Gender and Diversity in FamilyCommunication: A Content Analysis of

the Four Undergraduate Textbooks

Lynne M. Webb, Amanda J. Bourgerie, Milton W. Schaper,Kayla B. Johnson, Krista L. Dubbs, Kylie N. Mountain, Kim

K. Harp, and Amber M. WalkerDepartment of Communication

University of Arkansas

A content analysis of the 4 extant undergraduate textbooks on family communicationexamined tables of contents, indexes, headings within the text, and illustrative exam-ples, to discover the amount of coverage the authors devote to issues of gender and di-versity. Friedman’s two-way analyses of variance by ranks revealed significant dif-ferences between the books in the amount of coverage devoted to diversity issues; thebooks did not differ significantly in the amount of coverage devoted to gender issues.We observed that the books varied widely in the specific issues they addressed intheir treatment of diversity and gender concerns, and based on the findings, offer spe-cific recommendations for textbook adoption.

Despite research and pedagogical interest through the 1970s, the first collegiatetextbook that focused solely on the topic of family communication was not pub-lished until 1982 (i.e., Galvin & Brommel, 1982). Although textbooks specificallyin family communication do not have a long history, textbooks in the broader areaof interpersonal communication (IPC) have appeared regularly since the early1970s (i.e., Griffin & Patton, 1971; Keltner, 1970; McCroskey, Larson, & Knapp,1971). Indeed, a body of scholarship has developed concerning the analysis of IPCtextbooks (DeVito, 1986; Dorris, 1981; Hall, 1984; Posner, 1993; Schneider, 1992;VerLinden, 1985; Webb & Thompson-Hayes, 2002; Wood & Inman, 1993). Re-searchers have analyzed both the readability as well as the content of IPC text-

THE JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION, 4(1), 35–52Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynne M. Webb, Department ofCommunication, 417 Kimpel Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. E-mail:lynnewebb320@cs.com

books. Specific content issues included ethics, theoretical bias, interpersonal com-petencies (i.e., skills), and, of particular relevance to this study, gender and ethnicbias. For example, Gonzalez observed that “the theory from research, and the ped-agogy in our field is based on individualistic Euro–American conceptions of nor-mal relationships and family” (1991, p. 3). Gonzalez argued that often the theoriesdiscussed in IPC textbooks, such as Knapp’s stages (1984) “have become so com-monly cited that they have all but become rarefied as gospel truth in our field”(1991, p. 12), despite the fact that such theories fail to depict accurately relation-ships in other cultures.

Three authors raised concerns about the portrayal of gender in IPC textbooks(Dorris, 1981; Wood & Inman, 1993). Wood and Inman (1993) concluded that IPCtextbooks advocate a feminine style of relating in certain interpersonal situationsand a masculine style of relating in other interpersonal situations. Similarly, Dorris(1981) concluded that IPC textbooks consider androgyny healthy. Dorris (1981)reported that IPC textbook authors recommended a masculine orientation (i.e.,non-nurturing) for issues involving power, problem solving, and self-esteem ver-sus a feminine approach (i.e., nurturing) for issues involving emotions and rela-tionships.

Why have so many scholars so closely examined IPC textbooks? Posner (1993)offered a compelling warrant for the ongoing evaluation of textbooks:

Theperspectives included in textbooksare significant, because theycome to represent,in Michael Apple’s terms, “What is to count as legitimate content within particular dis-ciplines and thus what students are to receive as official knowledge” (1985, p. 154). Forthe same reason those perspectives that are excluded or marginalized become signifi-cant as well, as they are denied, at least implicitly, as “legitimate content.” (p. 4)

Although examination of IPC textbooks has been exemplary, examination offamily communication texts has been sparse. In a traditional book-review essay,Whitchurch (1992) reviewed the four undergraduate textbooks in family commu-nication available during the early 1990s (i.e., Beebe & Masterson, 1986; Galvin &Brommel, 1991; Pearson, 1989; Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1990). Re-cently, Amason (2002) replicated and extended Whitchurch’s 1992 work, againproviding a comprehensive book-review essay of the four undergraduate textbooksin family communication available at the dawn of the 21st century (i.e., Galvin &Brommel, 2000; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Turner & West, 1998; Yerby,Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1995); she discussed their theoretical scope andcontent areas as well as organization and writing style. However, both Whitchurch(1992) and Amason (2002) only briefly raised the important concern of the amountof attention devoted to issues of gender and diversity; neither reviewer reported asystematic content analysis concerning these issues. In contrast to previous discus-sions of textbooks in family communication, this study (a) conducted an extensive

36 WEBB ET AL.

content analysis of the four extant undergraduate textbooks (b) focused on theamount of the authors’ coverage of gender and diversity issues.

This study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of collegiate textbooks in com-munication by following in the tradition of content-analyzing IPC textbooks(DeVito, 1986; Dorris, 1981; Hall, 1984; Posner, 1993; VerLinden, 1985; Webb &Thompson-Hayes, 2002; Wood & Inman, 1993), as well as the tradition of con-tent-analyzing communication textbooks to discover type or amount of specifictopical treatment (e.g., Allen & Preiss, 1990; Clevenger & Phifer, 1959; Pelias,1989; Schneider, 1991). The purpose of this study was to conduct a content analy-sis of the extant undergraduate textbooks in family communication to determinethe amount of coverage the authors devote to issues of gender and diversity.

