Reflections on the challenges of understanding racial, cultural and sexual differences in couple relationship research

Abstract

In the field of systemic psychotherapy there has been much recent interest in the areas of culture and reflexivity, and in working with couples. In this article we reflect on the process of conducting research in these areas. Drawing on findings from a large, national, empirical mixed-methods study on long-term relationships, we use two examples from the data to illustrate the complexity of researching across racial, cultural and sexual differences, in terms of research design and sampling, fieldwork and research practice, and making sense of multidimensional data. We point to findings that suggest that notions of coupledom are culturally constructed and thus challenge straightforward ideas of the procreative, sexually active couple dyad, separate from intergenerational extended families. The clinical significance of the findings for both lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer and culturally diverse couples and families are discussed.Practitioner pointsCultural or racial matching is not a sufficient condition for engagement and empathy with couples and families.Critical reflexivity about similarity and difference is essential in cross-cultural systemic practice.‘The couple’ and its distance from the extended family may be defined differently in different cultures.One research tool used in this project, the emotion map, appears to have utility in clinical practice with couples and families.

Parenting advice for intercultural couples: a systemic perspective

“…These four criteria were used to confirm the methodological rigour and trustworthiness of this study. Several scholars recommended that researchers need to critically reflect on the self (Gabb and Singh, 2015;Lincoln and Guba, 1985;Simon and Chard, 2014), especially when working in cross-cultural contexts, as the latter 'may provide the greatest opportunities for reflexivity, with each difference and similarity between us and our research participants inviting us to reflect on our connections and departures from what is known to us, from our own cultural vantage points' (Gabb and Singh, 2015, p. 211).To this end, the researcher kept a diary as a reflective tool to make notes of personal insights and preconceptions about the interview process. Considering the phenomenon being studied, it was useful to articulate important aspects of self, including cultural knowledge, assumptions and biases, and experiences which would substantiate my ability to conduct the research (Greenbank, 2003).…”

Understanding Everyday Relationship Work: The Development of a Relationship Maintenance Scale

“…Moreover, future research should seek to determine how the scale could be used in clinical practice to provide insight into relationship maintenance behaviors for couples in treatment. Qualitative tools used in our extended mixed methods study have proven to be highly effective in systemic family therapy (Gabb & Singh, 2014). We are thus hopeful that the RMS may be similarly helpful in facilitating partner perceptions of relationship maintenance and identification of strengths alongside areas that require further work.…”

The Uses of Emotion Maps in Research and Clinical Practice with Families and Couples: Methodological Innovation and Critical Inquiry

“…Our discussion, however, also raises interesting questions that stretch beyond the methodological. In foregrounding emotions, the technique requires that we consider afresh how emotions are depicted and individually experienced, re‐evaluating suppositions of shared understandings (Gabb & Singh, ). Can emotions be represented in a way that is universal or is the interpretation of emotions largely dependent on cultural and gendered factors?…”

“…The experience enabled her to work on changing how her family interacts and thus enhance the parent–child relationship and family life more generally. These “educational” dimensions were wholly unsolicited and initially unexpected; once realized, however, they were followed up and refined in subsequent research (Gabb & Singh, ), leading to our shared belief that they held great methodological capacity in applied in clinical contexts. Singh, in her role as a systemic family psychotherapist, then sought to explore their value in these contexts.…”