Parental management of adoptive identities during challenging encounters: Adoptive parents as...

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/242The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0265407510384419

November 2010 2011 28: 242 originally published online 9Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Elizabeth A. Suter, Kristine L. Reyes and Robert L. BallardAdoptive parents as 'protectors' and 'educators'

Parental management of adoptive identities during challenging encounters:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/242.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 9, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 30, 2011Version of Record >>

at DENVER UNIV on April 26, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spr.sagepub.com/

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/242

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iarr.org

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/242.refs.html

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/242.full.pdf

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/30/0265407510384419.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Article

Parental management ofadoptive identities duringchallenging encounters:Adoptive parents as‘protectors’ and‘educators’

Elizabeth A. Suter1, Kristine L. Reyes1, andRobert L. Ballard2

AbstractThis interpretive study utilized Owen’s ((1985) Thematic metaphors in relationalcommunication: A conceptual framework, The Western Journal of Speech Communication,49, 1–13) metaphoric approach to identify and understand the cognitive structuresundergirding transracial, international adoptive parents’ sense-making and managementof familial and personal identities during interactions that challenge familial and personalidentities. Twelve focus groups with 69 parents with adopted children from eitherVietnam or China were examined inductively. The results found the metaphors ofadoptive parent as protector and adoptive parent as educator manifest in parental discourse.Protectors aim to guard identity, enacting defensive, somewhat reactive discourse,meeting invasive remarks straight-on, using confrontational, strategic, and tougheningdiscourse. Seeking to build identity, educators enact less reactive and more intentionaldiscourse through discourses of preparation, modeling, and debriefing. Based on thesefindings, we suggest improvements to pre-adoptive training.

1 University of Denver, USA2 University of Waterloo, Canada

Corresponding author:

Elizabeth A. Suter, Department of Communication Studies, 2000 East Asbury Avenue, University of Denver,

Denver, CO 80208, USA

Email: [email protected]

J S P R

Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships

28(2) 242–261ª The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407510384419spr.sagepub.com



Keywordsadoption, communication, culture/ethnicity, family, identity, metaphor, qualitativemethods, social interaction

Interracial families are publicly gazed upon through a normative family lens and held

accountable for their apparent differences by unsolicited attention being drawn to their

nonnormative familial form—inscribed on their bodies through ‘race.’ They are made to

account for their differences by consistently being asked to explain them to others as they

go out about their daily lives (Jacobson, 2008, p. 148).

Family communication scholars have written for over two decades about the need for

a broad, yet concrete and operational, conceptualization of family that allows for the

inclusion of many family forms (Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006). As part of this

conversation, much has been written about how families are anything but the mythic

nuclear, 1950s, biogenetic family. Stephanie Coontz’s body of work (e.g., 2000)

demonstrates that the family is a socio-historical construct, one that owes its existence to

influences including social institutions, political configurations, economic trends, gender

roles, parenting norms, emphasis on privacy and individualism, importance of work, and

the division of labor. In this view, the notion of the traditional family is an ideological

construct that masks itself as a universal, static, normative ideal to which families can

aspire.

Yet, in spite of this longstanding scholarly conversation, empirical investigations

continue to find that not only do traditional definitions of family as biogenetically

connected and racially monolithic continue to be held (Baxter et al., 2009; Holtzman,

2008), but also that normative ideals for family continue to be indexed in everyday

encounters, presenting challenges to members of families that fail to live up to this

standard (Jacobson, 2009). Family communication patterns remain caught in the tension

between the traditional, normative myth and the social and contextual forces that

influence their interactions and structure their relationships (Smith, Surrey, & Watkins,

2006).

The social construction of family identity

Social constructionist family scholars conceptualize the family as a social construct

(Gubrium & Holstein, 1990; Oswald, Blume, & Marks, 2005), meaning the family itself

is literally constituted and re-constituted in and through everyday interaction. At the core

of the construct of the family lies family identity. As social constructionists ourselves,

we define family identity as who and what a family is (or is not), based on the mutual

influencing forces of how a family sees and defines itself and how outsiders see and

define the family. Like other social constructionists, we do not view family identity as

static, but rather we view family identity as an ongoing accomplishment (Nelson,

2006) that must be constructed and maintained in everyday practice. Following Carey

(2009), we believe construction, maintenance, repair, and changes to family identity hap-

pen via language, in conversation, in interaction. Put simply, families are (re)created

through talk.

Suter et al. 243



Communication scholar Kathleen Galvin’s 2006 publication significantly advanced

the conversation about the discursive accomplishment of family identity, particularly for

families who are more discourse dependent or more reliant on language to construct their

identities. As Galvin (2006) notes: ‘‘Even though all families engage in some level of

discourse-driven family identity building, less traditionally formed families are more

discourse dependent, engaging in recurring discursive practices to manage and maintain

identity’’ (p. 3). Although Galvin recently labeled the concept, various forms of

discourse-dependent families have been and continue to be studied, such as families

with custodial/coparenting grandparents (Erbert & Aleman, 2008), lesbian families

(Goldberg, Downing, & Richardson, 2009), and visibly adoptive families (Harrigan,

2009).

Communicative challenges facing transracial, internationaladoptive families

As noted in the quote from Jacobson (2008), families formed via transracial, international

adoption are subject to a myriad of communicative challenges beyond those faced by

non-normative families. Jacobson’s (2008, 2009) notion of interracial surveillance, a

‘‘phenomenon by which interracial families or multiracial individuals draw public

interest and are scrutinized, monitored, or harassed because they embody multiple

racial positions’’ (2008, p. 148) provides a useful framework for understanding these

challenges. Jacobson’s construct, which parallels Foucault’s (1995) notion of the

normalizing gaze, is based on her research with 40 White adoptive mothers of

Chinese children. These mothers construe outsiders’ remarks on familial difference

and normative transgression as invasive, based on their bluntness, consistency, unidirec-

tional nature, and the right and entitlement others feel to ask and receive answers, as well

as their lack of awareness of how these remarks are received.

Like Jacobson, Suter’s (2008) survey of 245 Chinese adoptive parents, Tessler,

Gamache, and Liu’s (1999) survey of 500 Chinese adoptive parents, and Harrigan’s

(2007) interviews with 40 parents of visibly adopted children have found that parents

experience outsider remarks as challenging, as they linguistically embody racism (‘‘He’s

a commie’’), call out visible difference (‘‘Are they really sisters?’’), commodify adopted

children (‘‘How much did she cost?’’), question the veracity of family member ties

(‘‘Where’s his real mother?’’), disparage children’s birth cultures (‘‘You know, in Asia

they kill their babies’’), and problematize parental decision-making (‘‘Why would you

adopt?). Parents in Tessler et al.’s (1999) study were most resentful of these negative

social interactions when such inappropriate remarks were uttered in the presence of their

children. In addition, as compared to the parents in the other studies, Tessler et al.’s

parents were confronted with more hostile stares, derogatory comments, and negative

attitudes from U.S. military veterans.