We had three reasons for focusing our analysis on issues of gender and diversityin undergraduate textbooks on family communication rather than on many otherimportant content areas examined in these books: (a) In discussing the latest trendsin family communication pedagogy, Galvin claimed that “many instructors incor-porate perceptual screens (e.g., race, gender, class) through which humans inter-pret their experiences” (2001, p.18). This research assessed the amount of cover-age the textbook authors devote to issues of gender and diversity, issues we assumeto be immediately relevant to these perceptual screens. (b) We agreed withGudykunst and Lee that “research on European American families may or may notgeneralize to non-European American families” (2001, pp. 82–83). Therefore, webelieve that textbook authors must address issues of diversity or risk misrepresent-ing what we know about communication in White families as the definitive re-search on communication in all families. (c) We offer this study, in part, as a re-sponse to Galvin’s (1985) call for communication research on “alternative familyforms” (pp. 105–106) as well as “the ‘normal’ communication patterns of variedethnic groups” (p. 107). More recently, Rogers reiterated Galvin’s (1985) concernsin her call for increased research on “different family forms (blended, step-fami-lies, single-families, extended families) of different social, ethnic, racial, and cul-tural backgrounds” (2001, p. 32). In sum, we selected our focus because we be-lieved that exposure to gender and diversity issues provides the undergraduatestudent with a more complete understanding of family communication, and that,conversely, ignorance of these issues may provide students with a false and incom-plete understanding of family communication in contemporary American society.

METHOD

We conducted our content analysis in two phases. In Phase 1, we analyzed the fourextant undergraduate textbooks in family communication. Following our originalanalysis, but before submitting the manuscript for publication, Turner and West

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 37

(2002) released their second edition. Thus, in Phase 2, we conducted a separatecontent analysis of Turner and West’s second edition.

Sample

Given that our purpose was to discover the amount of coverage authors devote toissues of gender and diversity in family communication textbooks, we examinedthe four in-print family communication textbooks marketed for undergraduatecourses in family communication: Galvin and Brommel’s (2000) Family Commu-nication: Cohesion and Change, Turner and West’s (2002) Perspectives on FamilyCommunication, Noller and Fitzpatrick’s (1993) Communication in Family Rela-tionships, and Yerby et al.’s (1995) Understanding Family Communication. Onlyone of the four books, Communication in Family Relationships, written by Nollerand Fitzpatrick (1993), was marketed as an upper division text. Three of the fourtextbooks were beyond first edition, perhaps indicating long-term popularity(Galvin & Brommel, 2000; Turner & West, 2002; Yerby et al., 1995).

Coders

Phase 1. The coders were five students enrolled in a graduate course in in-terpersonal communication at a Research I university in the Southern UnitedStates. Four of the five coders were women. The coders ranged in age from 21 to 33years with a mean age of 26.8 years. All coders were European Americans.

Phase 2. The senior author recruited a new coder, similar in profile to theoriginal coders, to conduct the content analysis on the Turner and West (2002) sec-ond edition. The new coder, hereafter called the sixth coder, was a 27-year-old, fe-male European American, second-semester master’s student in Communicationenrolled in a graduate level seminar in Interpersonal Communication.

Procedure

Researchers have analyzed textbooks using a variety of methods. A widely copiedmethod of content analysis for textbooks involves counting the number of page ref-erences to a particular topic in the index (Dunne & L’Abate, 1978). A variation ofthis method involves assessing the amount of topic coverage in a textbook by cal-culating the percentage of page references relative to the size of the text (Harari &Jacobson, 1984). Citation studies of textbooks involve counting the number oftimes certain research is cited within the text (Knapp, 1985). Researchers havestudied trends within a discipline, as represented by coverage of topics in populartextbooks, by identifying content categories and quantifying the change in topiccoverage over time (Burns & Rupiper, 1977).

38 WEBB ET AL.

We desired to analyze the family communication textbooks as an instructor inthe textbook selection process might proceed. We believed that if the textbook au-thors addressed issues of gender and diversity in any substantial manner, evidenceof such treatment should be relatively easy to locate in books’ tables of contents,headings, or indexes, as well as in the text of the books themselves.

Phase 1. To this end, we developed and employed the following nine-stepprocedure, based on three factors: (a) previously employed techniques describedearlier, (b) the methodology employed in the most recently published content anal-ysis of IPC textbooks (Webb & Thompson-Hayes, 2002), as well as (c) our desireto analyze the family communication textbooks as an instructor in the textbook se-lection process might proceed.

1. We randomly assigned each book to a coder for initial analysis. Coders inde-pendently examined the textbooks’ tables of contents, indexes, and headings,searching for references to gender and race, ethnicity, or culture. They made hand-written lists of all relevant findings. To provide coders with a structured protocolfor the analysis, we assigned each book a specific order in which coders researchedthe topics (i.e., gender then diversity or the reverse) using a random number table.As we assigned each book to subsequent coders, orders were counterbalanced.

