Communications Literature Review help!

The contradictions of

identity-work for parents of

visibly adopted children

Meredith Marko Harrigan

State University of New York at Geneseo

ABSTRACT As the number of families formed through visible adoption continues to increase, so too does the need to understand how members communicatively experience their families. Grounded in the interpretive paradigm and framed by relational dialectics theory, the researcher conducted 31 interviews with 40 parents to investigate what, if any, contradictions parents experience as they engage in identity-work. The researcher describes six contradictions active in parents’ identity-work: (i) similarity and difference, (ii) invisibility and visibility, (iii) integration and distance, (iv) fortune and loss, (v) openness and closedness and (vi) community and privacy. Implications of these findings are discussed to provide insight to researchers and individuals who interact with members of families formed through visible adoption.

KEY WORDS: adoption • contradiction • family communication • identity-work • qualitative research • relational dialectics theory • visible adoption

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 26(5): 634–658. DOI: 10.1177/0265407509353393

This article grew out of the author’s dissertation which was directed by Dr. Dawn O. Braith- waite at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The author would like to thank Dr. Braithwaite for her guidance on this project. This research was partly funded by the Warren F. and Edith R. Day Dissertation Fellowship, awarded by Graduate Studies at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. A previous version of this article was presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association in Chicago, Illinois November, 2007. Address corres- pondence to: Meredith Marko Harrigan, Communication Department, State University of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York 14454, USA [e-mail: [email protected]]. Larry Erbert was the Action Editor for this article.

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Adoption has long-established roots. Despite the well-established roots of adoption in the United States, in recent years the process itself has under- gone many changes. For instance, adoption practices have moved from striving to “mirror biological kinship” (Nickman et al., 2005, p. 987) or matching physical characteristics to often crossing racial, ethnic, and/or national boundaries and creating visibly adoptive families (Galvin, 2006). Visibly adoptive families are those in which “members’ racial characteris- tics provide visual evidence of a lack of biological ties both to insiders and outsiders” (Galvin, 2003, p. 242). Although domestic adoption may create visibly adoptive families, increasing numbers of international adoptions, especially the high number of European American parents adopting Asian children, has highlighted this family type.

Family communication researchers are just beginning to explore salient communication processes in nontraditional families including adoptive or multicultural families. Galvin (2006) asserted that adoptive families, and particularly visibly adoptive families “rely more heavily on social interac- tion to create their identities than do families formed through biological and adult legal ties” (p. 150). Therefore, it is important to explore how these “discourse-dependent families” (Galvin, 2006, p. 150) use communication to establish their familial connection. Understanding how discourse-dependent families construct and negotiate identities for themselves increases in import- ance as the norm of the biologically-related or mono-racial family becomes less prevalent. The goal of the present study is to understand how parents in one specific discourse-dependent family, families formed through visible adoption, manage contradictions they experience as they engage in identity- work.

Tracy (2002) defined identity-work as the process through which people communicatively attempt to construct pictures of themselves and others. In recent literature, communication scholars (e.g., Baxter, 2006; Tracy, 2002) have argued that personal and familial identities are not intrinsic, stable, or extra-linguistic. Instead, these scholars argue that identities are emergent and dynamic because people constitute and negotiate identities through communication. It is especially important to explore identity-work in families formed through visible adoption for, as Galvin (2006) noted, “although most adoptive families are formed through legal processes, the members’ ongoing communicative interactions create the family identity, an identity that the family manages discursively over time” (p. 137). In other words, visibly adopted families rely on explicit and implicit communication processes to construct their personal and familial identities. Thus, under- standing the members’ general communication processes is central to understanding the identity-related experiences of the members.

Because identities are dynamic and multifaceted (Tracy, 2002), relational dialectics theory provides a valuable lens for the present study. Grounded in Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, relational dialectics theory describes selves and relationships as dialogic, jointly enacted, and dialectical and sensitizes researchers to investigate the multiple discourses and potential contradictions inherent in parents’ identity-work. Moreover, it serves as a

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 635

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

“conversational partner” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006, p. 5) by helping the researcher describe familial relating and illuminate the processes through which members communicatively constitute and experience their multi- vocal lives.

Relational dialectics theory

Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism provides the foundation for relational dialec- tics theory (Baxter, 2006; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Guided by the notion of dialogism, Bakhtin argued that “consciousness is otherness” and the “self is dialogic, a relation” (Holquist, 1990, pp. 18–19). Identities do not exist outside the scope of social processes; nor are identities stable. Instead, identities are constituted and reconstituted through changing interactions with others. It is important to note that according to Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, all utterances are “heteroglot” (Holquist, 1990, p. 70), including parents’ utterances. This means that any one utterance is comprised of multiple discourses where some discourses are centripetal or dominant while others are centrifugal or muted. As Baxter (2004) noted, “grounded in Bakhtin’s view of the social world as centripetal-centrifugal flux, rela- tional dialectics theory views communication in relationships as the dialec- tical tension of contradictory verbal-ideological forces, or discourses” (p. 8). Unlike monologic and dualistic explorations of contradiction which take an either/or perspective and assert that individuals should value one pole of a contradiction at the expense of the other, relational dialectics theory argues for a dialogic view of contradiction and asserts that all poles of a tension are important for individuals and relationships because their dialectical flux or movement between discourses is central to meaning-making. Baxter (2004) argued that monologic approaches “ignore the dynamic interplay of these centripetal discourses with their centrifugal counterparts” (p. 8).

Relational dialectics theory also sensitizes researchers to the notion of praxis (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The term praxis refers to the assump- tion that individuals are both proactive and reactive. That is, individuals are choice-making agents, acting in the social world. Yet, they are also reactive in that they are acted upon by their social worlds, including their own previous actions. In their formal articulation of relational dialectics theory, Baxter and Montgomery detailed eight patterns of praxis processes through which people communicatively manage dialectical tensions. These patterns are denial, disorientation, spiraling inversion, segmentation, balance, inte- gration, recalibration, and reaffirmation. Baxter and Montgomery argued that denial and disorientation have little functionality because they fail to recognize the both/and interplay of discourses inherent to relational dialec- tics theory. In contrast, Baxter and Montgomery described the remaining six patterns as functional, although they differ in how they enact both poles of the dialectic. Baxter (2006) described two patterns, spiraling inversion and segmentation as diachronic or their interplay as non-simultaneous because they are processes where the multiple discourses of the dialectical tension are enacted, yet at different times or within different contexts. Specifically, when individuals engage in spiraling inversion they emphasize

636 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

one discourse at one point in time and emphasize the opposite or other discourse at another point in time. In the segmentation process, individuals separate themes of a domain, emphasizing one in certain contexts while muting the other. For instance, family members may embrace openness about religious beliefs yet remain closed about financial matters.