Suter (2008) and Harrigan (2007) found that these remarks were not only experienced

as invasive, but also challenged family identity. Suter (2008) found the most identity-

challenging remarks to be negative remarks about China’s history or culture, stereotyp-

ing of Asians, and comments that positioned parents as wonderful for ‘‘saving’’ their

children. Harrigan (2007) found that in order to negotiate validation of their personal and

244 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28(2)



familial identities, parents invoke discourses of legitimacy, seeking to defend the authen-

ticity of relations between family members and discourses of expansion, advocating for

more inclusive definitions of family.

All four studies also found that parents experience statements meant to be compliments

(e.g., ‘‘She’s like a China doll’’) as derogatory or negative. The mothers in Jacobson’s

(2008) study found such compliments problematic, believing they indicated Asian

fetishization, encouraged their children to define their self-worth primarily in terms of

attractiveness, and connected difference with physical features that cannot be altered. The

parents in Suter (2008) experienced similar compliments as challenging to the bonds

between parent and child, as these compliments call attention to visible differences

between the two. The parents in Harrigan (2007) invoked the discourse of praise, seeking

to redress excessive complimenting on their children’s external appearance by praising

their children’s non-physical or internal qualities.

Further, the parents in Suter (2008) reported negatively experiencing other types of

adoptive compliments, such as ‘‘What a wonderful, selfless act to adopt this poor,

orphaned child.’’ Parents reported that such compliments erroneously positioned them as

saviors and their children as having needed rescuing. In addition, they felt these com-

pliments misrepresented their expressed underlying intentions for international adoption

– to build family, rather than to do charity.

Whereas studies continue to report that parents perceive these interactions as

challenging, the results of Rojewski and Rojewski’s (2001) survey of 339 Chinese

adoptive parents provides one exception. Although 90% reported being repeatedly

approached by strangers, parents generally perceived these encounters as positive.

Despite this exception, researchers continue to find that adoptive parents experience

these types of social interactions as negative and challenging.

Moreover, recent scholarship finds that these interactions are problematic not only for

adoptive parents, but also for adoptees. Based on her study of 34 Korean adoptees raised

by White parents, Docan-Morgan (2010) found that ‘‘intrusive interactions’’ (p. 5)

challenge not only adoptees’ sense of family identity, but also their sense of personal

identity. Adoptees reported feeling threatened by remarks similar to those reported by

adoptive parents, as well as by additional discursive threats unique to adoptees. Congru-

ent with past research with adoptive parents, adoptees feel threatened by remarks that

question the genuineness of the adoptive family identity, commodified by compliments,

and objectified by stares. In addition, Docan-Morgan identified three categories of iden-

tity threats exclusively encountered by adoptees. Mistaken identities (e.g., being miscon-

strued as foreign exchange students, as newly arrived immigrants, or as housecleaners)

call into question adoptees’ identities as American citizens. Similarly, cases of mistaken

relationships (e.g., being misconstrued as their brother’s girlfriend or their father’s wife)

undermine adoptees’ relationships with family members and their place in the family.

Adoptees are also subject to intrusive encounters that occur in the absence of family

members. For instance, adoptees reported that peer-initiated inquiries (e.g., ‘‘How did

your parents find and get you?’’) and school projects, such as family trees, often create

distress, because either adoptees do not know the full information requested and, in cases

where they do know the information, they may feel the information is too sensitive or

uncomfortable to share.

Suter et al. 245



Taken together, this emerging baseline of scholarship not only characterizes how

these interactions are challenging, but it also demonstrates the degree of identity threat

associated with particular challenges. Building upon this foundation, a recent con-

versation about parental management of interracial surveillance has begun. The mothers

in Jacobson’s (2008) study reported using a variety of response strategies: averting eyes

from curious outsiders, deflecting and/or ignoring questions, shutting down or avoiding

conversations altogether, assessing underlying intentions of remarks, refusing to

acknowledge the true nature of invasive questions, using sarcasm, and educating about or

advocating for international adoption. The parents in Suter (2008) reported similar

approaches, with the addition of answering directly, asking ‘‘Why do you ask?’’, sharing

something about their family, and inquiring if the other is considering adopting from

China. Of these response strategies, family identity was most strongly supported by the

parental responses of answering directly, educating, and asking if the other is considering

adopting, respectively.

Suter and Ballard (2009) then extended these findings by identifying the underlying

parental decision-making criteria that leads to the management of challenging

interactions in ways that validate family identity. In contrast to oft-cited advice from

professional and educational resources (Adoption Learning Partners, n.d.; Coughlin &

Abramowitz, 2004), parents were not found to affirm their family identities by

employing suggested formulaic (read: static) responses. Rather, parents were found to

successfully manage interracial surveillance by creating relationally and interactionally

contingent responses. These judgments are not made with a priori, conscious standards,

but rather are made in the moment, based on parental assessment of not only relational

factors (e.g., the character of the other, relational quality, the other’s adoptive status), but

also contextual influences (e.g., presence or absence of child, the situation, child’s age).

Further, to remain affirming across time, parental responses were found to change,

particularly in relation to children’s increasing levels of understanding.

The adoptive ‘‘family form shapes the tenor of public interactions’’ (Jacobson, 2008,

p. 146). As previous research indicates, the tenor of these encounters is negative; these

relentless challenging interactions are experienced as racist, invasive, commodifying,

objectifying, monodirectional, and overall threatening to personal and family identities.

Further, previous research on parental management of interracial surveillance has

identified the types of strategies parents employ (Jacobson, 2008), which of these

strategies are the most identity affirming (Suter, 2008), and the decision-making criteria

that lead to this affirmation (Suter & Ballard, 2009).

Despite this knowledge, it remains unknown how parents make sense of and position

familial and personal identities during interracial surveillance. It is this conversation that

the current study enters and seeks to advance. The specific objective of this study is to

identify and understand the cognitive structures that parents rely on to sense-make and

manage identities in the midst of these challenging encounters. We reasoned that

elicitation of these largely implicit and unconscious knowledge schemas would be

difficult with direct inquiry and thus took a more abstract path by studying the metapho-

rical discourse that parents invoke when talking about managing interracial surveillance.

Our use of metaphor is congruent with Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of metaphor (Lakoff,

1986; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), which construes metaphor as a figure or mode of




thought, eschewing the traditional view of metaphor as a figure of speech. Rather than refer-

ring to a particularly poetic or persuasive use of language, metaphor as figure of thought

refers to cognitive categories, schemas, or knowledge structures that humans use to make

sense of and understand reality in general and phenomena in particular, such as interracial

surveillance. Metaphors illuminate often unconscious or implicit bases for thinking and

reasoning about phenomena. As evident by the title of Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) seminal

book, Metaphors We Live By, metaphors are evident in the discourse of our everyday lives.