2. Following a preliminary attempt to content analyze, coders desired morespecific definitions of gender and race or ethnicity. Thus, we narrowed the opera-tional definition of gender to include only situations in which gender roles couldnot be interchanged readily. For example, if an author quoted the personal story ofa child’s father eating dinner with him or her, we did not note the example becausea mother could just as readily eat dinner with a child, with little variation in the eat-ing behavior of either parent or the child. In contrast, if a text discussed a specificmother–daughter conflict in such a way that the author appeared to indicate that afather–daughter conflict could be entirely different, then we “counted” the exam-ple as illustrative of gender differences.

We elected to broaden the topic of ethnicity, race, and culture to include diver-sity in general. Specifically, we looked for references to families that varied frommiddle class, nuclear, two-parent, biological, European American families. Ouroperational definition significantly broadened diversity beyond the usual concernsabout race and ethnicity. We offer the following reasoning to justify our choice:Families create unique cultures through discourse; the number and type of individ-uals in a given family may influence the kinds of talk and thus the family culture.Because family structure and discourse influence the development of family cul-tures, we elected to examine (i.e., to look for and to note) any form of diversity thatthe textbook authors represented in such a way as to imply that the specific “differ-ence” might influence how families communicate and thus may influence thekinds of cultures they create. Such forms of diversity were not limited to but in-

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 39

cluded family structures (e.g., three-generation households), parents from differ-ing socioeconomic strata, and families of atypical forms (e.g., two gay men raisinga child), in addition to the usual concerns of race, ethnicity, and geographi-cally-based culture. For example, when the authors discussed differences betweencommunication patterns in one- versus two-parent families, we coded the discus-sion as addressing diversity.

We acknowledge that issues of both gender and diversity may arise in discus-sions about gay and lesbian families. We elected to place references to gay and les-bian issues in the diversity category. We did so because we believed that the mostoutstanding feature of such families is their variation from stereotypes about typi-cal American families, that is, their diversity.

3. We randomly assigned the books to second coders who again independentlyexamined them, employing the techniques described earlier in Steps 1 and 2.

4. The two coders of each book met with a randomly assigned arbitrator, an-other coder who had not previously examined the book. The two coders settled dis-agreements through discussion. The arbitrator typed the final list of results for thebook and served as decision maker when agreement could not be reached throughconsensus.

5. Given that all authors appeared to employ examples as one of their primarypedagogical devices, we elected to assess the amount of coverage the authors de-voted to issues of gender and diversity through their examples. To this end, we ran-domly selected one tenth of each textbook for line-by-line examination. The Step 1coders for each book carefully read and independently examined the selected pas-sages, recording the number of lines devoted to each relevant example.

Werandomlyselected thecodedpassagesbydividingeachbook into thirdsbasedon totalnumberofpages.Usinga randomnumber table,weselected forexamination10 to 14 pages from each third of each book. We elected to examine pages from eachthird of each book to discover the amount of coverage the authors consistently de-voted to issues of gender and diversity in illustrative examples. None of the selectedpassages fellwithinachapterorsectiondevotedspecifically to issuesofgenderordi-versity. Please note that the coders discovered and recorded chapters devoted en-tirely to issues relevant to diversity and gender during Step 1 of the analysis.

6. The two coders from the previous step met with their original arbitrator. Fol-lowing the same procedure described in Step 4, the three coders developed a finallist of the line-by-line findings for each book.

7. The senior author and the five coders compiled the data from Steps 4 and 6into a preliminary master list for the four textbooks. The list included each specificreference to gender and diversity issues found in the tables of contents, indexes,and headings within the text as well as the number of lines devoted to relevant ex-amples. Each coder received a copy of this list.

8. We randomly assigned each textbook to yet a third coder who had notworked with the book. This coder independently attempted to locate all identified

40 WEBB ET AL.

references in the master list to (a) confirm that the reported items were present, aswell as (b) locate items present in the other books but not yet discovered in the as-signed textbook. Step 8 yielded six corrections to the 202 entries on the prelimi-nary master list, representing an error rate of only 2.97%. However, Step 8 alsoproduced an additional 40 items or 16.53% of the final list of items. These dataprovide evidence of the efficacy of including the final independent analysis of eachbook here described as Step 8. Note that three coders and an arbitrator contributedto the analysis of each book.

9. The data from Step 8 was compiled into a revised master list and comprisedthe raw data of our study.

Phase 2. The sixth coder read a copy of the manuscript describing the Phase1 study. She was instructed to read the Methods section closely, as she was to con-duct the same analysis, following the same procedures, on Turner and West’s(2002) second edition. After reading the manuscript, she met with the senior au-thor for approximately 20 min to discuss questions she had about the proceduresfor the analysis. Next, she conducted a preliminary analysis, examining two pageseach of the table of contents, the index, and the text itself, to conduct a trial analy-sis. Following the trial, she again met with the senior author for approximately 10min to discuss questions concerning the analysis. Then, she conducted the analysisfollowing Steps 1, 2, and 5 described earlier. The senior author spot-checked herfindings and altered less than 5% of the results.