The remaining four patterns involve synchronic interpenetration or the simultaneous interplay of discourses (Baxter, 2006). For instance, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) used the term balance to describe a process where people voice each discourse of a dialectical tension in a way that resembles a compromise. The term integration is used to describe the process where individuals fully voice multiple discourses in a way that calls to question the meaning of each original discourse. Baxter and Montgomery used the term recalibration to describe the process where individuals reframe needs so that they appear no longer as contradictory. Finally, the term reaffirmation refers to the process through which individuals validate the benefits that unified yet opposing discourses bring to relationships. In their recent writing, Baxter (2006) and Baxter and Braithwaite (2008) highlight the importance of examining diachronic or synchronic processes of interpenetration and specific praxical patterns through which meaning-making takes place.

Also central to relational dialectics theory is the notion of totality. Totality refers to the belief that phenomena, including contradictions, can only fully be understood when considered in relation to other phenomena. Contradictions often exist in relation with one another and form a knot of interdependence (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Montgomery and Baxter (1998) cautioned researchers not to limit their understanding of contra- dictions by thinking about them as independent phenomena, but instead to explore how they relate to other contradictions. In turn, scholars have begun to explore the totality of contradictions. For example, Braithwaite and Baxter (2006), in their research on stepchildren’s perceptions about communication with their nonresidential parent, found that two contradic- tions, parenting/non-parenting and openness/closedness worked in totality with one another. Likewise, Braithwaite, Toller, Durham, and Jones (2008), in their exploration of how stepchildren manage their feeling of being caught between their co-parents, found that the contradictions of openness/ closedness and control/restraint functioned in totality with the dialectic of freedom/constraint. Examining contradictions in relation to other contra- dictions may lead to a more complete understanding of the process of meaning-making because contradictions do not function independently.

Guided by relational dialectics theory, numerous scholars have shed light on the process of relating, particularly familial relating (e.g., Baxter, Braith- waite, Bryant, & Wagner, 2004; Toller, 2005). Fortunately, some dialectical scholars (e.g., Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, & Wagner, 2004) have expanded their scope beyond the nuclear or traditional family to explore the enact- ment and management of contradictions in stepfamilies. However, to date, only few researchers (e.g., Ben-Ari & Weinberg-Kurnik, 2007; Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001) have identified contradictions in adoptive families. There remains a shortage of knowledge concerning contradictions experienced by

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 637

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

visibly adoptive families. While one might expect these families to share the contradictory experiences of all adoptive families, members’ racial differ- ences may provide added complexity to their meaning-making processes both within and outside the family system. This added complexity may result in the emergence of context-specific contradictions. Because the goal of the present study is to understand how parents in families formed through visible adoption manage contradictions they experience as they engage in identity-work, the following two research questions are posed:

RQ1: What contradictions do parents describe as they discuss their familial, parental, and visibly adopted children’s identities?

RQ2: How do parents of visibly adopted children manage the contradic- tions they experience?

Method

The present study aligns with the goals and values of the interpretive paradigm by privileging the participants’ perspectives and language (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). To access participants’ perspectives, I employed semi- structured interviewing and interacted with participants not as an author- ity but as a learner attempting to understand the participants’ perceptions of their experiences and realities. Questions focused on communicative processes and issues that I assumed to be relevant to identity-work as well as issues participants believe are significant to their identity-work. The interview protocol that guided this research appears in the Appendix. In addition, probes were used to maximize the degree of depth of each inter- view and elicit information about emerging contradictions and employed praxical patterns.

Participants were recruited through purposive sampling or chosen because they had experiences relevant to the phenomenon of interest (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). To participate, individuals had to (i) have adopted a child who they describe as visibly different from themselves and, if married, from their spouse, and (ii) self-identify as heterosexual. Although it is important to understand communication processes in same-sex families, implementing this last criterion allowed the researcher to remain focused on parents’ identity-work regarding physical differences, not potential differences that result from same-sex parenting. Both phone and face-to-face interviews were conducted due to geographic constraints.

Using Leininger’s (1994) theoretical saturation as a measure of complete- ness, 31 interviews were conducted with a total of 40 parents. From Leininger’s perspective, saturation occurs when “the researcher finds no further explanation, interpretation, or description of the phenomenon under study. . . . [when] there tends to be redundancy in which the observer gets the same (or similar) information on repeated inquiries” (p. 106).

638 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Participants

Parents’ ages at the time of their children’s adoptions ranged from 25 years to 49 years and at the time of the interview ranged from 34 years to 58 years. Parents resided across the United States in both urban and rural areas. All participants interviewed self-identified as Caucasian. Among the 31 families, there were 42 visibly adopted children. Of the 42 visibly adopted children, 36 were adopted internationally and 6 were adopted domestically. Of the 36 internationally visibly adopted children, 23 were born in Korea, 8 in China, 3 in Vietnam, 1 in Russia, and 1 in Guatemala. Of the 42 children, 28 were female and 14 male. At the time of their adoption, the children’s ages ranged from 3 months to 9 years and at the time of the interview from 4 months to 31 years. Of the families interviewed, 15 had both adopted and non-adopted children. The number of children per family ranged from 1 child to 6 children and the number of adopted children from 1 child to 3 children. Each interview was transcribed verbatim yielding 403 single- spaced pages of data.

Data analysis

In interpretive research, qualitative analysis involves a systematic and induc- tive process of interpreting data (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). Following Smith’s (1995) guidelines, analysis followed four steps: (i) thoroughly reviewing a single transcript, (ii) inductively analyzing significant points, (iii) categoriz- ing and organizing significant information, and (iv) implementing exemplars. Additionally, appropriate steps were taken to ensure the credibility of the analysis. These include participating in a data conference, effectively using exemplars, and engaging in member-checking.

First, this analysis was tested in a collaborative data conference with six researchers trained in relational dialectics theory and the interpretive para- digm. The six researchers were given a 33 page single-spaced outline that consisted of the researcher’s thematic analysis and numerous exemplars from interview transcripts. They were also given information concerning syn- chronic and diachronic enactment and management strategies and praxical patterns from Baxter and Montgomery (1996), Baxter (2006), and Baxter and Braithwaite (2008). In the 2.5 hour data conference, we collaboratively checked and refined the analysis thereby testing the trustworthiness of the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Second, the analysis is saturated with exemplars to showcase the link between the interpretation and the data (Fitch, 1994) and to build a multi-layered or “thick description” (Geertz, 1973, p. 3). Third, member-checking was practiced because it is one of the most vital ways for interpretive researchers to verify the trustworthiness of their research (Baxter & Babbie, 2004; Creswell, 1998). This process was initiated knowing that inaccurate conclusions would require reanalysis, revision, and repeated member-checking. However, the findings accurately captured participants’ experiences. When asked, “which of the following findings do not ring true to you?” the shared response was that none of the findings contradicted their experiences or the experiences of those they know. Similarly, when asked, “what changes do you suggest I make in order

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 639

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

640 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

to more accurately capture your experiences?” the shared response was that no changes should be made.

