Examining Evidence for Autonomy and Relatedness in Urban Inuit Parenting

Abstract Inuit have experienced significant lifestyle changes inthe past 50 years. Most recently, urbanization has resulted ingreater numbers of Inuit living in urban centres in southern

Canada. Little is known about Inuit parenting, and nothing hasbeen published on Inuit parenting in an urban context. Thepresent study sought to address this gap by describing the

parenting of Inuit living in a large Canadian city and examiningemergent themes for evidence of autonomy and relatedness. In

partnership with the Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family ResourceCentre, 39 Inuit parents completed an interview about their

parenting experiences. Based on interviews, major parentingthemes included: child characteristics; parenting behaviours and

beliefs; affection and love; stressors; and responsive and respectfulparenting. The majority of parenting themes linked to relatedness,

although there was evidence of autonomy in both parentingbehaviours and child characteristics. Results are interpreted inlight of the autonomy–relatedness framework and theoretical

implications of findings are discussed.

Key Words aboriginal, autonomy, Inuit, parenting, relatedness, urban

Kelly E. McShaneRyerson University, CanadaPaul D. HastingsUniversity of California, Davis, USAJanet K. SmylieUniversity of Toronto, CanadaConrad PrinceUniversity of Ottawa, CanadaTungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource CentreTungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre, Canada

Examining Evidence for Autonomyand Relatedness in Urban

Inuit Parenting

Although anthropologists (e.g., Harkness & Super, 2001) and psy-chologists (e.g., Rubin et al., 2006) have been studying parenting andculture for many years, there has been little psychological research into

Culture & Psychology Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) http://cap.sagepub.com

Vol. 15(4): 411–431 [DOI: 10.1177/1354067X09344880]

Article

parenting in Inuit communities, and none that has assessed Inuitparenting using a theoretical model. In Canada, 50,485 persons (0.2% ofthe total population) among the population identify as Inuit (StatisticsCanada, 2008). Although small settlements and nomadic lifestyles inCanada’s northern regions have characterized most of Inuit history,there has been an increasing trend for Inuit to settle in urban areas inthe south (Statistics Canada, 2008). It is unclear how their parentingbeliefs and practices have been affected by the changes in geographic,social, and family contexts. The present study examined aspects ofparenting of urban Inuit using the autonomy–relatedness framework ofculture (Kagitcibasi, 1994, 2005; Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007).

Inuit Population

The Inuit population traditionally lived above the tree line in Canadaand it is part of the larger circumpolar Inuit population, includingGreenland, Alaska, and Russia (Smylie, 2000). The Inuit population isthe youngest demographic group in Canada, with a median age of 22 years for Inuit, compared to a median age of 40 years for the non-Aboriginal population (Statistics Canada, 2008). Inuit are also youngerthan both the First Nations and Métis populations. First Nations are a heterogeneous group of indigenous peoples with different tribalaffiliations living in Canada, and Métis are a group of indigenouspeoples whose ancestry is traced back to the intermarriage of Europeanmen and First Nations women in the western provinces in the 17thcentury (Isaac, 1995; Smylie, 2000). Not only are there differences in thedemographics between the various Aboriginal groups: it is alsoimportant to recognize that Inuit, First Nations and Métis each haveunique cultures, heritages, and socio-economic and geographiccontexts (Smylie, 2000). Inuit have traditionally lived in four mainregions in Canada: Nunavut, Inuvialuit, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut(Smylie, 2000), and the majority of these communities are accessibleonly by air (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2004). Unlike other Aboriginalgroups, imposition of Western culture on Inuit did not occur until themid-20th century.

There have been profound changes in the lives of most Inuit sinceincreased contact with non-Inuit (largely Western European Canadians)began in the 20th century. Although little research has examined theeffects of colonization, Inuit have more recently suffered much of thesame oppression encountered by other North American indigenouspeoples, such as suppression of language, residential schools, and lossof self-determination. Fifty years ago, most Inuit in the north lived a

Culture & Psychology 15(4)

412

traditional lifestyle centred on nomadic hunting, and their cultureremained relatively intact (Pauktuutit, 1990). However, forced seden-tarization and subsequent change to settlement-based living has signifi-cantly changed the life of Inuit families (Pauktuutit, 1990). Additionally,increasing numbers of Inuit are moving from the north to moresouthern urban centres. According to the 2006 census, 17 percent ofInuit are living in southern urban regions, which represents an increaseof 60 percent from 1996 (Statistics Canada, 2008).

Like other indigenous populations, current literature indicates thatInuit possess very strong kinship networks (Pauktuutit, 1990).Although the nuclear family (i.e., parents and children) is consideredtypical of Inuit families living in the Arctic, multiple families often livetogether, along with other relatives (e.g., grandparents, uncles, aunts).Family ties are strong and members rely on each other for assistanceand support. Family loyalties generally outweigh individual andbroader community obligations. Marriages have traditionally beenbased on an equal partnership between husband and wife. Elders, whoare older and esteemed family members, are respected for their knowl-edge and wisdom and are often consulted about issues. They also playan active role in child rearing (Pauktuutit, 1990).

