ABSTRACT
“I FEEL LIKE IT’S ALMOST DEEPER THAN FAMILY IN A WAY”: CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VOLUNTARY KIN RELATIONSHIPS
This study explores the creation and maintenance of voluntary kin relationships. Through purposeful and snowball sampling 24 participants took part in two phases of data collection; the first being an online questionnaire, followed by an interview. The online open-ended questionnaire asked the participants to provide the story of their voluntary kin relationships, and the follow-up interviews were unstructured with the goal of expanding on the information proved in their open-ended questionnaire. An iterative approach was taken to identify how the participants created their voluntary kin relationships, and once these relationships were created, how these relationships were maintained using relational maintenance behaviors. The largest portion of the participants created their voluntary kin through time, which was either how long they have known their voluntary kin or how much time they have spent with their voluntary kin. Followed by being born into a previously established voluntary kin relationship and traumatic events that served as positive turning points in their relationship. The most common way that the participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships was through declaration of family, or using biological and legal family titles to identify their voluntary kin; the second being through shared activities together. The goal of this study was to add to the research on how individuals create their families outside of biological and legal means, furthering the research in relational maintenance, while in addition provide a glimpse into how two different relational communication phenomena come together and affect each other.
Keywords: voluntary kin, relational maintenance, discourse dependent families
Nicole Vulich May 2019
“I FEEL LIKE IT’S ALMOST DEEPER THAN FAMILY IN A WAY”: CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VOLUNTARY KIN RELATIONSHIPS
by Nicole Vulich
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication in the College of Arts and Humanities California State University, Fresno May 2019 APPROVED
For the Department of Communication:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student’s graduate degree program for the awarding of the master’s degree.
Nicole Vulich Thesis Author
Falon Kartch (Chair) Communication
Katherine Adams Communication
Robert Powell Communication
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Dr. Falon Kartch, thank you for introducing me to voluntary kin and giving me the tools and the desire to explore it. The discovery of voluntary kin that night in Family Communication has changed my life in more ways than I can even count. To Dr. Katherine Adams, thank you for always pushing me and believing that I could do this even when I myself was sure this was impossible. To Dr. Robert Powell, thank you for always being a part of my crew. To my voluntary kin, I am forever grateful for your unconditional love and support; without you all, none of this would be possible. To Angel my first +one, Rachel my big sister, and Bryan my “Eddie,” without your love, support, understanding, teaching, and guidance I would not be here today. “I wouldn’t have nothing if I didn’t have you.” To Natalie and Danny, thank you for supporting me, and becoming family. “Don’t stop me now, I’m having such a good time, I’m having a ball.”
To all the participants, who gave their time and stories, thank you for giving me so much more than just data. Without the participants sharing their lives, so openly and personally, there would be no study. It was the need to share the participants’ lived experiences that carried me through this long process. Thank you for being so open, even when it was difficult, and I hope I helped bring to you the knowledge that you are not alone. Together we have provided more examples of the importance of recognizing voluntary kin as family. And last but not least, to my husband, my partner, whom I would not have without this thesis, you are one of my favorite things to come out of this research. I cannot thank you enough for your unconditional love, support (bring the support of the British Empire with you), and countless cuppas, but most importantly for answering the call for participants. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF TABLES ...... vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Rationale ...... 2
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERTURE ...... 7
The Evolving Definitions of Family ...... 7
Voluntary Kin ...... 10
Relational Maintenance Behaviors and Strategies ...... 16
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 26
Participants ...... 26
Data Collection ...... 29
Data Analysis ...... 32
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 37
Research Questions #1: Creation of Voluntary Kin Relationships ...... 37 Research Questions #2: Relational Maintenance of Voluntary Kin Relationships ...... 48
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 72
Research Question #1: How are Voluntary Kin Relationships Created? ...... 72
Research Question #2: How are Voluntary Kin Relationships Maintained? ...... 83
The Interplay Between “Creating” Family and “Maintaining” its Existence ...... 115
Conclusion and Future Directions ...... 121
REFERENCES ...... 128
APPENDICES ...... 136 APPENDIX A: PHASE 1 OF DATA COLLECTION – QUALTRICS QUESTIONNAIRE PROTOCOL ...... 137 APPENDIX B: PHASE 2 OF DATA COLLECTION – FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 142
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 RQ #1: Creation of Voluntary Kin Relationships (N = 74) ...... 47
Table 2 RQ #2: Relational Maintenance of Voluntary Kin Relationships (N = 764) ..... 70
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The family is an intricate part of an individual’s life. Families are the first experience we have in a group and families are also where we first learn how to interact with others. Families are an important part of the human experience, but how is a family defined? What individuals make a family? The word “family” may first conjure thoughts of the “nuclear family” with a husband and wife with 2.5 children and a dog, but how many families actually fit the stereotype? Family communication scholars have researched families that are beyond that stereotype and do not have the biological or legal ties that are part of the stereotypical family. Some of the ways that scholars have researched families outside of the stereotypical family connections are the discovery and discussion of fictive kin (Ballweg, 1969; Ibsen & Klobus, 1972); how individuals view and define family (Trost, 1990); and how family can be defined outside of the biological and legal structural definitions (Baxter et al., 2009; Braithwaite et al., 2010; Braithwaite, Abetz, Moore, & Brockhage, 2016; Bedford & Blieszner, 1997; Breshears, 2010;
Edwards & Graham, 2009; Floyd & Morman, 2006; Galvin, 2006, 2014; Gazso & McDaniel, 2015; Holtzman, 2008; Nelson, 2013; Scott & Scott, 2015; Tew, Ackerman, & Harlan, 2013; Voorpostel, 2013). Voluntary kin is one of these family definitions that is outside of the stereotypical family definition (Braithwaite et al., 2010). The concept of family has undergone changes in modern times. Galvin (2014) claimed that the ideas of what constitutes a family are in flux. The way that “family” is defined needs to evolve into a more inclusive, expanding the definition beyond the nuclear family (Galvin, 2006, 2014). Many grandparents are raising their grandchildren, divorces and remarriages are creating blended families, single parents, single parents pooling resources to help raise children, and the idea that voluntarily childless couples are “family” are proof of the evolving family unit requiring a change in the definition of what 2 2 counts as a family. One of the instances that are making the changing definition of families necessary is voluntary kin. Voluntary kin are the individuals who are considered family but have no the legal or biological ties (Braithwaite et al., 2010). Since the family is quite complex in nature it is important to understand the diverse ways individuals can, and do, form a family. Voluntary kin do not have the legal or biological connection to the individuals that they consider family, which offers its own set of challenges (Braithwaite et al., 2010; Galvin, 2006, 2014). Because families with voluntary kin do not have the legal and biological connection, the sense of family must be established through other means. These relationships can be established through the discursive practices, such as the stories that families develop and tell, which are used to explain and solidify their bonds. Discourse dependent families are families that rely on their discursive practices to create and sustain their bonds (Galvin, 2006). This also presents another challenge; once the voluntary kin relationship is formed how do the individuals maintain this relationship?
For some families, the biological and legal connections used to maintain their families’ bonds notwithstanding, there are other relational maintenance behaviors and strategies that people use to maintain their relationships, even familial relationships. The goal of this study is to explore the development and maintenance of voluntary kin bonds using the literature on relational maintenance along with qualitative research methods.