The metaphors undergirding our conceptual systems manifest themselves in large part

through the ways we talk. Thus, to identify and understand the cognitive structures

undergirding parental sense-making and management of familial and personal identities

during interracial surveillance, we examined parental discourse, asking specifically:

RQ: What are the metaphor(s) underlying transracial, international adoptive parents’

talk about how they respond to outsiders’ remarks about their families?

Method

Participants

The participants were a volunteer sample of 69 parents who had adopted at least one child

from either Vietnam or China. The participants were from 14 U.S. states and two Canadian

provinces. They ranged in age from 37 to 63 years (M¼ 48, SD¼ 6.0), tended to be White

(93% White, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 3% not answered), heterosexual (92% heterosexual,

3% lesbian, 3% bisexual, 1% gay, 1% not answered), female (64.9%), married (75.4%married, 17.4% single, 5.8% domestic partnership, and 1.4% divorced), and highly edu-

cated (63% post BA, 21% BA, 10% some college, 2% vocational/technical school, 4% no

answer). Household income ranged from $30,000 to $300,000 per year (M ¼ $118,537,

SD¼ $48,874). Most participants expressed a religious affiliation (78%). Two (2.8%) of

the participants indicated they were adopted themselves. The adopted children of the

participants ranged from two to 20 years with an average age of seven years (M ¼ 7.1).

Design and procedure

After researchers received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board,

parents with at least one adopted child from Vietnam or China were given the oppor-

tunity to participate in a focus group held at a camp sponsored by Colorado Heritage

Camps, Inc. (CHC). CHC is a non-profit organization that serves as a post-adoption

resource, which in part includes conducting 10 annual heritage camps for adoptees and

adoptive families. To qualify to participate in a focus group, parents had to: (a) be at least

18 years old; (b) be a parent of at least one child adopted from either Vietnam or China; and

(c) have attended the first and third author’s research presentation held at either Vietnam

Heritage Camp or one of the two Chinese Heritage camps, given that the interview protocol

was designed to elicit a focused response to the research presentation. During the presenta-

tion, the first and third authors presented the results of Suter (2008) on both the types of

remarks adoptive parents receive and the response strategies they employ.

Recruitment occurred in several ways. Prior to the camps we distributed a recruitment

flyer. Then to explain the study, at the start of each camp, we staffed a table at

Suter et al. 247



registration and made a study announcement during opening ceremonies. Finally, at the

conclusion of each research presentation, parents were reminded that they qualified for

the focus group and were invited to participate.

At the session’s conclusion, a break was taken during which parents who did not wish

to participate in a focus group left and parents wishing to participate completed consent

forms and demographic forms. Participating parents were then divided into smaller

groups and taken by their moderator to private locations for the focus group discussion.

Twelve focus groups (with an average of six parents in each group) were held, each

lasting approximately one hour. Focus groups were moderated by the first and third

authors, as well as by three trained research assistants. Once settled, the moderator turned

on the audio-tape recorder. The interview protocol was designed to elicit a focused

response to the findings of Suter (2008), presented in the research session. Specifically,

parents were asked: (1) Thinking about the results that were presented about comments

and questions the studied families received, how are the comments and questions they

received similar or different to your experiences?; (2) How are the results of the response

strategies the studied families used similar or different to your experiences?; (3) How do

the comments and questions you receive challenge or support your family identity?; (4)

How do the response strategies you use support or challenge your family identity?

Analysis

The audio-taped focus groups were initially transcribed verbatim by a research assistant.

The transcriptions totaled 200 single-spaced pages of text. The first author then listened

to each tape in order to verify and correct the initial transcriptions, remove identifying

markers (e.g., changing personal names to pseudonyms), and add in forcefulness.

Forcefulness indicates the ways in which individuals use their voices to stress and

shape the meaning of their talk (Owen, 1984). Forcefulness was determined by volume,

audible physical gestures (e.g., slapping the table), emotive responses (e.g., laughter and

crying (whether individual or group)), and pauses (e.g., for emphasis). Drawing loosely

from the transcript notation system developed by Gail Jefferson (Atkinson & Heritage,

1984), we denoted forcefulness in the transcripts as follows: Italics represent vocal

emphasis, all CAPS indicate stronger vocal emphasis, ‘‘quotation marks’’ signify

reported speech, and ((double parenthesis)) enclose laughter, as well as other char-

acterizations of talk and group dynamics.

We then conducted a systematic metaphoric analysis (Owen, 1984, 1985) of each

focus group. Metaphors were considered present when they met Owen’s three criteria of

recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness. Owen’s first criterion, recurrence, was met when

excerpts ‘‘had the same thread of meaning, even though different wording indicated such

a meaning . . . an implicit recurrence of meaning using different discourse’’ (Owen,

1984, p. 275). For instance, wording about teaching and instructing provided evidence

for the emergent metaphor of parent as educator. Criterion two, repetition, was met by

the ‘‘repetition of key words, phrases, or sentences’’ (p. 275). For instance, a parent’s

repetition of the word protect, as in ‘‘protect, protect, protect’’ provided evidence for the

emergent metaphor of parent as protector. Criterion three, forcefulness, as discussed




above, was met when parents used their voices to underscore aspects of their talk that

related to the emergent metaphors.

The metaphoric analysis of each focus group was visually displayed in analytic tables

and memos. These tables and memos totaled 406 pages of single-spaced text. The length

is due to the four column layout of the analytic tables. Numbering columns one through

four from left to right, the first column lists each emergent metaphor, the second column

cites evidence of recurrence, the third column cites evidence of repetition, and the fourth

column provides evidence of forcefulness.

After the analysis of each focus group, the first and second authors met to discuss the

resultant analytic table and memo for each, discussing differences in analysis until

consensus was reached. Only after consensus was achieved did we move on to the

analysis of the next focus group. This process was followed for each of the 12 focus

groups. Then, all three authors independently re-analyzed each of the 12 analytic tables,

memos, and transcripts in order to move up one step on the ladder of abstraction by iden-

tifying the larger, more overarching metaphors that brought our analysis together into a

coherent whole. Using a reiterative process, whereby we continuously checked and re-

checked the emerging, overarching metaphors against the raw data, the metaphors of

adoptive parent as protector and adoptive parent as educator emerged.