Parenting In Inuit CommunitiesThe literature on Inuit parenting is derived from two main sources:academic researchers who observed child-rearing and emotion social-ization of Inuit children in Canada and Eskimo1 children in Alaska,respectively (Briggs, 1985, 1995; Sprott, 1994) and Inuit organizations(e.g., Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association). Together, these sourcesidentified three main themes. First, nurturance and attachment arecentral to the adult–child relationship. Infants and small children aretenderly and sensitively nurtured, and are the recipients of muchaffection. They are the centre of attention for both the immediate andextended family and all their material needs and wishes are fulfilled.Briggs (1995) viewed Inuit nurturance as sometimes extreme, waveringbetween overprotective and harsh behaviours. Parents were observedto control the lives of children, at times choosing not to provideeverything a child wanted, or scolding them instead of giving themaffection. Parents were thought to act in such ‘harsh’ ways as a meansto combat their fears of abandonment (i.e., if the child were to die, theywould miss him or her less). Such behaviour was also thought tosupport and promote autonomous development in children. Theseobservations of harsh parenting have not been noted by Inuit organiz-ations, however.

McShane et al. Urban Inuit Parenting

413

Second, autonomy and independence are also central to parent–childinteraction. Parents view children as the initiators of socialization andaccordingly parents look for signs within their children to direct theirresponses. For instance, Pauktuutit (1990) found that breastfeeding andtoilet-training occurred when infants provided cues to the parents, asopposed to being based on parents’ agenda. Autonomy is alsomeasured individually, based on what each child is able to accomplish,instead of whether the child has attained a certain expected level ofdevelopment. As a result, parents tailor their approaches to meet eachchild’s abilities. Parents also accord much freedom to children,allowing them to engage in almost any activity as long as it does notentail risk of harming themselves (Pauktuutit, 1990).

Third, when instructing children, Inuit parents rely on observationand interpersonal games to promote learning and development(Briggs, 1985). Inuit children have been described as learning throughobservation as opposed to direct instruction or questioning by the child(Crago, 1992; Pauktuutit, 1990). Accordingly, observation is used topromote learning of skills by children. Interpersonal games are used topromote the emotional development of children. Outsiders mightregard some games as ‘teasing,’ but they are used to alert children toemotionally charged situations, to arouse appropriate emotions for thesituation, and to provide practice in dealing with such emotions. Thesegames are tailored to each child, focusing on the emotional needs orproblems of a particular child, and often involve humour and indirectstatements. For instance, a child having difficulty controllingaggression might be told ‘Pull her hair!’, to highlight the aggressivetendencies and thereby foster greater control. Adults make such state-ments to arouse the emotion, like anger, that they are seeking to social-ize. This is hypothesized to teach children to recognize the danger inexpressing these feelings, so that parents can then provide them withways to develop healthy and appropriate responses (Briggs, 1985).

Inuit Parenting in an Urban ContextPrevious research on Inuit parenting pertains to Inuit living in thenorth. It is unclear how similar or dissimilar parenting in an urbancontext is to parenting in a northern, subsistence-based context. Thereare no documented accounts of Inuit parenting in an urban community,although our research found differences in the composition of familiesin Ottawa—a medium-sized city and the capital of Canada—comparedto traditional Inuit families (McShane, Smylie, Hastings, Martin, &Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre, 2006). We found thatthe urban Inuit who accessed family programs were predominantly


414

female, and those Inuit who accessed programs commented that therewere fewer fathers living in Ottawa. In addition, we found that familynetworks were somewhat fragmented, as Elders and other extendedfamily members remained in the north.

Little is known about the reasons why Inuit parents and families aremoving to urban centres. Since 1998, acute medical care for Inuitchildren and adolescents from Nunavut has been based in Ottawa(Kent, 2000). Thus, some Inuit families may initially move to Ottawa formedical treatment, but it still remains unclear what would make themstay. Further, no research to date has examined the impact of migrationor acculturation processes for Inuit in Canada.

Conceptualizing Inuit ParentingWhen parenting characteristics are examined from the perspective ofparenting style typologies, some researchers have suggested Inuitparenting can be characterized as ‘permissive,’ given that Inuit parentsshow high levels of parental warmth or responsiveness and low levelsof parental control (Sprott, 1994). This conclusion is inappropriategiven that such typologies were based largely on middle-class, NorthAmerican, Caucasian families (Stewart & Bond, 2002). Chao (1994)suggested that parenting styles reflect certain historical influences andbeliefs specific to one’s culture. Consequently, because the history ofthe majority culture (e.g., Western European) is not shared by thosefrom other cultures (e.g., Inuit), it would be inappropriate to applyparenting style definitions to other cultures.

Cultural researchers have instead proposed dimensional models toconceptualize parenting. One current prevailing model encompassesthe constructs of relatedness and autonomy. First described byKagitcibasi (1994), relatedness encompasses love, attachment, mutualobligations, and belongingness, whereas autonomy refers to personalchoice, self-agency, and psychological independence. Kagitcibasi(2005) states that relatedness and autonomy are basic needs, andparenting serves to fulfill these needs or instill these values in children.This model allows cultures and communities to vary on both levels ofautonomy and relatedness, recognizing that both are human needs.

Indigenous cultures, and specifically Inuit communities, have beencharacterized as collectivist, as the welfare of the family andcommunity may be considered more important than that of the indi-vidual (Briggs, 1985). However, Rogoff (2003) stated that individualrespect is also accorded in First Nations and Inuit communities inNorthern Canada, suggesting that these communities also supportindividual autonomy. The descriptions of Inuit parenting provided by


415

Briggs (1985, 1995) and Sprott (1992, 1994) include evidence of bothautonomy and relatedness. Parents’ respect for children’s personalchoice and independence is displayed in their focus on what a childcan do, instead of using some predetermined marker by which tocompare their child. Affection and close family ties would contributeto the value of relatedness.

