directed questions at both partners as a unit, asking them to agree on how they became committed, as well as to jointly identify moments of conflict around commitment and marriage. Similarly, Lewin (2009) conducted dyadic interviews with gay www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 327

fathers to understand “the meanings [gay fathers] attached to their struggles to become fathers and the subsequent challenges they face as they navigate between seemingly contradictory identities” (p. 34). Lewin specifically wanted to understand how contradictory identities were formed not just by one person, but by both fathers together. Scholars who explicitly aim to capture how meaning around a particular relationship or event is mutually constructed and negotiated within the interaction of the interview (i.e., social constructionism) may consider utilizing a dyadic or group approach. Open-ended questions can be directed at all family members together, allowing them to construct a joint account without the interviewers’ preconceived notions of which family member should answer a given question. Notably, because group interviews promote more consensual data, some scholars suggest that there is little conflict or disagreement in such interviews (Holmberg et al., 2004; Huby & Dix, 1992; Morris, 2001). Thus, the dyadic/group interview may mask conflict in a relationship—a masking that constructionists would view as useful data but (post)positivists would view as preventing an objective and complete view of family life.

Observation of Family Dynamics Everyday family life is conducted in the context of the home and across geographically dispersed spaces, making it logistically difficult for scholars to perform observational studies. Dyad/group interviews are one way for researchers to view family interactions, dynamics, and communication (Allan, 1980; Braun, Mura, Peter-Wight, Hornung, & Scholz, 2010; LaRossa, 1977; Molinari, Everri, & Fruggeri, 2010; Morris, 2001; Stacey, 1998). For example, (post)positivists may conduct joint interviews to observe the objective reality of family dynamics. These scholars may attempt to ask clarifying questions when there is discrepancy to obtain the truest version of family life. In contrast, social constructionists use this approach to observe emergent and shifting family dynamics by giving prompts at the start of the interview and interjecting only minimally to move the interview forward when it stalls. In this interview context, the construction of a joint family reality is developed in a semipublic space and can be observed by the interviewer interested in, for example, how families jointly negotiate public/private boundaries. In dyad/ group interviews, family relationships and interactions emerge beyond individual accounts and become a site of analysis that can be used to better understand family life (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010; Morris, 2001). Verbal and nonverbal cues of how individuals respond to questions in one another’s presence are valuable data in that they provide clues to how family members may interact privately (Pahl, 1989). Interviews with family groups may be of particular interest to scholars who aim to obtain observational data, as these interactional moments in the group setting provide one of the few vantage points for these observations. For example, aiming to understand how families experience the illness of kin, Eggenberger and Nelms (2007) interviewed as many as seven family members at one time. This technique revealed how feelings were shared and received in the family unit; for example, adult family members responded to adolescents’ shared feelings by saying, “Oh, I didn’t know that” and “Really?” (p. 288). Such group interviews allow for the acquisition of, as in this example, how adolescent knowledge is withheld in families, how it is disclosed and created in the group interview setting, and how family dynamics shift after acquiring new information about the adolescent. Group interviews are an opportunity to ascertain how family members interact around a particular topic, providing the researcher a view of family alliances, roles, conflicts, and dynamics. For scholars operating from critical epistemologies, a positive side effect of group interviews may be a slight shift in family dynamics after the interview

Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

328 /

FAMILY PROCESS

takes place, due to the disclosure of information; yet a negative side effect may be that these same interactions provoke conflict. In addition, observing family interactions in a dyad/group setting provides a lens for viewing power dynamics, for example, when one family member silences, interrupts, or speaks over another (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Houston, Hyndman, McLean, & Jamal, 2010; Jordan et al., 1992; LaRossa et al., 1981; Valentine, 1999). Researchers who explicitly aim to expose power dynamics—as highlighted in a critical frame—are provided unparalleled insight through dyad/group interviews and may wish to simply let these power dynamics unfold during the interview (Bennett & McAvity, 1992; Hertz, 1995; Seymour et al.,1995). For example, Morris (2001) conducted dyadic interviews to understand how care giver/care receiver dyads deal with conflict. Morris allowed respondents to determine their level of participation in the dyad interview, and did not attempt to balance the conversation, even if one person talked over the other. Morris then analyzed these powerladen interactions as data, highlighting how each individual negotiated the dynamics. However, a researcher not explicitly interested in witnessing power dynamics may choose to intervene to avoid replicating disruptive dynamics in the dyad/group interview setting (Valentine, 1999). Researchers should decide prior to the project whether they believe viewing interactions between partners is the most productive way to obtain data on a specific set of power-related research questions, or if this data can be obtained in other less invasive ways such as with individual interviews. Additionally, if a researcher aims to collect data on power dynamics, this should be explained to respondents either in the study’s informed consent form or in the written or verbal study description.

