What Relationship Researchers and Relationship Practitioners Wished the Other Knew: Integrating Discovery and Practice in Couple Relationships
| Author | Adam M. Galovan,H. Wallace Goddard,David G. Schramm |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12270 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
D G. S Utah State University
A M. G University of Alberta
H. W G University of Arkansas
What Relationship Researchers and Relationship
Practitioners Wished the Other Knew: Integrating
Discovery and Practice in Couple Relationships
As we consider what both family scientists and
practitioners can learn from each other, we dis-
cuss important advances in relationship and
marriage education (RME). We note best prac-
tices for research and review recent results from
randomized controlled trials that have impor-
tant implications for RME. We argue that the
primary focus of teaching communication and
conict resolution skills often seen in RME may
fall short in achieving necessary outcomes. We
discuss recent shifts in RME, share results from
recent research, and advocate for a balanced
approach that incorporates both skill-based and
principles-based approaches.Important insights
can be gained from disciplines outside of family
Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed
to David G. Schramm, Department of Family, Consumer,
& Human Development, 2705 Old Main Hill, Utah State
University, Logan, UT 84322. Telephone: 435-797-8183.
E-mail: david.schramm@usu.edu
David G. Schramm, Department of Family, Consumer, &
Human Development, Utah State University; Adam M.
Galovan, Department of Human Ecology, University of
Alberta; H. Wallace Goddard, Cooperative Extension, Uni-
versity of Arkansas.
Corrections added on January 4, 2018, after rst online
publication: Text revisedthroughout
Key Words: relationship and marriage education, family
science, preventionscience, family life education, evaluation
researc h.
and relationship science, and we encourageboth
family scientists and practitioners to broadenthe
scope of models of healthy relationship function-
ing. Finally, we offer some direction for future
progress and issue a call for more integrative
and rigorous efforts in both the science of dis-
covery and practice.
The 19th-century author John Godfrey Saxe
famously told an Indian legend about six blind
men who each encounter an elephant for the rst
time. Each encountered different parts of the ele-
phant: the side, tusk, legs, trunk, ear, and tail.
After their encounter, they vigorously debated
the nature of the elephant, each adamant in his
perspective. Saxe (1873) concluded, “And so
these men of Indostan disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and
strong. Though each was partly in the right, and
all were in the wrong!” (pp. 77–78). As fam-
ily scientists engaged in the science of discov-
ery and practitioners engrossed in the science
of practice, each of us glimpses only part of
the relationship elephant. We must acknowledge
that we each are partly right but are also all partly
wrong.
Perhaps many have felt a tension between
a focus on research and discovery and pro-
viding services and interventions to families.
Furthermore, each of us only understands that
part of the relationship “elephant” on which we
696 Family Relations 66 (October 2017): 696–711
DOI:10.1111/fare.12270
Integrating Discovery and Practice in Couple Relationships 697
have focused in our scholarship of discovery
or practice. Before discussing possible improve-
ments, it is essential to acknowledge the rigorous
debate in the relationship and marriage educa-
tion (RME) eld regarding the teaching of skills
versus principles. The debate is healthy, but
potentially overly polarized. RME researchers
and practitioners of various sorts see the “ele-
phant” from different perspectives,and each per-
spective has value. RME programs that focus on
teaching behavioral skills may implicitly teach
principles and implicitly address broader con-
cepts from other disciplines and paradigms (a
need we see and discuss later in the article).
Whether implicit strategies yield the same out-
comes as explicit strategies to teach principles
and concepts is unclear, and it is this point that
provides the basic motivation here. We argue
that by being more explicit in our discussions
of principles in RME work and more purpose-
ful in including alternate paradigms that we can
better serve the needs of couples and families.
Drawing on results and experience from research
we have conducted as well as ndings from fam-
ily science and other disciplines, the purpose of
this article is, therefore, to share lessons learned
and describe what both relationship researchers
and relationship practitioners would benet from
knowing and doing to improve relationships and
move both family science and the eld of RME
forward.
T C G B
R R
P
RME has been dened as “efforts or programs
that provide education, skills, and principles
that help individuals and couples increase
their chances of having healthy and stable
relationships” (Markman & Rhoades, 2012,
p. 169). The 1990s were an exciting time for
both RME researchers and practitioners. Some
studies emerged that demonstrated an ability
to predict divorce based on how couples com-
municated and managed conict (Carrere &
Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Levenson, 2000).
Other programs and studies were initiated on
the basis of systems theories and knowledge
of best practices at the time (Accordino &
Guerney, 2003; Family Wellness Associates,
2004; Weiner-Davis, 1992). At the same time,
the voluminous benets of healthy marriages,
including the benets for children, and the
negative effects of divorce and unwed child-
bearing were being published (Amato & Keith,
1991; Waite,1995). The multimillion-dollar fed-
eral Healthy Marriage Initiative was launched,
which consisted of a variety of policies and pro-
grams designed to promote healthy marriages,
particularly among vulnerable and “fragile”
families. Initially, there were relatively few
RME programs for grantees to choose from, and
even fewer programs had undergone random-
ized control trials or even quasi experimental
designs to test the effectiveness of the pro-
grams on relationship quality and stability over
the long term. Over time, however, and with
increased funding opportunities at the federal
level, came an explosion of programs developed
by individuals, practitioners, private companies,
and nonprot entities. Although some of these
programs were research-based, others were
developed quickly using weak or questionable
scientic evidence in an attempt to ll a vac-
uum and even generate prots, as the cost of
participation in many programs was relatively
expensive.
In hindsight, most programs were being
developed on the basis of what was known at
the time, which largely stemmed from social
learning theory and therapeutic approaches
related to behavioral models and clinical psy-
chological literature. Much of the research
from the 1990s was showing that unhealthy
communication and conict patterns led to
unhappy relationships and divorce. It was stated
that “distress results from couples’ aversive
and ineffectual response to conict” (Koerner
& Jacobson, 1994, p. 208). Christensen and
Walczynski (1997) also declared that “con-
ict is the most important proximal factor
affecting satisfaction in the relationship and
ultimately its course” (p. 250). Furthermore,
much of Gottman’s groundbreaking work
focused heavily on conict and behaviors
enacted during conictual exchanges (Gottman,
1994; Gottman, Swanson, & Murray, 1999).
Therefore, the widely embraced solution was
to develop and implement behavioral programs
that focused primarily on teaching couples new
communication and conict resolution skills
presumed to improve relationship satisfaction.
The overarching assumption underlying these
efforts was that couple distress arising from
ineffective problem-solving or communicating
impeded healthy relationships.
To continue reading
Request your trial