title: Reflections on the challenges of understanding racial, cultural and sexual differences in couple relationship research.
abstract: In the field of systemic psychotherapy there has been much recent interest in the areas of culture and reflexivity, and in working with couples. In this article we reflect on the process of conducting research in these areas. Drawing on findings from a large, national, empirical mixed-methods study on long-term relationships, we use two examples from the data to illustrate the complexity of researching across racial, cultural and sexual differences, in terms of research design and sampling, fieldwork and research practice, and making sense of multidimensional data. We point to findings that suggest that notions of coupledom are culturally constructed and thus challenge straightforward ideas of the procreative, sexually active couple dyad, separate from intergenerational extended families. The clinical significance of the findings for both lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer and culturally diverse couples and families are discussed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cultural or racial matching is not a sufficient condition for engagement and empathy with couples and families.Critical reflexivity about similarity and difference is essential in cross-cultural systemic practice.'The couple' and its distance from the extended family may be defined differently in different cultures.One research tool used in this project, the emotion map, appears to have utility in clinical practice with couples and families.
authors.forename: Jacqui
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gabb
authors.forename: Reenee
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Singh
keywords: couple relationships; qualitative research; racial and cultural differences; reflexivity; sexuality; systemic psychotherapy
references.citation: J Marital Fam Ther. 2000 Oct;26(4):409-19
references.pmid: 11042835
references.citation: Fam Process. 2005 Jun;44(2):139-46
references.pmid: 16013741
references.citation: Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2003 Feb;8(1):29-33
references.pmid: 32797549
references.citation: Fam Process. 1995 Dec;34(4):373-88
references.pmid: 8674519