Abstract
Twenty-one participants were interviewed about their experiences of parenting as intercultural couples, to understand how they navigate cultural differences within the family. Intercultural couples are defined in this study as heterosexual couples who have different sociocultural heritages with distinct cultures of origin as identified by the participants. All couples identified that either they or their parents were born and raised in a different country of origin from that of their partner’s. A grounded theory method was used for data analysis resulting in the development of a typology of cross-cultural parenting. The diverse strategies used by intercultural parents to negotiate diversity based on their cultural differences and their degree of mutual acculturation emerged to support this model. These strategies of adaptation included assimilation, cultural tourism, cultural transition, cultural amalgamation, and dual biculturalism. This framework can be used by mental health professionals to better understand how many couples may adapt to cultural differences to form healthy families.
Keywords
Culture is an important construct and frame of reference that provides meaning, defines worldview, and permeates all aspects of human interaction (Kim, 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1999). Within a family, culture delineates boundaries, expectations, rules for interaction, ways of defining problems, communication patterns, and coping skills. Specifically, for intercultural couples from two distinct cultural reference groups there is a potential for conflict, and parenthood is a particular flashpoint (Bustamante et al., 2011; Crohn, 1998). With a necessary realignment from the marital dyad to family system, the birth of children can be a catalyst for marital conflicts based on underlying discrepancies in core values or worldview in how to raise children for intercultural couples who have minimized their cultural differences (Romano, 2001). Differing rules, norms of behavior, and expectations need to be reconciled as couples make parenting decisions, one of the primary mechanisms for the transmission of cultural values and practices between generations.
Although there has been a substantial increase in the rates of intercultural marriage and culturally diverse households in the United States (Lee & Bean, 2004; U. S. Census Bureau, 2010), the counseling literature has not adequately focused on the experiences of intercultural couples in general, or on the perspectives of intercultural parents in particular (Crippen & Brew, 2007). In the literature on intercultural marriage, there has been a lack of empirical research to support conclusions about the role of cultural differences in intercultural relationships (Sullivan & Cottone, 2006).
The definition of intercultural marriage in the literature has varied and has included cultural constructs such as race (Durodoye, 1994), ethnicity (Gaines & Brennan, 2001), or cross-national marriages (Cottrell, 1990). In this study, intercultural couples are defined as couples who have different sociocultural heritages with distinct cultures of origin as identified by the participants. All couples identified that either they or their parents were born and raised in a different country of origin from that of their partner’s. Regardless of how the term intercultural has been defined, a primary focus of the literature on intercultural marriage relates to the challenges confronted by couples in such partnerships, as well as potential conflicts and decreased marital satisfaction (e.g., Cottrell, 1990; Durodoye, 1994; Gaines & Brennan, 2001). This trend of focusing on marital challenges is partly a consequence of a large proportion of literature that has derived from clinical populations or pathological perspectives of intercultural marriage. A relatively small fraction of the literature has focused on the opportunities associated with cultural differences. One example comes from Falicov (1995) who found some couples describe their intercultural relationship as enriching. The present study aims to add to the existing literature on intercultural marriage and cross-cultural parenthood by examining these processes of cultural adaptation in the experiences of a nonclinical population of intercultural parents.
Definition of Terms
Terms commonly used throughout this study have been defined to provide clarity for the reader. Unless otherwise noted, these definitions were developed by the author for the purpose of describing different aspects of cross-cultural dynamics for this study only, as the research literature uses many of these terms interchangeably.
Acculturation describes the change that occurs when two or more cultures come into contact (Berry, 1980); it is the underlying process of cultural adaptation that occurs when individuals transition from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar one (Ting-Toomey, 1999).
Cultural accommodationis a means to negotiate cultural conflicts in which one or more family members will adjust their behavioral and affective responses to an alternative cultural framework (Falicov, 1995).
Cultural adjustment includes short- to medium-term acculturative processes in which there are specific challenges and opportunities for growth; it is the second stage in the developmental model of cultural adaptation (Ting-Toomey, 1999).
Culture is a frame of reference, and a set of symbols that provides meaning, guides behavior, and influences one’s worldview. It is a pattern of “traditions, beliefs, values, norms, symbols, and meanings that are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of a community” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 10).