Rationale As the definition of “family” is changing, there is an increased need for Communication research exploring the new ways that family is being symbolically defined (Braithwaite et al., 2010). There are several ways that scholars have defined family in past research beyond the legal and biological connections. The structural definition of family captures the legal, biological, and identity connections of a family 3 3 and is the most definition of family (Baxter et al., 2009; Edwards & Graham, 2009). Family is created through the members taking part in the system of the family, which is the medium of action but also the produced outcome (Schrodt, Baxter, McBride, Braithwaite, & Fine, 2006). The second definition, the functional approach of family (Baxter et al., 2009), and Edwards and Graham’s (2009) psychosocial, center on the tasks that are preformed within a family. These tasks can be raising and providing for children and the family as a social unit headed by one or more adults. The third definition, the transactional approach, centers on intersubjectivity and the interactions that happen within a family (Baxter et al., 2009). This third approach is central to the idea of voluntary kin since “relationships are familial, according to this approach, to the extent that members feel and act like a family” (Baxter et al., 2009, p. 172). A group of individuals, like voluntary kin, that interact as a family and would identify themselves as a family would qualify as a family under this approach. In the transactional family, members may even give each other titles that are traditionally used in biological and legally connected families, for instance: “aunt,” “uncle,” “sister,” and even “godparents.” While godparents are established and created through religious ceremonies and contracts, these contracts would not be recognized by the court without other legal documentation, without further legal connections godparents would fall into the category of voluntary kin. According to Galvin (2014), all families use discourse within the relationships to some degree; however, voluntary kin relationships are more discourse dependent than other family types as “discourse plays an increasingly significant role in constructing family identity when the cultural indicators of blood and/or law are less salient or absent” (p. 18). The voluntary kin relationship is a family relationship is such where there are no other connections that require the individuals to be involved other than their desire to be a family. This allows for a greater role paced on the intersubjectivity and interdependence 4 4 between the individuals to ground their sense of family and identify as a family without the biological, legal, or structural connection that the cultural context of the United States of America seems to favor. The term “voluntary kin” has been chosen over “fictive kin” coinciding with Braithwaite et al.’s (2010) argument that “fictive kin” “only adds to the stigmatization, suggesting that these are not ‘real’ relationships” (p. 390). They instead offered the new term “voluntary kin,” which could be applied to various different types of connections in these relationships. “Voluntary kin” is more representative of what these family relationships are: individuals that are part of a family, not through obligation, but rather because they have a connection and a want to be part of a family. The research on voluntary kin is still an emerging area. The nature of voluntary kin can be difficult to study because there are no legal or biological ties that bind individuals and they are a discursively constructed group. Understand that voluntary kin, even though they may not have the legal and biological connections that are first expected of a family member, “are a longstanding relational form” (Braithwaite et al., 2010, p. 391) dependent on discursive practices “held together internally through discussions, narratives, and rituals” (Galvin, 2006, p. 4). Discourse encompasses the discussions and stories told within the family and shared with outsiders, and also all the activities and practices that they take part in as a family; discourse is both the discussions and stories as well as the everyday doing of family. Rituals are examples of everyday activities that that are done together as a family to solidify the bonds. One of the most overt examples of this type of ritual would be the baptism and creation of godparents within a religious context since, as previously stated, that godparents are a form of discourse dependent family or voluntary kin relationship identification. The ritual of the baptism proclaims the family connection, to family members and those who are not family. These rituals do not have to be as overt as the baptizing of a child but they can 5 5 also be as simple as spending Christmases together, attending birthdays and weddings or even school programs; any type of activity that biological or legal family may normally take part in or attend. With the changing definitions of family “discourse-that is, language use-now serves as the third leg of the ‘definitional family stool’ due to its increasing important in family identity construction, maintenance, and deconstruction” (Galvin, 2006, pp. 17-18). Because voluntary kin falls outside of the structural family definition these “forms of family bear a heavier legitimation burden and are less accepted, on their face, as ‘real,’ ‘normal,’ or ‘natural’” (Braithwaite et al., 2010, p. 392). Once a sense of a voluntary kin relationship emerges from the discourse it must be maintained in order to keep the relationship at the preferred level of satisfaction, this is where relational maintenance strategies and behaviors become a salient practice. Relational maintenance behaviors are behaviors and strategies that are enacted to maintain the relationship at the desired state (Canary et al., 1993). Relational maintenance behaviors are also referred to as relational maintenance strategies depending on whether the acts are preformed strategically or happen more as a habit. Canary et al. (1993) were able to compile a list of ten behaviors that were determined to be relational maintenance behaviors. These behaviors are: “positivity, openness, assurance, social networks, sharing task, sharing joint activities, the exchange of cards, letters, and calls, avoidance, anti-social behaviors, and humor” (Canary et al., 1993, p. 5); each of the activities could also be either direct or indirect behaviors. The strategies that the participants reported also differed depending on the relationship type the participant was reporting about; the relationship types were romantic, family, friend, and others (Canary et al., 1993). Voluntary kin relationships can straddle the line between close friends and family, the interest is whether the behaviors that are reported will be similar to the behaviors reported for family, friends, or a mixture of both relationships. 6 6
The goals of this study are to gain more insight into how voluntary kin relationships are established; and once created, how are these voluntary kin relationships maintained through the use of relational maintenance behaviors and strategies. In order to achieve these goals, this study is rooted firmly in the interpretive paradigm with the goal of obtaining a better understating of how voluntary kin relationships are created and how they are maintained. A two-step process was used: The participants provided the data through an online questionnaire consisting of open-end questions and follow-up interviews.
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERTURE
The Evolving Definitions of Family Throughout history, communal living and living situations where numerous members of the community lived under the same roof in order to provide and receive the support needed to survive were the norm (Strauss, 2016). The members of the household would be comprised of immediate and extended family, friends, and other members of the community. A single family comprised of a mother, a father, and two children could not survive on their own during the times of the hunter-gathers and during the early days of farming. The nuclear family has roots in the Protestant Reformation that began in the 1500s when the “godly household” became the desirable household, the household that people would ideally strive to obtain. The “godly household” was comprised of a father, a mother, and their children. It was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s that communal living was not a necessity for survival and the “godly household” was obtainable. This gave way to the nuclear family of the 20th century.
The idea of the nuclear family with a mother, a father, 2.5 kids, and a dog living in the suburbs in the United States is an idea that has grown out of the mid-20th century ideal family reflected in the values of Western culture (Galvin, 2014). The nuclear family is focused on the idea that a married couple, of a mother and a father, are a unit that is designed and focused on raising biological children. The mother and the father are bonded together legally through marriage, and the children are bonded to the mother, father, and to each other biologically. Before the nuclear family became a popular idea, and throughout history, the family form was whatever form benefited the family and the culture the most. For example, in ancient Rome the family was defined however the father defined the family, and in the United States the many immigrant communities created family outside of biological and legal connections due to necessity since 8 8 international boarders were between the biologically and legally connected families; but there was a change coming with the end of World War II.
When the United States came back from two World Wars, where World War II had many women and mothers taking new roles in their family, and the men returning found things changed in the roles within their families, the United States doubled down on the idea of the suburbs and the nuclear family (Galvin, 2014). Even as media and televisions started to become a staple of households in the United States, the idea of the nuclear family was beamed into the nation’s households day after day. Shows like Father Knows Best (1954), I Love Lucy (1955), and Leave It to Beaver (1957) were shows about the perfect American nuclear family. As time went on, shows that were about families that were “different” like The Addams Family (1964), The Munsters (1964), and Bewitched (1964) became part of television viewing options; those “different” families were still based on the idea of the nuclear family. Research into family communication also followed and supported the idea of the nuclear family and that families are built upon biological and legal connections, primarily focused on raising children. However, even while these shows were reinforcing the idea of the nuclear family, and the laws and cultural ideology seemed to also reinforce the idea of the nuclear family, these may not have reflected how people actually built their families. The ideal of the nuclear family was about to be hugely contested as the 1970s ushered in one of the biggest hits to the nuclear family ideal. Rising divorce rates in the 1970s changed the idea of what constitutes a family; Stacey (1996) discussed how divorce changed the idea of family “generating in its wake a complex array of new kinship ties and tribulations” (p. 7). For example, the 1980s CBS comedy Kate and Allie depicted two divorced, independent single mothers who combine their households into one creating a voluntary co-parent relationship not seen on American television before. In addition to the rising divorce rates of the 1970s, marriage 9 9 outside of the nuclear family and the heteronormative marriage, gay marriage started its fight to be viewed as an acceptable family form. Even though the United States Supreme
Court would not rule that any state’s ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional until 2015, the seeds for this ruling started long before that date. As is expected, it takes time for academic research and writing to reflect any type of change. In 2006, Galvin wrote, “A tangible lag time exists between institutional definitions of ‘family’” (p. 7) and went on to say “lived practices outpace familial identity building, which outpaces the discourse, which outpaces societal acknowledgement and acceptance” (p. 7). In 1998, Fitzpatrick made a call to action for communication researchers to “broaden our studies of the family” and to study the family in ways that reflect “modern family life and employ definitions of family that depend on how families define themselves rather than definitions based on biological or sociological criteria” (p. 45). In 2006, Galvin added to the academic discussion on what constitutes a family, with the discourse dependent family that does not require a family to be bonded together through legal or biological means. In 2009, Durham and Braithwaite supported the argument that voluntarily child free couples should be seen as a family and adding to the definition of family, a family is still a family even if they voluntarily decide to not raise children. Thus, making the requirement that the nuclear family sets forth, that a family is a family because the family unit contains children and is raising said children, not a necessity in defining a family. In 2010, Braithwaite et al. added the term “voluntary kin” to the discussion of what constitutes a family, that a family can be a family even though there are no biological or legal ties that bind them. The choice to be a family is by the individuals within the family because they have made the decisions to be a family and is the foundation for this entire study. 10 10 Voluntary Kin The term “voluntary kin” is a new construction offered by Braithwaite et al.