Family Member as Interviewer Dyadic or group qualitative interviews allow for using one family member to elicit information from another family member (Seymour et al., 1995; Valentine, 1999). This is a specific methodological technique that can take the form of “natural” dialogue (Bennett & McAvity, 1992) in which one individual jogs the other’s memory, injects opinion or thoughts into another’s narrative, or prompts another to tell a particular detail of a story. This may be seen as advantageous from a (post)positivist view, as such injections may present a more complete set of data not discoverable via other interview methods. Additionally, family members may take turns telling a narrative in a dyad/group interview (Valentine, 1999). For example, Bennett and McAvity (1992) conducted individual and dyadic interviews with spouses to understand the interpersonal dynamics that shape relationship quality. They observed that interviewing the couples together revealed new information that was not disclosed during the husbands’ interviews, perhaps because wives acted as skilled interviewers who drew out additional information. Similarly, Morris (2001) found that family members prioritize, contradict, or challenge different versions of the same event, providing a view of how individuals negotiate a sense of their own “partial truth” within the context of the “family truth” (Valentine, 1999). This may be a useful strategy for scholars with research questions specifically aimed at observing how stories around family events are differentially cocreated in families. Notably, by design, dyadic/ group interviews may elicit more overt conflict and family strain when one family member prods at sensitive topics (LaRossa et al., 1981). Researchers who have utilized this method suggest watching for facial cues and body language that indicate conflict and strain, as these signifiers carry increased weight during a dyad/group interview. Researchers further suggest redirecting a line of questioning when one respondent is visibly uncomfortable, as any conflict in the interview may continue long after the researcher departs (Huby & Dix, 1992). Alternatively, when such conflict is an important aspect of the research question, scholars have used this as an opportunity to ask the interviewee if they www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 329

are interested in discussing their discomfort and, additionally, to provide resources for conflicts that arose during the course of an interview. Overall, researchers must consider whether asking questions that are likely to elicit ideal data at the cost of conflict are worth the risk of harm to the family. For example, in one study of a family coping with a member’s illness, the group approach had to be adjusted because the family asked to have its members interviewed separately due to serious conflict around the care of the sick family member (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007): While interviewing this father and daughter separately did not meet the real purposes of our study, the degree of distress they were exhibiting and their desire to share their experience resulted in our deciding to interview the father and daughter separately and include them in the study. Their experience demonstrated the reality of how the critical illness experience can tear apart families who do not agree on a course of action (p. 286). This example highlights the negative effects of a dyad/group interview and suggests that the act of refusing to take part in a group interview is important data itself. This example further prompts researchers to be aware that planned methodological approaches may need to be altered during the research process when unforeseen circumstances arise during data collection.

A COMBINED APPROACH: INDIVIDUAL AND DYADIC/GROUP INTERVIEWS A recent wave of scholarship utilizes both individual and dyadic/group interviews in the same research project (Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Brimhall & Engblom-Eglmann, 2011; Reed, 2006; Skerrett, 2010; Sniezek, 2005; Valentine, 1999). Scholars should consider this approach when their research questions require: (1) both individual and dyadic/group perspectives or (2) the utilization of an initial dyadic/group/individual interview as a tool for subsequent interviews.

Access to Individual and Dyadic/Group Perspectives Access to both individual and dyadic or group accounts provides a holistic constellation of data (Holmberg et al., 2004; Sniezek, 2005). A key example of this approach is found in Brimhall and Engblom-Eglmann’s (2011) study on how the death of a first spouse affected a second marriage. In this study, the authors first interviewed participants separately to allow each participant to describe personal experiences without the spouse present. Spouses then were interviewed together to elicit a dyadic perspective on this experience. This technique allowed the authors to compare the two individual and one dyadic interviews, and, from a social constructionist frame, highlight the corroboration, fissures, and inconsistencies of family life. Similarly, Nemoto (2009) utilized individual and dyadic interviews with mixed-race Asian American/white couples because doing so allowed her to “examine two aspects of an individual’s view of the relationship: One as an intersubjective self, and the other as a more reflexive self” (p. 34). This approach, again, stems from a social constructionist epistemology, wherein neither the “intersubjective” nor “reflexive” self is more authentic, but reflect different facets of the same experience. Like the previous examples, Fingerman (2001) conducted individual and dyad interviews with mothers and their adult daughters. In the individual interviews, mothers and daughters each were asked about their relationship and to highlight areas of conflict each felt important. When interviewed together, respondents were asked to recount and discuss one recent disagreement to view how mothers and daughters cocreated, and interacted around, their views of a conflict. These scholars use both interview techniques to ascertain contrasting aspects of the same research question, with the individual interview illuminating how the interviewee views him or herself and the relationship, and the dyadic/group interview allowing for the observation of dynamics that can only be revealed in interaction. Scholars who aim to have Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