Kagitcibasi (2005) delineates a family model where parenting instillsboth values of autonomy and relatedness. In this model of psycho-logical interdependence, families support material independence and psychological interdependence between generations. Autonomy ismore desirable in urban settings, in part due to schooling and employ-ment specialization. The relevance of this model for urban Inuit parent-ing is not clear, though, as Inuit experiences with the school systemhave been linked to trauma due to forced residential schooling andsubsequent abuse (King, 2006), and therefore might link schooling withautonomy. In some indigenous contexts, autonomy may be fosteredthrough noninterference, which is designed to promote empathy,valuing of harmony, and other cooperative characteristics (Brant, 1990).However, studies have found noninterference in Mohawk and FirstNations cultures, not Inuit culture specifically, thus it is unclearwhether this would be a viable explanation for the importance placedon autonomy among Inuit parents.

Objectives

In order to conceptualize the parenting of Inuit, a qualitative andcollaborative approach was employed. We utilized open-ended inter-views with Inuit parents and grandparents. In keeping with ethicalguidelines for research with Aboriginal peoples (Canadian Institutesof Health Research, 2007), our research team included both academicand community-based researchers who collaborated on the researchdesign, analysis, and interpretation. There were two main objectives:(1) to describe the aspects of parenting of southern urban Inuit; and(2) to identify parenting themes of Inuit in terms of relatedness and autonomy. Two specific hypotheses were proposed. Based onInuit parenting in the north (Briggs, 1985, 1995; Pauktuutit, 1990;Sprott, 1992), autonomy was expected to be seen in parents’ reports ofrespecting their child’s development and tailoring their actions totheir child’s age or characteristics. Relatedness was expected to beseen in parenting themes of nurturance and love, and family andcommunity commitments.


416

Method

ParticipantsIndividuals were recruited from the Tungasuvvingat Inuit FamilyResource Centre in Ottawa, Canada. Potential participants wereinitially identified by the community research team members whowere Inuit. Identified individuals were provided with a description ofthe study and then were invited to participate if they were interested.As the goal was to gather information on parenting, parents of all ageswere invited to participate. Thirty-nine adults were recruited to partici-pate in the study (M = 39.31 years; range = 24 to 78 years). This sampleincluded 8 males and 31 females. All individuals were parents and 13individuals were also grandparents.

ProcedureThis study was conducted as part of a larger investigation of healthinformation processes which employed a participatory action research(PAR) approach. PAR has been defined as the collaboration ofcommunities or organizations and researchers for the purpose ofresearch, education, advocacy, or promoting social change (Green et al.,1995). At the core of PAR is the integration of community members asequal partners. It is considered the most appropriate approach to usewhen conducting research with Aboriginal communities (CanadianInstitutes of Health Research, 2007; Inuit Tapirisat of Canada andNunavut Research Institute, 1998). A more detailed description of thedevelopment of the partnership with Tungasuvvingat Inuit FamilyResource Centre and a description of the participating communityappears in McShane et al. (2006) and Smylie, McShane, and Tunga-suvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre (2006). This study wasapproved by the Health Sciences and Science Research Ethics Board atthe University of Ottawa.

To obtain information on parenting, parents were first asked: ‘Tell mewhat it is like to be a parent or a grandparent.’ To elicit more detail, twofollow-up questions were posed: ‘What do you see as special in yourchildren or grandchildren?’, and ‘How do you support your children orgrandchildren?’ The community research team confirmed the appropri-ateness of the wording of these questions for encouraging parents totalk, and deemed them suitable for translation into Inuktitut.

Two trained community research team members conducted theinterviews. Participants were given the choice to complete the inter-view in English (n = 12) or in Inuktitut (n = 27). A translation of thequestions was used for interviews in Inuktitut. Responses were


417

audio-recorded, translated if necessary, and transcribed in English forcoding purposes. Back-translations of questions and responses wereused to confirm accuracy of translations.

CodingData analysis used a mixed iterative editorial and immersion/crystallization organizational approach (Crabtree & Miller, 1992).Initially, the coding was completed by two trained academicresearchers who listed the most poignant themes of the community’sparenting descriptions. A meeting was then held with the communityresearch team members to discuss and adapt themes. Following this,the two academic researchers took these preliminary themes andconducted a more detailed analysis of the transcripts to synthesize acoding scheme. Using this coding scheme, the principal coder codedall transcripts and the reliability coder coded 20 randomly selectedtranscripts for the frequency of each of the themes. Inter-rater agree-ment was calculated using intra-class correlations, r = .72 to .96 (seeTable 1).