Cross-cultural parenting describes the comparison of parenting attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices between two or more cultures.
Interculturalrefers to interactions between members of different cultures. This term subsumes international (between different nations), interethnic (between different ethnic communities), interracial (between different racial groups and interfaith (between different religions).
Intercultural couples are adult dyads who describe themselves as being in a significant relationship, each of whom has a self-identified cultural background that is different from their partner. Cultural background includes, but is not limited to, country of origin, ethnic heritage, racial identification, and religion.
Intercultural parents are intercultural couples who are married or cohabitating together, and are raising children (adopted, biological, or stepchildren) in a single household.
Method
The interview process was conducted exclusively by the first author as part of her dissertation research. In the tradition of qualitative inquiry, the interviewer disclosed to participants her professional experiences in international education and as a marriage and family counselor, as well as her personal experiences in intercultural relationships. Although this self-disclosure facilitated rapport with participants, it also highlighted the ways in which these experiences informed the study. Thus, before commencing the study, the interviewer bracketed her assumptions about the challenges and opportunities of intercultural relationships based on her personal and professional experiences.
A social constructionist perspective guided the theoretical framework of this study with the broad goal of exploring intercultural couples’ subjective experiences of cross-cultural parenting through examining their personal narratives. Social constructionism is based on an interpretivist orientation in which there are multiple human realities constructed through interactions with others (Gergen, 1985). This theoretical framework provided a conceptual map to understand how individuals and couples identify and situate their cultural context, the meaning with which they ascribe aspects of cultural difference, and how they negotiate or mutually construct culturally diverse families. The focus on each individual’s experience of parenting provided a lens through which to explore such phenomena (Crippen, 2008). Using a grounded theory research design outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998), intercultural parents themselves directly provided data through narratives of their perspectives and interpretations of daily interactions with their partners in the context of raising children together.
Participants
Ethics approval to conduct this study was granted by the University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval #HE05/213) valid for the duration of the study. Participation in this study was completely voluntary, and individuals could withdraw at any point. Prior to the interview, each participant was briefed on the rationale and goals of the study, and written informed consent was obtained.
Participants were recruited by the first author through the distribution of a flyer to professional and personal contacts, at conferences, and through university listservs (contact the first author to obtain a copy of the flyer). After screening for eligibility, 21 individuals consented and were interviewed for this study. No compensation was given. A strategy of stratified purposeful sampling was employed for data collection. Minichiello, Sullivan, Greenwood, and Axford (2004) described this sampling strategy as one that “relies on identifying a particular criterion that applies to the sample group and then sampling for specific instances of that criterion” (p. 226). The general inclusion criterion was intercultural couples raising one or more children together. Initial recruitment was focused on heterosexual intercultural parents who were born and raised in different countries of origin until at least 16 years of age, where primary enculturation, a process where individuals internalize their primary values and cultural imprint from early childhood (Ting-Toomey, 1999), would have occurred in each respective country. This sample included intercultural couples with different national origins, ethnic backgrounds, racial identities, and/or religious affiliations. A total of six couples were interviewed either individually or conjointly depending on preference, and all six couples were interviewed more than once for follow-up and/or theoretical sampling to elaborate or confirm emerging themes. Nine additional individuals were interviewed without their partners.
As data collection and analysis progressed in this study, the sampling strategy shifted from purposive to theoretical sampling to better understand the variation of experiences of nonimmigrant intercultural parents with differing levels of acculturation to the United States. Theoretical sampling is a strategy employed to “maximize opportunities to discover variations among concepts and to densify categories in terms of their properties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 201). In this study, after the initial five interviews were transcribed and coded, certain themes emerged across multiple interviews. For example, categories such as acculturation and proximity to families of origin appeared to be important dynamics for intercultural parents. Theoretical sampling was used to better understand the variation of experiences of nonimmigrant intercultural parents with differing levels of acculturation to the United States. Thus, the purposive sample expanded to include a spectrum of couples that were first- or second-generation Americans married to first-, second-, or later generation Americans, as well as variation in residential proximity to families of origin (Crippen, 2008). Sampling continued until the criterion of theoretical saturation had been met, wherein no additional open codes were generated. See Table 1 for the list of the 15 couples which indicates the 21 individuals who were interviewed and their cultural and demographic information.