(2010) to better define familiar relationships that have no legal or biological bonds. Previously these relationships have been labeled as “fictive kin” relationships, a form of discourse dependent families (Ballweg, 1969; Floyd & Morman, 2006; Ibsen & Klobus, 1972). While the term voluntary kin might be a newer formulation, the concept and idea behind voluntary kin are not new constructions. “Fictive Kin” for Floyd and Morman (2006) were “formed and maintained purely through social interactions” or “family-like relationships that are neither genetically nor legally bound” (p. xii). According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the term “fictive” is “not genuine” or can be a created by imagination, a work of fiction (“fictive,” n.d.). The very use of the term “fictive” undermines the importance of the connection, the relationship, and the perceptions of the individuals with the voluntary kin relationship. Just because there are no legal or genetic bonds connecting the individuals involved in the voluntary kin relationship that does not mean that their familial relationship is imaginary or does not exist like the term fictive would suggest. Braithwaite et al. (2010) argued for the new label of “voluntary kin” to focus on the positive aspects of the relationship and to change the focus from what the relationship is not to celebrate the wide variety of what is the voluntary kin relationship. According to Braithwaite et al. (2010), “voluntary kin implies a mutuality of selection, rather than framing these relationships as asymmetrical structures of chooser and chosen” (p. 390). In 1969, Ballweg identified fictive kin as a type of personal kinship outside conventional kinship of biological or legal connection. This is one of the earliest uses of the term fictive kin and it was used in comparison to institutional kinship, or the biological and legal ties of kinship, and associational kinship, or individuals that are not seen as biological or legal family but seen as kin because of the group they are affiliated. 11 11
Examples of associated kinship would be sororities, fraternities, and religious groups where the biological and legal family terms are traditionally assigned to members of the association. Fictive kin, for Ballweg (1969), needed to involve a biological or legal familial address term without the biological or legal connection, “basically, it is a form of pseudo kinship in which the kinship term is attached to another person independently of components within the structure of society” (p. 85). Ibsen and Klobus (1972) defined fictive kinship as “encompassing the adoption of nonrelatives into kin-like relationships” (p. 615). Ibsen and Klobus (1972) functioned, as well, on the assumption that fictive kinship was created as supplemental or replacement family members, thus assuming that fictive kinship was created when there was a deficit or something was lacking. Trost (1990), and extended by Baxter et al. (2009), argued that the concept of what defines “family” is in flux, and while the idea of what constitutes a family privileges the families with biological and legal connections, there are still family bonds outside of biological and legal bonds. Voorpostel (2013) investigated fictive kin development in older adults and found that “the creation of fictive kin is a form of substitution for absent family members” (p. 816), thus, continuing the deficit idea as to why one created fictive kin. In 2014, Nelson added diversity to the argument made by Trost (1990) and Braithwaite et al. (2009) that many of the labels that are given to families outside of the nuclear family are troublesome. Nelson argued that “the notion of fictive kinship is discursively racialized” (p. 201) because her exploration into the over 600 articles associated with fictive kin through 2005 were predominately focused on African Americans and other marginalized groups. Nelson does discuss the Braithwaite et al. (2010) voluntary kin study, and how it attempted to diversify the sample, but was not successful due to their sample’s ethnic makeup. Braithwaite et al. (2010) stated, “While there were persons of color among the research assistants for the research team and we made an attempt to recruit an ethnically 12 12 diverse group of respondents, we were not successful at representing diversity as we hoped” (p. 393).
The studies on voluntary kin have attempted to be more inclusive and the studies on fictive kin have been historically focused on marginalized populations, the term “voluntary kin” was selected to be more inclusive and respectful. While the previous research into fictive kin is the foundation that voluntary kin has developed from; it was consciously decided that the term fictive kin would not be used in the current study due to its focus on the relationships being created due to a deficit, the implied meaning of fictive as being something not genuine, and the historical focus of fictive kin being mostly on marginalized populations. Voluntary kin was chosen to focus on the relationship that two or more individuals have created, in which they perceive that their relationship is a familial one. This allows the voluntary relationship to be created and maintained through the individuals’ perceptions and interactions. Voluntary kin relationships are based on individuals’ beliefs that they are family, and their familial interactions and emotional connections (Baxter et al., 2009; Braithwaite et al., 2010; Edwards & Graham, 2009; Holtzman, 2008). Edwards and Graham’s (2009) study of the meaning of family resulted in family being defined as “any group that fulfills or enacts the roles and duties traditionally belonging to family” and “many of the participants explicitly noted that family was not specific to relationships of blood or marriage” (p. 203). Bedford and Blieszner (1997) suggested that the definition of family is subjective and the definition of the family must be left to the perceptions of the individuals involved in the relationship. These participants were accepting and open to the idea that family is more than the individuals that share a biological or legal connection with, but rather that family should be defined by emotional and relational bonds, like love, caring, and the feeling that there is a connection. Holtzman (2008) made the statement that “many Americans do seem willing to broaden their conceptions 13 13 of family so as to include social and emotional attachments that are not simultaneously grounded in genetic or marital ties” (p. 169). This statement calls for the expansion of the criteria and definition of what makes a family and voluntary kin relationships should be part of this expansion. Even though there is a call for expansion on the definitions of what constitutes a family, should not ignore that this is a not a completely new way people have constructed their families (Braithwaite et al., 2010). Scott and Scott (2015) made the point that legal representation and acceptance of these families built outside of legal and biological means may be easier than families formed through other means, specifically LGBTQ+ and polygamous groups, because “in contrast to some relationships based on sexual intimacy, these nonconjugal groups are formed specifically (and solely) for the purpose of fulfilling family functions” (p. 372). Nelson (2013) argued that the terms and labels for discourse-dependent families, specifically fictive kin, voluntary kin, and chosen families, needed to become more streamline and inclusive. Nelson (2013) advocated for the use of an exploratory typology of fictive kin that she created. Nelson’s (2013) typology consisted of situation kin, which is kin created out of convenience, institutions, organizations, and caregiving; ritual kin, which is kin created from rituals like religious rites; and intentional kin, which are kin through intentional acts and “sustained through action” (p. 269). Tew et al. (2013) investigated how voluntary families are created in the virtual social space, Second Life. Second Life is a virtual social space where individuals create avatars that allow them to interact and take part in the virtual world, and in this virtual world the individuals have their avatars “live” out a virtual life, sometimes not very different than their real life. The avatars interact with other avatars and they work, have social lives, earn and spend resources, and built communities. Tew et al. (2013) also discussed their decision to use the term “voluntary family” instead of fictive kin or “fictive family” because it “connotes artificiality and caries too much prescriptive baggage in real life and virtual life alike” 14 14
(2013, p. 207). Tew et al. (2013) found that individuals in the Second Life virtual social space were able to create voluntary families through rituals, creating their own set of values, and were able to convey the importance of their voluntary families using their biological and legal families as a point of reference. Gazso and McDaniel (2015) researched families by choice and found that sharing life experiences, specifically in low- income and immigrant families, bonded individuals in such a way that the participants considered other individuals family that they were not biologically or legally connected to. Participants shared that expressive and instrumental support were important considerations in who they considered family and that this required the participants to constantly assess who they see as family and in doing so, their family can be redefined at any time. Hull and Ortyl (2018) investigated the definitions of family in the LGBT communities. It was discovered that, currently, the definitions of what makes a family is a mix of biological and legal family, with chosen family or those who are considered family that are not biologically or legally connected. The participants used a mix of structural and functional properties when defining family. Hull and Ortyl (2018) believe that the increased acceptance of the LGBTQ+ has led to less of the community creating their families from chosen family, thereby reducing the need to replace their biological and legal family members that do not accept them. Participants “usually conceive of chosen family as complementing rather than replacing biolegal family” (Hull & Ortyl, 2018, p. 7). Braithwaite et al. (2016) focused on a specific type of voluntary kin, supplemental voluntary kin, or individuals that maintain relationships with both their biological and legal families and their voluntary kin. Braithwaite et al. (2016) were interested in finding out how the participant negotiated the relationship between their voluntary kin and their biological and legal family. Braithwaite et al. (2016) found four distinct structures: 15 15 intertwined, where the voluntary kin and the biological and legal family were involved in direct positive communication; limited, where the voluntary kin and the biological and legal family had limited communication; separate, where the voluntary kin and biological and legal family had no direct communication; and hostile, where the voluntary kin and the biological and legal family had negative and tumultuous communication. Voluntary kin relationships have their own set of challenges; help with legitimization can assist with these challenges. The largest and most interesting challenge that faces voluntary kin relationships is that they are discursively constructed, purely through their discursive practices and communication since the relationships are lacking biological and legal ties (Baxter et al., 2009; Braithwaite et al., 2010; Breshears, 2010; Edwards & Graham, 2009; Gavin, 2006). In 2006, Galvin claimed, “discourse-dependent families are becoming the norm” (p. 9). Some prior research has sought to understand the discursive ways that individuals construct their family by constructing their family through discourse (Braithwaite et al.,
2010), looked into how family is defined through discourse and how society’s conception of a family has changed (Holtzman, 2008), how the theoretical concept of family has changed to reflect the individual’s interpretation of family (Edwards & Graham, 2009), and examined how linguistic terms influence the idea of family and extended previous constructional framework of family (Baxter et al., 2009). Discourse-dependent families and relationships, like voluntary kin relationships, are created through the communication that takes place between the individual members (Galvin, 2006). This places communication’s role in the constitution of the voluntary kin relationship front and center, and while all relationships are discourse dependent in some way, discourse- dependent families like voluntary kin have a greater symbolic significance placed on their discourse. The legitimization burden is placed on discourse-dependent families because they cannot rely on the historical notions of family and are not accepted at face value. 16 16
Once these voluntary kin relationships become a symbolic reality, their existence needs to be maintained to continue the relationships at levels that are satisfactory to the individuals that are involved in the voluntary kin relationships.