330 /

FAMILY PROCESS

access to independent accounts of family life in addition to the observance of interactional dynamics may consider this approach (Sniezek, 2005). This is most commonly undertaken through a constructionist frame, but (post)positivist scholars also utilize this approach to point to inconsistencies in an individual’s account and to ask family members to come to agreement on the truth.

Use of Previous Individual/Group Interviews as Informative Tools Another advantage of combining both individual and dyadic or group interviews is that data uncovered in a previous interview can be used to facilitate discussion in subsequent interviews (Eyre, Flythe, Hoffman, & Fraser, 2012; Skerrett, 2010). Deciding which interview to conduct first depends on the research question. There are several advantages to first conducting dyad/group interviews. A dyad/group interview provides a point of reference, comparison, or disagreement, and topics illuminated in dyad or group interviews can be further explored in individual interviews (Arksey, 1996; Seymour et al., 1995). Family members may contradict themselves or provide new insight in a subsequent individual interview that they did not feel comfortable sharing in front of their family members. Notably, however, if the dyadic/group interviews are conducted first, there may be “focus group effects” that filter into individual interviews, making respondents feel constrained to conform either to the group view, or to their more contained presentation of self revealed in the dyadic/group interview (Houston et al., 2010). These effects may be especially salient if the interviews are conducted within a relatively short period of time. Other scholars advocate for the usefulness in positioning individual interviews first (Bennett, Wolin, & McAvity, 1988; Houston et al., 2010), because it allows researchers to view how respondents establish their independent narratives before presenting their narratives as part of the family. Moreover, interviewing individuals first allows researchers to facilitate conversation in the later group interviews by bringing up topics identified in the individual interviews. Bennett et al. (1988) and Killian (2001) found that individuals disclosed more information when interviewed together after individual interviews took place. Similarly, Backett (1990) utilized this approach to examine how families negotiate and shape one another’s health behaviors, suggesting that dyad/group interviews prompt “a lesser everyday adherence to those ideals of ‘healthy living’ often expressed in the previous [individual] interviews” (p. 83) and allowed spouses to detail the less socially desirable aspects of one another’s health behavior. However, respondents may share information in individual interviews that they do not want family members to know. Confidentiality can be protected by refusing to directly discuss any family member’s earlier individual interview in the group interview, although there can be an exception to this if the research has been trained in leading a therapeutic interview. In the therapeutic setting, scholars have used information from earlier individual interviews to develop a coherent “couple story” and “we-ness” as a therapeutic tool (Levy-Frank, Hasson-Ohayon, Kravetz, & Roe, 2012; Skerrett, 2010; Uebelacker, Hecht, & Miller, 2006). For example, Skerrett interviewed partners in a couple separately, transcribed the individual interviews, then met with the couple jointly and had the individuals read aloud portions of their individual interviews. Such an approach may be undertaken if professionally trained to do so and with Institutional Review Board Consent due to the risks involved. Some scholars have conducted more than one round of dyadic/group or individual interviews. For example, Baker et al. (2010) interviewed incarcerated mothers and nonincarcerated grandmothers who coparent. Baker utilized a first round of dyadic interviews with the mother and grandmother together to assess co-parenting activities and the relationship between the two women. This was followed 2 weeks later by individual interviews to uncover how the individuals independently felt about their coparenting relationship. www.FamilyProcess.org

/ 331

RECZEK

Finally, a second dyadic interview was performed after the mother’s release from prison to follow-up on how coparenting shifted after incarceration was over. Each stage of the interview protocol built upon the previous stage, providing layers of individual and dyadic/ group data to draw on for a complex analysis of the coparenting mother–grandmother relationship.