Findings

In what follows, six contradictions that parents experience and manage as they engage in identity-work are presented. These include: (i) similarity and difference, (ii) invisibility and visibility, (iii) integration and distance, (iv) fortune and loss, (v) openness and closedness, and (vi) community and privacy. The description of each contradiction is supplemented with a discus- sion of dialectical flux. Specifically, the diachronic and synchronic processes through which parents communicatively enact and manage these tensions are outlined (see Table 1).

Similarity and difference

Parents described their children as similar to yet different from other children and other members of their families. Aaron, a 54-year-old father whose daughter was born in Korea, proclaimed “these kids are just like any other kids,” but also noted “I think they know that they are different and yes they need to know.” Similarly, parents described their parental role as similar to and different from other parents’ roles. For instance, 47-year-old Rose exclaimed “We go through the same things that you do as a parent . . . we are all kind of experiencing the same kinds of things and don’t treat us like we are different.” Yet, at the same time, parents asserted that their children’s adoptive identities and cultural backgrounds necessitate different types of parenting. Rachel, a 45-year-old mom explained, “we are parenting an adopted child in that there are just more dimensions. There are more issues that may come up. And, so there are more things to consider.” In turn, parents perceive their families as similar to and different from other families. Parents also described the process of adopting as similar to and different from the process of pregnancy. While acknowledging the obvious differences, parents described what they perceived are similarities. For

TABLE 1 Contradictions active in parents’ identity-work

Processes of Diachronic Processes of Synchronic Contradiction Interpenetration Interpenetration

Similarity and Difference Segmentation Recalibration Invisibility and Visibility Spiraling Inversion *** Integration and Distance Segmentation Balance Fortune and Loss *** Balance Openness and Closedness Spiraling Inversion, Segmentation Balance Community and Privacy Spiraling Inversion, Segmentation Balance

*** indicates that these data did not reveal specific processes of diachronic or synchronic inter- penetration

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 641

instance, husband and wife, Stephanie and Luke, compared the moment they first saw their visibly adopted daughter exit the airplane with the moments they first saw their biological children after delivery. They described both times as extremely powerful. Stephanie stated, “I fell apart . . . she was my child from God. . . . she was our child from the minute, she was ours.” Similarly, 50-year-old Tori whose two daughters were born in Korea explained:

One day they called and had us come into the office and they said I think we have a daughter for you and they showed us a little picture of a Korean . . . it was kind of like hearing, like a woman who sees an ultrasound . . . we saw this little picture of this little Korean girl.

Diachronic interpenetration though segmentation. One diachronic pattern, segmentation, occurs when individuals voice one discourse in one context and the opposing discourse in another context. The discourse of similarity is centripetal or dominant in parents’ communication about their family members, particularly as they discuss physical characteristics or behavioral orientations. Parents explained that despite their obvious differences, they and their visibly adopted children share many physical characteristics. Luke, a 50-year-old father whose daughter was born in Korea, recalled to his wife, “I remember hearing you say stuff to her like . . . ‘your eyes are brown just like my eyes’.” Parents also emphasize their family members’ similarity in terms of their personalities. Olivia, a 58-year-old mom who adopted two children and gave birth to two children, explained how her oldest birth and adopted child and her youngest birth and adopted child share behavioral orientations:

Our oldest daughter and our third child, you would think that they had grown up side by side . . . they are so similar in their interests and their activities and their energy level and in their responsibility assumptions . . . the second and fourth are both very, very education oriented, very book [oriented], they love to read and grow and that kind of thing.

Despite parents’ emphasis on similarity, they also voice the opposing dis- course of difference. Parents described their children as different because they are adopted and because they are members of cultural minority groups. Combining both contexts of difference, parents characterized their children as having “an added layer” or “more dimensions.” Further, parents described themselves as different from their children because most parents were not adopted nor do they identify as members of cultural minority groups. Parents shared their concerns that this disparity will create different life experiences. Jennifer, a 56-year-old mom of two boys, explained:

There were certain areas of town I didn’t want them to drive through . . . I was worried about the cops stopping a minority kid driving a nice car through that area of town at night, but it is real. And I . . . had the [parking] tag . . . and I would always take it off when the kids would be driving it and I told them that they need to take it off because it is not legal to have

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

642 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

something hanging. A White kid wouldn’t get stopped for that but a minority kid would.

Parents articulated the complexities caused by this dimension of differ- ence for their families. First, parents noted their children’s self-perceptions may differ from others’ perceptions of their children. One mother, 40-year- old Lucy, reported that she fearfully anticipates that such a difference – being a member of a cultural minority group within a family where others are members of the cultural majority group – will leave her daughter feeling misplaced. Lucy does not believe people consider that one might identify as both a member of a minority and the majority group. She noted:

I think as the child gets older and moves away from the primary circle, they [others] don’t always put the two together. They start to make assumptions about the child, that the child may have not encountered before, such as they came from an immigrant family and was raised in this way.

In a different vein, 48-year-old Brooke, fears that people, including her own daughter, may perceive her daughter as a White woman in an Asian body. Brooke explained, “I don’t want my child to get to college and just discover ‘Holy shit I am a White girl, I am a banana’ which is the term.” In fact, Celia said her Korean-born daughter identifies as White, while others characterize her as Asian. She explained:

I have also heard my daughter say things like . . . “well they are not White like we are” and then her friends say “you are not White” . . . When her friend said that I said, “Ya know she is Asian but she is raised in a White home so she is culturally White, that is what her experience is . . . Of course she identifies with White people because that is her. Her own family is White. Everyone around her is White. Her friends are predominantly White and that is why she identifies herself as White even though she doesn’t look White to you.”

Parents spoke to the idea that their children’s life experiences create their cultural identification. Yet, parents also explained that they perceive that others think it is a person’s physical characteristics that create their cultural identification. As a result, parents anticipate a clash between their children’s living experience of culture and others’ expectations of their children’s cul- tural realities.

Parents acknowledge the practical consequences this has for their parent- ing. Although parents assert they love, value, and treat their children as they would non-adopted or culturally similar children, they explained that they parent differently than those who parent non-adopted and culturally similar children. One mother, 47-year-old Rose, explained:

I have to parent them to protect themselves . . . I find that I have to parent [her] to protect herself in different ways. . . . it just adds on another layer of protection . . . I have to protect against strangers, who is a stranger and who is not a stranger without making them feel they have to be afraid . . . I also have to . . . expand the area of protection and be able to protect herself when kids are calling her names, and they will call her names.

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 643

Because parents have not experienced discrimination of this type, they discussed the difficulty of addressing these additional layers of responsibil- ity. Brooke noted, “the privilege of being White puts us at a disadvantage for helping our children cope in the world.” These examples illustrate the interplay of, yet the time-based and context-based separation, of these two discourses. Next, the simultaneous interplay of the discourses of similarity and difference is described.