Participant Demographic Information.
Note. Country of origin represents the country from which the participant or the participant’s parents (*) immigrated.
Names in boldface indicate participants who were interviewed.
Adapted from Crippen (2008).
Procedure
A recursive, conversational style of in-depth interviewing was used to enable the participants’ narratives and experiences to emerge with minimal interference. An interview guide was developed to loosely structure main topic areas derived from the research questions and literature review. As data collection progressed with theoretical sampling, the interview guide was continually modified to reflect new areas and emergent themes to investigate (contact the first author for a copy of the interview guide). Interviews were conducted at locations convenient to the participants, most frequently the participants’ homes. Digital audio recordings and field notes were taken during the interviews.
In the grounded theory tradition, data analysis began with the process of open coding transcripts using Ethnograph software for qualitative research to assist with search and retrieval functions. This software facilitates a structure to organize meaningful trends found in the narratives and begins with open coding. Open codes were generated from a line-by-line analysis of the transcripts while identifying and assigning constituent units of meaning. With each additional interview, a method of constant comparison was used to generate consistent open codes and to engage in thematic discovery described by Strauss and Corbin (1998) in the identification of axial codes or categories. As different patterns and themes emerged, the selection of additional participants was made on the basis of emergent theoretically important categories. Finally, selective codes were identified as larger themes that converged to form working propositions. The final stages of data collection and analysis included follow-up interviews with a subset of participants for clarification and elaboration of emergent themes.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) developed the terms credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to be used as parallel naturalist equivalents for quantitative standards of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. Member checks and peer debriefing with the supervisory team were used to demonstrate credibility in this study as well as to contribute feedback on the emerging categories and themes. Detailed narratives from the original transcripts (Crippen, 2008) provided the means to evaluate the appropriateness and transferability of these findings to similar contexts. To maximize the fidelity, or dependability of the data in this study, all interviews were transcribed solely by the first author and were checked and rechecked for accuracy of the verbatim transcription. Coding and data analysis were conducted by a three-member research team including the first author and two faculty supervisors. Finally, confirmability of the research findings was maintained through the use of an audit trail, including field notes, analytic memos, and diagrams recorded in a research journal.
Results
Different strategies for adapting to intercultural differences emerged from the intersection of two areas. On one continuum, participants described very different ways in which they perceived the extent of their cultural differences. In addition, the degrees to which they mutually acculturated to these cultural differences varied on another continuum. Finally, the interaction of these perceptions of cultural differences and the processes of acculturation seemed to cluster into five different strategies of cultural adaption used by couples to navigate intercultural parenthood (see Table 2).
Strategies of Intercultural Adaption Among Intercultural Parents.
Perceptions of Cultural Differences
Responding to questions based upon their experiences of parenting, participants described a wide range of how and to what extent they constructed the diversity within their relationships, ranging on a continuum from minimization to emphasis of their cultural difference. For those who minimized the influence of cultural factors, these differences were identified as insignificant or less salient for parenting concerns. For others, cultural differences in parenting were recognized in areas such as naming, discipline, education, food, and the roles of parents and children. In some cases, participants acknowledged and differentiated their cultural diversity (acknowledge-differentiate) where cultural differences were recognized, but the couple focused on compromising or alternating their differences, which were perceived as mutually exclusive. In these instances, identified areas of commonality were not perceived as sufficient to supersede conflicting cultural differences in child rearing and some form of conflict resolution was required. Other participants acknowledged differences and emphasized their ability as a couple to mutually transcend potential conflicts (acknowledge-transcend) through an integration of their respective cultural values and norms. These couples identified aspects of commonality that superseded their cultural differences. Finally, others emphasized differences within the relationship that were neither overlapping nor contradictory. For these participants, cultural differences were construed as an additive means for the couple and their children to gain access to distinct cultural codes, scripts, values, norms, traditions, and rules beyond their own cultures.
