PLAGIARISM FREE "A" WORK 15 HOURS or LESS
Running head: ANNOTATED OUTLINE 1
EXAMPLE OF AN ANNOTATED OUTLINE
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 2
Annotated Outline
I. Background
A. Family had existed before written history
a. Maguara cave paintings in Bulgaria
b. Rock paintings in Northern America
B. Origins of the term family
a. Probably originated around 1400 A.C.E.
www.dictionary.com
2. Fluid and dynamic construct
3. Advocates moving towards a more abstract view of family
Sprey, J. (2000). Theorizing in family studies: discovering process. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62, 18-31
4. Discusses the underlying assumptions of family
Weigal, D.J. (2008). The concept of family: an analysis of laypeople’s and
their importance in research on family. Journal of Family Issues, 29(11),
1426-1447. Doi: 10.1177/0192513X08318488
C. Statement of Problem
a. Misunderstanding the construct
Posits there is a disconnect between how families live their lives and the way
that researchers theorize about them.
Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 65(4), 771-784.
b. Addresses the need to minimize bias when researching family. Need to move
away from the “traditional family” as a measuring stick.
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). Ideal families and social science ideals.
Journal of Marriage & Family, 72(1), 41-44. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2009.00682.x
Smith, D.E., (1993). The standard north american family as an ideological
code. Journal of Family Issues, 14: 50-65
c. Family is a fluid and dynamic construct
Harris, S.R., (2008). What is family diversity? objective and interpretive
approaches. Journal of Family Issues, 29: 1407-1425
D. Purpose of Statement
a. Describe the everyday experience of a family
b. Multi-cultural approach
c. Explore the unique interpretations of each communal unit
d. Explore what is important to the participant in “family”
E. Research Question and sub questions
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 3
a. How is “family” interpreted by the communal unit and how do the actions,
beliefs, values, and assumptions of the unit create and maintain the construct,
“family”?
a. How do you know you are a family?
b.What does “family” mean?
c. What are some of the activities that others would recognize you belong
to a “family”
d.Who taught you about “family”
e. What traditions / rituals help to create “family”
F. Nature of Study
1. Qualitative Research
a. A research approach that provides detailed narrative descriptions and
explanations of the phenomena investigated. Methods used to collect
qualitative data include ethnographic practices such as observing and
interviewing.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
2. Ethnography
The study of a cultural group or social group that is based on the
interactions and observations. The objective is to generate a cultural portrait
that is holistic and explored in the context of a larger cultural picture.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
G. Rationale, Relevance and Significance
a. The general focus of research about “family” is on differences and
weaknesses.
Often family studies concentrate on one aspect without considering the
context. Marks, S. R. (1996). The problem and politics of wholeness in family
studies. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 58(3), 565-571.
Challenges the assumption that a quantitative study cannot be inclusive.
White, J.M. & Marshall, S.K., (2001). Consciously inclusive family research:
can we get there from here? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3): 895-899
b. Attempts to define “family” have not been successful.
Family is not a concrete entity. Harris, S.R., (2008). What is family
diversity? objective and interpretive approaches. Journal of Family Issues,
29: 1407-1425
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 4
c. Scholars have offered multiple definitions of family.
Wiegal, D.J. The concept of family: an analysis of laypeople’s views of
family. Journal of Family Issues, 29. doi: 10.11777/0192513X08318488
H. Definition of terms
1. Communal unit: Individuals who are participating in, sharing a relationship
that is defined by in the unique perspective of the individual
I. Assumptions and Limitations
1. Diversity does not mean fragmentation
2. Possible to focus on similarities while honoring uniqueness.
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography essentials; designing, conducting, and
presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass
3. Access to families may be limited by the participant’s definitions of what is
private and public.
4. Issues of personal identity and power
Descartes, L. (2009). Reward and challenges of using ethnography in family
research. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. DOI:
10.1177/1077727X07303488
Literature Review
I. Introduction
A. Overview
1. Origins of the term family probably originated around 1400 A.C.E.
www.dictionary.com
2. Family is a fluid and dynamic construct
Harris, S.R., (2008). What is family diversity? objective and interpretive
approaches. Journal of Family Issues, 29: 1407-1425
3. Move towards a more abstract view of family
Sprey, J. (2000). Theorizing in family studies: discovering process.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 18-31
4. Discuss the underlying assumptions of family
Weigal, D.J. (2008). The concept of family: an analysis of laypeople’s
and their importance in research on family. Journal of Family Issues,
29(11), 1426-1447. Doi: 10.1177/0192513X08318488
B. Overview of research question
1. How is “family” interpreted by the communal unit and how do the
actions, beliefs, values, and assumptions of the unit create and maintain
the construct, “family”?
2. Describe the everyday experience of a family from a multi-cultural
perspective
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 5
3. Explore what is important to the participant and the unique
interpretations of each communal unit
C. Overview of literature
1. The intent of this study is to explore the construct of family across the
dimensions of culture.