Synchronic interpenetration through recalibration. Parents’ communication also reflected their attempt to recalibrate the compartmentalized areas of difference in order to make them appear as similarities. For example, by communicating that many people – versus just their children – have ances- tors from outside the United States, parents recalibrate difference and simi- larity. Ava, a 41-year-old mother of two boys, explained that her children are similar to her and her husband and to others because they all have ancestors whose origins are from locations outside the United States. Ava explained:

When people approach us. . .and say things like “where did you get your children? Where are your children from?” . . . I generally start with my grandparents’ heritage and my husband’s grandparents’ heritage and give your birth family heritage and then build in where our children were born to show that we all came from someplace else. I never just say that “My children were born in Korea” . . . their ancestors were from a different place than the United States. Well, my ancestors are from a different place than the United States. That is the complete story.

These data also indicate that parents attempt to reframe similarity as difference, again blurring the line between the two oppositional discourses. Jennifer, who is 56-years-old and a mom of two, reported:

I think it is important for kids to . . . know not all Koreans are alike and not all African Americans are alike and not all White people are alike and that not all doctors are alike and we are all different in our own way.

By blurring the distinction between the two oppositional systems of meaning, parents’ communication reflected the recalibration of similarity and difference. The contradiction of invisibility and visibly further illustrates parents’ identity-work processes.

Invisibility and visibility

Parents’ constructions of their children as similar to others often become their reality, making their children’s differences invisible to them. Luke, a 50-year-old father whose daughter was born in Korea, said: “The whole adoption and Korean thing went out of our minds so long ago . . . I don’t even remember thinking well ‘she is Korean so I got to treat her this way,’ ya know.” Yet, parents explained that others including friends, family members, strangers, and doctors often highlight their children’s differences by marking them as “adopted” or inquiring about their adoptive identities.

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The discourses of invisibility and visibility diachronically ebb and flow in parents’ communication.

Diachronic interpenetration through spiraling inversion. Spiraling inversion can be envisioned as a pendulum where parents’ communication swings back and forth between discourses. Although the interplay is not simultaneous, the movement between discourses is central to their identity-work. Parents explained that the pendulum rests on the side of invisibility until something or someone calls attention to their children’s differences making them visible. The narrative of 47-year-old Erin captured this experience:

We were in the airplane . . . and looking at her . . . in my mind I understand that she is Chinese. I understand that but when I look at her all I see is my daughter, the Chinese piece doesn’t, isn’t in my mind. I don’t see that . . . and the irony of it was when we landed and got to Customs they said “Well your daughter is Chinese and Chinese people had to have a special visa to enter Italy and since you don’t have it we have to deport you,” and they put us back on the airplane and we flew home . . . such a, an irony.

Erin’s experience illustrates that although parents often lose sight of their children’s differences, when others acknowledge their children’s adoptive or cultural identities their differences regain visibility. For Erin, this moment came at the airport. For other parents, it came during doctor visits, school functions, or when others approach them inquiring about their families. As a result of changing interactions with others, their children’s differences ebb and flow into and out of parents’ sight, influencing whether parents com- municatively acknowledge their children’s adoptive and cultural identities. In the next section, the particularities of contradictions experienced by parents of visibly adopted children are further highlighted with a discussion of a third dialectical tension, integration and distance.

Integration and distance

Parents reported a pull between integration – incorporating their children’s cultural and adoptive identities into their families – and distance – remain- ing separate from their children’s cultural and adoptive identities. One mother, 40-year-old Lucy, explained:

Kids go through stages . . . what heritage kids want to identify with, whether they even want to acknowledge a foreign heritage. I think at some times they might totally want to identify with it and other times want to distance themselves from it. Um, and the same with adoption. At times, they might want to embrace that story. At times it might be irrelevant.

Parents’ communication reflects both the diachronic and synchronic inter- penetration of the discourses of integration and distance.

Diachronic interpenetration through segmentation. The contradiction of integration and distance exemplifies diachronic interpenetration in the form of segmentation. This process involves united, yet opposed discourses

644 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 645

ebbing and flowing among contexts. Integration often takes place through activities. Parents described observing holidays associated with their chil- dren’s heritages as an effective way to integrate that heritage into their families. Other parents reported attending culture camps, visiting places of worship, dining in culturally-themed restaurants, visiting ethnic enclaves, and even traveling to the location of their child’s birth as ways to integrate their children’s heritages into their families. Husband and wife, 43-year-old Thomas and 45-year-old Rachel, explained that they attempt to integrate their son’s Vietnamese heritage into their family not only by celebrating Vietnamese holidays but also by frequenting contexts associated with Viet- namese culture:

Rachel: It [Vietnam] is his birth culture and I don’t want him to lose that. He is Vietnamese and I treat it the same way as culturally I am an Italian and I can never separate that from myself and he is Vietnamese and I think it is our job as a parent of a young child to expose him to his culture because that is part of him.

Thomas: It is just who he is. It is like making pasta or doing Christmas dinner with fish for Italians. I am ethnically Jewish so it is like going to a big deli and understanding part of my ethnic culture. It is like this for him. So we go to Chinatown and Chinese markets with the fish sold on the streets and we go to bakeries. It is who he is.

It is important to note that although parents reported drawing on a number of contexts to integrate their children’s heritages into their families, distance remains the centripetal voice during parents’ communication. This is because parents do not share their children’s heritages. The interpenetra- tion of integration and distance does not only occur diachronically through segmentation. It also takes the synchronic form of balance.

Synchronic interpenetration through balance. Parents described integrating messages that speak to their children’s cultural or adoptive identities with other messages that remain distant from these topics. For instance, parents exemplify balance in their practice of family rituals. Ava, a 41-year-old mother whose two sons were born in Korea, explained for non-Korean holidays “we will make one or two Korean dishes.” Ava’s holiday cele- brations do not fully incorporate her sons’ heritage, nor do they remain completely separate from it. Likewise, another mom’s dinnertime ritual balances integration and distance. Liz, age 41, explained “It is just kind of naturally blended in. . . . when I say to them ‘What do you want for dinner?’ somebody will say a Chinese dish.” Liz blends Chinese dishes into the full repertoire of possibilities from which her children may choose. Like rituals, parents balance integration and distance through artifacts. Mothers, 48- year-old Brooke and 52-year-old Melissa, spoke about their home libraries. In addition to their general collection, they include books about their children’s heritages and about adoption. Still other parents reported giving their children two middle names, one that reflects their birth culture and one that does not, as a way to integrate and remain distanced. Parents’

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

646 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

communication reflects the simultaneous and non-simultaneous interplay of the discourses of integration and separation. Further illuminating the contradiction-riddled experiences of identity-work for parents of visibly adopted children is the contradiction of fortune and loss.

Fortune and loss

Parents associate their children’s adoptions with great fortune. One mother, 41-year-old Ava, used the terms “lucky” and “privileged” to describe her feelings. Another mom, 46-year-old Loretta, called herself “blessed” noting “I couldn’t have imagined things turning out any better than they had.” Still another mom, 42-year-old Samantha, commented that she is “unbelievably grateful” that she gets to parent her daughters. While parents described the many rewards they associate with adoption, they also explained that adop- tion is associated with loss. Put bluntly by Brooke, “adoption is loss.” Parents’ communication reflects the synchronic interpenetration of these discourses.