Relational Maintenance Behaviors and Strategies Canary and Stafford (1994) explained the basic concept behind relational maintenance is that personal relationships, of various types, need to be maintained to continue the relationship and keep the relationship in a satisfactory state for both of the individuals involved. Relationships are comprised of “control mutuality,” “trust,” “liking,” and “commitment.” Previously to this, relational maintenance was seen as both a way of maintaining a relationship and a way of repairing a relationship. Ayres, in 1983, conceptualized that relational maintenance, was both a way to maintain a relationship and a way to repair a relationship, and that what the desired outcome of the relational maintenance would be, would dictate what relational maintenance strategies were employed. Dindia and Canary (1993) developed, and Dindia (2003) looked back at, the four definitions of what constitutes relational maintenance: 1) relational maintenance has to happen for there to be a relationship to begin with, eluding that relational maintenance is how we “do” relationships; 2) relational maintenance is used to keep a relationship in a particular condition; 3) relational maintenance is used to keep a relationship in a satisfactory shape for the individuals in the relationship; and 4) to repair the relationship. Previously relational maintenance included “preventative maintenance and corrective maintenance” (Dindia, 2003, p. 2). In 1992, Patterson and O’Hair discovered that the strategies that people use to repair and correct their relationships are different from the strategies that people use to maintain their relationships. Thus, starting to create the divide between relational maintenance and relational repair. In addition, relational maintenance can be strategic or routine (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Dindia, 2003). 17 17
According to Dindia (2003), relational maintenance strategies are “conscious and intentional behaviors designed to maintain the relationship” (p. 9) and routine maintenance behavior are “behaviors that are not consciously and intentionally employed as relational maintenance strategies, but, nonetheless, function to maintain the relationship” (p. 10). Therefore, relational maintenance strategies maintain the relationship through strategic choices and actions, while routine maintenance behavior does not involve the most strategic choices and may become part of habits and rituals. Relational maintenance behaviors and strategies are communication practices that are enacted to continue, and grow a relationship and keep the relationship at a satisfactory and beneficial state for the parties involved (Canary et al., 1993, 2002). They are also a way to stay in contact and keep a presence in a relational partner’s life. Keeping a presence in a relational partner’s life is especially important when there is geographic distance between the parties or as lives get busy with obligations and responsibilities. Relational maintenance behaviors are studied in many different relationship types, much of the research in relational maintenance behaviors is focused on romantic relationship and familial relationships. In 1993, Canary et al. condensed their data into a relational maintenance behavior typology across four relational types: romantic relationships, family relationships, friendships, and other types of relationships. The first type of relational maintenance behavior that was identified was “positivity,” which includes prosocial behaviors, being pleasant, affection, and doing favors for your relational partner. The second relational maintenance behavior identified was “openness” with your relational partner and included behaviors like listening, offering advice, and self-disclosure. The third relational maintenance behaviors to be identified was “assurances” to assure the relational partner of their importance and place in their life. Sharing “social networks” of the relational partners was also a relational maintenance behavior along with the “sharing 18 18 task” and duties, and “joint activities” within the relationship, which were the fourth, fifth, and sixth types of relational maintenance behaviors identified. The seventh relational maintenance behavior identified was mediated communication, which includes “cards, letters, and calls.” In the modern era, mediated communication could also include other mediated communication like email, Facebook, and Skype because those avenues of mediated communication are becoming prevalent. The eighth relational maintenance behavior identified “avoidance” of either specific topics or the avoidance of the relational partner, along with other anti-social behaviors, which are the ninth relational maintenance behaviors identified. The “anti-social behaviors” identified are behaviors that can be seen as unfriendly, forced, or caused through manipulation; “anti-social behaviors” can also be direct or indirect. The tenth and final relational maintenance behavior identified is “humor,” which can be both a positive behavior when you are engaging in the humor together, for example an inside joke, but it can be a negative behavior if the humor is made at the expense of the other relational partner. Canary et al. (1993) reported that the rates of use of all ten of the identified categories, and the category of miscellaneous relational maintenance behaviors for the behaviors that could not be categorized in the other ten categories, varied depending on the type of relationship in which the behaviors were taking place. Canary and Stafford (1994) offered six propositions for relational maintenance. Proposition 1 presents that all relationships need relational maintenance, in varying degrees, or the relationship will eventually disappear. Proposition 2 presents that relationships with more rewards than cost for the individuals will be maintained at a higher rate than the ones with the higher cost. Proposition 3 is that the relational maintenance behaviors used in the relationship will depend on the type of relationship and where the individual are in the relationship. Individuals would not use all of the same relational maintenance behaviors to maintain a romantic relationship as they would 19 19 with a friend. Proposition 4 presents that relational maintenance behaviors can be used in many different combinations, or alone, for different effects and these may depend upon the relational type. Proposition 5 presents that relational maintenance behaviors can be communication or symbolic exchanges. Relational maintenance behaviors could be a conversation, commination exchange, or a shared activity, that is more symbolic in nature where the individuals share their time together. Finally proposition 6 presents that relational maintenance behavior can be part of a relational routine or take a strategic nature. Relational maintenance behaviors are used, to some degree, across all types of interpersonal relationships. Canary and Stafford (1994) also make the point that relational maintenance is not just a way to maintain a relationship but it is also the “doing” of a relationship. Relational maintenance behaviors can be either strategic or routine depending on what the desired goal of the relational maintenance. Canary et al. (1993) found that the relationship types that used the most instances of relational maintenance behaviors were familial and romantic relationships, and that friendships enacted fewer relational maintenance behaviors. Canary et al. (1993) believed that the difference in the rate of relational maintenance behaviors was due to the amount of interdependence in family and romantic relationships and because of the interdependence within these relationships, relational partners maintain these familial and romantic relationships with more effort. Relational maintenance behaviors and strategies have been studied in the past mostly through quantitative methods and seem to focus on either romantic relationship or familial relationship. Scholars have explored relational maintenance strategies of married couples overtime (Canary et al., 2002) examined whether relational maintenance efforts are more routine elements or intentionally strategic behaviors enacted within a romantic relationship (Dainton & Aylor, 2002), and looked into what types of relational maintenance behaviors are used between grandparents and grandchildren and how the 20 20 relational maintenance behaviors effect the grandchildren’s perceived satisfaction with the relationship (Mansson, Myers, & Turner, 2010). Mikkelson, Myers, and Hannawa
(2011) explored whether adult siblings that are biologically related and adult siblings that do not have the biological connection use relational maintenance behaviors at different rates. All of these studies relied on the typology of relational maintenance strategies created by Canary et al. in 1993 that include romantic, familial, friends, and other relationships.
Relational Maintenance in Romantic Relationships One of the most researched relationships in regards to relational maintenance in romantic relationships. Dainton and Stafford (1993) completed a study designed to see whether married and dating couples used different relational maintenance behaviors to maintain their relationship. One important aspect of the Dainton and Stafford (1993) piece is that they argued that relational maintenance strategies should be classified as relational maintenance “behaviors” since behaviors reflect that these acts are more of regular functions than classifying them as strategies would suggest. Strategies suggest that these acts are thought out, planned, and strategic, while behaviors are acts that are routine in nature and may happen without much thought or planning. This is important to the current study since it was decided to use the term relational maintenance behaviors to reflect the behaviors as normal functions of the relationship and not acts that are more strategic, purposeful, and planned. Dainton and Stafford (1993) continued their study to investigate if there is a difference in the relational maintenance behaviors used between married and dating couples. The maintenance behaviors reported the most from both sets of couples were task sharing, proactive prosocial, sharing time together, favors and gifts, and self- disclosure, with the only differences being that married couples reported more task 21 21 sharing and dating couples reported more use of mediated communication to stay connected in their relationships. Dainton and Stafford (1993) decided that was not enough to claim that there is a significant difference in the ways that married and dating couples used relational maintenance behaviors. Women were found, significantly more than men, to use positivity, openness, talk, and antisocial behaviors as a means of relational maintenance. Other scholars have studied the effects routine use of relational maintenance behaviors and the use of strategic relational maintenance behaviors and the effects on relational satisfaction and commitment (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). While it was found that both were important, the routine use of relational maintenance behaviors had a larger effect on relational satisfaction and commitment. In addition, negative relational maintenance behaviors were used to maintain romantic relationships in relationships of low quality (Goodboy, Myers, & Members of Investigating Communication, 2010). Ledbetter, Stassen, Muhammad, and Kotey (2010) presented a different theoretical approach, “inclusion of the other in the self” as a way to understand relational maintenance behaviors (p. 21). Their research, comprised of two studies, puts forth the argument that relational maintenance behaviors can also be shared perspectives, resources, and identities through classifying satisfying relationships as equitable relationships and focusing on romantic relationships. The research focused on how the participants maintained their romantic relationships through shared resources, identities, and perspectives. The researchers identified emerging themes within all three areas. In the area of shared resources, the three themes were shared tangible resources, entertainment media, and time. For the second area, shared identities, the themes that emerged were physical contact, direct expressions of affection, relationship management discussions, and private codes and nicknames. In the final area, shared perspectives, the themes that emerged were causal talk, prosocial humor, deep talk, “hanging out,” managing conflicts, and the sharing of tasks. The researchers also labeled the themes that 22 22 emerged from the shared identities and perspectives as meta-categories. This study is important since the researchers’ goals for this study were to present a new way to study and understand relational maintenance behaviors and to open new avenues for further research beyond the Canary et al. (1993) typology of relational maintenance strategies.
Relational Maintenance Behaviors in Friendships A relatively small portion of studies regarding friendships and relational maintenance behaviors have been completed, but in these studies relational maintenance behaviors, were studied in connection with other relationship elements. Prosocial maintenance strategies were used more in friendships with secure attachment styles (Bippus, & Rollin, 2003). The link between quality of friendships, computer mediated communication, and relational maintenance behaviors were examined and found that friendship relational maintenance behaviors could be predicted by satisfaction and closeness (Miczo, Mariani, & Donahue, 2011). A study of the effects of biological sex on relational maintenance behaviors, expectations of fulfillment, and satisfaction in friendships found a positive association with daily expectation fulfillment and friendship maintenance standards (Hall, Larson, & Watts, 2011).