RESULTS

Quantitative Results

We tabulated the raw data by frequency. Given that each book varied in size andlength, direct comparisons across books could be misleading. For example,Galvin and Brommel (2000), as well as Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993), used 28textual headings related to diversity. Although these treatments appeared equal,differences began to emerge when we compared the raw data to the total numberof headings used in each book, that is, 269 and 432, respectively. An accurate vi-sion of their differences emerged when we converted the raw frequency countsto percentages (i.e., 10.41% and 6.48%, respectively). Thus, to achieve a per-spective consistently proportional to the size and structure of the books them-selves, we converted all raw data to percentages. The results appear in Tables 1and 2.

An analysis of variance test for differences between the books was not appro-priate because the assumptions of parametric tests could not be met (e.g., normaldistribution of the dependent variable). Therefore, we conducted Friedman

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 41

two-way analyses of variance by ranks (Siegel, 1956). The analyses tested forsignificant differences between the books in the amount of coverage devoted toissues of gender and diversity across the four measures: coverage in (a) tables ofcontent, (b) indexes, and (c) headings within the text, as well as (d) the use of il-lustrative examples across randomly selected passages of text within each book.Table 2 displays the results. The analyses revealed near significant differencesbetween the books for coverage of gender issues (χ2 = 6.6, p = .08). In contrast,the analysis revealed a significant difference between the books in terms of theircoverage of diversity issues (χ2 = 8.1, p = .03).

42 WEBB ET AL.

TABLE 1Coverage of Gender and Diversity Issues in

Undergraduate Textbooks on Family Communication

Gender Diversity

Book f(X) N % f(X) N %

Tables of ContentsG&B 1 62 1.61 1 62 1.61N&F 2 60 3.33 4 60 6.67T&W1 3 160 1.88 6 160 3.75T&W2 6 173 3.49 30 173 17.34Y et al. 1 59 1.69 0 59 0.00

IndicesG&B 07 651 1.08 20 651 3.07N&F 15 570 2.63 09 570 1.58T&W1 28 801 3.50 23 801 2.87T&W2 17 727 2.34 93 727 12.79Y et al. 04 712 0.56 13 712 1.83

Headings within chaptersG&B 07 269 2.60 28 269 10.41N&F 22 432 5.09 28 432 6.48T&W1 04 242 1.65 16 242 6.61T&W2 15 164 9.15 32 164 19.51Y et al. 02 196 1.02 09 196 4.59

Examples from randomly selected passagescomprising 10% of the textbookG&B 106 1560 6.79 161 1560 10.32N&F 58 1224 4.74 24 1224 1.96T&W1 84 0988 8.50 175 988 17.71T&W2 70 1309 5.35 117 1309 8.94Y et al. 10 1350 0.74 107 1350 7.93

Note. G&B = Galvin and Brommel (2000); N&F = Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993); T&W1 =Turner and West (1998); T&W2 = Turner and West (2002); Y et al. = Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, andBochner (1995).

Qualitative Results

Impressions from the phase 1 coders. When the coders met to recordtheir quantitative findings, they articulated universal agreement on a series of ob-servations discovered during their discussions that were coincidental to thequantitative analysis. One coder began recording the group’s universal observa-tions; this list was circulated via e-mail. Each coder either signed off on or re-wrote the observations until they reached unanimity. The coders agreed that eachbook provided a unique approach to the issues of gender and diversity. Indeed,each coder independently developed the following qualitative impressions ofthese unique treatments.

Diversity. All four books addressed several types of diversity; the senior au-thor organized the raw data (i.e., entries from tables of contents, indexes, and tex-tual headings) regarding diversity into nine categories: age and developmental di-versity (e.g., empty-nest syndrome and retirement), biological and medicaldiversity (e.g., alcoholic families), coupling and marital status (e.g., cohabitationand couples), economic and social class (e.g., social class), ethnicity and racial di-versity (e.g., Chinese-American families), family forms (e.g., single-parent fami-lies), geographically-based culture (e.g. collectivist culture), religion (e.g., manag-ing religious challenges), and sexual orientation (e.g., sexual exclusivity andcommitment in homosexual couples). A simple visual inspection of the raw datarevealed that the authors devoted much more attention to some types of diversitythan to others. For example, many entries appear under the categories of culture,couple types, and family forms, whereas relatively few entries appear under thecategories economic and social class, biological and medical diversity, and ethnicand racial diversity.