Synchronic interpenetration through balance. Parents simultaneously characterize adoption as a fortunate and unfortunate experience for those involved. Yet, parents attribute each system of meaning to different indi- viduals making the two in balance with one another. Parents shared their belief that the same adoption experience that has brought joy to them has brought loss to both their children and children’s birth parents. Erin, a 47- year-old mother whose daughter was born in China, explained:

It is a hard subject because on one hand I am very aware. I think most adoptive parents are [aware] that the joy that is brought to, I’ll just use myself, connecting with my daughter all that she has brought to my life and the joy of us becoming a family, the celebration of us becoming a family is at the same time a loss for her and her birth family and so I always try to find a way to gently acknowledge that at least in a way that makes room, that reminds her that she has permission to mourn the loss of them, to mourn the fact that she doesn’t know who they are and probably never will, to just mourn the void.

Brooke, whose daughter was also born in China, characterizes adoption in a similar vein. She commented “sometimes when the Lord closes a door somebody opens a window.” This spiritual cliché captures the same meaning inherent in Erin’s comment. Parents realize that adoption means different things to different people. While it means great joy to them; they perceive it means loss to their children and to their children’s birth parents. Parents communicatively enact and manage this dual meaning as they interact with their children and with others. Finally, two contradictions that center on parents’ experiences managing whether or not to discuss adoption-related information with their children and with others emerged in the data. The contradictions of openness and closedness and community and privacy are introduced in the following sections.

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Openness and closedness

A fifth contradiction active in parents’ identity-work is the tension of openness and closedness. This involves a pull between whether or not to discuss adoption-related information with their children. Aaron, a 54-year- old father, described this tension in the following way:

Adoption is like birth, an event. It is not a continuous thing, once the adoption happens then the relationship is established and then you go on from there. I don’t know that we are willing to bring it up in somebody’s face all the time . . . there are times when it is necessary. Ya don’t just need to bring it up all the time . . .We are not going to hide anything but yet we are not going to make it the forefront of every conversation.

Parents’ communication exemplifies both diachronic and synchronic patterns of interpenetration.

Diachronic interpenetration through spiraling inversion. The contradiction of openness and closedness exemplifies the diachronic process of spiraling inversion which occurs when competing discourses ebb and flow with changing times. Parents’ communication with their children about adoption- related issues can be characterized as defaulting on closedness until a number of specific occurrences take place and trigger openness. Parents often put their children in charge of the pendulum swing by allowing them to dictate when they would like to talk about adoption-related issues. Speci- fically, parents reported remaining closed until their children ask questions. Although parents allow their children to dictate times of openness, they also reported that they initiate openness on certain occasions. For instance, parents explained that they seize “teachable moments.” Jennifer explained that teachable moments are emergent situations that present opportunities for adoption-related conversations. Parents do not create these moments. Instead, they take advantage of self-presenting moments. Liz, a 41-year-old mother of one, recalled:

She [her daughter] saw pregnant people and some of them were teachers and she wanted to know why there was a baby in people’s tummies. . . . And so we talked about how babies grow in mommies’, well, ladies’ tummies is what we say. “Most of the time that baby is the mommy’s and that is called the birth mommy . . . the birth mommy has the baby but can’t always give them the care that they need and so the baby is going to go to someplace where they could care for it and love, ya know, to help them grow.”

Parents explained that they also initiate openness during adoption-related rituals. These include, the children’s birthdays, the anniversary of the day the parents first met their children, and the anniversary of the day their children’s adoptions became official. Many parents reported that during these rituals they re-watch videotapes of their children’s arrivals and page through photo albums as they engage in adoption-related conversation. Further illustrating the diachronic interplay between openness and closed- ness is a second pattern, segmentation.

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 647

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Diachronic interpenetration through segmentation. Segmentation occurs when individuals voice opposed discourses within different contexts. Parents reported that there are some adoption-related topics about which they openly discuss with their children and other topics on which they remain closed. Openness is centripetal. However, parents’ communication exem- plifies discretionary closedness with respect to certain topics. For instance, although parents reported that they felt initial nervousness or uncertainty about the adoption process, they explained that they have not shared these feelings with their children. Samantha, a 42-year-old mother of two, said the following about her second husband: “he was concerned . . . how he might feel about parenting a child not only that wasn’t his, but wasn’t mine.” Despite Samantha’s openness with me about her husbands’ anxiety, Samantha refrains from openness with her children when it comes to this topic. Samantha does not want her daughters to feel they had any doubt about adopting.

Parents also reported that they do not tell their children about any nega- tive thoughts they have about their children’s heritages. Tori, a 50-year-old mother whose daughter was born in Korea, hesitantly shared an example:

Now you heard how much my husband and I were just so delighted to have our daughters, the joy of our life to raise them and [we] can’t imagine anything else. But when I got off the plane on our first day, walking through Seoul and I saw how modern it was. I saw beautifully dressed men and women. I saw many children . . . I looked around at this bustling city and I thought, and of course I think my daughters are just top shelf, and I thought you missed out. “How could you let these two girls . . . was there no room in your homes or your hearts for these children?”. . . . I never shared that because I don’t want them to have a negative feeling about Korea.

In addition, parents explained that they often withhold adoption-related information they believe could be hurtful for their children to hear. In most instances, this information regards circumstances about the children’s birth parents or details about abandonment. Rose, a 47-year-old mother of one, hesitantly shared: “I found out from the newspaper that she was actually found at a trash dump . . . that hurt. I thought, I can’t tell her that . . . you know, I can’t tell her that.”

Although parents advocate openness in terms of expression and honesty, they explained that openness about the aforementioned topics may nega- tively impact their children’s self-concepts. During these times, closedness becomes valued. It is important to note however, that when asked what they would do should their children inquire about the aforementioned topics, parents hesitated, not sure what they would do. Therefore, parents’ closed- ness at the time of the interview does not mean they will remain closed throughout their relationship. Through time, parents may weave new topics into their communication. Parents also manage the contradiction of open- ness and closedness synchronically, through the process of balance.

Synchronic interpenetration through balance. Balance refers to a process where people voice opposed discourses simultaneously yet not to the degree that their merging challenges what constitutes openness or what constitutes

648 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

closedness. Thus, parents often discuss but not detail certain adoption-related topics. For instance, 42-year-old Samantha explained that she wants the topic of Korea to be open for discussion with her Korean-born daughters. Yet, Samantha thinks that one of her daughters is too young to understand such a complex topic. Samantha explained:

We have a little book called When You Were Born in Korea and she looks through it and we talk about when she was born in Korea and when she came to live here with us. We haven’t moved much further than that yet. Because she is so young I don’t want to confuse her. I want to tell her how things are at a level that she can understand.