Validity. We employed the qualitative validity processes of audibility, investigator

triangulation, constant comparison, exemplars, and audit trail. Prior to analysis, we

conducted the data quality check of audibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by verifying the

veracity of the transcripts against the recorded focus groups, making corrections as

necessary. Across data analysis, we employed investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1970;

Miles & Huberman, 1994), seeking convergent meanings between the separate authors

about the emergent metaphors (Angen, 2000), thus minimizing biases that could have

resulted from using only one researcher’s perspective (Flick, 2004; Steinke, 2000). During

analysis we also utilized constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), checking and

re-checking the metaphors against the raw data to be certain that the metaphors reported

had emerged directly from parental discourse. Then, to demonstrate the link between the

interpretations and the data in our results section, we integrated exemplars of parental

discourse, making ‘‘the text available so that other researchers can inspect it and assess the

adequacy with which the methods and interpretations represent the data’’ (Mishler, 1990,

p. 437). Doing so helps build ‘‘the descriptive validity of what the researcher reports

having seen or heard,’’ according to Maxwell (1992, p. 286), and comprises a form of face

validity in Wood’s (2004) terms. Finally, we have maintained an audit trail, maintaining

careful collection of our data and its analysis (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993).

Results

Adoptive parents as protectors and educators

Metaphoric analysis renders visible cognitive structures that humans use to organize and

make sense of information and experience. Our research question asked: What are the

metaphor(s) underlying transracial, international adoptive parents’ talk about how they

Suter et al. 249



respond to outsiders’ remarks about their families? In answer to this question, adoptive

parent as protector and adoptive parent as educator emerged as two metaphors inherent

in parental talk about their responses to interracial surveillance. These metaphors

illuminate how parents make sense of and position familial and personal identities during

these encounters.

In this section, we present particular excerpts from the focus groups to provide

discursive evidence of the metaphors of protection and education that emerged directly

from parental talk, meeting Owen’s standards of ‘‘develop[ing] concepts which are

adequate theoretically while being coherent and true to the empirical words of those to

whom the concepts are applied’’ (1985, p. 2). We provide one excerpt for each discursive

characteristic that comprises each metaphor. Specifically, we analyze each excerpt in

terms of: (a) the outsider remark that the parent is responding to; (b) the degree of

challenge of the remark as reported by Suter (2008); (c) the recurrence, repetition, and

forcefulness (Owen, 1985) within the parental discourse; (d) an interpretation of the

discourse as it relates to its particular metaphor; and (e) an interpretation of the discourse

as it relates to identity.

Adoptive parent as protector

Protectors construe family identity as something to be guarded – in need of protecting.

Intrusive remarks are experienced as attacks on the family and on the child. Protectors

meet these challenging remarks head on, in the interaction, aiming to keep outsiders out.

Protectors view family as a closed system, preferring low, or at times impermeable, family

boundaries. To defend and shield the family from harm, protectors enact discourse best

characterized as confrontational, strategic, and toughening. In confrontational and

strategic discourse, the parent recounts meeting the challenge straight-on, whereas in

toughening speech, protectors discuss the importance of affording their children space

to learn to meet these challenges themselves.

Confrontational discourse. Confrontational speech captures protectors’ use of offensive

discourse to repel perceived threats to family identity. Confrontational speech is both

protective and defensive. It is seen as a justifiable response to inappropriate remarks. As

an exemplar we turn to Kory who responds with confrontation when faced with negative

comments about China and racist remarks, which rank as the first and second most

challenging topics, respectively (Suter, 2008).

When they ask it racially, my wall goes up, and then I’ll . . . just come out straight and

confront ‘em. And, I have no problem being confrontive, especially when I know it’s

racial . . . I start to hear their comments behind my back and when it’s racial then, I start

to build the wall to them . . . I’ll confront ‘em just right on about their racial attitudes . . .

For me to go to guns on someone, they have to say something that’s just wrong they would

have to say something just negative about China... for the sake of my daughter, at the very

least, who’s standing right next to me, I would go right back at ‘em. . . . it would have to be

something just overtly negative for me to respond, to go back at ‘em . . . I think as a family

identity, instead of being free-flowing when we go out, there’s always that wall around us




you know that we’re kind of always guarded on the on one side, because of how people per-

ceive us. And I feel that wall go down when I’m alone, but when I come out as a family, as

one, I need to protect the girls, and I’m kind of always watching (FG2: 215–437).

Kory’s core meaning coalesces around how he plays the role of confrontational protector

by building discursive walls around the family and taking offensive measures (i.e., going to

guns on someone) when comments threaten to invade these protective structures.

Recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness underscore this core meaning. Evidence of

recurrence – meaning(s) that surface repeatedly – include: ‘‘When they ask it racially,

my wall goes up, and then I’ll . . . just come out straight and confront ‘em,’’ ‘‘For me to

go to guns on someone, they have to say something that’s just wrong they would have to

say something just negative about China... for the sake of my daughter,’’ ‘‘as a family

identity, instead of being free-flowing when we go out, there’s always that wall around

us.’’ Repetition – literal re-use of the same wording – is illustrated by four uses of the

term racial (‘‘when they ask it racially,’’ ‘‘when I know it’s racial,’’ ‘‘when it’s racial,’’

‘‘racial attitudes’’). Kory repeats ‘‘confront ‘em’’ twice and also speaks of having no

problem ‘‘being confrontive.’’ Likewise, he repeats the phrase ‘‘back at ‘em’’ twice. The

metaphor of a wall as a protective structure is also invoked four times: ‘‘my wall goes

up,’’ ‘‘I start to build the wall,’’ ‘‘there’s always that wall around us,’’ ‘‘I feel that wall

go down when I’m alone.’’ Forcefulness – use of the voice to stress and shape the mean-

ing of talk – is demonstrated via Kory’s vocal emphasis of his core meaning (indicated

by italics): ‘‘confront ‘em,’’ ‘‘just wrong,’’ ‘‘negative about China,’’ ‘‘overtly negative,’’

‘‘how people perceive us.’’

Kory invokes the metaphor of protection and speaks to identity when discussing his

role as the family protector; ‘‘I need to protect the girls.’’ His discourse enacts his role, in

part, by constructing a verbal wall to protect his family when they are outside. Yet, the

wall proves inadequate as his family’s identity is still subject to attack by ‘‘overtly

negative’’ comments leaving Kory ‘‘always guarded’’ and ‘‘always watching.’’ When

alone, Kory feels his ‘‘wall go down’’ but because he needs to protect his family, his

girls, the walls go back up when they are ‘‘out as a family.’’ This protection has

implications for the family’s identity construction. As Kory explains, rather than being

‘‘free-flowing’’ when out in the public, the expressive functions of the family’s identity

are blocked by comments that reveal negative perceptions of the family.

Strategic discourse. Protectors also develop strategies for remarks they receive over and

over (e.g., questions about cost, about whether the ties between siblings are biological).