Degrees of Mutual Acculturation
Participants demonstrated different degrees of mutual acculturation, defined by Falicov (1995) as a process of dual adaptation in intercultural marriage to negotiate cultural conflicts and to create new cultural codes. The degree to which partners in this study adjusted to the cultural values of the other partner emerged into four categories: low, asymmetrical, convergent, and high mutual acculturation. The first level of mutual acculturation is described as low mutual acculturation. At this level, one spouse relinquished his or her cultural values and assimilated to the culture of the partner. Although partners were raised in different cultures of origin, disparate cultural values did not persist because they were abandoned by one partner in favor of the dominant norms in the culture of residence of the other. The next level, asymmetrical acculturation, was apparent in couples when there was some degree of mutual accommodation to the culture of each partner, but the acculturative process was disproportionate to either primary maternal or primary paternal accommodation to the culture of the nonimmigrant parent. Other intercultural couples exhibited a type of convergent mutual acculturation which fell into two subcategories, either third culture or third space accommodation. Third culture (Romano, 2001) couples immigrated to the United States from separate countries of origin. Each partner demonstrated a level of acculturation to the United States, their culture of residence in this sample, but relatively less or any acculturation to their partners’ heritage cultures. Third space(Perel, 2000) accommodators shared a convergent acculturation to a new cultural hybrid that resembled aspects of each of their cultural backgrounds, but not high acculturation to either of their respective cultures. Finally, some couples demonstrated high mutual acculturation. In these instances, both individuals self-identified as bicultural, retaining the values from their respective cultures of origin as well as acculturating to the culture of their partner.
Strategies of Cultural Adaptation
The ways in which couples perceived their cultural differences (minimizing to emphasis) and the degrees of mutual acculturation (low, asymmetrical, convergent, and high) intersected to create five different strategies of cultural adaption: assimilation, cultural tourism, cultural transition, cultural amalgamation, and dual biculturalism. Reviewing Table 2, the construction of cultural difference runs across the x-axis, and the degree of mutual acculturation runs down the y-axis to yield into the five strategies. Quotes are used to support each of the five strategies described below.
Assimilation
One strategy of cultural adaptation in parenting was assimilation, a term developed by Berry (1980) applied to the experience of immigrants. This strategy characterized the assimilation of an immigrant parent to the dominant American culture of the other parent, as well as a relinquishment of the former’s heritage cultural values when making parenting decisions. Intercultural couples who exhibited a strategy of assimilation minimize their cultural differences (either consciously or not), and demonstrated a low degree of mutual acculturation. Specifically, one partner unilaterally accommodated the cultural norms, values, and traditions in making parenting decisions based on the denial and suppression of one’s cultural identity to adopt the parenting values of one’s partner.
The narratives of Monique and Anastasia (all names have been changed to maintain anonymity) indicated that their motivations for this unilateral approach included pressures of cultural alienation and a preference for integration. In reference to their countries of origin they described “I was a stranger,” and “I hate my country,” in contrast with their favorable impressions of the United States such as “My life changed practically overnight here, for the better … I feel really blessed,” and “American culture felt more comfortable to me.” As a result of their assimilation and relinquishment, they did not emphasize cultural differences with their partners and they described a low investment or commitment to transmit values from their cultures of origin to their children. Both Monique and Anastasia emphatically expressed that they intended to never return to their countries of origin, nor to transmit those cultural values to their children. For example, in response to her intentions to ever return to Russia with her son for a visit Anastasia emphasized “No, never … I want to raise [my son] more as an American.” Thus, their children’s socialization was primarily to dominant American culture.
Cultural tourism
A second strategy of cultural adaptation for intercultural parents that emerged from the data was cultural tourism, a term developed by Perel (2000) to describe cross-national marriages. The strategy of cultural tourism denotes a pattern of asymmetrical mutual acculturation among intercultural couples, primarily with paternal accommodation (Crippen, 2008). The primary caretakers (in these cases, all mothers) were from the dominant U.S. culture and the paternal culture of origin was viewed as “the other” culture, a source of both unfamiliarity and intrigue much as the cultural tourism described by Perel (2000). Evident in this approach, mothers from the dominant culture exhibited relatively less investment and commitment to transmit the paternal cultures of origin; thus, fathers relinquished a higher proportion of their cultural norms and traditions and exhibited a greater accommodation to their partner’s culture.