Next, parenting themes were classified according to how they related to the constructs of relatedness and autonomy as defined byKagitcibasi (1994, 2005) and Rothbaum and Trommsdorff (2007).Relatedness was defined as family-, group- or community-centred,promoting love, attachment, belongingness, caring, mutual obligations,and loyalty. Autonomy was defined as individual-centred, promotingpersonal choice, self-agency, independence, and personal rights. An‘Other’ category was used for themes that were not indicative of eitherrelatedness or autonomy. The following categories were submitted tothis coding scheme: child characteristics; behaviours; affection and love;contextual stressors; beliefs; and responsive and respectful. The remain-ing themes were not included in this analysis because initial inspectionrevealed that instances were linked most frequently to the ‘Other’category. Using the coding scheme, the two coders evaluated eachoccurrence of the above-listed themes as indicative of autonomy, re-latedness, or other. Examples of autonomy and relatedness for eachtheme are presented in Table 2. Inter-rater agreement was calculatedusing Cohen’s Kappa, κ = .89 to 1.00. Disagreements were discussedand codes were revised for inclusion in the analysis.

Results

Thirty-nine interviews were transcribed and analysed. Mean wordlength of interviews was 184 words, ranging from 21 words to 743


418

words. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics for the 12 themes.Themes are presented below, in descending order of frequency.2

Child CharacteristicsParents provided descriptions of their children’s or adolescents’ identity,personality, abilities, skills, temperament, or interests. Characteristics


419

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of parenting themes (N = 39)

N Min. Max. ICC

Child characteristics 29 0 12 .89Intelligent/skilled 20Independent/strong 13Nurturant/considerate 8Happy 3Negative 3Other 12

Parenting behaviours 33 0 7 .76Instruct/teach/guide/talk 22Warmth/supportive 18Basic needs (food, home, clothing, etc.) 10Control/discipline 4Other 6

Affection and love 29 0 6 .80

Contextual stressors 15 0 6 .72

Parenting beliefs 22 0 3 .76Responsibility/challenge 13Relationship-focused 6Competence 1Other 2

Responsive and respectful 12 0 5 .80Support individuality 11Mutual partnership 3

Negative emotions 12 0 2 .89Anxiety/worry/fear 9Anger/frustration 3

Concern about child’s health 8 0 3 .94Proactive (health promotion efforts) 4Reactive (difficulty/worry) 4

Family and community 8 0 3 .78

Parent/grandparent differences 4 0 5 .96

Future 3 0 3 .70

Child age differences 3 0 1 .69

Note. ICC = Intraclass Correlation. N = Refers to the number of parents who reported atleast one instance of the category or the subcategory. The subcategory numbers mayexceed the category total because a parent could be counted once at the category level,and twice at the sub-category level as they reported more than subcategory.

included: intelligent/skilled (e.g., athletic, artistic); independent/strong; nurturant/considerate; happy; and negative (e.g., stubborn).There were also a wide variety of child characteristics that werementioned infrequently, including: able to function in multiculturalsetting; innocent; relaxed; beautiful; enjoys Inuk culture; humorous;and gentle.

Parenting BehavioursParents described the specific support and actions they performed.These included: statements related to warmth/supportive (‘I am therefor them’); instruct/guide/teach/talk (‘Teach them to help others sothey won’t be selfish’); providing basic needs (‘I support themfinancially’); and control/discipline (‘Try to discipline them as much asI can’). Other behaviours included: prayers; using language to promoteculture; fostering a sense of family membership; and providingchoices.

Affection and LoveParents described a warm, connected feeling toward their children ortoward parenting. They described parenting or their relationship withtheir children using positive adjectives. Examples include: ‘It’s reward-ing;’ ‘It’s a joy;’ ‘I love it;’ ‘I love them;’ and ‘You feel proud.’

Parenting BeliefsParents described their thoughts and cognitions about their role asparents. Statements included how they felt their child has influenced


420

Table 2. Examples of themes indicating autonomy and relatedness

Autonomy Relatedness

Child characteristics Really independent They are so special because they, already. They’re just our kids, they have our features unique in their own way. too.

Parenting behaviours Give them lots of Trying to make them feel good independence. being a part of the family.

Contextual stressors It’s [parenting] costly, I didn’t have my parents living even costs your career. with me because we were living

in the south all the time.

Parenting Beliefs – To me they are my first.

Responsive and Let him do what he I have to try to come with a respectful wants. solution with them; we both try

to come up with something that we can both live with.

them, as well as the responsibility or challenging nature of their role.Some beliefs included: responsibility/challenge (‘It’s a lot of work’);relationship-focused (‘Without them my life would be empty’);competence (‘I know I did an amazing job with them’); and ‘other’(‘They keep me busy’).

Contextual StressorsJust under half of the parents mentioned economic stressors, personalhealth problems, work stressors, changes in social context, andchildren being placed in care (with the regional child welfare andprotection authority3). Examples include: ‘I’m on welfare;’ ‘I’m a singleparent;’ ‘My parents are not in the south;’ ‘It [parenting] can cost youyour career;’ and ‘That’s double for me, double job after workinghours.’ One mother spoke at length about the stress of having a childremoved from home:

When you are a single mother they always try to take away your baby oryou have to get married. If you do that, you have to give your baby awayanyway. In order to keep the baby, if you’re a single mother, you have totalk to the city, otherwise they are always try to take away your baby.

Responsive and RespectfulAlmost one-third of parents described how their behaviours weretailored specifically to the child. Parents discussed how they respondeddirectly to their children’s needs or how they tailored their behavioursto match their child’s needs and abilities:

Like if they need comforting, I’ll comfort them, if they are hungry, I’ll feedthem, if they are hungry for snack, I’ll feed them, if they want simply hugor kiss, I’ll hug and kiss them, or if they want attention from me, I’ll listento them.