Strategic discourse seemed, for many, to be a defense mechanism, born of repeated

experiences with untoward comments. Further, strategic discourse captures parents’

attempts to cope with the emotional and physiological costs of these recurring, unsettling

interactions. As our exemplar we present Lou Ann, who discusses the challenge ‘‘Are

they sisters?’’ and her strategically prepared response. Such inquiries challenge the

authenticity of the relationships between siblings based on visible differences. These

types of questions were included on the visibility subscale in Suter (2008), ranking fourth

in terms of degree of challenge.

Suter et al. 251



It is NEVER EVER tension free. There’s LAYERS and LAYERS of tension, every single

day (crying). We talked about the need to protect . . . but that it’s always at a price. It feels

like it comes out of my hide (crying) or my sense of self, identity—family identity . . . my

strategy these days—the biggest question we get about the girls in their presence is, ‘‘Are

they sisters?’’ (group agrees). And people will go as far to push it, and go as far to say, ‘‘No I

mean their, ah, do they have real biological parents or not? And DO THEY KNOW?’’ And

they are STANDING RIGHT THERE for god’s sake you know what I mean? That makes me

so crazy. And I say, ‘‘Sisters through love.’’ I say, ‘‘Yes,’’ and if they mess with me, and they

push it, I say, ‘‘Sisters through love’’ (FG: 204–378).

Lou Ann’s core meaning is that chronic protection of her daughters’ sense of

family identity from outside remarks (‘‘Are they sisters?’’) comes at a price – at a

loss of Lou Ann’s own hide, her own sense of self, identity, leaving her feeling

emotionally embattled (e.g., messed with, pushed around) and physiologically

battered (e.g., crying).

Evidence of recurrence includes: ‘‘It is NEVER EVER tension free,’’ ‘‘the need to

protect . . . but that it’s always at a price,’’ ‘‘It feels like it comes out of my hide (crying)

or my sense of self, identity—family identity.’’ Repetition is illustrated by three

reiterations of ‘‘sisters’’ in the following phrases, ‘‘Are they sisters?’’, ‘‘Sisters through

love,’’ and ‘‘Sisters through love.’’ Lou Ann also repeats ‘‘identity’’ twice: ‘‘Identity,’’

and ‘‘family identity.’’ She repeats ‘‘push it’’ and ‘‘tension’’ twice: ‘‘NEVER EVER

tension free,’’ and ‘‘LAYERS and LAYERS of tension.’’ Finally, she repeats the phrase

‘‘I say’’ three times. Forcefulness is indicated through group affirmations (i.e., ‘‘group

agrees’’) and personal emotive responses (i.e., ‘‘crying’’), as well as through Lou Ann’s

shouting and vocal emphasis ‘‘NEVER EVER,’’ ‘‘LAYERS and LAYERS,’’ ‘‘protect,’’

‘‘it’s always at a price,’’ ‘‘self,’’ ‘‘push it,’’ ‘‘real,’’ ‘‘DO THEY KNOW?’’ ‘‘STANDING

RIGHT THERE for god’s sake,’’ and ‘‘Yes.’’

Lou Ann’s discourse explicitly links the metaphor of protection to issues of identity.

She talks of sacrificing her own sense of self in order to protect her children’s sense of

family membership. In addition, her strategic response, ‘‘Sisters through love,’’

explicitly tells others that this family is bound by love rather than biology.

Toughening discourse. Protectors prepare their children to handle inappropriate remarks by

exposing them as potential targets of invasive or otherwise challenging remarks.

Although ultimately about protection, toughening speech, at first glance, seems a bit

counterintuitive. Whereas one might expect protective parents to shield children from

these invasive remarks, these parents discuss toughening children up to better handle

complex interactions across the lifespan by not sheltering them when they are young.

Toughening speech involves leaving children unprotected now so that they can have

experiences that allow them to learn skills to protect themselves.

As an exemplar we consider Bradley, who discusses preparing his daughter for coping

in a world he perceives as ‘‘tough,’’ and whose inhabitants are ‘‘cruel.’’ In this exemplar

he talks both generally about remarks (e.g., ‘‘Kids are cruel’’) and specifically about his

daughter being referred to as a ‘‘Chink,’’ which ranks as the second most challenging

topic (Suter, 2008).




Before he died, her great-grandfather . . . referred to her as a Chink (group gasp) . . . Um, but

you can only protect her so much (group agrees) and it’s a tough world out there, and she’s

gonna have to live in it for the rest—forever, so you can’t protect her, protect her, protect

her, protect her and turn around one day and expect her to be—she’s gotta toughen up a

little bit as she goes along. Perhaps that sounds cruel, but I don’t know any other way to

do it . . . Kids are tough. Kids are cruel (group agrees). And again, I don’t know how to get

around that (FG 6: 461–496).

Bradley’s core meaning explains his toughen-up strategy that exposes rather than

shelters his daughter from cruel comments, thus intending to produce a child prepared

to thrive in a harsh world. Bradley has his doubts about his strategy, but this is the best

way he knows.

Evidence of recurrence of this core meaning includes: ‘‘it’s a tough world out there,’’

‘‘so you can’t protect her, protect her, protect her, protect her,’’ ‘‘she’s gotta toughen up

a little bit as she goes along.’’ Repetition is illustrated by Bradley’s restatement of the

phrase ‘‘protect her’’ five times, with four of these repeated one after another in a

staccato pattern. He repeats ‘‘tough’’ three times: ‘‘tough world,’’ ‘‘toughen up,’’ and

‘‘Kids are tough.’’ ‘‘Cruel’’ appears twice (‘‘that sounds cruel,’’ ‘‘Kids are cruel’’).

Finally, Bradley repeats ‘‘I don’t know’’ twice in the highly similar phrases of ‘‘I don’t

know any other way to do it’’ and ‘‘I don’t know how to get around that.’’ Forcefulness is

evidenced through vocal emphasis (e.g., tough world) coupled with verbal staccato (i.e.,

protect her, protect her, protect her, protect her), as well as through group affirmations

(e.g., group agrees).

Bradley’s discourse repeatedly and explicitly invokes the metaphor of protection and

links to identity. Bradley expresses his belief that to best protect his child he needs to

leave her exposed to untoward comments so that she can protect herself later as an adult

on her own. Focusing on his daughter’s identity, Bradley’s goal seems to be to help her

develop a tough sense of self that is not open to challenge in the face of cruel comments

(read: racist, i.e., ‘‘Chink’’).

Adoptive parent as educator

In contrast to protectors’ exclusionary and defensive rhetoric, educators’ language

focuses on constructing – rather than protecting – a cohesive sense of family identity.