CONCLUSION A multi family member qualitative in-depth interview project can offer a holistic view on family life, allowing scholars the opportunity to answer research questions that are not addressed in interviews with only one family member. This article has presented three illustrative epistemological frames that commonly guide a multi family member approach and drawn attention to the specific research aims that are best answered using (1) separate interviews with each family member; (2) dyadic or group interviews with multiple family members; or (3) both individual and dyadic/group interviews in combination. In research involving multiple family members, each individual interview operates as a data source, allowing qualitative scholars to obtain multifaceted partial truths and fissures, sensitive information, and independent versions of family experiences. With dyadic or group interviews, researchers can examine the interactions between and among family members, allowing for the observation of the creation of a joint account, the observation of general family and power dynamics, and the use of family members as interviewers. The combined use of dyadic/group interviews and individual interviews offers access to multiple perspectives, providing a gold standard for scholars who want to gain a full view of family dynamics. This approach also allows for the use of previous interviews of either type as an informative tool for subsequent interviews. While the focus of this article is on research development and approach, scholars may also consider the challenges in the analysis of multi family member data (for a review, see Eisikovits & Koren, 2010). Additional issues of recruitment may need to be considered before conducting a multi family member interview study, including the possibility for coercion, for example, by one family member exerting pressure on others to participate (Bottorff et al., 2005; Dreby, 2010; Forbat & Henderson, 2003). Moreover, the questions of how many members of a family to interview, and how many families to include in a research study, are not addressed in the present discussion. These decisions are to be made in line with a standard qualitative methodological approach, which suggests that these factors are determined by the study goals and the saturation of data (Charmaz, 2002). For example, decisions regarding how many members of one family to include depend directly on the study’s goals (e.g., to gain the perspective of dyad dynamics or to understand family system operation; Marchetti-Mercer, 2012) and data saturation (e.g., how many extended kin are interviewed before there is nothing new learned about the research topic). As an illustration, if a researcher is interested in relationship dynamics between ex-spouses after marital dissolution, both former spouses may be interviewed. If interested in broader family dynamics around a marital dissolution, a researcher may interview as many family members as they believe have a view of the divorce, such as both divorcees, their children, and close extended family members. Researchers would continue to collect data from new family members until they have a saturated view of the divorce experience from the broader family perspective. When deciding how many families to include, the same characteristics (i.e., research aims and saturation) should again be considered. For example, scholars who use a case study approach wherein only a few families are interviewed do so because their research aims relate to in-depth family dynamics of very few family units, while scholars who want to understand a specific dynamic in family life may collect data from numerous and Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

332 /

FAMILY PROCESS

diverse family units until they no longer obtain new information on the topic at hand. Therefore, research questions and saturation remain key indicators of sample size (Charmaz, 2002; Francis et al., 2010; Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Finally, the question of whether and how to publish sensitive data obtained from respondents is a larger ethical issue that has perhaps particular relevance for this methodology but is not addressed here, as individual family members are likely to be able to identify themselves and their family members by the way material is represented. This issue may be addressed in future studies. REFERENCES Aarons, G. A., McDonald, E. J., Connelly, C. D., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Assessment of family functioning in Caucasian and Hispanic Americans: Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Family Assessment Device. Family Process, 46, 557–569. Allan, G. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 205–210. Arksey, H. (1996). Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update, 15, 1–7. Bacallao, M. L., & Smokowski, P. R. (2007). The costs of getting ahead: Mexican family system changes after immigration. Family Relations, 56, 52–66. Backett, K. C. (1990). Studying health in families: A qualitative approach. In S. Cunningham-Burley & N. McKeganey (Eds.), Readings in medical sociology (pp. 57–85). London: Tavistock. Badgett, M. V. L. (2009). When gay people get married: What happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage. New York: New York University Press. Baker, J., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother–grandmother coparenting relationships in families with incarcerated mothers: A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49, 165–184. Beitin, B. (2009). Qualitative research in marriage and family therapy: Who is in the interview? Contemporary Family Therapy, 30, 48–58. Bennett, L., & McAvity, K. (1992). Family research: A case for interviewing couples. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 75–93). London: Sage. Bennett, L. A., Wolin, S. J., & McAvity, K. J. (1988). Family identity, ritual, and myth: A cultural perspective on life cycle transition. In C. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the life cycle (pp. 211–234). New York: Guilford Press. Black, H., Moss, M. S., Rubinstein, R. L., & Moss, S. Z. (2011). End of life: A family narrative. Journal of Aging Research, 2011, 1–7. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bojczyk, K. E., Lehan, T. J., McWey, L. M., Melson, G. F., & Kaufman, D. R. (2011). Mothers and their adult daughters’ perceptions of their relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 452–481. Bottorff, J. L., Kalaw, C., Johnson, J. L., Stewart, M., & Greaves, L. (2005). Tobacco use in intimate spaces: Issues in the study of couple dynamics. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 564–577. Boutain, D. M., & Hitti, J. (2006). Orienting multiple interviewers: The use of an interview orientation and standardized interview. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 1302–1309. Braun, M., Mura, K., Peter-Wight, M., Hornung, R., & Scholz, U. (2010). Toward a better understanding of psychological well-being in dementia caregivers: The link between marital communication and depression. Family Process, 49, 185–203. Brimhall, A. S., & Engblom-Eglmann, M. L. (2011). Starting over: A tentative theory exploring the effects of past relationships on postbereavement remarried couples. Family Process, 50, 47–62. Burton, L. M., & Hardaway, C. (2012). Low-income mothers as “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51, 343–359. Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 743–761. Charmaz, K. (2002). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications. Clifford, J. (1986). On ethnographic allegory. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 98–121). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 335–354. Curran, M., Ogolsky, B., Hazen, N., & Bosch, L. (2011). Understanding marital conflict 7 years later from prenatal representations of marriage. Family Process, 50, 221–234. Daly, K. (1994). Using qualitative methods to study families. In G. Handel & G. G. Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 333