Exemplifying balance, Samantha embraces children’s literature that refer- ences Korea. By doing this, her openness about the topic remains casual and limited in detail. Parents of visibly adopted children do not only experience this pull between sharing and withholding information when interacting with their children, they also experience this tension when interacting with others. This process is captured by the contradiction of community and privacy.

Community and privacy

Parents’ communication echoed a discourse of community as they discussed their willingness to share information about their children’s adoptions with others. Yet, parents echoed the discourse of privacy as they detailed their discretionary withholding of information from others. The discourse of com- munity emerged as parents spoke about their interactions with strangers, particularly those who approach them to inquire about their families. Parents described their general willingness to answer people’s questions because they believe their questions are rooted in curiosity. Rose, a 47-year-old mother of one, explained her perspective “it [visible adoption] is like this closed society . . . people are curious.” Thomas, 43 years old and also a father of one, under- stands people’s curiosity. In fact, Thomas asserted “I think it is naïve to think that we didn’t invite some line of questioning by choosing a life style that is obviously different. . . . it is just natural that people want to know.” By sharing information about their children’s adoptions when people ask, parents invite others into this closed society or community. Like the contradiction of open- ness and closedness, the interpenetration of the discourses of community and privacy plays out diachronically and synchronically.

Diachronic interpenetration through spiraling inversion. For parents, keeping their children’s adoption-related information private is the norm. However, parents will often reveal information when others inquire as a way to build relationships and show others they are proud of their adoptive families. Yet, parents also explained that it is not always appropriate to share adopted- related information with others even though they may ask. Parents stated that their children have the right to own their information. One mother, 41-year-old Ava, explained:

I defer to my children and ask if they want to answer and they have a right to say no. So if somebody comes up to me and says “where is your child from?” I will look at him and say “do you want us to answer that question?”

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 649

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and if not “we don’t want to share that information with you.” It is their information and they have every right to share their information.

Addressing others’ questions is not the only time parents’ communica- tion shifts from privacy to community; parents also explained that they disclose adoption-related information when situations necessitate it. For example, Anne said that openness is important, “if you are going to the doctor or going for your driver’s license where the distinction is a critical piece of who they are and what they look like.” Parents’ communication also shifts from privacy to community on special occasions such as their children’s adoption day or holidays. For instance, some parents have their children invite friends to adoption day parties. Their attendance makes them privy to adoption-related talk. Likewise, parents frequently observe their children’s cultural holidays by making treats for their children to take to school. This puts parents in the position to address peers’ questions about adoption or cultural differences. A second pattern, segmentation, further illustrates the diachronic interpenetration of community and privacy.

Diachronic interpenetration though segmentation. Exemplifying segmenta- tion, parents often reveal information to others about certain topics related to their children’s adoptions and conceal information about other topics. First, parents explained they are willing to share with others the basic facts of their children’s adoptions. All the parents with whom I spoke will affirm their children are adopted and reveal information about their children’s birth countries, heritages, and ages. Parents also reported that they are willing to share with others information about their personal experiences with adoption. As one mother, 40-year-old Lucy explained, “We tell it more from our perspective when we tell other people. We talk more about the process itself and more about our time in Vietnam.” In contrast, parents are closed about their children’s experiences with adoption and personal information regarding their children’s histories. For example, Lucy explained that in conversations with others, “I do not include information about his family in Vietnam. We consider that pretty personal information for him.” Parents compartmentalize adoption-related information as private or public. A dis- cussion of the synchronic interpenetration of the discourses of community and privacy will further illuminate their interplay.

Synchronic interpenetration through balance. Parents reported they do not always want to dismiss others’ questions in exchange for complete privacy, nor do they want to disclose private information. To balance, or find a middle ground between the public and private, parents often answer others’ ques- tions in ways that are ambiguous or in ways that reconstruct their children’s identities to match their perception. The most prominent example of balance came as parents shared how they respond when others pose questions about the cost of adoption. For example:

Samantha: So many times people will come up to us and say things like “Oh, how adorable, how much did they cost?”

650 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Interviewer: How do you respond to that?

Samantha: I tell them “They are priceless,” ya know [like] in that commer- cial. “They are priceless, there is no cost.”

Invoking the discourse of community and willingness to engage in a dis- cussion about her daughters, Samantha chose not to dismiss this person’s question. Yet, by responding as she did, Samantha preserved privacy and rejected the objectification of her daughters and the inappropriate assump- tion they were purchased. While the final two contradictions both speak to the negotiation of disclosure, they differ in their functionality. The prior, openness and closedness, is integral to the negotiation of the children’ iden- tities. The latter, community and privacy, functions also to negotiate personal and collective boundaries.

As parents engage in identity-work they communicatively enact and manage six dialectical tensions that take the form of contradictions. Although each contradiction is insightful in its own right, an examination of how various contradictions penetrate one another creating a knot provides a more detailed description of the communicative complexity of identity- work in families formed through visible adoption.

Contradictions working in totality

As parents engage in identity-work, the contradiction of similarity and differ- ence is often intertwined with the contradiction of integration and separa- tion, openness and closedness, or community and privacy. For instance, parents’ communication frequently demonstrates the recalibration or re- framing of similarity and difference through the segmentation or balance of integration and distance. Parents attempt to reframe their children’s and family’s differences as similarities by connecting with others who share their differences, specifically, their adoptive or cultural identities. This connection allows parents to illustrate that their children are similar to others because others are like them in their differences. Likewise, parents attempt to re- calibrate similarity and difference through the balance of integration and distance. Specifically, parents incorporate rituals and artifacts that speak to a multitude of heritages to demonstrate that their children are like other children because all people have heritage and their family is like other families because many families reflect multiple heritages. Husband and wife, 45-year-old Rachel and 43-year-old Thomas, noted:

Rachel: We have a, a lot of Vietnamese art, but we like to think that we kind of display it in a way that it is not a monument. . . . I guess I don’t want it to be different from the rest of us.

Thomas: It is not a shrine.

Rachel: Yeah, it is not a shrine. It is more, we went and we picked up pieces that we like and we just blended it in with our other stuff . . . we aren’t trying to push that we have this Asian child. It is more symbolic that it is, we are a Jewish, Italian, Vietnamese family.

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 651

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

On one hand, rather than denying their children’s differences, parents want to help their children understand that they respect and value their areas of difference. Thus, parents integrate rituals and artifacts that repre- sent their children’s heritages. Yet, parents explained that they fear this integration will accentuate their children’s areas of difference. Jennifer, a 56-year-old mother of two Korean-born sons, summarized this complexity well when she explained:

There is a fine line to walk . . . there is a story . . . one parent told. They had been so conscious trying to make sure that Korean heritage was valued, there were Korean things on the wall, and Korean dresses . . . they never really saw her as their daughter, that she was this sort of exotic thing from somewhere else. . . . but on the other hand, respect for the heritage.