2. A review of literature has shown that there is no agreement on what
constitutes “family” and, much like an outline; the construct is colored
and shaded by influences including history, culture, society, and
individual experience.
3. This diversity has been studied in terms of challenges to families,
however little research has been done to explore how different cultures
experience the construct of family in the United States.
II. Theoretical Framework
A. Misunderstanding the construct
B. Posits there is a disconnect between how families live their lives and the way
that researchers theorize about them.
Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal Of
Marriage & Family, 65(4), 771-784.
C. Addresses the need to minimize bias when researching family. Need to move
away from the “traditional family” as a measuring stick.
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). Ideal families and social science ideals.
Journal Of Marriage & Family, 72(1), 41-44. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2009.00682.x
Smith, D.E., (1993). The standard north american family as an ideological code.
Journal of Family Issues, 14: 50-65
III. Overview of Literature
A. History
1. Discusses the place of historical input to research and the contextual
view of history to understand the topic being researched. A review of
the historical research in the development of family will illustrate the
complexity of the topic as well as offer perspective and balance.
Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family studies. Journal Of
Marriage & Family, 62(2), 283-297.
2. Considers the ramifications of family studies that have been done in the
past that reinforced societal norms. Lombardo, P. (2001). Pedigrees,
propaganda, and paranoia: family studies in a historical context. Journal
Of Continuing Education In The Health Professions, 21(4), 247-255.
Smith, D.E., (1993). The standard north american family as an
ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14: 50-65
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 6
3. Address how the past is created and recreated within socio-cultural
contexts. Erll, A. (2011). Locating family in cultural memory studies.
Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 42(3), 303-318.
B. Diversity and Multi-Culturalism
1. Explore interpretive practices will help to increase understanding about
how families are created through converting ambiguity into their own
realities. Harris, S.R., (2008). What is family diversity? objective and
interpretive approaches. Journal of Family Issues, 29: 1407-1425
2. Intergenerational transmission of family values and cultural beliefs.
Schneiderman, G & Barrera, M. (2009). Family traditions and
generations. Family & Community Health, 32(4). 354-357. DOI:
10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181b91fe3
3. Identifies perspectives on extended family and fictive kinship. Allen,
K.R., Bliezner, R., & Roberto, K.A., (2011). Perspectives on extended
family and fictive kin in the later years: strategies and meanings of kin
reinterpretation. Journal of Family Issues, 32(9).
Doi:10.1177/0192513X11404335
4. Discusses the need to study families holistically Murry, V., Smith, E., &
Hill, N. E. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and culture in studies of families in
context. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 63(4), 911.
5. How families define the boundaries of “the family”. Singh, R. (2009).
Constructing ‘the family’ across culture. Journal Of Family Therapy,
31(4), 359-383. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2009.00473.x
C. Issues in Family Research
1. Discusses the responsibilities of researchers in studying families.
Bernardes, J., (1993). Responsibilities in studying postmodern families.
Journal of Family Issues, 14:35-39.
Doi: 10:1177/0192513X93014001004
2. There is a need to continue to engage the intersections of race, class,
gender, sexual orientation and age when defining cultural diversity.
Allen, K. R. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal
Of Marriage & Family, 62(1), 4.
3. Identifies and discusses the embedded norm of the “Standard North
American Family”. Smith, D.E., (1993). The standard north american
family as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14: 50-65
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 7
4. The questions that researchers ask will be extended if imagination and
metaphor are integrated into the process. Sprey, J. (2000). Theorizing in
family studies: discovering process. Journal Of Marriage & Family,
62(1), 18.
5. Discusses the disconnect between the realities of family life and the way
researchers theorize about them. Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus
the theories families live by. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 65(4), 771-
784.
D. Research Methodologies
1. Most of the studies are qualitative that utilize interviews
2. Review of existing literature
E. Evaluation of viable research designs.
1. The study would fit several research designs
a. Phenomenological
b. Case study
c. Ethnography
2. Ethnography gives the opportunity to explore the realities of family life
among different cultural heritages.
F. Summary
Research Design and Methodology
I. Overview of Research Design and Rationale
A. Ethnography
1. Based in cultural anthropology
2. Opportunity to join with families and to interact in their own
environment.
B. Symbolic Interactionism
1. Meaning is the product of social interaction and requires active
interpretation to be acted upon.