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 43

TABLE 2Analyses for Differences in Coverage Between the Books

Coverage of Gender Issues Coverage of Diversity Issues

G&B(%)

N&F(%)

TW2(%)

Y(%) χ2 p

G&B(%)

N&F(%)

TW2(%)

Y(%) χ2 p

Table of Contents 1.61 3.33 2.89 1.69 6.6 .08 1.61 6.67 13.87 0.00 8.1 .03Indexes 1.08 2.63 2.34 0.56 3.07 1.58 12.79 1.83Headings 2.60 5.09 6.10 1.02 10.41 6.48 15.85 4.59Examples 6.79 4.74 5.35 0.74 10.32 1.96 8.94 7.93

Note. Abbreviations for books are as follows: G&B = Galvin and Brommel (2000); N&F = Nollerand Fitzpatrick (1993); TW2 = Turner and West (2002); Y = Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, and Bochner(1995). Each χ2 has three degrees of freedom.

Surprisingly, the books were very inconsistent in their treatment of diversity is-sues related to geographic culture. Although each of the four books mentioned cul-ture, race, or ethnicity, some authors provided more detailed information than oth-ers. For example, Yerby et al. (1995) tended to state generalities such as, “Culturalexpectations influence family interaction by imposing a cultural ‘reality’on familymembers” and “Black American culture possesses a degree of cultural integritythat is neither related to nor modeled on white American norms” (p. 165). Al-though such statements may supply valid information, the authors failed to providedetailed development of these ideas. Therefore, the Yerby et al. textbook appearedbest suited for a beginner’s course in family communication, as it provided a sim-ple overview of cultural diversity.

In general, Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993) did not focus their material on culturaldiversity. They largely limited their treatment of diversity issues to scattered exam-ples and citations as well as one chapter on “nontraditional family forms.” Al-though these authors devoted a chapter to “examining communication in a range ofdifferent types of families” (p. 227), the chapter rarely mentioned race, ethnicity,or similar concerns. Thus, the Noller and Fitzpatrick textbook would be effectivelyused in a course focusing on family communication issues other than cultural andethnic diversity.

Galvin and Brommel (2000) were the only authors to discussintergenerational differences in depth. However, they focused largely on diver-sity issues related to gay and lesbian families. In contrast, Turner and West(1998) provided a balanced approach by addressing many types of diversity aswell as communicative concerns related to diversity issues. Further, the authorsaddressed one diversity issue largely unexplored by the other authors (e.g., reli-gious diversity). Thus, we recommend the Turner and West (1998) textbook forinstructors desiring to adopt the textbook with the most thorough, detailed, andthoughtful treatment of diversity issues.

Gender. The senior author organized the raw data related to gender into sevencategories: coupling and marital status (e.g., gender differences in marital happi-ness), issues of diversity (e.g., African American families and feminism), familyroles (e.g., gender and family roles), gender and sex roles (e.g., fathers and work),men’s and women’s movements (e.g., prime-time feminism), parent–child interac-tions and parental styles (e.g., fathers and attachment), and miscellaneous gender is-sues (e.g., gender influences on decision making). Again, the authors devoted con-siderably more attention to some topics (e.g., parental styles and parent–childinteractionsandsexandgender roles) than toothers (e.g.,men’sandwomen’smove-ments). Further, the textbook authors each presented gender-related issues in uniqueways. For example, Galvin and Brommel (2000) provided limited discussion of re-search-based findings on gender and instead focused on biological sex as it related tofamily roles (e.g., mother–daughter, mother–son communication). Further, they

44 WEBB ET AL.

emphasized the notion that “stereotypical expectations of women as nurturing, de-pendent, or expressive and men as non-nurturing, independent, or instrumental aremisleading” (Galvin & Brommel, 2000, p. 68). In sum, Galvin and Brommel pro-vided limited and politically correct discussions of gender roles.

Yerby et al. (1995) employed the same overview approach in addressing genderissues that they employed in addressing diversity issues. In a brief segment of onechapter, the authors discussed “how men and women construct their identities,their relationships with each other and with their children” (p. 276). In contrast,Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993) discussed gender issues in every chapter. The au-thors consistently employed such statements as the following: “Family life is alsoaffected by the structure of the family itself which involves hierarchies by age andsex” (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993, p. 3). “Gender as a basis for power affects maritaland family relationships across a range of areas” (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993, p.203). “Until very recently social scientists [assumed] that mothers were full-timehomemakers and child tenders, while fathers were primary breadwinners” (Noller& Fitzpatrick, 1993, p. 203). Noller and Fitzpatrick addressed such a multitude ofgender-related concerns that the textbook appeared appropriate for a course focus-ing on gender and family communication.

Turner and West (1998), although not as thorough as Noller and Fitzpatrick(1993), consistently discussed gender throughout their book. Further, Turner andWest were the only authors to discuss the feminist and men’s movements:“Women’s movements have been successful in getting our society to think aboutthe value of women in families”(1998, p. 51). However, “many men have been un-locking their past and, through men’s movements, have been tapping into their fu-ture potential, working toward becoming better dads and learning to talk with theirparents” (Turner & West, 1998, p. 54). Although its discussion of gender was notas broad and thorough as its discussion of diversity issues, we concluded thatTurner and West provided the most balanced and thorough coverage of gender,without focusing their book on gender and family communication rather than fam-ily communication per se.