In addition, parents often attempt to manage similarity and difference by fluctuating between openness and closedness or community and privacy. Specifically, parents’ communication often demonstrates the recalibration of similarity and difference through spiraling inversion of openness and closedness or community and privacy. Parents explained that by remaining closed about adoption-related topics with their children or with others they prioritize similarity by failing to acknowledge difference. Yet, parents fear that such closedness and privacy may construct the topic of adoption as a taboo topic and accentuate difference. One father, 50-year-old Edward, captured this dilemma when he explained:

I agree that it is best that it isn’t highlighted, the fact that they are adopted but it isn’t hidden either. . . . the more you bring something up and the more it is highlighted the more you are bringing up the fact that there is a differ- ence and likewise if it is pushed aside, the same thing happens then of course, you are highlighting the fact that there is a difference because you are ignoring the fact that there is a difference.

Understanding how parents enact and communicatively manage multiple contradictions in totality offers a more complete picture of the communica- tive complexity parents experience as they engage in identity-work.

Discussion

Galvin (2003) argued that “forty years of adoption research reveals limited attention to the communication dynamics involved in creating and main- taining adoptive families” (p. 238). The present study begins to remedy this shortcoming by describing the contradictions adoptive parents experience as they engage in identity-work, the process through which people communi- catively attempt to construct pictures of themselves and others (Tracy, 2002). Similarly, Baxter (2006) argued that the current body of dialectical literature is limited because researchers have not focused enough on the particularities of contradictions or the process of dialectical flux. Instead, researchers have given repeated attention to the identification of three sets

652 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of dialectical tensions (i) expression and nonexpression, (ii) stability and change, and (iii) integration and separation. While Baxter did not deny the importance of understanding these tensions, she urged researchers to explore their situated enactment and diachronic and synchronic management for their unique particularities rather than assuming that they take the same form and meaning across relationships. This research attempts to supplement the existing literature by illuminating the particular communicative enact- ment and management of often-studied contradictions in families formed through visible adoption.

First, for parents of visibly adopted children, the contradiction of expres- sion and nonexpression takes two forms: (i) openness and closedness and (ii) community and privacy. Parents communicatively enact and manage the tension of openness and closedness when interacting with their children about adoption-related issues. However, parents experience this same tension when interacting with others including members and non-members of their personal networks. Parents manage the public and private nature of visible adoption by choosing when and what aspects of adoption-related information to share.

This experience of negotiating private and public information has also been detailed by other communication researchers. For instance, Braithwaite (1991) argued that individuals with disabilities manage their disclosure with others. What is insightful about the present study is that it illuminates how adoptive parents negotiate disclosure on behalf of their children and thus demonstrates that the person active in the negotiation of disclosure is not always the person to whom the information pertains. Although parents realize the importance of disclosure with their children and with others, they also advocate that remaining closed about adoption-related topics plays an important role in their identity-work. This supports Postman’s (2002) argu- ment that concealment may be characteristic of communicative intelligence.

Second, this study captures the particularities of the tension of similarity and difference for family members of visibly adopted children. Parents experience the contradiction of similarity and difference not only as they engage in identity-work with respect to their children and families, but also as they discursively attempt to construct their own parental identities. Specifically, parents attempt to construct themselves as similar to and differ- ent not only from other parents but also from their visibly adopted children. Likewise, aware of the obvious differences between creating a family through adoption and creating a family through pregnancy, parents emphasize the similarities the two processes share. Although this communication does not focus explicitly on personal of familial identities, from parents’ perspectives, it is central to their identity-work and the construction of their adoptive family.

Moreover, this study illuminates ways in which the contradiction of simi- larity and difference and the tensions of openness and closedness or com- munity and privacy exemplify totality. Often, as openness or closedness (or community or privacy) fluctuated into and out of the dominant position of parents’ communication, so too did similarity or difference. However, it is

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 653

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

important to note that in families formed through visible adoption the rela- tionship between these contradictions is not consistent, which exemplifies the complexity of identity-work for these parents. Sometimes as parents voice openness (or community), they voice similarity. At other times, as they voice closedness (or privacy), they voice similarity. It is not the mere co-presence of these contradictions that lends insight about the meaning- making processes in families formed through visible adoption, it is the inter- penetration of the tensions or their functioning as a knot of independence (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). This finding could function heuristically for others who study stigmatized relationships such as same sex families, guiding them to illuminate this experience in other family contexts.

Further showing the complexity of identity-work for parents of visibly adopted children, the contradiction of invisibility and visibility appeared as a radiant of similarity and difference. Parents explained that their construc- tion of their children as similar to other children and family members often becomes so real that they become blind to any differences. This makes sense as Berger and Luckmann (1966) argued that the realities individuals construct act upon them. Yet, because identity-work is a collaborative process, others may shatter parents’ construction of similarity and lead their children’s differences to regain visibility. In highlighting the interdependent knot that forms between and among tensions, the present study supple- ments recent explorations of the notion of totality (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006; Braithwaite, Toller, Durham, & Jones, 2008).

Third, the present study provides new insight about the communicative enactment and management of the tension of integration and separation, frequently conceptualized as the ebb and flow between connecting with others and maintaining autonomy. This contradiction is experienced differ- ently by families formed through visible adoption. It involves the tension between connecting with and distancing from their children’s heritages.

Moreover, the tension of integration and distance often penetrates the tension of similarity and difference as parents engage in identity-work. This is important because the discourse of connection which is central to inte- gration shows that parents rely on other people (i.e., other adoptive families or minority individuals) to help them communicatively mange the contra- diction of similarity and difference. This reliance on others may be tied to the fact that these parents do not share their children’s adoptive and ethnic identities. If the parents were also adopted or members of cultural minority groups, they might be able to negotiate similarity and difference indepen- dently. Because they are not, they seek others to help them in this process.

Fourth, the present study illuminates the particularities of the contradic- tion of fortune and loss for families formed through visible adoption. The present study elaborates on past findings where scholars argued that parents of adopted children acknowledge the fortune adoption has brought to their lives (Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001) and the loss it has brought to birth parents (Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2007). Parents also recognize that their visibly adopted children may associate adoption with loss because they were removed not only from their birth parents but also from families

654 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

where others are visibly similar. For these parents, both meanings of adop- tion are essential to their identity-work and to their communication.

Just as Baxter (2006) urged researchers to examine contradictions for their particularities in distinct family relationships, she urged researchers to explore the process of dialectical flux. An understanding of the movement between and among discourses illuminates the dynamic nature of commu- nication, relationships, and identity-work and the intricacies of communi- cation in adoptive families. The present study addresses the notion of flux by illuminating various diachronic and synchronic patterns that capture the ebb and flow of united, yet opposed, discourses in visibly adoptive families. By detailing the movement between discourses – or their interplay- the present study contributes to other scholars’ (e.g., Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006; Toller, 2005) recent quests to study ways family members communi- catively manage contradictions in and through time. Moreover, it moves the reader’s thinking about identity-work, particularly in families formed through visible adoption, from a linear process that involves a single, desired end-state to one that is dynamic, dialectical, and complex, often riddled with contradiction and the need for negotiation among family members and be- tween family members and members of the general population.