2. Each individual is an actor who interprets situations and elements with
themselves to determine his or her role interactions
Particular interactions take place in particular contexts. Dennis, A.,
(2011). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. Symbolic
Interaction, 34(3): 349-356. Doi: 10.1525/si.2011.34.3.349
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 8
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing,
conducting, and presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey -
Bass
II. Sampling Design
A. Random purposeful
B. Recruited through gatekeepers
1. Tribal counsel
2. Pastors / Priests
3. Community organizations
III. Data Collection
A. Review of historical literature regarding family
B. Observation
C. Interviews
D. Participation in family daily life and rituals.
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing,
conducting, and presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey –
Bass
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
IV. Data Instrumentation
A. Genograms to explore traditions, rituals, actions, assumptions of family
V. Data Analysis Plan
A. Create and organize files for data
B. Read through the texts and make notes to begin to form initial themes
C. Describe the settings, actors, and events using rich descriptive text.
D. Analyze for essential themes
E. Interpret findings
F. Present the findings in narrative form
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing,
conducting, and presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey –
Bass
IV. Limitations of Research Design
A. Small sample may not be representative of culture
B. Possibility of adjusting actions due to presence of researcher
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 9
V. Internal and External Validity
A. Use of multiple methods of data collection and analysis
B. Acknowledgment of personal bias, assumptions
C. Acknowledgment of impact on family
D. Use of independent review
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing, conducting, and
presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass
VI. Ethical Considerations
A. Information and data produced through human interaction
1. Informed consent
B. Researcher impact on family system
C. Exercise reasonable care to protect participants
D. Awareness of issues of privacy and confidentiality
E. IRB protocols
F. Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing, conducting, and
presenting your research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass
VII. Conclusions
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 10
References
Adams, B. N. (2004). Families and family study in international perspective. Journal Of
Marriage & Family, 66(5), 1076-1088. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00079.x
Allen, K. R. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal Of Marriage & Family,
62(1), 4.
Allen, K,R., Bliezner, R., & Roberto, K.A., (2011). Perspectives on extended family and fictive
kin in the later years: strategies and meanings of kin reinterpretation. Journal of Family
Issues, 32(9). Doi:10.1177/0192513X11404335
Bernardes, J., (1993). Responsibilities in studying postmodern families. Journal of Family
Issues, 14:35-39. Doi: 10:1177/0192513X93014001004
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). Ideal families and social science ideals. Journal Of Marriage
& Family, 72(1), 41-44. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00682.x
Brossoie, N., Graham, B., & Lee, S. (2005). Families and communities: an annotated
bibliography. Family Relations, 54(5), 666-675. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00350.x
Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family studies. Journal Of Marriage & Family,
62(2), 283-297.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2 nd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications
Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families Live By. Journal Of Marriage &
Family, 65(4), 771-784.
Dekovic, M. (2005). Multiple perspectives within the family: family relationship patterns.
Journal of Family Issues, 26(4). 467-490. doi: 10.1177/0192513X04272617
Dennis, A., (2011). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. Symbolic Interaction,
34(3): 349-356. Doi: 10.1525/si.2011.34.3.349
Descartes, L. (2009). Reward and challenges of using ethnography in family research.
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. DOI:
10.1177/1077727X07303488
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 11
Erll, A. (2011). Locating family in cultural memory studies. Journal Of Comparative Family
Studies, 42(3), 303-318.
Gabb, J. (2010). Home truths: ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research, 10(4).
461-478. doi: 10.1177/1468794110366807
(2006). Talking bbout “doing” family. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 68(4), 796-799.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00293.x
Hahr, H.M. & Hahr, K.S., (1996). A paradigm of family transcendence. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 58(3)
Harris, S.R., (2008). What is family diversity? objective and interpretive approaches. Journal of
Family Issues, 29: 1407-1425
Lombardo, P. (2001). Pedigrees, propaganda, and paranoia: family studies in a historical context.
Journal Of Continuing Education In The Health Professions, 21(4), 247-255.
Marks, S. R. (1996). The problem and politics of wholeness in family studies. Journal Of
Marriage & Family, 58(3), 565-571.
Murry, V., Smith, E., & Hill, N. E. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and culture in studies of families in
context. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 63(4), 911.
Murchinson, J.M. (2010). Ethnography Essentials; Designing, conducting, and Presenting Your
Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey - Bass
Schneiderman, G & Barrera, M. (2009). Family traditions and generations. Family &
Community Health, 32(4). 354-357. DOI: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181b91fe3
Singh, R. (2009). Constructing ‘the family’ across culture. Journal Of Family Therapy, 31(4),
359-383. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2009.00473.x
Smith, D.E., (1993). The standard north american family as an ideological code. Journal of
Family Issues, 14: 50-65
Sprey, J. (2000). Theorizing in family studies: discovering process. Journal Of Marriage &
Family, 62(1), 18.
ANNOTATED OUTLINE 12
White, J.M. & Marshall, S.K., (2001). Consciously inclusive family research: can we get there
from here? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3): 895-899
Wiegal, D.J. The concept of family: an analysis of laypeople’s views of family. Journal of
Family Issues, 29. doi: 10.11777/0192513X08318488
Wu, Z. (2005). Generalized linear models in family studies. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67(4), 1029-1047