lthough strong research traditions have existed in both the family process and family therapy domain (Alexander, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Jameson, A 1994) and in the culture and ethnicity domain (Guarnaccia, Canino, Rubio-Stepic, & Bravo, 1993;Marin & Marin, 1991), the promise of integrating the two with the goal of rigorously investigating how ethnicity-related dimensions influence core family and clinical processes has remained largely unrealized. Core processes in the family functioning and family therapy domains have been effectively articulated and made the targets of rigorous research (Liddle, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992;Schmidt, Liddle, & Dakof, 1996) Likewise, there is a substantial literature showing ethnicity-related differences in how symptoms develop, are expressed, are explained, and how and to whom people communicate their distress (Guarnaccia et al., 1993;McGoldrick, 1996;Rivera-Arzola & Ramos-Grenier, 1997;Szapocznik, Scopetta, & King, 1978). One of the important challenges for family intervention science is to integrate these two streams of research and rigorously investigate the intricate interplay between ethnicity, family functioning, and family intervention. As McGoldrick has stated, "there is burgeoning evidence that ethnic values and identifications are retained for many generations after immigration and play a significant role in family life throughout the life cycle. Second-, third-, and even fourth-generation Americans differ from the dominant [White European] culture in values, behavior, and life cycle patterns" (McGoldrick, 1989, p. 70). Inclusion of these culture and ethnicity-related variables can help the family intervention scientist to understand unique processes in families of diverse ethnic backgrounds and in predicting patient responses to some of our commonly used interventions. The push toward this integration is timely, given that ethnic minority groups 33 1