While the work in the present study offers insight about contradiction- riddled identity-work processes in families formed through visible adoption, there are steps future researchers could take to broaden our knowledge about these processes. The present analysis has breadth in that it focused on contradictions experienced as parents engage in identity-work with both family and non-family members. Future interpretive researchers may center their research on a specific group of non-household kin to acquire greater depth. Parents often noted the challenges their family members pose to their adoption experience. Understanding how parents attempt to overcome these challenges is important because extended family members play a significant role in how adoptive parents experience their new role (Nickman et al., 2005). Specifically, Nickman et al., (2005) argued that adoptive parents whose parents support their adoptions help ease the experience of this new role. Therefore, it is important to explore what, if any, contradictions parents experience as they communicate with extended family members.

In addition, future researchers could propose longitudinal studies in an effort to provide greater understanding of dialectical flux, including turning points that might be especially meaningful for family members. To capture these turning points, interpretive researchers could embrace ethnographic methods in order to attempt to capture the situated enactment and management and active everyday communicative dialectical processes of identity-work in various family relationships. With an emphasis on dialec- tical flux and identity-work, two under-explored communicative processes, the present study provides insight into the enactment and management of contradictions active in parents’ identity-work in families formed through visible adoption.

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 655

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

REFERENCES

Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communica-

tion. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp.130–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.). Engaging theories in inter- personal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 349–361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in family communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of the contradictions in communication with stepparents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 447–467.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press.

Ben-Ari, A., & Weinberg-Kurnik, G. (2007). The dialectics between the personal and the inter- personal in the experiences of adoptive single mothers by choice. Sex Roles, 56, 823–833.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Braithwaite, D. O. (1991). “Just how much did that wheelchair cost?” Management of privacy boundaries by persons with disabilities. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 254–274.

Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (2006). “You’re my parent but you’re not”: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren’s perceptions about communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 30–48.

Braithwaite, D. O., Toller, P., Daas, K., Durham, W., & Jones, A. (2008). Centered, but not caught in the middle: Stepchildren’s perceptions of contradictions of communication of co-parents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 33–55.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fitch, K. L. (1994). Criteria for evidence in qualitative research. Western Journal of Commu- nication, 58, 32–39.

Galvin, K. (2003). International and transracial adoption: A communication research agenda. Journal of Family Communication, 3, 237–253.

Galvin, K. (2006). Joined by hearts and words: Adoptive family relationships. In K. Floyd & M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle. New research in family communication (pp. 137–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpre- tation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.

Henney, S. M., Ayers-Lopez, S., McRoy, R. G., & Grotevant, H. D. (2007). Evolution and reso- lution: Birthmothers experience of grief and loss at different levels of adoption openness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 875–889.

Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge. Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). “He was our child from the moment we walked into

that room”: Entrance stories of adoptive parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 18, 785–803.

Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods. (pp. 95–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

656 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Harrigan: Contradictions of identity-work 657

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nickman, S. L., Rosenfeld, A. A., Fine, P., MacIntyre, J. C., Pilowsky, D. J., Howe, R-A., et al. (2005). Children in adoptive families: Overview and update. Journal of American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 987–995.

Postman, N. (2002). The communication panacea. In J. Stewart (Ed.), Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication (9th ed.) (pp.52–56). New York: McGraw Hill.

Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Toller, P. W. (2005). Negotiation of dialectical contradictions by parents who have experienced the death of a child. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 46–66.

Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting realities. New York: The Guilford Press.

APPENDIX

Interview Protocol 1. Describe your family. Who do you consider to be members of your family? 2. When you describe your family to others what do you say? 3. A creation story is a story that describes how a family came to be. For our purposes, the

creation story of your family includes the story of you [and if married or cohabitating, your spouse or partner] to the time you adopted your child/ren. Tell me your family's creation story from the beginning. Include how you came to adopt and the story of the adoption.

4. Next, I would like you to tell me your family’s creation story as you tell it to your adopted child/ren. Please tell me the story as if you were talking to your child/ren.

a). How, if at all, is the creation story that you told to me different from the creation story you tell your adopted child/ren?

b). What specific information do you make sure to include when you tell the family's creation story to your adopted child/ren? Please explain.

c). What specific information do you leave out, if anything, when you tell the family's creation story to your adopted child/ren? Please explain. Is there a time when you plan to tell the story to your adopted child/ren and leave this information in the story? Please explain.

d). What, if anything, is the moral or lesson you want your child/ren to take from the family's creation story?

e). How, if at all, has your family's creation story changed as your child/ren has/have gotten older?

5. Since you and your child/ren look different from one another, what if anything have you told your child/ren about the differences in your looks?

a). [If there are siblings that look different from the adopted child/ren] What if anything have you told your adopted child/ren about the differences in the children's looks?

b). During the adoption process, what advice did you receive, if any, from your agency or social workers about how to discuss ethnicity, race, and/or nationality with your child/ren? What were you told?

c). How, if at all, have you followed this advice? Please explain. d). What information, if any, do you wish you had received from your agency or social

workers that would have helped you handle talking about the visible differences in your family?

e). How would you like your child/ren to describe himself/herself//themselves to others?

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6. What do you think is unique about parenting a visibly adopted child/ren?

a). [If there are other children who are visibly similar to the parents] What, if anything, is different about parenting your visibly different children than your visibly similar child/ren?

7. Ideally, how do you want your child/ren to talk with others about your family?

a). What have you told your child/ren, if anything, about discussing your adoptive family?

8. What, if anything, do you want your child/ren to know about where they were born?

a). What information, if anything, have you shared with your child/ren about where they were born?

b). Is there anything to do with your child/ren's birth place that you have incorporated into their life with you? Please explain.

c). Describe any sorts of items from your child/ren's birth place that you have in the home, if anything. Please describe these item(s) and what you do with them.

9. Since you adopted your child/ren, have you added any new routines or traditions to your family? These could be things you do on a regular basis or at certain times of the year. Please describe as many of these routines and traditions as you can in as much detail as you can.[For each routine and tradition]

a). Why did you add this routine or tradition? b). How important is this routine or tradition to your family? How important is this

routine or tradition to your child? c). Why is this routine or tradition important?

10. Describe what, if any, challenging issues you have faced or expect to face when talking with your adopted child/ren about your family or their adoption.

11. What, if anything, do you want other people to know about your child/ren's adoption? 12. What, if anything, do you want others to know about you as a parent? 13. What, if anything, do you want others to know about your family? 14. Are there other important things that you think I should know about the process of

communicating with your child/ren about the visible differences in your family in order to fully understand your experience?

658 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(5)

at UNIV OF SAN FRANCISCO on November 2, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from