Format. Each book presented its information differently. Turner and West(1998) provided the most detailed table of contents as well as the most detailed in-dex. The indexes, as well as the tables of contents for the other three books, ap-peared to the naked eye approximately equal in detail. Thus, Turner and West(1998) provided easiest access to specific topics.

Although all four books used examples to illustrate concepts, the authors variedwidely in how examples were presented. Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993) incorpo-rated examples into the ongoing discussion in their text. In contrast, Yerby et al.(1995) opened each chapter with a detailed and lengthy example. The next sectionof each chapter discussed and interpreted the example. Further, the authors refer-enced the opening examples throughout the chapters. Although this pedagogical

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 45

technique provided consistency and facilitated explanation of complex concepts,the examples sometimes grew stale with continued use. Further, at times readersstruggled to see the quick, simple illustration of a concept among the examples’morass of complicated details. On the other hand, Galvin and Brommel (2000), aswell as Turner and West (1998), provided “boxed” examples that were illustrativeand explanatory. The boxed examples provided illustrations at an appropriate levelof complexity and eliminated confusion about where examples began and ended.

Qualitative Observations About Turner and West

The second edition of Turner and West (2002) differs from the first edition in sev-eral ways; we found three differences particularly striking:

1. Coverage of diversity issues increased substantially; much of chapters 7, 9,and 10 are devoted to a wide range of diversity-related topics (e.g., homelessness,domestic violence, neglected populations).

2. Although the “boxed examples” remain, each chapter begins with three ex-ample families. The authors introduce each family with one- or two-paragraph de-scriptions. The authors elaborate on the descriptions when and if such details areneeded to illustrate concepts within the chapter. Thus, from the first concept intro-duced in each chapter, the authors can draw on concrete examples in their explana-tions; however, unnecessary details never burdened the reader.

3. Each chapter contains a small (usually a half page in length) boxed sectioncalled “The Wired Family.” In these sections, the authors explicate research or crit-ical analysis about the Internet and family communication. The authors draw froma wide variety of voices, raising provocative issues about the impact of technologyon family functioning.

DISCUSSION

Summary of Results

The analyses yielded both a significant and a nonsignificant result. The books ap-pear to differ significantly in the amount of coverage on issues related to diversity,but not differ significantly in the amount of coverage on issues related to gender.Qualitative impressions, as well as the raw quantitative data, indicated that thebooks varied widely in the aspect of diversity the authors choose to emphasize, aswell as in their approaches to the treatment of gender-related issues.

Interpretation of the Results

Given the nonsignificant findings related to gender, it appears that the four in-printundergraduate textbooks in family communication were more similar than differ-

46 WEBB ET AL.

ent in the amount of coverage they devote to issues of gender. The analysis relatedto diversity yielded a significant chi-square, indicating that the books differed sig-nificantly in the amount of coverage related to diversity issues. A review of the per-centages reveals that Turner and West (2002) post three of the four highest percent-ages on diversity.

Given the nonsignificant finding related to gender and the significant finding re-lated to diversity, the books differed more in the amount of coverage they devotedto diversity versus gender issues. Indeed, we note that the highest and the lowestpercentages posted in the entire study concerned coverage of diversity issues.

How much coverage do the undergraduate textbooks on family communica-tion, as a whole, devote to issues of gender and diversity? The data displayed inTable 2 reveal that the average percentages related to coverage of gender issuesare 1.65, 2.38, 3.70, and 4.40 for the indexes, tables of contents, headings, andexamples, respectively. Similarly, the average percentages related to coverage ofdiversity issues are 4.82, 5.54, 7.29, and 9.33 for indexes, tables of contents,headings, and examples, respectively. Aside from specific chapters and sectionsdevoted to these subjects, they receive somewhat limited attention from the au-thors. Indeed, on average, gender issues comprised less than 5% of the textualmaterial we analyzed. On average, diversity issues comprised less than 10%.Given the lack of overlap in coding, we can conclude that, on average, less than15% of the textual material analyzed addressed issues of diversity and gender.

Is this coverage sufficient? The answer to that question may vary from readerto reader, depending on his or her priorities and values. Further, given that this isthe first content analysis of its kind, we cannot know if the textbook authors infamily communication devote an above average, about average, or below aver-age amount of coverage to these issues. If we had comparable data about othertypes of communication textbooks, such as books on small group communica-tion or public speaking, we would have a basis for comparison. Similarly, if wehad comparable data on sociological and psychological textbooks on family life,we would have a basis for comparison. Although beyond the scope of this study,perhaps future researchers will conduct such analyses to provide an objective ba-sis on which to evaluate our current set of textbooks in family communication.Until then, the internal comparisons across the group of four book provided bythe present research can guide teachers as they select a primary textbook fortheir students.

It is interesting to note that the highest percentages for gender coverage usuallyappeared in the examples. It would appear that the authors tended to distributetreatment of gender issues throughout their books, rather than “ghettoizing” treat-ment of gender-related topics into distinct sections or subsections of the textbook.Conversely, the highest percentages for diversity coverage tended to occur in head-ings, perhaps indicating a tendency for authors to segment treatment of diversityissues into chapters and subsections specifically devoted to such topics.