Jackie and Shana embodied aspects of cultural tourism in their narratives of cross-cultural parenting. They acknowledged cultural differences with their partners, but in the child-rearing domain the maternal American cultural values prevailed. In contrast, the cultural norms and traditions of their partners were perceived as a “bonus,” but not essential to transmit. Furthermore, participants spoke of introducing their children to cultural traditions from the paternal culture of origin when they were not in conflict with the maternal cultural values and they did not represent a cultural sacrifice for the mothers. For example, Jackie described her children’s participation in traditional Vietnamese ceremonies such as a funeral for their paternal great-grandmother, and Shana elaborated on her inclusion of Hispanic foods and music in her household. However, when issues of child rearing were in conflict, the maternal cultural values dominated.
Within the strategy of cultural tourism, a degree of enculturation of children occurred through holiday celebrations, relationships with grandparents, introduction to foods, and short-term, tourist visits to the paternal country of origin. Julia remarked that although “it’s hard to be a grandparent from 10,000 miles away,” she envisioned her daughter possibly spending parts of the summer in Poland as a teenager with her paternal grandparents. Jackie did not have plans or ambition to travel to Vietnam with her children, but she described family excursions to nearby “Little Saigon,” a Vietnamese enclave of shops, restaurants, and services in Southern California, as a means for Trinh’s family to expose their children to their paternal heritage.
Although language learning was encouraged especially to facilitate communication with grandparents, there were low levels of maternal commitment within this strategy because the mothers did not speak nor attempt to learn the paternal heritage languages. Jackie embodied this perspective of cultural tourism by stating “I don’t understand any Vietnamese and sometimes my husband forgets to speak to them in Vietnamese … but [their grandmother] speak to them in Vietnamese because that is what she is comfortable with.”
Cultural transition
Cultural transition was a third strategy of cultural adaptation identified among intercultural parents, a strategy of asymmetrical acculturation among intercultural parents with primarily maternal accommodation. Falicov (1995) introduced the concept of cultural transition for intermarried couples as a developmental and temporal progression through stages of dissonance, adaptation and accommodation, increased empathy, and identity change that she compared with the process of mutual acculturation. Using this framework, mothers who immigrated from other cultures or were raised in traditional immigrant households in the United States identified a tension between their heritage cultures and their culture of residence. This dissonance was perceived as a type of cultural transition between their families of origin and of marriage.
Similar to the strategy of cultural tourism, cultural transition was characterized by an acknowledgment of cultural differences and asymmetrical mutual acculturation. Unlike cultural tourism where the paternal culture was viewed as “the other,” the maternal culture of origin within the context of a strategy of cultural transition could be seen as “another.” Mothers demonstrated a strong preference to transmit their cultural traditions and values to their children as well as the values of the dominant culture of residence shared by the fathers. As primary caretakers of their children, immigrant or second-generation mothers in cultural transition had proportionately more influence on their children’s socialization relative to immigrant fathers in the strategy of cultural tourism.
Although mothers in cultural transition were invested in and committed to the process of transmitting values to their children from their ancestral cultures of origin, Sandra and Anya expressed numerous constraints to this process. In general, they lacked proximate support such as extended family or grandparents to facilitate heritage cultural transmission to their children. As such, the primary enculturation of their children was to the culture of residence. There was a consistent preference enunciated by mothers to transmit their heritage language to their children, although they enumerated many logistical barriers to multilingual households. For example, Sandra stated:
[My son] was fully bilingual by the time he was two … But then when he went to pre-school, he told me that he didn’t need it anymore. And he knew that I spoke both, and he wanted me to speak English. Then his sister came along and of course … he would only speak English to her. I took [my three-year-old daughter] to India … and she loved it there. I was really happy that she got along so well there and it seemed like she understood a lot … Most of my mother’s family still lives in India and this was a great opportunity for her to learn about her cultural and religious background. I plan to take her back every couple of years.