We take what each of them like and try to make that. J. is a natural athleteso and we are supporting him by getting him involved by soccer andswimming . . . C. doesn’t want to do that, is more into arts so we get him toart classes, things like that.

Some also mentioned mutual obligations or reciprocal help anddescribed engaging in parent–child collaboration and compromise.Examples include: ‘We both try to come up with something that we canboth live with;’ and ‘He had an intervention, he took me out of thebingo, and I took him out of the bar.’

Negative Parent EmotionsFewer than a third of parents described parenting as a negative experi-ence or talked about having a difficult relationship with their child.


421

They reported frustration, anxiety, or anger with their role as parentsor in their relationship with their child. Examples include: ‘It’s frustrat-ing;’ ‘I’m constantly worried;’ and ‘It’s stressful.’

Concern for Child’s HealthEight parents reported worry about their child’s health or difficulty inmaintaining their child’s health. Some parents reported their efforts tokeep their child healthy. Examples include: ‘It’s difficult, especiallywhen they don’t want to eat;’ and ‘Keep them in healthy shape.’

Family and CommunityEight parents discussed the help and/or involvement of familymembers (other than their spouse) or community organizations. Thisalso included having accessed those resources or simply indicating thatthey are accessible to the parents. Examples include: ‘If I can’t do italone, I get someone who is more experienced to help me with it;’ and‘to have parenting classes here at the resource centre really helped.’

Parent vs. Grandparent DifferencesFour grandparents mentioned differences between being a parent andbeing a grandparent, or indicated preferences to raising grandchildrenas compared to children. Examples include: ‘I love my grandkids morethan I love my own kids;’ ‘For my grandkids, because I am alwaystwice as available;’ and ‘[being a grandmother] It’s like being a motherbut with more power.’

FutureThree parents referred to the child’s future, or their plans and ideasabout the future, such as: ‘Make a better future for them;’ and ‘I justreally worry, also their future.’

Age Differences: Children vs. AdolescentsThree parents mentioned differences in raising children compared toadolescents. They commented that raising young adolescents wasmore difficult than raising children or young adults. Examples include:‘When they are getting older, when they reach the age of 13 or 14, itgets harder lots of difficult thing[s] start coming, especially now in2005;’ and ‘My daughter is 18. She is a lot better than when she was 13or 14, so it’s not that bad.’

Examination of Autonomy and RelatednessThe following themes were examined for reference to the constructs ofautonomy and relatedness: affection and love; child characteristics;


422

behaviours; contextual stressors; beliefs; and responsive and respect-ful. Table 3 contains the frequencies for themes according to focus(autonomy, relatedness, other).4 In the comparison of overall frequen-cies of autonomy and relatedness statements, significantly higherfrequencies of relatedness statements were noted. For the themes ofaffection and love, parenting behaviours, parenting beliefs, and contex-tual stressors, there was significantly greater relatedness focus. Forresponsive and respectful, there was a higher frequency of autonomyfocus. Overall, analyses showed that most statements were indicativeof a relatedness focus within the urban Inuit community’s approach toparenting.

Discussion

Characterizations of Inuit parenting have been limited to Inuit livingin the north; very little is known about Inuit parenting in a southernurban context. We addressed this gap in the literature and furtheredour understanding of autonomy and relatedness in this culturalcontext. Emergent themes of parenting were consistent with obser-vations of Inuit parenting in the north and were generally similar toparenting constructs in general. Parenting themes were indicative ofboth autonomy and relatedness, although more often they were linkedto relatedness.

Parenting behaviours that focused on providing the basic necessitiesfor children (e.g., food and clothing) were prevalent. Previous workwith urban Aborigines in Australia found that parenting values wereordered in a similar fashion to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Nelson &Allison, 2000); that is to say, at the apex were parenting values andbehaviours focused on the survival of children. The focus of Inuitparents on basic needs might follow a similar pattern. However, Inuitparents reported more teaching and instructing behaviours than actionsto promote basic needs. This might be reflective of Inuit parents’


423

Table 3. Frequency and percentages of themes indicating autonomy and relatedness

Autonomy Relatedness Other Total N (%) N (%) N (%) count

Child characteristics 18 (20.5) 12 (13.6) 58 (65.9) 88Parenting behaviours 3 (3.6) 19 (22.6) 62 (73.8) 84Affection and love (0) 68 (100) (0) 68Contextual stressors 1 (3.5) 14 (48.3) 14 (48.3) 29Parenting beliefs (0) 6 (23.1) 20 (76.9) 26Responsive and respectful 22 (84.6) 4 (15.4) (0) 26

broader focus on health, including physical, emotional, spiritual, andmental health. It might also indicate that teaching is considered a partof basic needs. Also, although a focus on basic needs was not pre-dominant in the answers, the community research team has observedthat parents do struggle to meet the basic needs for their children.

Some parents noted that their children were growing up in a multi-cultural society, unlike their own experiences growing up in the north.A few spoke directly about their children’s mixed Inuit ancestry,suggesting that this was a source of stress. These particular stressorsseem more common in an urban context, where intercultural relation-ships are perhaps more likely to exist. However, most parents spokeabout their children’s ability to negotiate the multicultural, multilin-gual world. This points toward the acculturation process and suggeststhat parents see their children as balancing between the heritageculture and the mainstream culture, in accord with bidirectionalmodels of acculturation (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). Inuit parentsthus appear to be navigating through both Inuk and mainstreamcultures.