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 47

The four in-print undergraduate textbooks in family communication differedsufficiently in the extent to which they cover diversity issues, both in terms ofquantity and quality, that the instructor selecting a textbook for a course in familycommunication has a very real choice. It is interesting to note that the amount of di-versity-related material in the books may be, to some extent, a function of publica-tion date. The more recently published texts (Galvin & Brommel, 2000; Turner &West, 2002) provided more extensive coverage of diversity issues across all fourmeasures, whereas the two older textbooks (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Yerby, etal., 1995) provided the least coverage across all four measures (see Table 2). In-deed, the publisher of the most recent textbook (Turner & West, 2002) claims thebook offers a comprehensive look at diversity issues in family communication.Our study offers evidence to support the publisher’s claim (see Table 2). As long asgender and diversity remain salient issues for teachers and scholars of family com-munication, perhaps textbooks in family communication will continue to increasecoverage of diversity and gender issues with each new volume and edition.

Although our statistical analyses failed to yield a significant finding related togender, the near significant results, the percentages, the qualitative observations,and the tabular displays suggest that instructors have clear options on this topic aswell. Our findings highlight the benefit of detailed content-analytic research suchas this study. To discover if a textbook contains information on gender and diver-sity issues, an instructor selecting a textbook, perhaps under a deadline, may sim-ply look at the table of contents and index, and perhaps thumb through a bit of thetext at random, looking at headings in the text. Clearly, as the results of this studyindicate, the differences between the family communication textbooks would notbe obvious from such a cursory examination. However, this study provides bothquantitative and qualitative evidence that some books offer more thorough treat-ment of gender and diversity issues than others. Thus, our research may prove use-ful to the harried instructor selecting a textbook against a deadline.

Recommendations

Based on both qualitative and quantitative results, we recommend Turner and West(2002) as the classic family communication textbook offering thorough but bal-anced treatment of gender and an engaging treatment on a wide range of diversityissues. Further, if the instructor desires to emphasize diversity issues or anticipatesa diverse student body in the course, Turner and West’s (2002) second editionwould be an obvious choice. We recommend Noller and Fitzpatrick (1993) to in-structors desiring an emphasis on gender-related issues. We recommend Galvinand Brommel (2000) to instructors emphasizing issues related to gay and lesbianfamilies as well as those instructors who desire a distinctly nontraditional ap-proach to sex roles for women. Further, we recommend Yerby et al. (1995) for in-

48 WEBB ET AL.

structors who desire to emphasize the commonalities across individuals and fami-lies, regardless of gender and diversity issues.

Limitations of the Study

This study was not without its limitations. We assessed the authors’ considerationof issues of diversity and gender, but we failed to address other important contentissues that may be of serious concern to instructors as they select a textbook. Thus,our study may be of limited use to instructors who do not privilege the issues ofgender and diversity in the family communication classroom. Further, although weoffer some observations of a qualitative nature, we systematically assessed onlyquantitative aspects of the books. Other reviews exist that employ alternative meth-odologies to address these limitations (i.e., Amason, 2002; Whitchurch, 1992).These authors of traditional book-review essays appear to have read every word ofeach book reviewed; they commented on what they deemed to be important as-pects of both writing and coverage. In contrast, we undertook a different, scien-tific, and narrower purpose that allowed us to analyze only sampled portions ofeach book, but to analyze these passages in considerable detail by multiple coders.Based on sampling theory, we generalized from our analyses to the entire text ofthe books; some readers may lack our faith in sampling theory and thus prefer acensus of the text to our sampling technique.

Similarly, we analyzed the texts themselves and did not survey family commu-nication scholars, instructors, or students. Further, we did not ask respondentsfrom various diverse groups and genders to evaluate the books for accuracy or cov-erage. Although such surveys lie beyond the scope of this study, their results couldprove useful to teachers selecting a textbook. Thus, future researchers examiningtextbooks may consider conducting such surveys.

Further, we only studied coverage in textbooks on family communication;perhaps textbooks on IPC generally or relevant topics more narrowly drawn (i.e.,intercultural communication, gender and communication) would provide morethorough coverage of these relevant issues. The question of how the family com-munication textbooks as a group compare to the textbooks available in other spe-cialty areas provides an interesting direction for future research. Finally, futurestudies might address the relative need for four textbooks in family communica-tion. Do we need more or fewer? A comparison of the number of students en-rolled in family communication courses versus the number of students enrolledin IPC courses as compared to the number of textbooks in each area could pro-vide a basis for analysis. It is somewhat disturbing to realize that 10 years afterWhitchurch’s 1992 review of four books, Amason (2002) had only four in-printtextbooks to review. Numerous developments, including the rapid growth of theNational Communication Association’s (NCA’s) Division of Family Communi-cation as well as the birth of the Journal of Family Communication provide am-

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 49

ple evidence of the growth of family communication as a specialty area withinthe field of communication. Have so few new classes developed in the 10-yearperiod that the same number of textbooks meets our curricular needs? Alterna-tive explanations for the paucity of textbooks in family communication may in-clude a limited number of theoretical and pedagogical approaches to the subjectmatter as well as growth at the graduate (versus undergraduate) level. Althoughbeyond the scope of this study, an examination of the etiology of the lack ofgrowth in family communication textbooks could prove fertile ground for futureresearch.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our discipline’s knowledgeabout the pedagogy of family communication by providing a detailed analysis ofthe amount of coverage allocated to issues of gender and diversity in the four ex-tant undergraduate textbooks in family communication. This knowledge mayprove useful to family communication instructors as they select appropriate text-books for their courses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors presented an earlier version of this article at the 2002 annual meetingof the National Communication Association, November 23rd, New Orleans, LA.