Cultural amalgamation
A fourth strategy of cultural adaptation in parenting was cultural amalgamation, a term developed by Crippen (2008) to describe the process of blending or combining elements in an intercultural union. Parents who used this strategy conceptualized cultural differences as acknowledge-transcend. Typically, these parents recognized the persistence of cultural differences, but viewed them as complementary and convergent in areas that were designated as significant such as religion or core values. For example, Samuel and Sonya agreed on a child-centric approach to child rearing which they defined as having one stay-at-home parent. This shared belief enabled them to relinquish their respective culturally constructed gender roles and to blend their cultural values for a higher goal. Samuel relinquished his British norm of financial provider, and Sonya pursued her medical education rather than assume the role of stay-at-home mother. With their mutual abandonment of culturally defined gender roles, they gained flexibility to incorporate other aspects of their cultures such as blended secular holiday traditions, and rituals celebrating life transitions.
An additional aspect of cultural amalgamation that emerged among parents in this study was convergent mutual acculturation to a third culture or third space, terms developed by Falicov (1995) and Perel (2000) to describe the construction of a new transcultural reality. As applied to intercultural parenting, Katherine and Daniel embodied this aspect of cultural amalgamation in their decision to educate their children at home. For Daniel and his Japanese family, home-schooling was contrary to cultural norms of conformity and group socialization. Katherine held a more individualistic approach that home-schooling was one option among many for their children. They both concluded that home-schooling would provide greater latitude to inculcate diverse cultural values outside of the formal American educational system. Their amalgamation process resulted in a cultural hybrid of an individually structured educational system that emphasized cooperation and interdependence with other families as well as greater flexibility to participate in activities sponsored by their predominately Asian church.
In the strategy of cultural amalgamation, intercultural parents in this study demonstrated strong mutual commitment to transmit aspects of their respective cultures to their children. Enculturation was facilitated by grandparents who resided both in the United States and overseas. This encouraged cultural learning through short-term and extended visits to the culture of origin of one or both parents. Ola described this enculturation process with his children on a trip to Nigeria to visit his family:
In terms of culturally, part of what I would love to impart to my kids, is the connection to my homeland, to Africa, to my village, to my extended family, to make them feel that they have their roots somewhere, same in England. So that … I don’t have to remind them they are Nigerian. We’re planning [to celebrate] the Jewish holidays at home, and then … we are going to go to her parents’ house for Christmas. We’ll try to explain it to [our daughter] that her grandparents celebrate it like that, and it isn’t worse, just different. I want her to learn French because I speak French. The thing is, it is really difficult for [because] my husband only speaks English … and I just have to remind myself that when I am home to switch to French.
Dual biculturalism
Dual biculturalism characterizes a symmetrical process of acculturation to the culture of both partners. Those who pursued this strategy emphasized their respective sets of cultural values, rules, norms, and behaviors to be learned and transmitted to their children. In this study, parents who employed this strategy demonstrated a high commitment to biculturalism (Berry, 1980) and to transmit both sets of their values, rules, languages, and cultural codes to their children. Through modeling, their children presumably internalized the capacity to synthesize and integrate different cultural worldviews. Consequently, the children in this category were bilingual and bicultural, from which they developed the ability to codeswitch and navigate between cultures. Marie exemplified the high level of commitment to parent in a second language:
I had to learn it all. It was weird for me. I didn’t know the names for certain things, and I didn’t know like, “What do you say when you pat someone to sleep?” But now, it’s weird if I hold a baby I can hardly speak in English because everything that I want to say is in Spanish … it has taken over and it has become my primary parenting language. They are becoming bicultural by learning my code of Spanish at the same time they are learning the English codes by living here. That is how they are becoming bicultural; it’s not only speaking the language, but the code they are learning. Like humor … It is the social taboos that set the parameters, and humor is one code I am giving my children. [Our daughter’s Spanish] took off when she was three and we went to Spain. I think until that time she saw Spanish as sort of a weird thing that the two of us did at home that no one else used. And when we went to Spain … she realized … that to play with the other kids and to get anything from them, she needed to say it in Spanish.