There were very few statements about the effects of colonization,forced sedenterization, or personal trauma. One parent commentedthat in the north, mothers who have a substance abuse problem havetheir children removed in order that the children can be properly caredfor and allowing the mothers to look after themselves. There was alsolimited discussion about Children’s Aid Society and the removal ofchildren in the urban context. However, given the limited scope of theinterview, it is unclear whether such stresses in the parenting experi-ence of urban Inuit are related to colonization and associated trauma.

Evidence for Autonomy and RelatednessAs predicted, parenting themes of urban Inuit parents evidenced bothautonomy and relatedness. Overall, the most prevalent themes weremore indicative of relatedness. There was evidence of nurturance andlove in the parenting of urban Inuit but, counter to our prediction, therewas little evidence of focus on extended family and communityaspects. Inuit and Aboriginal families and communities have consist-ently been found to have closer family relationships and stronger socialnetworks than non-Aboriginal families (e.g., MacPhee, Fritz, & Miller-Heyl, 1996; Pauktuutit, 1990). The current findings suggest that theparenting situation might be different for urban Inuit. The relativelylow reporting of family and community support in parenting couldstem from the isolation separating parents from family and communitymembers. Family and community links for support typically involve


424

face-to-face contact (McShane et al., 2006). Given the physical separ-ation, parents had to reconfigure their support networks and fewerparents reported accessing traditional supports. The fact that con-textual stressors were linked to relatedness may reflect such changes.Alternatively, parents might not have articulated reliance on familiesand communities for parenting support because this is so ingrained intheir approach that it was not salient as a distinct, identifiablecomponent.

An alternative explanation is that there are two sub-types of related-ness: a more ‘Western’ form of relatedness, trust in shared personalrelationships; and a more ‘Eastern’ assurance in loyalty and reci-procity (Kagitcibasi, 2005; Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007; Yamagishi,2002). Within the responses of urban Inuit parents, the presence ofaffection, love, and nurturance appears indicative of the construct oftrust, whereas the infrequent mention of community reliance andconnection appears indicative of assurance. It is possible that assurancewas mentioned relatively rarely due to fragmentation of the Inuitcommunities and the lack of traditional land-based communalactivities, which may have undermined group belongingness. Furtherexamination of the construct of relatedness in Inuit communitieswould help to address this proposition. In addition, research needs tovalidate the definitions ascribed to the terms autonomy, relatedness,trust, and assurance. The current definitions may not accuratelycapture the underlying constructs as they exist in Inuit communities.

Autonomy was also evidenced in urban Inuit parents’ experience,albeit to a lesser extent. Autonomy and independence were principallycaptured by the theme ‘responsive and respectful.’ The freedom andindependence which has been described in parent–child relationshipsin the north (Pauktuutit, 1990) was not prevalent in the descriptions ofurban Inuit parents. This might be because the urban environment hasmore dangers than the north. It might also be because in the north thekinship support system is strong and large, allowing other adults to‘keep an eye’ on children, thereby protecting them from danger. Thus,parents might be adapting their strategies based on the context toensure the health and well-being of their children.

Kagitcibasi (2005) has suggested that with increasing urbanizationthere is more focus on autonomy. The urban Inuit are relatively new tothe urbanization experience and thus might not have fully subscribedto the value of autonomy yet. Alternatively, the links between urban-ization and autonomy may in fact follow different paths for Inuit. Thatis, education may not be the contributing factor to increased autonomyin urban settings. Anecdotally, our research team is aware that, in


425

general, participants accessing the Tungasuvvingat Inuit FamilyResource Centre experience lower rates of employment andeducational attainment. This might suggest that the current generationhas not adopted the value of autonomy because the mechanismsengendering this value change are still in the process of developing.

It is also important to note that much of the theorizing about theconstructs of autonomy and relatedness and the changes due to urban-ization are informed by research with different cultural groups. Further-more, this research typically examines how families within a givencultural group move from a rural to an urban setting (e.g., Kagitcibasi& Ataca, 2005). The Inuit are moving from an Inuit-majority remoteArctic area to an Inuit-minority urban area. Thus, the processes ofurbanization and acculturation are intertwined, perhaps making itsimilar to the experience of some immigrants and refugees. However,for Inuit and other indigenous populations the process of acculturationhas been ongoing and dominated by colonization.

The extent to which the parenting themes generated by urban Inuitparents differed from the kinds of themes that would be generated byInuit parents living in more traditional northern contexts was inferredfrom previous research on northern Inuit, rather than measureddirectly. In addition to increasing migration to urban centres in thesouth, recent years have also borne witness to substantive changes toInuit life in the north (Pauktuutit, 1990). Although the Inuit have beenable to maintain their language and aspects of their culture, in manyways this is a culture and group of communities experiencing adynamic period of cultural and generational change. It will be import-ant to continue examining the evolution of parenting by Inuit in thenorth—for example, how northern Inuit manage to maintain familialand community connections with their extended family members whohave relocated to the south.