Copies of the categorized raw data are available from the first author via e-mailat lynnewebb320@cs.com

REFERENCES

Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1990). Using meta-analysis to evaluate curriculum: An examination of se-lected college textbooks. Communication Education, 38, 103–116.

Amason, P. (2002). Choosing an undergraduate text from limited options: A review essay of familycommunication textbooks. Journal of Family Communication, 2, 41–56.

Apple, M. W. (1985). The culture and commerce of the textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17,147–162.

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (1986). Family talk: Interpersonal communication in the family. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Burns, R. G., & Rupiper, O. J. (1977). Trends in school psychology as demonstrated by content analysisof school psychology textbooks. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 332–340.

Clevenger, T., & Phifer, G. (1959). What do beginning college speech texts say about stage fright?Speech Teacher, 8, 1–7.

50 WEBB ET AL.

DeVito, J. A. (1986, November). Intrapersonal communication in interpersonal communication. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED279044)

Dorris, J. M. (1981). Androgyny and pedagogy: An analysis of interpersonal communication text-books, 1975–79. Communication Education, 30, 33–43.

Dunne, E. E., & L’Abate, L. (1978). The family taboo in psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology,5, 115–117.

Galvin, K. M. (1985). Communication and well functioning families. In J. Yerby (Ed.), Research direc-tions in family communication: Proceedings of the family communication research conference (pp.102–114). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Galvin, K. M. (2001). Family communication instruction: A brief history and call. Journal of FamilyCommunication, 1, 15–20.

Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family communication: Cohesion and change. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1991). Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.). NewYork: HarperCollins.

Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (2000). Family communication: Cohesion and change (5th ed.). NewYork: Longman.

Gonzalez, M. C. (1991, May). Familia or family? A demonstration of the inability to generalizecross-culturally present research and pedagogy on family and interpersonal relationships. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED335724)

Griffin, K., & Patton, B. R. (1971). Fundamentals of interpersonal communication. New York: Harper& Row.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2001). An agenda for studying ethnicity and family communication.Journal of Family Communication, 1, 75–85.

Hall, B. L. (1984, April). Theory into practice: Is theory of communication competence reflected in cur-rent textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Association Con-vention, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED247629)

Harari, H., & Jacobson, A. (1984). Teaching psychology in the 1980s: A content analysis of leading in-troductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 11, 236–237.

Keltner, J. W. (1970). Interpersonal speech-communication: Elements and structures. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Knapp, T. J. (1985). Who’s who in American introductory psychology textbooks: A citation study.

Teaching of Psychology, 12, 15–17.McCroskey, J. C., Larson, C., & Knapp, M. L. (1971). An introduction to interpersonal communication.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Noller, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Pearson, J. C. (1989). Communication in the family: Seeking satisfaction in changing times. New York:

HarperCollins.Pelias, M. H. (1989). Communication apprehension in basic public speaking texts: An examination of

contemporary textbooks. Communication Education, 38, 41–53.Posner, J. (1993, November). Beyond sharing and caring: Theoretical biases in interpersonal text-

books. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366029)

Rogers, L. E. (2001). Relational communication in the context of family. Journal of Family Communi-cation, 1, 25–35.

DIVERSITY IN TEXTBOOKS 51

Schneider, D. E. (1991). An analysis of readability levels of contemporary textbooks that employ a hy-brid approach to the basic communication course. Communication Education, 40, 165–171.

Schneider, D. E. (1992). A comparison of readability levels of textbooks in public speaking and inter-personal communication. Communication Education, 41, 400–404.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behaviors sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Turner, L. H., & West, R. (1998). Perspectives on family communication. Mountain View, CA: May-

field.Turner, L. H., & West, R. (2002). Perspectives on family communication (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.VerLinden, J. G. (1985, November). Ethical guidelines for students completing the interpersonal com-

munication course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Associa-tion, Lincoln, NE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED265598)

Webb, L. M., & Thompson-Hayes, M. E. (2002). Do popular communication textbooks in interper-sonal communication reflect a common theory base? A telling content analysis. Communication Ed-ucation, 51, 210–224.

Whitchurch, G. G. (1992). Communication in marriages and families: A review essay of family com-munication textbooks. Communication Education, 41, 337–343.

Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279–295.

Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. P. (1990). Understanding family communication.Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. P. (1995). Understanding family communication (2nded.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

52 WEBB ET AL.