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324. Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and their children. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Eardley, T., & Corden, A. (1996). Low income self-employment: Work, benefits, and living standards. Aldershot: Avebury. Edgell, S. (1980). Middle-class couples. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Eggenberger, S. K., & Nelms, T. P. (2007). Family interviews as a method for family research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58, 282–292. Eisikovits, Z., & Koren, C. (2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1642–1655. Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw. Eyre, S. L., Flythe, M., Hoffman, V., & Fraser, A. E. (2012). Primary relationship scripts among lower-income, African American young adults. Family Process, 51, 234–249. Fingerman, K. L. (2001). Aging mothers and their adult daughters: A study of mixed emotions. New York: Springer. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Back to the future: A look at the second wave of feminist epistemology and methodology. In M.Fonow & J.A.Cook (Eds.), Beyond Methodology (pp. 1-15). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 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. Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P. et al. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health, 25, 1229–1245. Gerhardt, U. (1991). The roles of the wife and marital reality construction in the narrative interview: Conceptual models in qualitative data interpretation. Sociology of Health & Illness, 13, 411–428. Gerstl-Pepin, C., & Gunzenhauser, M. (2002). Collaborative team ethnography and the paradoxes of interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 137–154. Gilgun, J. F. E., Daly, K. E., & Handel, G. E. (1992). Qualitative methods in family research. New York: Sage Publications. Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. New York: Sage Publications. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. Handel, G. (1994). The qualitative tradition in family research. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research. London: Sage. Hansen, K. V. (2005). Not-so-nuclear families: Class, gender, and networks of care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Harkness-Hodgson, J. H., Garcia, K., & Tyndall, L. (2004). Parkinson’s disease and the couple relationship: A qualitative analysis. Families, Systems, & Health, 22, 101. Hellstrom, I., Nolan, M., & Lundh, U. (2005). We do things together. Dementia, 4, 7–22. Hertz, R. (1995). Separate but simultaneous interviewing of husbands and wives: Making sense of their stories. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 429–451. Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their stories. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. New York: Sage Publications. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2007). Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Houston, S. D., Hyndman, J., McLean, J., & Jamal, A. (2010). The methods and meanings of collaborative team research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 285–297. Huby, M., & Dix, G. (1992). Evaluating the social fund. London: Department of Social Security Research Report. Hull, K. (2006). Same-sex marriage: The cultural politics of love and law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Inman, A. G., Altman, A., Kaduvettoor-Davidson, A., Carr, A., & Walker, J. A. (2011). Cultural intersections: A qualitative inquiry into the experience of Asian Indian-white interracial couples. Family Process, 50, 248–266. Jordan, B., James, S., Kay, H., & Redley, M. (1992). Trapped in poverty? Labour-market decisions in low-income households. London: Routledge. Jory, B., & Anderson, D. (1999). Intimate justice II: Fostering mutuality, reciprocity, and accommodation in therapy for psychological abuse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 349–364. Killian, K. (2001). Reconstituting racial histories and identities: The narratives of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 27–42.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014