The community-participatory nature of this research may haveimpacted the reports provided by parents. Unlike other researchmethodologies, the interviewers were members of the Inuit communityand were also front-line health workers at the Tungasuvvingat InuitFamily Resource Centre. This approach is recommended by Aboriginalcommunities and Canadian granting agencies, in large part for itsrespect for Aboriginal peoples, involvement of Aboriginal peoples inthe research process, and support of building capacity for research inAboriginal communities. That said, it is possible that some parents mayhave spoken more openly or less openly based on the nature of theirrelationship with the interviewer. Finally, the fact that parentingbehaviours and child characteristics were the two most frequent themes


426

is likely due to the fact that questions were geared towards theseresponses.

Conclusions

This study represents a first attempt to describe and characterizeparenting in a southern urban Inuit community. Results are generallysimilar to parenting characteristics previously identified in Inuitcommunities in the north, although with some interesting differences.Relatedness was more dominant than autonomy in parenting themes.It is unclear whether the current findings on urban Inuit parenting arereflective of effects of the urban context alone, broader socio-historicalchanges, or both. Further examination of Inuit parenting in the northwould help to clarify whether the current parenting trends are indica-tive of a change from land-based to settlement-based life, and wouldalso help to clarify whether additional changes have occurred as aresult of living in southern urban centres.

Acknowledgements

Support for this paper came from a Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada Doctoral Fellowship and an Anisnawbe KekendazoneACADRE Fellowship to the first author. The project was also supported by aCanadian Institutes of Health Research grant to the third author. This paper isbased on the doctoral dissertation of the first author. The authors wish to thankthe community research team members and members of the Inuit communityfor their participation and partnership in the project. Special thanks go to Inuitelders Qapik Attagutsiak, Kigutikajuk Shappa, and Susanna Singoorie. Inaddition, thank you to Dr Jaan Valsiner and three anonymous reviewers fortheir valuable comments and support in enhancing the quality of this paper.

Notes

1. Although the term ‘Eskimo’ is considered incorrect and offensive(Pauktuutit, 1990), Sprott and other mainly American writers continue touse this term. In the current document, the use of this term is limited todescriptions of Sprott’s research.

2. Statistical analyses. A series of chi-square analyses were computed toexamine differences in frequencies in each of the 12 parenting themes,according to participant gender and grandparent status (no/yes). For theseanalyses, the parenting themes were re-coded as present/absent in eachtranscript to allow 2 � 2 analyses. No chi-squares examining differencesaccording to gender were significant: all χ2(1) < 2.60, p > .10. Only one chi-square examining differences according to grandparent status wassignificant: parent vs. grandparent, χ2(1) = 8.91, p < .01. All participantswho mentioned this theme were grandparents.


427

3. In Ottawa, the Children’s Aid Society is the regional child welfare andprotection authority. It is non-indigenous and is run by provincialauthorities who have a legal mandate to protect children aged 17 years andyounger.

4. Statistical analyses. A 6 � 3 within-subjects ANOVA with plannedcomparisons was used to test for differences in frequencies of themes (childcharacteristics, behaviours, affection and love, contextual stressors, beliefs,and responsive and respectful) according to focus (relatedness, autonomy,other). The overall multivariate test for focus, based on Wilks’ criteria, wassignificant: F(2, 37) = 28.76, p < .001, partial η2 = .61. A planned paired t-testwas used to compare overall frequencies of autonomy and relatednessstatements. The t-test found significantly higher frequencies of relatednessstatements: t(38) = 5.32, p < .001. The overall multivariate test for aninteraction effect between theme and focus, based on Wilks’ criteria, wasalso significant: F(10, 29) = 11.31, p < .001, partial η2 = .80. Planned paired t-tests were used to compare autonomy and relatedness frequencies foreach of the six themes. For the themes of: affection and love, t(38) = 6.64, p < .001; parenting behaviours, t(38) = 3.32, p < .01; parenting beliefs, t(38) = 2.23, p < .05; and contextual stressors, t(38) = 1.84, p < .10, there wassignificantly greater relatedness focus. Only the t-test examiningresponsive and respectful, t(38) = 2.28, p < .05 revealed a higher frequencyof autonomy focus.

References

Brant, C.C. (1990). Native ethics and rules of behavior. Canadian Journal ofPsychiatry, 35, 534–539.

Briggs, J.L. (1985). Socialization, family conflicts and responses to culturechange among Canadian Inuit. Arctic Medical Research, 40, 40–52.

Briggs, J.L. (1995). Vicissitudes of attachment: Nurturance and dependence inCanadian Inuit family relationships, old and new. Arctic Medical Research,54(Suppl 1), 24–32.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2007). CIHR guidelines for healthresearch involving Aboriginal peoples. Retrieved June 8, 2007, fromhttp://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ethics_aboriginal_guidelines_e.pdf

Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training.Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.

Crabtree, B.R., & Miller, W.L. (1992). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Crago, M. (1992). Communicative interaction and second languageacquisition: An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 487–505.

Green, L.W., George, M.A., Daniel, M., Frankish, C.J., Herbert, C.J., Bowie,W.R., et al. (1995). Participatory research in health promotion. Ottawa: TheRoyal Society of Canada.

Harkness, S., & Super, C.M. (2001). Culture and parenting. In M.H. Bornstein(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 253–280). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


428

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2004). Backgrounder health. Retrieved December 10,2005, from http://www.naho.ca/inuit/english/pdf/health_indicators.pdf

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and Nunavut Research Institute. (1998). Negotiatingresearch relationships: A guide for communities. Ottawa: Inuit Tapirisat ofCanada.