Relational Maintenance Behaviors In Family Relationships Relational maintenance behaviors have also been used to study relationships within families. Mikkelson, Myers, and Hannawa (2011) studied adult siblings use of maintenance behaviors and the difference between siblings that were biologically and non-biologically related. The results indicated that relational maintenance behaviors were used at a higher rate when the siblings share a biological connection. Myers, Goodboy, and Members of COMM 201 (2013) also studied relational maintenance behaviors and equity theory in adult sibling relationships, and found that adult sibling 23 23 relationships that were over benefited relationships use the relational maintenance behavior of openness at the highest rate but equitable relationships also use openness at a high rate. Mansson, Myers, and Turner (2010) investigated the grandchild-grandparent relationship, their relational maintenance behaviors, and the affect that these behaviors had on perceived satisfaction and emotional support. Grandchildren used positivity, conflict management, task sharing, assurances, shared social networks, and openness in their relationships with their grandparents. A direct correlation to grandparent communication-based emotional support, grandparent communication satisfaction, and the grandchild’s use of relational maintenance behaviors was also discovered. Voluntary kin relationships present an interesting situation in regards to relational maintenance behaviors and strategies. Voluntary kin relationships are not “family” in the traditional sense, the individuals within the voluntary kin relationship are not bonded by biological or legal ties, but voluntary kin relationships are more than friends are, since the individual has labeled the relationship as a familial relationship. How are these voluntary kin relationships created and maintained through relational maintenance behaviors? Once these voluntary kin relationships have been established it is important to understand how these voluntary kin relationships are maintained at a level that is satisfactory to all the individuals involved in the relationship. All, but one, of these studies regarding relational maintenance behaviors were conducted quantitatively, within the postpositive paradigm. Their goal was to explain what relational maintenance behaviors are used and why. Only a handful of previous studies attempted to examine the connection between friendships and relational maintenance behaviors and none of the previous studies examined the voluntary kin, or discourse dependent families, and the relational maintenance behaviors used to maintain those relationships. The limitation with these studies is that all but one was designed 24 24 from the typology that Canary et al. designed in 1993. Researchers asked that the participants to complete surveys that are compiled of predetermined information, which include only the relational maintenance behaviors that Canary et al. developed and the Canary and Stafford (1992) relational maintenance strategy measure. The limitation with this method is that it does not allow for any new data or themes to emerge because the measurements used in the studies do not allow the results to emerge from the data that the participants provide. This current study is attempting to complement this data by allowing the participants to share their lived experiences, in regards to the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants use to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. By grounding this study firmly within the interpretive paradigm, this study provides new information regarding voluntary kin relationships and the relational maintenance behaviors used to maintain those relationships from the perspective of the participants, with their voices and their lived experiences driving the results of the study. Will the relational maintenance behaviors used within voluntary kin relationships use positivity, openness, assurances, mediated communication at the rate closer to a familiar relationship or a friendship? On the other hand, will the relational maintenance behaviors used in voluntary kin relationships fall outside of the Canary et al. (1993) developed typology? In sum, voluntary kin relationships are familial relationships without legal or biological bonds. Voluntary kin relationships are created, established, and enacted through their communication, interactions, and discursive practices. What the prior research fails to do is examine how voluntary kin relationships are maintained through their communication and relational maintenance behaviors. The interpretive paradigm will allow a different understanding of voluntary kin relationships and how these relationships are established and maintained. In order to obtain a greater understanding 25 25 of the creation and maintenance of these voluntary kin relationships the following two research questions were posed:
RQ1: How are voluntary kin relationships created? RQ2: How are voluntary kin relationships maintained?
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This present study, regarding voluntary kin relationships, takes an interpretive approach since the focus of the study is to identify and understand the voluntary kin relationship, specifically how these voluntary kin relationships are formed and maintained. This was an opportunity for the participants to share their narratives of how their voluntary kin relationships began, how they were created, and how they are maintained. The following chapter will describe the study’s participants and how they were recruited, as well as the two-step data collection process, and finally outlines the data analysis procedures.
Participants Purposeful sampling was used because participants needed to have met specific criteria in order to be eligible for participation (Merrigan & Huston, 2015; Tracy, 2013). Participants were adults, all over the age of 18 at the time of the interview, who claimed to have had at least one relationship that they classified as voluntary kin. These are individuals self-identified as one relationship in which they consider the other person, or people, family but they have no biological or legal ties that bind them together, that they actively maintain (Braithwaite et al., 2010). The classification of voluntary kin, for this study, was left to the participants’ perceptions, since these relationships are created and manifested through their perceptions and interactions. Data were collected on participants’ and their voluntary kin’s ages, gender, education, number of voluntary kin relationships that they were currently maintaining, length of voluntary kin relationship and the geographical distance that separated their voluntary kin. If the participant was maintaining more than one voluntary kin relationship, this information was collected for each relationship. 27 27
Participants were recruited through various methods in the attempt to gather the most diverse purposeful sample possible. The use of networks and snowball sampling
(Tracy, 2013) were the first steps in gathering participants. Snowball sampling being when the researcher asks participants and others to share the call for participants with others, especially possible participants. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were utilized so that friends and followers could share the call for participants for the study. Participants were also asked to share the information regarding the study with anyone that they felt might be interested or would fulfil the requirements to participate in the study. This allowed the recruitment call to reach a larger number of possible participants. Participants were not required to be within a geographically close area to participate. The goal was to obtain 24 participants of various ages and backgrounds. Participants from the same voluntary kin relationship were allowed to participate, but the data collected from these participants were analyzed separately and not in conjunction with each other.
The sample size for this study was comprised of 24 individuals who answered the call for participants and took part in both steps of the study; the first step was an online, open-ended questionnaire, administered through Qualtrics. The second step was a follow up interview. Out of the 24 participants, 21 identified as female and three identified as male. The participants ranged in age from 24 years old to 67 years old with the average age of participants being 38 years old. The total number of voluntary kin relationships that the participants were actively participating and maintaining was 125, with the average number of relationships per participant being five. The voluntary kin relationships actively maintained per participant ranged from one relationship to 20 relationships. In the next four categories of participant demographics, not all of the 24 participants shared data that could be counted and calculated into net, average, or range 28 28 calculations. The open-ended questionnaire allowed the participant to answer the questions in any way that they chose. The only questions that had prefilled answers where they were to select the one that best fits their narratives were “What is your sex?” and “What is the highest level of education you have obtained?” While this gave the participants much more freedom in how they could answer, the answers were not always ones that could be used in the demographic calculations. The participants used phrases in their responses like “male and female” for more than two relationships, “eight months to 60 years” for ages, or “10 to 1,000 miles” for distance between themselves and their voluntary kin. These responses could not be used in the final calculations. In order for the final calculations to most accurately represent the information provided by the participants, the final calculations will indicate how many participant responses could not be used and were not included in the final calculations. The average age of the individual that the participant was actively maintaining a voluntary kin relationship with voluntary kin was 37 years old; the ages ranged from under a year to 89 years old. Two participants provided data that could not be used in computing the average age of the participants’ voluntary kin. The participants shared that they were maintaining voluntary kin relationships with 41 females and 20 males. Six participants provided data that could not be counted in these totals. The participants shared that the average length of the voluntary kin relationships that they were actively participating in was 17 years, and the length of relationships ranged from two years to 42 years. Four participants shared data that could not be used in this calculation. The average distance between the participant and their voluntary kin at the time of interview was 837 miles, ranging from zero miles since they lived in the same residence and 5,800 miles because the participant was living in Germany and their voluntary kin was in the United States. Two participants shared data that could not be used in the calculations for distance between the participant and their voluntary kin. 29 29 Data Collection Data collection was comprised of two phases; the second phase was partially dependent on the data collected in the first phase for each participant. The first phase of data collection was an online Qualtrics questionnaire that allowed the participants to share the story of their voluntary kin relationships. The objective of the first phase of data collection was for the participants to develop a narrative of their voluntary kin relationship; providing information on how it began, when and how the relationship began to feel familial, how they explain their relationship to outsiders, how they “do” family, and how they maintain their voluntary kin relationship. The second phase of data collection was an interview to gain clarification and more information from the participants regarding their voluntary kin relationships and how the participant and their voluntary kin employ relational maintenance behaviors within their relationships.