Educators are inclusive, educating their children and outsiders, often with the long-term

goal of bringing all into a supportive social system. To do so, they use speech designed to

prepare, model, and debrief, aiming to affirm the child’s identity, whether before, during,

or after outsiders’ challenging remarks.

Preparatory discourse. Preparatory speech occurs prior to outsider remarks. Preparatory

acts prepare the child for how to handle terms and topics expected to disrupt the child’s

sense of self and place in the family. As an exemplar we turn to Francine, who

demonstrates preparation in response to the outsider remark, ‘‘How much did you cost?’’

Remarks about the costs associated with adoption rank as the fifth most challenging topic

(Suter, 2008).

Suter et al. 253



I try to teach my kids about intention. If this is a good close friend of yours who wants to

know how you feel, you might want to give more of an explanation. If it’s someone in the

grocery store that says ‘‘How much did you cost?’’, you’re free to walk away from that . . .

We’ve tried to use the TIP method. They can either Tell, they can Inform, which is like edu-

cate, or they can keep it Private, which is walk way. So they keep the word TIP in their head,

and then they can choose how to answer the question and it gives them some empowerment

to know that you can answer the question depending upon who it is, how it’s intended (FG 1:

216–226).

Given that Francine expects her children to receive invasive questions, she reaches

them the Tell, Inform, Private (TIP) method. Francine’s core meaning coalesces around

the idea that rather than suggesting specific response strategies to expected questions,

she empowers her children to choose how to answer on their own, depending on their

perception of the intention of the source of the remark.

Evidence of recurrence of this core meaning includes: ‘‘I try to teach my kids about

intention’’ and ‘‘they can choose how to answer the question and it gives them some

empowerment to know that you can answer the question depending upon who it is, how

it’s intended.’’ Repetition is evidenced by four reiterations of the phrase ‘‘they can,’’

followed each time by different choices (either Tell, Inform, keep it Private, or choose

how to answer). Francine’s vocal emphasis of the words choose and empowerment

(indicated by italics) provide evidence of forcefulness.

Francine’s words (i.e., ‘‘teach,’’ ‘‘educate’’) link her discourse explicitly to the

metaphor of education. Questions that commodify the child, such as ‘‘How much did you

cost?’’ position the child as an object that could be bought, as in an economic transaction,

rather than as a family member. Francine empowers her children by teaching them that in

response to commodifying questions, the child can walk away, thereby rejecting an

objectifying view of their identity. Simultaneously, Francine teaches her children they

can choose to share private information with close friends in order to create tighter bonds

with accepting others.

Modeling discourse. Modeling occurs during the interaction, as parents are responding to

outsider remarks. In modeling, the parents’ spoken response is meant to provide a

template for the child to construct his or her own identity-affirming responses when the

parent is absent. As an exemplar we present Penny who has a son, nine years old, from

Vietnam and a daughter, five years old, from China. The brother/sister question (e.g.,

‘‘Are they really brother and sister?’’) and ‘‘Are you the real mother?’’ challenge the

authenticity of the relationships between siblings and between the adoptive parent and

child based on visible differences. Both questions were included on the visibility sub-

scale in Suter (2008), which ranks fourth in terms of degree of challenge.1

As he’s gotten older I, I, I’ve been a little more, a little less willing to answer questions

especially if he’s with me. Um, because he’s a, he’s a (slight pause) fairly private kid, and

um so I will you know like the brother/sister question, I’ll say ‘‘yes,’’ and that’s it. And, you

know that’s all we need to know. Um, ‘‘Are you the real mother?’’ ‘‘Yes.’’ (laughter) . . .

Um, and his very first day at first grade, he faced a situation that turned into a bullying




situation. Um, and I learned, he learned the hard way that mom had neglected that part of

his education that um he needs to know how to answer those questions. Um, and so that’s

also part of my motivation is modeling for him a way to handle those questions when he gets

them . . . I’ve had to do work with him um helping him learn how to answer the questions,

because he’s not with me 24/7 anymore (FG 8: 226–244).

Penny’s core meaning emerged from a recognition that her failure to model responses

for her son left him vulnerable in challenging interactions, ultimately setting him up for

bullying. Her motivation now is to model responses for her son to equip him to

effectively handle challenging questions on his own.

Evidence of recurrence of this core meaning includes: ‘‘he learned the hard way that

mom had neglected that part of his education that um he needs to know how to answer those

questions,’’ ‘‘part of my motivation is modeling for him a way to handle those questions

when he gets them,’’ and ‘‘helping him learn how to answer the questions, because he’s not

with me 24/7 anymore.’’ Repetition is illustrated by three restatements of ‘‘learn’’ in the

phrases, ‘‘I learned,’’ ‘‘he learned the hard way,’’ and ‘‘helping him learn.’’ Penny also

repeats the word ‘‘question’’ five times, ‘‘less willing to answer questions,’’ ‘‘the brother/

sister question,’’ ‘‘how to answer those questions,’’ ‘‘to handle those questions,’’ and ‘‘how

to answer the questions.’’ Penny’s vocal emphasis of ‘‘answer questions,’’ ‘‘he learned the

hard way,’’ ‘‘neglected that part of his education,’’ ‘‘modeling for him,’’ as well as group

responses (i.e., laughter), provide evidence of forcefulness.

Penny’s words (i.e., ‘‘learn,’’ ‘‘how to,’’ ‘‘education,’’ ‘‘modeling’’) overtly invoke

the metaphor of education. Penny explains how she had previously chosen to provide

quick answers to outsiders’ questions out of a desire to honor her son’s fairly private

disposition. Seeking to redress her earlier neglect, Penny now uses challenging inter-

actions as opportunities to model responses for her child.

Debriefing discourse. Designed to unpack disruptive outsider remarks, debriefing occurs

after unsettling interactions. Debriefing allows time to unpack invasive remarks while

removed from the emotional charge of the interaction. Consider the exemplar of Dean

and his family who hold debriefing sessions in response to challenging outsider

comments, such as ‘‘BOY, that’s real different. I thought they only had GIRLS.’’

Although Dean adopted a boy from Vietnam, Americans typically assume that Asian

adoptees are girls from China. Such comments index the historical Chinese gender bias

towards boys, which ranks as the sixth most challenging topic (Suter, 2008).

Our challenge is helping our son become equipped to deal with those comments . . . . One of

the things that we get because we have a boy from Vietnam is that ‘‘BOY, that’s real differ-

ent. I thought they only had GIRLS’’ (group agrees) . . . We’ve spent a lot of time together as

a family. And after being out and about... we always come back together and we just

debrief. And sometimes we’ll do it daily . . . We’ll have a debrief in the night before the kids

go to bed – we sit and we talk for 15 to 20 minutes. And that is a great opportunity . . . just to

talk about it. And we don’t necessarily resolve everything, but it comes out. And for our son

that’s been helpful as it gives him a chance to articulate unimpeded by time constraints or

anything else. It gives him a chance to find the words to be able to express himself and to

Suter et al. 255



say, ‘‘I didn’t like it when this happened’’ . . . some of the things that do come up in that way, we

just deal with either here during this pow-wow time . . . We just talk about it . . . (FG 12: 374–

738).