Isaac, T. (1995). An introduction to Aboriginal issues. Journal of the Society forObstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, 17, 583–585.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism:Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C.Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, andapplications (pp. 52–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in a cultural context:Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4),403–422.

Kagitcibasi, C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: Athree-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 54, 317–337.

Kent, H. (2000). MDs get crash course in Inuit culture as young patients arrivein Ottawa. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162 (10), 1481.

King, D. (2006). A brief report of The Federal Government of Canada’s ResidentialSchool System for Inuit. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. RetrievedJuly 21, 2006, from http://www.ahf.ca/assets/pdf/english/king-summary-f-web.pdf

MacPhee, D., Fritz, J., & Miller-Heyl, J. (1996). Ethnic variations in personalsocial networks and parenting. Child Development, 67, 3278–3295.

McShane, K.E., Smylie, J.K., Hastings, P.D., Martin, C.M., & TungasuvvingatInuit Family Resource Centre. (2006). Guiding health promotion efforts withurban Inuit: A community-specific perspective of health information sourcesand dissemination strategies. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97, 296–299.

Nelson, A., & Allison, H. (2000). Values of urban Aboriginal parents: Foodbefore thought. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 47, 28–40.

Pauktuutit. (1990). The Inuit way: A guide to Inuit culture. Ottawa: Author.Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford

University Press.Rothbaum, F., & Trommsdorff, G. (2007). Do roots and wings complement or

oppose one another? The socialization of relatedness and autonomy incultural context. In J.E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook ofsocialization (pp. 461–489). New York: The Guilford Press.

Rubin, K.H., Hemphill, S.A., Chen, X., Hastings, P., Sanson, A., Lococo, A., etal. (2006). Parenting beliefs and behaviors: Initial findings from theInternational Consortium for the Study of Social and EmotionalDevelopment (ICSSED). In K.H. Rubin & O.B. Chung (Eds.), Parental beliefs,parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 81–103).London: Psychology Press.

Ryder, A.G., Alden, L.E., & Paulhus, D.L. (2000). Is acculturationunidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in theprediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 79, 49–65.


429

Smylie, J. (2000). A guide for health professionals working with Aboriginalpeoples. The sociocultural context of aboriginal peoples in Canada. Journalof the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 22, 1072–1081.

Smylie, J., McShane, K., & Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre(2006). Understanding Inuit knowledge systems and learning styles toenhance an urban Inuit prenatal education program. In CIHR (Ed.), Movingpopulation and public health knowledge into action (pp. 19–22). Ottawa:Canadian Institutes of Health Research – Institute of Population and PublicHealth and The Canadian Population Health Initiative.

Sprott, J.E. (1992). Alaska native parents in Anchorage. Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America.

Sprott, J.E. (1994). One person’s ‘spoiling’ is another’s freedom to become:Overcoming ethnocentric views about parental control. Social Science andMedicine, 38, 1111–1124.

Statistics Canada. (2008). Aboriginal peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis,and First Nations, 2006 census (Rep. No. 97–558-XIE). Ottawa: StatisticsCanada.

Stewart, S.M., & Bond, M.H. (2002). A critical look at parenting research fromthe mainstream: Problems uncovered while adapting Western research tonon-Western cultures. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20,379–392.

Yamagishi, T. (2002). The structure of trust: An evolutionary game of mindand society. Hokkaido Behavioral Science Report, SP-13, 1–157.

Biographies

KELLY E. MCSHANE is a community-based researcher and clinicalpsychologist in the Department of Psychology at Ryerson University inToronto, Canada. Her research is in the field of Aboriginal health and she iscurrently working in partnership with the Tungasuvvingat Inuit FamilyResource Centre in Ottawa to document traditional prenatal healthinformation. ADDRESS: Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, 350Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 2K3. [email:[email protected]]

PAUL D. HASTINGS is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Mind andBrain and in the Department of Psychology at the University of California,Davis, USA. His research interests are centred on transactional contributionsof biological processes and socialization influences to children’s social andemotional development.

JANET K. SMYLIE is a family physician and public health researcher based atthe Centre for Research on Inner City Health at St Michael’s Hospital, and inthe Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Toronto. Hercurrent funded research projects include: (1) development and evaluation of aknowledge network for indigenous children and families in Ontario andSaskatchewan; and (2) development of a health indicators database for urbanFirst Nations, Métis, and Inuit living in Ontario.


430

CONRAD PRINCE served as the research coordinator on this project. He iscurrently working at the University of Ottawa as a research associate withinthe Community Health Research Unit. He is also a full-time Master’s studentin the Department of Sociology at Carleton University and is planning towrite his Master’s thesis on First Nations adoption experiences in the SixtiesScoop.

THE TUNGASUVVINGAT INUIT FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRE (TIFRC) isan independent community-based counseling and resource centre whosemission is to provide Inuit-specific programs, services, and support toempower and enhance the lives of Inuit living in southern regions of Ontario,Canada. Community research team members include Connie Siedule, EvaKigutaq, and Iga Attagutsiak, and community Elders Qapik Attagutsiak,Kigutikajuk Shappa, and Susanna Singoorie.


431

Examining Evidence for Autonomy and Relatedness in Urban Inuit Parenting

Documents

Transcript of Examining Evidence for Autonomy and Relatedness in Urban Inuit Parenting