Phase 1 of Data Collection Participants were first asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire, through
Qualtrics software, prior to an interview. Morman and Whitely’s (2012) study found that the narratives provided by the participants through online data collection “were not only more rich in depth and detail, they were also more diverse” than the data collected through hand-written methods (p. 31). The open-ended questionnaire used in the current study asked questions that were designed to obtain a narrative from the participants about their voluntary kin relationships and background demographic information on the participant and their voluntary kin. Links to the Qualtrics questionnaire were either emailed to the participant, if they were interested or were thought to fit the criteria needed to participate, or shared on Facebook with information about the study and the requirements to participate. Beside the basic demographic questions about the participant and their voluntary kin, there was only one prompt: “In the space below, please tell me the story of your voluntary kin relationship(s).” 30 30
The Qualtrics open-ended questionnaire asked for the narrative of the participants’ voluntary kin relationship from inception or when they became aware of the relationship, through to the present day. See Appendix A for the full open-ended questionnaire. The open-ended questionnaire was administered through Qualtrics software so that the participants could take their time to construct their narrative. The open-ended questionnaire included instructions for completion, and in addition, asked for contact information to enable the second phase of data collection to be scheduled. At the end of the first phase of data collection, the Qualtrics software provided a document for each participant. This document included all of the demographic information for each participant, the participants’ written narrative regarding their voluntary kin relationship, and their contact information to schedule their follow-up interview. Because this was a Qualtrics software formatted document, each participant’s document was three pages. The total pages for all participants was 72. This provided the foundation for phase 2 of data collection.
Phase 2 of Data Collection The two main purposes for the second phase of data collection, interviews with the participants, was not only to collect more information and seek clarification regarding the themes and information provided in their written responses, but also to inquire about relational maintenance behaviors used within these relationships. The second phase interview questions were based on what the participant had provided in his or her open- ended questionnaire, and was the opportunity to probe and expand on the information provided in the first phase. This phase allowed the researcher to enter the interview with a basic understanding of the participants and their voluntary kin relationships. The researcher discovered that, with some basic background information on the participants and their voluntary kin, the interview seemed like a natural conversation and the 31 31 participant was more comfortable and open. When the interviewer could name their voluntary kin or began with some other personal piece of information the participants were put at ease going into the interview. Interviews explored what strategies and behaviors the participants used to maintain their voluntary kin relationships and what strategies and behaviors the participants perceived their voluntary kin used to maintain the relationship, in addition to gaining more information and insight regarding their voluntary kin relationships. The interviews were unstructured interviews; the interviews were different for each participant and were more of a natural flowing conversation (Tracy, 2013). The interview protocol had four very basic and general questions, which were then adapted to the participant and to fit the interview conversation and flow and were more of a guide for the conversation. In the first question, the participants were asked to extend the information that they provided in their response to the previous writing prompt: “You’ve got Jesse and Sid as your voluntary kin. Tell me a little more about that” (Jack,
Interview, p. 2). In the second question, the participants were asked to clarify the information that they provide in their responses to the writing prompt: “For you, where do you see, can you describe that line between a friend, or a close friend, and someone you would consider family?” (Elisabeth, Interview, p. 14). In the third question, participants were asked about how they feel about their voluntary kin relationships that they wrote about in their writing prompt: “Ok, so how do you feel about these relationships?” (Rose, Interview, p. 3). In the fourth and final question, participants were asked if they would change something or do something differently in their voluntary kin relationships: “Is there anything else that you would like to add that maybe I didn’t cover or you think is important?” (Amy, Interview, p. 8). During the questioning, the participants were also asked to expand and provide examples for their answers. The goal was to determine the relational maintenance 32 32 behaviors and strategies that were used and if they differ from the behaviors and strategies that have been reported previously. Interviews included questions to expand and explore the relational maintenance behaviors and strategies used in their voluntary kin relationships, but were based on the responses that the participants provided in the open-ended questionnaires, while trying to expand and clarify the information and narratives that were previously shared. See Appendix B for the interview protocol. The 24 interviews totaled 18 hours and 20 minutes, or 1,091.54 minutes. The average interview was 45.48 minutes, and ranged from 20.26 minutes to 183 minutes. In order for the interviews to be analyzed, the interviews had to be transcribed in their entirety. The interviews were transcribed in their entirety by the interviewer and Rev, a transcription service. Of the 24 interviews, 12 were transcribed by the interviewer and 12 were transcribed by the transcription service. After all the interviews were transcribed, the total page count of all the interviews was 393 pages. The average number of transcribed pages for the interviews was 16.38 pages, and the interviews ranged from five pages to 48 pages.
Data Analysis Once all the steps of data collection had taken place and everything was transcribed, preliminary data analysis was starts with data immersion and first-level coding (Tracy, 2013). The data analysis took place in three basic phases: phase 1 was the analysis of the responses received from the Qualtrics questionnaires that helped guide and create the second phase of data collection for each participant; phase 2 was the analysis of the data received from the follow-up interviews; and phase 3 was the synthesizing of the data received from phases 1 and 2 of data collection and the creation of integrative memos. 33 33 First Phase of Data Analysis The data analysis followed the steps that Tracy (2013) offered, where all the responses to the questionnaires were first read in their entirety to gain a holistic view of the breath of the data, or data immersion of the questionnaires. After the first initial reading had taken place, a re-reading of the responses took place and coding was started, looking for the overarching or repetitive themes that appeared. Because an open-ended questionnaire was the first phase in data collection, the participants were able to take their time to construct their narratives in the ways they wished to present the information. In order to find the overarching themes that were expanded upon and the participants were probed for further information; the participants’ responses to the open-ended questionnaires were used to develop questions for each participants’ follow-up interview. As common themes started to become clear, these themes were also used to develop questions for second phase data collection of follow-up interviews.
Second Phase of Data Analysis Once all the interviews were transcribed, the new data were read and re-read in data immersion, in the way that the first phase responses were also read and coded, to identify data that fit into the themes that have already emerged and to identify new themes that emerge during in the interviews. Specific attention was given to themes regarding relational maintenance behaviors and strategies since part of the interview protocol was designed to obtain data regarding relational maintenance behaviors and strategies. All relational maintenance behaviors and information regarding the creation of the voluntary kin relationships were highlighted. This enabled these identified passages to be compiled into large master lists of the passages that were either “creation of voluntary kin” or “relational maintenance.” Once all the passages were compiled in their prospective list, and the lists were printed, notations were made in the margins of preliminary or prospective codes this is 34 34 when the first-level codes started to immerge (Tracy, 2013). First-level codes are codes that indicate what is actually present in the data. These notations were made for both of the lists, the creation of voluntary kin and the relational maintenance behaviors. These notations were very simple and directly reflected what was contained within the passages next to the notations. Some examples of these notations for the creation of voluntary kin were “trauma,” “born,” and “replace.” Some example of the notations for the relational maintenance behaviors were “shared time,” “support,” “gift,” and “comm.” These notations became the very first codes of the study. This would make it easier to identify themes during the secondary-cycle of coding. Once both data collection phases were completed and the first-cycle coding completed, the second-cycle coding could begin.
Third Phase of Data Analysis The third phase of data analysis focused on Tracy’s (2013) secondary-cycle coding. Second-level coding was focused on “interpretation and identifying patterns, rules, or cause-effect progressions” (p. 194). This is where the codes and themes that were developed in the previous phases were examined for possible connections and larger analytical groups, or hierarchical coding (Tracy, 2013). The constant comparative method was also used to compare all new data to the codes and themes that have already been established or adjusting prior codes and themes to be inclusive of new data (Tracy, 2013). Careful attention was given when looking for narratives that were used to establish and maintain voluntary kin relationships and the relational maintenance behaviors and strategies used to continue and maintain the voluntary kin relationships. The list of the creation of voluntary kin and the relational maintenance behaviors were taken and a list was made of just the notations in the margins the preliminary codes to make it easier to see any common themes that were starting to emerge; many of the themes and codes had already emerged. 35 35
At this point, two new Word documents were created where each of the examples of the creation of voluntary kin and the relational maintenance were copied into their identified code. The examples of the creation of voluntary kin relationships came together quicker than the relational maintenance behaviors, which would make sense since there were only 72 instances of creation of voluntary kin versus 764 shared relational maintenance behaviors. The creation of voluntary kin was sorted into the categories of “godparents,” “time,” “born,” “trauma,” and “replace.” The relational maintenance behaviors were sorted into the categories of “shared interest,” “shared time,” “shared activity,” “family events,” “communication,” “support,” “travel/vacations,” “gifts,” and “naming.” All the identified instances of communication and support were sorted into two list labeled “communication” and “support” initially. This was to make it easier to identify later the different subcategories of “communication” and “support.” These lists of types of communication and support became the subcategories to which each of the instances were then sorted into the correct subcategory. Notes were also made to include very basic and simplistic definitions of the categories to carry on to the next step of coding, integrative memos. These basic descriptions and definitions were meant to help to be sure each creation of voluntary kin and relational maintenance behaviors were sorted into the category it belonged. Many of these preliminary codes and categories did not change, or changed very little, while few just needed to be fine- tuned or find a better title. After hierarchical coding was completed, integrative memos were the next step (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). During the writing of integrated memos, themes and codes that were synthesized during the hierarchical coding were checked to see if any codes could be further reduced or combined into larger themes. This is where the themes were refined, defined, and explained for the target audience and the final product that will 36 36 be found in the sections to follow started to take shape. This is also where the categories and subcategories and their titles were finalized.