Dean’s core meaning coalesces around a belief in the importance of process over

resolution. This process is about expression, rather than response.

Evidence of recurrence of this core meaning includes: ‘‘It gives him a chance to

articulate unimpeded by time constraints . . . to find the words to be able to express

himself and to say, ‘‘I didn’t like it when this happened.’’ Repetition is illustrated by

Dean’s explicit use of the term ‘‘debrief’’ twice: ‘‘we just debrief,’’ ‘‘we’ll have a

debrief.’’ The term ‘‘talk’’ is repeated three times: ‘‘we talk,’’ ‘‘just to talk about it,’’ ‘‘we

just talk about it.’’ Dean repeats the phrase ‘‘it gives him a chance’’ twice. Dean’s

paralanguage provides evidence of forcefulness. For instance, he uses his voice to

emphasize ‘‘just to talk about it,’’ ‘‘it comes out,’’ and ‘‘find the words.’’ Group affir-

mation (i.e., group agrees) provides further evidence.

In Dean’s form of education, the family’s lived experiences are the textbook; the

debriefing sessions constitute the classroom setting. Together this curriculum ‘‘helps

[their] son become equipped to deal with those comments.’’ Dean recognizes that the

family can create an emergent discursive space where it is safe for his son to express his

feelings about outsider remarks. This curriculum fosters Dean’s son’s sense of self by

encouraging self-reflexivity and allowing private critical ‘‘pow-wows’’ about public

discourses that challenge or misrepresent family members’ identities.

Discussion

Transracial, international adoptive families fail to meet normative judgments about how

families should be. Difference leaves these families’ vulnerable to the monitoring eye of

interracial surveillance (Jacobson, 2009): Difference becomes a catalyst for outsider

remarks (Galvin, 2006). Racist, objectifying remarks (Tessler et al., 1999) call parents to

account for their families’ racial, national, and biological disparities; interracial

surveillance challenges both parents’ and adoptees’ familial and personal identities

(Docan-Morgan, 2010).

Although unsolicited and monodirectional, these inquiries somehow presume a

response from parents, and parents report feeling obligated to respond (Jacobson, 2008).

Past research has identified the repertoire of parental response strategies (Jacobson,

2008), the most identity affirming of these, and the criteria that led to affirmation (Suter,

2008, Suter & Ballard, 2009). Despite this knowledge, how parents make sense of and

position familial and personal identities during these interactions remained unknown.

The present study extends current understanding by identifying the largely unconscious

cognitive schemas that structure parental responses to interracial surveillance. Our

metaphorical analysis advances knowledge about parental management of identities

during interracial surveillance by illuminating how the metaphors of adoptive parent as

protector and adoptive parent as educator manifest in parental discourse.

Both metaphors occupy unique positionalities: protectors aim to guard identity,

educators strive to construct or build identity. Attempts to achieve these disparate goals




embody differing discursive means. To guard identity, protectors enact defensive,

somewhat reactive discourse, meeting and challenging invasive remarks straight-on, in

situ, in the moment, using confrontational, strategic, and toughening discourse. By

contrast, seeking to build identity, educators enact less reactive and more intentional

discourse through the specific means of preparation, modeling, and debriefing, occurring

before, during, and after intrusive interactions.

Yet, despite these differences, the metaphors of adoptive parent as protector and

adoptive parent as educator are interrelated. ‘‘Coherence between metaphors is referred

to as external systematicity, or external coherence’’ (Mumby & Spitzack, 1983, p. 166,

italics in original). External coherence captures how seemingly disparate metaphors

relate – in this case, how the protector metaphor relates to the educator metaphor. The

metaphors of protector and educator are alike in that identity is the key concept for both.

While these two metaphors diverge in terms of their discourse about identity, both are

similarly focused on the identities of their families and the personal identities of their

children.

Implications of results

The results of this study advance not only scientific, but also practical knowledge about

transracial, international adoptive families. Of the studies on interracial surveillance,

Rojewski and Rojewski (2001) have been the only ones to report that parents tend to

experience these encounters positively. As noted by Rojewski and Rojewski themselves

in 2001, which is now a well-established piece of knowledge in this area, parents who

adopt internationally are predominantly White and upper-middle class (Ishizawa,

Kenney, Kubo, & Stevens, 2006). Given their positionality, adoptive parents are often

unaware of the impact of racial discrimination and prejudice, having rarely experienced

it first-hand before (Dorow, 2006). Thus, the increase in challenge, as reported by more

recent studies (e.g., Jacobson, 2009), may actually represent a greater awareness and

understanding of racism and difference.

Yet, this greater awareness does not necessarily equip parents to successfully meet

these communicative challenges. Prior to adopting internationally, potential adoptive

families, in most states, must complete a minimum amount of education hours, which

typically include courses on attachment and bonding, grief and loss, and cultural

socialization. Courses on managing communicative challenges are infrequent. Yet the

results of this study suggest, for instance, that educators’ internally oriented responses, in

part, helped children develop a strong family identity and sense of self-esteem. Thus, the

results of this study suggest that more attention should be paid to the role of communi-

cation in building familial and personal identities during pre-adoptive training. These

results suggest that courses on internal adoptive family communication should be a

required part of the pre-adoptive curriculum. For instance, parents could learn about how

to prepare for, model during, and debrief after disordering social encounters.

It should be noted, however, that we are not making a moral distinction between the

two parental discursive orientations found in this study, preferring, for example,

education over protection. Recent thought challenges that racism can be overcome when

‘‘bad behavior by individuals is met with good behavior by individuals’’ (Bow, 2009,

Suter et al. 257



p. 44), arguing instead that ‘‘it’s sometimes OK to fight fire with fire’’ (p. 44). Thus, we

would advise that pre-adoptive training present both protecting and educating as viable

discursive means. It remains possible that best practices may result from parents being

comfortable with this range of communicative options, perhaps directly confronting

an explicit racist remark, such as another calling a Chinese child a Chink, but then

utilizing debriefing later in the day to unpack the implicit meanings of more subtle

remarks.

Limitations and directions for future research

One possible limitation of this study is the limited range of participants. This study only

included families with adopted children from Vietnam and China. Future studies need to

look at the communicative experiences of children adopted from non-Asian countries,

such as Ethiopia or Columbia, in order to interrogate how the communicative dynamics

reported here might vary depending on the child’s race.

A second possible limitation is that this data was collected at adoption heritage camps.