Discussion
Based upon this diverse set of qualitative interviews, intercultural couples employed five different strategies for adapting to cultural differences. The strategies each couple in this study chose were influenced by and an intersection of the country of residence and level of acculturation; gender and/or primary caregiver influence; desire to transmit culture of origin; and opportunities for cultural immersion experiences.
For some intercultural couples, full assimilation by one partner to the culture of residence was not only a conscious choice but also a desired outcome. In this sample, some women moved from another country, lived in and valued American culture highly, and devalued aspects of their own culture to the extent that they had no interest in passing down their cultures of origin to their children. Thus, their American husbands had no need to accommodate.
In contrast, most other couples in this sample wanted to pass down at least some aspects of their culture and could do so to varying degrees. In the cases of asymmetrical accommodation extended family was far away, and parents were unable to provide cultural immersion experiences for their children. For instance, some non-American mothers living in the United States wanted to instill values from their cultures of origin, and as primary caregivers had some opportunity to do so; this represented the cultural transition group. Some fathers from other countries living in the United States, however, had less opportunity to expose their children to their culture of origin because the mothers were the primary caregivers and had greater influence. Thus, fathers provided a cultural tourism type of experience through limited interactions with the extended family.
Other couples established a cultural amalgamation with more evidence of mutual acculturation, blending cultures in one of the two ways. In some cases, partners who were each raised in different countries and now as a couple resided in a third country chose to both acculturate to a third culture, their new culture of residence. Still other couples were able to create a third space by negotiating aspects of cultural differences and more equally exposing their children to both cultures of origin. The difference that appeared in this group as compared with other groups already described is that these intercultural couples explicitly decided to transmit both cultures and languages, and they were able to provide some cultural immersion experiences in their cultures of origin. Finally, the fifth strategy that emerged was dual biculturalism where children were exposed to both cultures, both languages, and had cultural immersion experiences. One salient difference from the third space couples was that these parents wanted their children to know both cultures as separate and distinct, so that they would have the ability to code switch between cultures rather than creating a new hybrid third culture.
Implications for Practice
While the goal of qualitative research is not to generalize to the larger population, Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that transferability of the findings to similar groups can be based on “thick descriptions [of the data] to enable someone … to reach a conclusion about whether transfer can be contemplated” (p. 316). Researchers and clinicians can evaluate the appropriateness and transferability of these findings to similar contexts based on the provided details of the sampling strategies, participant information, and samples of the rich narrative data that emerged from this study.
We have identified several implications for counselors that can be gleaned from this research. These findings suggest that it is important to understand how individuals identify and situate their cultural context and that of their partner. Participants from this study revealed that there are multiple and interacting constructions of cultural difference. For some couples, discrepancies in cultural values were salient, and for others it was aspects of cultural commonality that were emphasized. Intercultural couples are not a homogenous group, and therapists must first consider the client’s own and the partner’s cultural identification before drawing conclusions.
Counselors also need to be aware of any biases they may have when working with intercultural couples. Some counselors may have a bias toward acculturating to the dominant culture of residence, while others may believe it is essential for parents to continue cultural traditions and pass down parental heritages. Because this sample was from a nonclinical population, the strategies each couple used worked best for that couple and seemed to do so in a successful way. Therefore, it is critical for counselors to know their own biases and avoid inadvertently imposing those values on intercultural couples with whom they work.
Research is limited on the topic of intercultural parenting, and more is needed for this growing population. For example, while this qualitative study is not meant to be generalizable, evaluating whether these strategies can be applied to intercultural couples in therapy may be useful in helping couples in therapy to articulate how they situate their cultures of origin and view their cultural differences. In addition, conducting longitudinal studies on what the impact of these different strategies may or may not have to their children’s ethnic identity, self esteem, and overall function would be beneficial.
Intercultural parents share a unique opportunity to personify cultural sensitivity and understanding through their experiences of navigating cultural differences and constructing culturally diverse families. As the numbers of intercultural parents and culturally diverse families continue to grow, this population warrants increased attention for both researchers and practitioners. These findings have contributed to this end through an examination of the experiences of intercultural parents who are not in therapy, to better understand how couples can benefit from their diversity and differences within a family.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.