334 /

FAMILY PROCESS

LaRossa, R. (1977). Conflict and power in marriage: Expecting the first child. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. LaRossa, R. (1981). Transition to parenthood: How infants change families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. LaRossa, R., Bennett, L., & Gelles, R. (1981). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 303–313. LaSala, M. (2002). Walls and bridges: How coupled gay men and lesbians manage their intergenerational relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 327–334. Levy-Frank, I., Hasson-Ohayon, I., Kravetz, S., & Roe, D. (2012). A narrative evaluation of a psychoeducation and a therapeutic alliance intervention for parents of persons with a severe mental illness. Family Process, 51, 265–280. Lewin, E. (2009). Gay fatherhood: Narratives of family and citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Leonard, S. A. (2002). Shared experiences, unique realities: Formerly married mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parenting and custody after divorce. Family Relations, 51, 37–45. Marchetti-Mercer, M.C. (2012). Those easily forgotten: The impact of emigration on those left behind. Family Process, 51(3), 376–390. Matocha, L. K. (1992). Case study interviews: Caring for persons with AIDS. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 66–84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Matthews, S. H., Adamek, M. E., & Dunkle, R. E. (1993). Research on older families when more than one member responds: Producing and interpreting findings. Journal of Aging Studies, 7, 215–228. Molinari, L., Everri, M., & Fruggeri, L. (2010). Family microtransitions: Observing the process of change in families with adolescent children. Family Process, 49, 236–250. Morris, S. M. (2001). Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 553–567. Moss, M. S., & Moss, S. Z. (2001). Four siblings’ perspectives on parent death: A family focus. In J. L. Hockey, J. Katz, & N. Small (Eds.), Grief, mourning and ritual (pp. 65–75). Philadelphia, PA: Open University. Nemoto, K. (2009). Racing romance: Love, power, and desire among Asian American/white couples. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Ngu, L., & Florsheim, P. (2011). The development of relational competence among young high-risk fathers across the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 50, 184–202. Ortiz, S. M. (2001). How interviewing became therapy for wives of professional athletes: Learning from a serendipitous experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 192–220. Pahl, J. M. (1989). Money and marriage. London: Sage. Parker, G. (1993). With this body: Caring and disability in marriage. Buckingham: Open University Press. Pearce, A., Clare, L., & Pistrang, N. (2002). Managing sense of self. Dementia, 68, 173–192. Reczek, C. (2012). The promotion of unhealthy habits in gay, lesbian, and straight intimate partnerships. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1114–1121. Reczek, C., Elliott, S., & Umberson, D. (2009). Commitment without marriage: Union formation among long-term same-sex couples. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 738–756. Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2012). Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 1783–1790. Reed, J. M. (2006). Not crossing the “extra line”: How cohabitors with children view their unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1117–1131. Reimann, R. (1997). Does biology matter? Lesbian couples transition to parenthood and their division of labor. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 153–185. Ryan, C. E., Epstein, N. B., Keitner, G. I., Miller, I. W., & Bishop, D. S. (2012). Evaluating and treating families: The McMaster approach. New York: Routledge. Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2011). Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 482–506. Seymour, J., Dix, G., & Eardley, T. (1995). Joint accounts: Methodology and practice in research interviews with couples. York, UK: Social Policy Research Unit. Skerrett, K. (2010). “Good enough stories”: Helping couples invest in one another’s growth. Family Process, 49, 503–516. Sniezek, T. (2005). Is it our day or the bride’s day? The division of wedding labor and its meaning for couples. Qualitative Sociology, 28, 215–234. Song, M. (1998). Hearing competing voices: Sibling research. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research (pp. 103–118). London: Sage. Stacey, J. (1998). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late-twentieth-century America. Berkeley: University of California. Tolich, M. (2004). Internal confidentiality: When confidentiality assurances fail relational informants. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 101–106.

www.FamilyProcess.org

RECZEK

/ 335

Uebelacker, L. A., Hecht, J., & Miller, I. W. (2006). The family check-up: A pilot study of a brief intervention to improve family functioning in adults. Family Process, 45, 223–236. Valentine, G. (1999). Doing housework research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area, 31, 67–74. Wiley, N. (1990). Social theory: Past and present. The American Sociologist, 21, 286–289.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 53, June, 2014