Parents who attend camp actively seek out information about their child’s birth country

and its culture, as well as opportunities to connect with the adoptive community

(e.g., other adoptive parents, adult adoptees, and adoption professionals). Camp itself

provides families with a socially supportive environment to discuss difficult topics

(e.g., racism) and challenging interactions. Given these motivations, expectations, and

social benefits, it is possible that camp parents may be more educated on culturally

relevant topics and/or have more deeply processed their feelings and experiences than

parents who do not attend. These potential differences warrant future research on

families who do not attend heritage camps in order to decipher the ways in which their

experiences are similar to and different from the parents in the current study.

A third possible limitation was the use of focus groups to collect the data for this

study. By design, focus groups allow for group interaction on a topic, which can be a

particularly advantageous research design for eliciting discussion on difficult topics,

such as racism and biological privilege (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). At the same time, by

the focus group’s very nature, individual comments are said in the context of a group. As

such, focus groups increase the likelihood that individual comments may be the result of

the group discussion. It remains possible that focus groups may suppress individuals

whose perspectives run counter to the group. Thus, future researchers should consider

designing studies that privilege individual expression (e.g., individual interviews or

self-reports on surveys) to ascertain if there is more variability on this topic than emerged

in the current study.

The present work advances understandings about parental management of interracial

surveillance in families with adopted children. More specifically, we identified and

explicated the cognitive structures undergirding parental sense-making and management

of familial and personal identities in relation to these challenging encounters. The

metaphors adoptive parent as protector and adoptive parent as educator illuminate par-

ental positionings that diverge and converge in important ways. Although protectors

enact defensive, somewhat reactive discourse and educators enact less reactive, more

intentional discourse, both respond in ways that demonstrate a fundamental concern with




identity. Moreover, the results from our study lay the groundwork for future research on

discursive identity management in alternate forms of diverse families.

Acknowledgements

Elizabeth A Suter, PhD, (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), is an Associate Professor

and Kristine L Reyes is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the

University of Denver. Robert L Ballard, PhD, (University of Denver), is an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Drama and Speech Communication at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2008 meeting of the National Commu-

nication Association in San Diego, CA. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to

Todd C Trautman, PhD, Sarah Ballard, and Elizabeth KimJin Collardey, PhD, for their assistance

with data collection; to Eliana Schonberg for her assistance with writing; to the parents who shared

their stories; and to CHC.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

Note

1. In addition, the majority of parental narratives (175 or 51%) concerned visibility, and of these

visibility narratives, 41% were about challenges to the relationship between adoptive parent and

child.

References

Adoption Learning Partners (n.d.). Conspicuous families. Retrieved October 1, 2010. http://www.

adoptionlearningpartners.org

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening

the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378–395.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.),

Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Baxter, L. A., Henauw, C., Huisman, D., Livesay, C. B., Norwood, K., Su, H., . . . Young, B.

(2009). Lay conceptions of ‘‘family’’: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Commu-

nication, 9, 170–189.

Bow, L. (2009, October). Adopting a genre. The Progressive, 73, 43–44.

Carey, J. W. (2009). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society (Rev. ed.). New

York: Routledge.

Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

62, 283–297.

Coughlin, A., & Abramowitz, C. (2004). Cross-cultural adoption: How to answer questions from

family, friends, and community. Washington, DC: LifeLine Press.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Suter et al. 259



Docan-Morgan, S. (2010). Korean adoptees’ retrospective reports of intrusive interactions: Exploring

boundary management in adoptive families. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 137–157.

Dorow, S. (2006). Transnational adoption: A cultural economy of race, gender, and kinship. New

York: New York University Press.

Erbert, L. A., & Aleman, M. W. (2008). Taking the grand out of grandparent: Dialectical tensions

in grandparent perceptions of surrogate parenting, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

25, 671–695.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry:

A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke

(Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (sec. 4.5). Rowohits enzyklopadie. London: Sage

(original work published 1998).

Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships. In L. H.

Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–39). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.

Galvin, K. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity.

In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., & Richardson, H. B., (2009). The transition from infertility to

adoption: Perceptions of lesbian and heterosexual couples, Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 26, 938–963.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1990). What is family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Harrigan, M. M. (2007). The multivocality of identity-work in families formed through visible

adoption. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communication Association,

Providence, RI.

Harrigan, M. M. (2009). The contradictions of identity-work for parents of visibly adopted

children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 634–658.

Holtzman, M. (2008). Defining family: Young adults’ perceptions of the parent-child bond.

Journal of Family Communication, 8, 167–185.

Ishizawa, H., Kenney, C. T., Kubo, K., & Stevens, G. (2006). Constructing interracial families

through intercountry adoption. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 1207–1224.

Jacobson, H. (2008). Culture keeping: White mothers, international adoption, and the negotiation

of family difference. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Jacobson, H. (2009). Interracial surveillance and biological privilege: adoptive families in the pub-

lic eye. In M. K. Nelson, & A. I. Garey (Eds.), Who’s watching: Daily practices of surveillance

among contemporary families (pp. 73–93). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1986). A figure of thought. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1, 215–225.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational

Review, 62, 279–300.




Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative

studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–442.

Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. L. Morgan

(Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 225–244). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Mumby, D. K., & Spitzack, C. (1983). Ideology and television news: A metaphoric analysis of

political stories. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 162–171.

Nelson, M. K. (2006). Single mothers ‘‘do’’ family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781–795.

Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A model for

family studies. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, &

D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143–154). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 70, 274–287.

Owen, W. F. (1985). Thematic metaphors in relational communication: A conceptual framework.

The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 1–13.

Rojewski, J. W., & Rojewski, J. L. (2001). Intercountry adoption from China: Examining cultural

heritage and other postadoption issues. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Smith, B., Surrey, J. L., & Watkins, M. (2006). ‘‘Real’’ mothers: Adoptive mothers resisting

marginalization and recreating motherhood. In K. Wegar (Ed.), Adoptive families in a diverse

society (pp. 146–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Steinke, I. (2000). Quality criteria in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke

(Eds.), A companion guide to qualitative research (pp. 184–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suter, E. A. (2008). Discursive negotiation of family identity: A study of U.S. families with

adopted children from China. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 126–147.

Suter, E. A., & Ballard, R. L. (2009). ‘‘How much did you pay for her?’’: Decision-making criteria

underlying adoptive parents’ responses to inappropriate remarks. Journal of Family Communi-

cation, 9, 107–125.

Tessler, R. C., Gamache, G., & Liu, L. (1999). West meets East: Americans adopt Chinese

children. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 555–576.

Suter et al. 261



Parental management of adoptive identities during challenging encounters: Adoptive parents as...

Documents

Transcript of Parental management of adoptive identities during challenging encounters: Adoptive parents as...