Families That Do Well: Lay Conceptualizations of Well‐Functioning, Healthy, Strong, and Good Families
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Author | Nicole Y. Pitre,Berna J. Skrypnek,Kaysi E. Kushner,Deanna L. Williamson,Margo Charchuk |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12319 |
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
D L. W, M C, K E. K, B J. S,
N Y. P University of Alberta
Families That Do Well: Lay Conceptualizations of
Well-Functioning, Healthy, Strong, and Good
Families
Objective: To explore laypeople’s conceptual-
ization of terms that refer to families that do well
and how social-contextual factors shape these
conceptualizations.
Background: Although there is abundant aca-
demic and popular literature about families that
do well, little research has explored lay concep-
tualizations. Our focus responds to critiques of
top-down approaches that minimize the value of
family members’ knowledge.
Method: A socioeconomically diverse sample of
34 adults was asked to describe well-functioning
families,healthy families,strong families, and
good families. Data analysis for this critical
ethnographic study involved thematic content
analysis and exploration of participants’ con-
ceptualizations in relation to social-contextual
inuences.
Results: Participants’ descriptions revealed
three categories of attributes of families that do
well: functional–instrumental characteristics,
interpersonal relationships, and healthy lifestyle
behaviors. Analysis of social-contextual inu-
ences revealed limited variation within and
across thematic categories of attributes of
families that do well.
302 Human Ecology Building, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2N1
(deanna.williamson@ualberta.ca).
Key Words: healthy families, lay conceptualizations, strong
families, well-functioning families.
Conclusion: This study contributes to evidence
showing considerable, but not complete, align-
ment between laypeople’s understandings of
families that do well and scholars’ and profes-
sionals’ ideas. Laypeople have some of their
own ideas about families that do well.
Implications: Our study highlights laypeople’s
perspectives as legitimate knowledge with impli-
cations for services, programs, and policies that
support families to “do well.”
Much has been written in academic and popular
literature about families that “do well,” likely
due in part to a widely accepted belief that fam-
ily is a foundational societal institution (Covey,
1997; DeFrain & Asay, 2007). Family scholars
have long been interested in the topic, resulting
in theories and models that detail attributes
of families that do well; that is, families that
are variously referred to as well-functioning,
healthy,strong, and balanced (e.g., Asay &
DeFrain, 2012; Olson & Gorall, 2003; Ryan,
Epstein, Keitner, Miller, & Bishop, 2005).
Extensive descriptive and prescriptive informa-
tion about families that do well is also available
on the Internet (e.g., Allan, n.d.; Bowman, n.d.;
Nelson, 2012) and in self-help books on parent-
ing and famil y-related topics (e .g., Covey, 1997;
Garcia-Prats, Garcia-Prats, & Cassidy, 2005).
Despite abundant academic and popular litera-
ture about families that do well, relatively little
research has explored lay conceptualizations.
Family Relations 67 (October 2018): 467–482 467
DOI:10.1111/fare.12319
468 Family Relations
Thus, we conducted a critical ethnographic
study on laypeople’s understandings of terms
commonly used by scholars and professionals
in academic and popular literature to refer to
families that are doing well: well-functioning
families,healthy families,strong families, and
good families.
Our focus on this topic responds to critiques
of top-down approaches to knowledge gen-
eration, dissemination, and application that
dominate within family science and therapy
disciplines—approaches that privilege aca-
demic and professional expertise, and minimize
the value of family members’ knowledge and
experiences (Doherty, 2000; Morgaine, 1992;
Singh, 2009). Current knowledge about families
that do well primarily has been the purview of
scholars and professionals. In this top-down,
expert-driven approach, knowledge generated
by scholars about families that do well is taught
to students in professional programs such as
family science and human development and
applied by professionals in practice and policy
settings (Doherty, 2000). This knowledge has
explicit and implicit inuences on profession-
als’ judgments, messages, and advice, which
can inuence and structure how families think
about themselves, the resources they access,
and the actions they take in an effort to do well
(Bernardes, 1999; Doherty, 2000; Morgaine,
1992; Pitre, Kushner, & Hegadoren, 2011;
Singh, 2009).
Failure by scholars and professionals to
acknowledge laypeople as a legitimate source
of knowledge and to recognize that lay con-
ceptualizations might differ from scholars and
professionals’ conceptualizations could jeopar-
dize the effectiveness of services, programs, and
policies intended to strengthen families’ capac-
ity to meet needs, achieve goals, and enhance
individual member well-being. Some laypeople
will likely dismiss expert-driven information,
messages, and advice that does not align with
and reect their perspectives. Others might
experience such information, messages, and
advice as judgmental, stigmatizing, and alienat-
ing (Bernardes, 1999; Pitre et al., 2011; Singh,
1999), potentially contributing to self-defeating
feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and disempower-
ment, and subsequently leading to the avoidance
of services and programs that support families
in their efforts to do well (Pitre et al., 2011).
Our attention to how laypeople make
sense of terms that refer to families that do
well acknowledges that laypeople—family
members—have legitimate knowledge and
experiences that scholars and professionals can
learn from (Doherty, 2000). Focusing on lay
understandings provides an opportunity for
scholars and professionals to critically examine
dominant ideals about families that do well and
the ways in which taken-for-granted assump-
tions that privilege academic and professional
knowledge over laypeople’s knowledge inu-
ence assessments and judgments about families;
the messages and advice given to families; and
the services, programs, and policies meant to
support families (Morgaine, 1992; Taylor, 2004).
L R
Within academic literature, predominant con-
ceptualizations of families that do well have
been substantively shaped by family systems
models, including the Beavers systems model
(Beavers & Hampson, 2003), the circumplex
model of marital and family systems (Olson &
Gorall, 2003), the McMaster model of family
functioning (Ryan et al., 2005), and the family
strengths model (Asay & DeFrain, 2012). The
primary focus of these models is on family-level
attributes that facilitate families’ capacity to
meet needs, achieve goals, and enhance indi-
vidual member well-being. The models vary in
terms of the numbers of and labels attached to
attributes of families that do well. There are,
however,several consistencies. Well-established
models conceptualize families that do well as
those characterized by (a) communication that
is open, direct, clear, and empathic; (b) abil-
ity to be adaptable and exible; (c) emotional
connections that exemplify appreciation, affec-
tion, involvement, commitment to family, and
a balance of family and individual time; (d)
allocation and fulllment of family roles and
responsibilities; and (e) capacity to effectively
address problems, conicts, and crises (Asay
& DeFrain, 2012; Beavers & Hampson, 2003;
Olson & Gorall, 2003; Ryan et al., 2005). The
inclusion of spiritual well-being sets the fam-
ily strengths model apart from the other models
(Asay & DeFrain, 2012).
Interest in the conceptualization of fami-
lies that do well extends beyond the academic
realm. The Internet enables the general pub-
lic to access information from a vast array of
sources, including community and faith-based
organizations, government programs, research
To continue reading
Request your trial