Most took their preliminary titles, with a little tweaking, but the category that was first deemed “replace” was still not satisfactory. “Replace” was representative of the category is some ways, but it was not as sensitive or representative of the shared narratives as it could be. After reading and re-reading the narratives, it was decided to break the category down into two subcategories to accurately represent the narratives, but the title of the category did not feel as respectful and as representative as it could. After searching many dictionaries and thesauruses, even researching words and their different historical uses and places of origin the category of proxy-family, the subcategories of proxy-family to replace and proxy-family in addition were decided on. The definitions started to become more than short notes and phrases, to fully flesh out explanations of the themes and connections that have been made through the data for the results section. Careful attention was taken when selecting exemplars to best represent the participants’ voices and to also be the best examples of the themes found within the data and that supported the conclusions. It was of the utmost importance that the responsibility of the researcher to accurately represent the voices and their lived experiences of the participants in their voluntary kin relationships. Once all the categories and subcategories were finalized, defined and explained, and all the best examples were pulled out to use as exemplars, all the narratives of the creation of voluntary kin and the relational maintenance behaviors were counted. First, each were counted for the creation of voluntary kin and relational maintenance behaviors in total. Then each category and subcategory were counted to calculate their portion of the total counts. The integrated memos resulted in the following results section.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This study focused on discovering how 24 participants created their voluntary kin relationships, and once created, how these voluntary kin relationships were maintained through relational maintenance behaviors. The participants were asked to first complete an online questionnaire, and once completed, an interview was scheduled and conducted. The questionnaire was meant to obtain some basic demographic information and to gain preliminary information regarding the creation and maintenance of the participants’ voluntary kin relationships. The interview was a chance to probe and gain more insight and clarification about the participants’ creation and maintenance of their voluntary kin relationships. Throughout this results chapter, whenever a quote from a participant is shared, either questionnaire or interview with a page number will be indicated. If “questionnaire” is indicated this will mean the quote can be found on the indicated page of the participants’ questionnaires. If “interview” is indicated this will mean the quote can be found on the indicated page of the participants’ interview. The findings that emerged are as follows.
Research Questions #1: Creation of Voluntary Kin Relationships RQ1 asked how these 24 participants created their voluntary kin relationships. Through the questionnaires and interviews, the 24 participants shared a total of N = 72 ways they created their voluntary kin relationships. Five different categories emerged from these 72 ways, with one category further broken down into two subcategories. The five categories that emerged were time, born into, traumatic events, proxy-family, and godparents. Proxy-family contained two subcategories: proxy-family in addition and proxy-family to replace. 38 38 Time Time seemed to be a common thread in many of the voluntary kin relationships that the participants shared. In 39% of the participants’ voluntary kin relationships (n = 28), the participants shared that time was the basis for the creation of their voluntary kin relationships. There seemed to be two different ways that the participants discussed time in the creation of their voluntary kin relationships. Time the participant spent with their voluntary kin or the length of time since the beginning of their friendship was mentioned n = 22 times. These two different concepts of time were not separated into two different subcategories since when the participants shared their voluntary kin creation stories, the participants would use the concepts of time spent together and the length of time that they have known their voluntary kin within the same creation story, sometimes interchangeably. At times, it was difficult to discern between the concepts of time being the length of time they had known their voluntary kin or whether they were discussing the amount of time, they had spent together with their voluntary kin. The participants intertwined both concepts of time and due to this, it is difficult to separate the two different concepts of time and create separate subcategories. The participants stated and discussed that the reason that they considered the individual that they maintained a voluntary kin relationship with was part of their family simply because they had known this individual for so long or they had spent long amounts of time together. River wrote, “We’ve remained friends since the summer of 1989, and all the ups and downs life brings over a 27 year period. I can’t go through 27 years and not consider her family” (Questionnaire, p. 2). River shared an example of how her voluntary kin was created through the length of time that she has spent with her voluntary kin. When asked to provide the story of her voluntary kin relationship, Elisabeth wrote, “Sharing in each other’s life experiences and spending more than 90% of our free time with one or more of the other people within out 39 39 group” is what created her voluntary kin relationships with this particular group of people in her life (Questionnaire, p. 2).
In addition, n = 6 out of the n = 28 total, the participants not only mentioned the time spent together or the length of time since the beginning of their friendship, but they also discussed the time they spent living together with their voluntary kin as a way of creating their relationship. Jack said during his interview: Yeah. I know him now. With Derek, it was just like we met and probably about a month later we end up living together. We got to know each other really well because we lived together. Then, after we left that place we ended up getting our own apartment together. After living with him for a while I figured I could trust him to the point where when I met Shian [his wife], we were going to find a house so that he could live with us. (Interview, p. 2) The participants that shared stories about living with their voluntary kin discussed how living with these individuals, was not only a turning point for their relationship, but it was also a solid base to build their voluntary kin relationship upon. Turning points are defined by Baxter and Bullis (1986) as “any event or occurrence that is associated with change in a relationship” (p. 470). Turning points are an event that changes the trajectory of the relationship, the trajectory can change in a positive or negative manor, but the relationship does change. The participants explained that when you are living with someone that person is privy to information that is more intimate and they were able to spend much more time together and have a more familial experience. These relationships were more than a basic roommate experience and becoming roommates was not the reason that they became voluntary kin, but rather a vehicle that allowed them the time and opportunity to develop a relationship that was more familial in nature. Elisabeth shared: 40 40
Then one of my, or actually both of my room mates I consider, I would consider more of like a family members, like a sister, because I’ve spent so
much time with these women. It’s because I live in the same house as one of them, but it’s also because we’re... You can... I feel comfortable just kind of being in the same room with them and not needing to interact. We all kind of feel comfortable with each other like that, and I think that that’s why I would consider them my family, that it’s something I would do with a sister or a family member. We’re just relaxing and not really super making effort to interact, because you’re just in the same room enjoying your company. (Interview, p. 11) The importance of spending time with their voluntary kin was essential to half of the 24 participants. Spending time meant both the length of time that the participants had known their voluntary kin or how much time the participant had spent together with their voluntary kin, including living with the individual they now consider their voluntary kin.
Born Into Some participants shared that they were born into, or were part of, voluntary kin relationships that had already been established by others within their biological or legal family. Many times, these relationships were formed before the participant was even born. Twenty-five percent (n = 18) of the reported voluntary kin relationships were formed when the participant was born into a voluntary kin relationship. Lindsay shared that one of her voluntary kin relationships was from birth, “Our moms are best friends, and our dads are best friends. Our families have been intertwined since the 70s” (Questionnaire, p. 2). River gives a little more insight into how this is a normal part of how her biological or legal family functions when she shared information about the voluntary kin relationships that she was born into. River elaborated: 41 41
I was raised with my uncle Matt, my uncle Christopher, my uncle David, my aunt Jodie, all just my parent’s best friends. We have been, we’re closer to all
of them than some of my actual aunts and uncles. My family has always been like, if that’s part of your family, that’s part of our family, that kind of thing. (Interview, p. 9) These voluntary kin relationships were some of the simplest and least complicated out of all the relationships that were shared with me. The participants never questioned these relationships but rather accepted them at face value and carried on with their voluntary kin relationship.
Traumatic Events Traumatic events were another way that the participants created their voluntary kin relationships. Traumatic events were mentioned by 21% (n = 15) of the participants. These traumatic events included divorces, deaths, physical and mental abuse, and issues with drugs and alcohol. Sharing a traumatic event with another individual seemed to be a turning point where the participants realized that someone was more of a family member than just a close friend by how much and in what ways the participant was supported during and after the trauma. When asked about how her voluntary kin relationship was created Missy shared: I would probably say mostly like, especially with the divorce and all the trauma that sort of happened around that, they were always there. And not like the people that are sick of hearing your story, they want to hear it again. Also not just there to, you know let me cry on their shoulders, but there are times when they are like “Okay Missy you gotta get a grip and pulled together,” which I don’t think friends who are just friends can do. (Interview, pp. 2-3) 42 42
These events seemed to be the place where they realized that these individuals were voluntary kin or reaffirm that they were truly “family” showing that they would always be there for them and encourage them to move forward. Madge shared this in her questionnaire and added that these individuals were not only there for her but also could be trusted to keep her confidences: About 4 years ago, my husband and I separated; as a result, we hit some problems and things just seemed to be falling apart. My daughter Adelaide asked if I would like to talk with Alex as she had knowledge in the area I was having problems and could be able to help me; I agreed that would be a good idea. Well, for me that was the turning point in our relationship. We soon moved off the subject of my problems and into more personal topics that were causing anxious times for me. I was able to discuss issues regarding my daughter’s mental health, how I could urge her to become more motivated to get her education completed, to see how important it was for her to get a job,
etc. I was relieved to speak with someone who knew my daughter better than most people, and who I knew would not be judgmental and would keep anything we talked about between the two of us. That conversation was
extremely uplifting for me. (Questionnaire, p. 2). Another participant also shared a story about a traumatic event and made a statement that was representative of many of the participants’ stories when it came to the creation of voluntary kin through a traumatic event. Michelle said during her interview: I seem to like latch on to people during my time of need, and he was very, very open and willing to be a brother to me; and anything I needed or needed, as far as financial opportunity, he’s always help me out. (Interview, p. 2) These traumatic events not only changed their lives but also served to show them key ways these individuals supported them compared to other relationships, notably 43 43 friends. They remained consistently supportive, offered encouragement, did not judge them, and kept their confidences.
Proxy-Families Eleven percent of the time participants shared that their voluntary kin relationships were created because their biological or legal family were not available or that they were no longer in contact with them. The way that these voluntary kin relationships were created have been named “proxy-families” in an effort be as sensitive and positive in regards to these relationships. These relationships were not always developed to be a replacement family, so it was important to seek out a term that was sensitive to the situation but was still a positive term since these relationships were not always created from loss and pain. This category was further broken down into two subcategories: proxy-family as replacement and proxy-family in addition.
Proxy-family in addition. Proxy-family in addition are voluntary kin relationships that are created when the biological or legal family are not available to the participant because of distance between the two parties or they did not have these family members to begin with. These voluntary kin relationships are in addition to relationships that they are maintaining with their biological and legal family relationships. These proxy-family in addition voluntary kin relationships were reported 7% (n = 5) of the voluntary kin relationships. One participant shared how he developed a voluntary kin relationship with a family that hosted him when he first came to America for his education. In the questionnaire, Rory wrote: During my first week of stay, I got very close to all the members of the family especially the little child. They recommended that I stay with them and I agreed to do so. That was the beginning of a 13-year relationship. Now, they 44 44
call me their son and the little girl calls me brother, they are my family. (Questionnaire, p. 2)
This participant still maintains a relationship with his biological and legal family in his country of origin, so this voluntary kin relationship is in addition to the family he already had. Not all host families and their hosted students develop a close familial relationship but these individuals have and maintain the relationship to the present day. Another participant shared how she developed voluntary kin relationships in addition to the few biological or legal family relationships she had. Kylie wrote in her questionnaire: My best friend and her sister are more like my sisters. I met them when I was 10. My best friend and I became friends at 10 years old. I had no family really but my grandparents and my best friend, Karen welcomed me into her home and family. Having no ‘regular’ family to base this off of, I instantly felt as if her family was then mine. (Questionnaire, p. 2) Again, this participant still maintains a relationship with the few biological or legal family that she has but she has also added voluntary kin relationships to the community that she identifies as her family.
Proxy-family as replacement. Proxy-family as replacement are voluntary kin relationships that are created when the biological or legal family are not available to the participant because the participant and their biological or legal family have severed ties, regardless of which side decided to end the relationship. Three participants 5% if the voluntary kin relationships (n = 3) shared stories of proxy-family as replacements. Missy shared “I don’t have much family to speak of and was disowned by my own family. My three best friends I consider sisters” (Questionnaire, p. 2). This participant shared that she made a decision to leave her religious institution of origin and as a result was disavowed and connections were severed with her entire biological and legal family since 45 45 they remained in the religious institution. Her three best friends stepped in and became her voluntary kin and the sisters that she was missing when her biological and legal family severed their ties. Another participant shared a similar story but she was the one that decided to sever ties with her biological and legal family. Donna wrote in her questionnaire: I met everyone through roller derby. We started as friends for a couple of years and through practice and communication became closer. We eventually met for dinners and parties and family events. Everything became much more family oriented once I cut ties with my bio family. (Questionnaire, p. 2) This participant was very aware of her decision to sever ties with her biological and legal family and made a very conscious decision to maintain voluntary kin relationships in their place.
Godparent Five percent (n = 3) of the voluntary kin relationships were created with godparents. Three participants shared that their voluntary kin relationships were created through either their parents’ decisions to name a specific person their godparent, or the participant made the decision to declare a specific person as a godparent to their own child. Oxford Online Dictionary defines godparent as “A person who presents a child at baptism and promised to take responsibility for their religious education” (“Godparent,” n.d.). Two participants shared that their voluntary kin relationship was with their very own godparent, only having maintained a relationship with one of their godparents and that both happened to be godfathers. Lindsay wrote, “I have a kin relationship with my godfather. I have had it for all my life. He is my parents’ friend from high school” (Questionnaire, p. 2). The other participant spoke of a couple that she and her husband had chosen to be godparents to their children. Rose wrote, “My husband has played 46 46 softball with Tyler for 6+ years. My husband and I requested Tyler and Freema to be our children’s godparents” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Rose also went on the share during her interview, “We waited until our kids were nine and eleven before we asked anyone to be godparents to our children, I didn’t just want to ask anyone and I wanted to be sure of who we asked” (Interview, p. 3). Godparents are interesting since there can be a type of contract between the child’s parents and the chosen godparents but this contract is either a social or a religious contract. These contracts are not legally binding, and the godparents were not connected to the participants biologically, which means that even though these relationships begin as much more of a religious contract, the maintaining and continuing of these relationships are completely voluntary in nature. These relationships were more direct than the relationships discussed in the born into category, but like the born into category, godparents were still relationships that were begun by another person in the participants’ lives and they were just continuing these, somewhat, long-standing relationships. These relationships may be more overt and direct in nature than the other relationships that are discussed here, godparents are still voluntary kin relationships since these godparents lack any legal or biological connection.
47 47
Table 1
RQ #1: Creation of Voluntary Kin Relationships (N = 74) Creation Category Statistics Definition Time n = 28 or 39% Either the length of time that the participant has known their voluntary kin or the time they have spent together. Born Into n = 18 or 24% Participants were born into previously established voluntary kin relationships. Traumatic Events n = 15 or 21% Sharing a traumatic evet with another individual seemed to be a turning point where the participants realized that someone was more of a family member than a close friend. Proxy-Family: Proxy -Family in n = 5 or 6% Voluntary kin relationships that are Addition created when the biological or legal family are not available to the participant because of distance between the two parties or they did not have these family members to begin with. These relationships are in addition to their legal and biological family. Proxy -Family as n = 3 or 5% Voluntary kin relationships that are Replacement created when the biological or legal family are not available to the participant because the participant and their biological or legal family have severed ties. Godparent n = 3 or 5% Voluntary kin that were created through the religious rite of baptism. Note: All information within the above table can be found, and was taken, directly from the results section.
48 48 Research Questions #2: Relational Maintenance of Voluntary Kin Relationships RQ2 asked how the 24 participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships using relational maintenance behaviors. Through the questionnaires and interviews the participants shared N = 764 different relational maintenance behaviors. Ten categories emerged from the total and 2 of the 10 categories were broken down into subcategories, one with 5 and one with 4. The 10 categories that emerged were declaration of family, shared activities, enacted social support, attending/participating in family events, channel of communication, shared time, gifts, shared interest, travel and vacations, and keepers of secrets and other intimate information. The category enacted social support includes the five subcategories: emotional support, instrumental support, financial and legal support, and medical support. The category channel of communication includes four subcategories: mediated communication, face-to-face talking, mind-reading, and mail.
Declaration of Family The written questionnaire responses and the interviews clearly produced an unexpected common thread throughout all the participants, except one. Twenty-three out of the 24 participants used biological or legal family titles for their voluntary kin. These labels were without any sort of prompting, that is the participants were never asked to identify their voluntary kin with titles or asked to give them a title; these title usages came naturally, in the flow of their writing and in the flow of the interview. The 23 participants used family titles n = 250 times, being an average of 10.42 times per participant, with a range of zero to 24 times per participant. Of the total N = 764 relational maintenance behaviors, the n = 250 instances of declaration of family made up 33% of all reported. The types of titles most commonly used noted roles in the family: “sister” and “uncle.” Various forms of sister, including “stepsister,” were mentioned n = 49 49
41 times, while uncle was also mentioned n = 41 times. “Aunt” was mentioned n = 30. “Brother” and terms for “godparents,” which also includes the Spanish terms for
“godfather” and “godmother,” “padrino” and “madrina,” were both mentioned n = 24 times each. General terms for family were mentioned n = 18 times. In addition, the terms for “mother” and “cousin” were each used n = 16 times. The terms for “niece” and “nephew” were each used n = 6 times. The term “daughter” was used n = 5 times. The terms for “father” was used n = 4 times. Terms used for “grandparents” were used n = 2 times. Finally, “son” was used n = 1 time. Participant Jack said in his interview, “That’s why he’s my brother because, we’ve been friends. We’ve been through so much. I just say it’s my brother and they’re like oh okay” (Interview, p. 14). Miscellaneous terms for “family,” which included terms and phrases like “my spirit family,” “adopted family,” and “another parent” were mentioned n = 16 times. Participant Missy also shared during her interview, “I was literally adopted as my family in fact when I was delivering my babies we told the hospital that they were my sisters”
(Interview, p. 1) when she was discussing how she got her voluntary kin into her hospital room during the birth of her children. Participant Donna used a miscellaneous family term for her voluntary kin during her interview: I feel like they’re my people. I feel like they are my spirit family because they’re there because they want to be there and they’re there because we love each other, not because we were born into it. That’s how I feel. I feel like it’s almost deeper than family in a way. A family of choice is a family on a way deeper level, I think. (Interview, p. 3) Since Donna severed her ties with her biological and legal family, she had thought about her voluntary kin and the relationships that she has with them much more than most of 50 50 the participants. Donna used terms that one could tell she had used many times in the discussion of how she formed her family and whom she called family.
There were other instances where the declaration of family was simple, direct, and to the point. Karen declared during her interview, “Kylie is my sister” (Interview, p. 27). A very simple and straightforward declaration of sisterhood, no explanations, just she is my sister. These are just a few examples of the n = 250 different instances of declaration of family. There were so many instances of the participants’ voluntary kin being referred to in biological or legal family terms, some were short and sweet and some were long and poetic, but the all meant the same thing. The participants’ voluntary kin are their family, even though they are not biological or legal family, they are still their family nonetheless. Declaration of family was one of the ways that the participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships. Declaration of family was not only a means for the participants to maintain their voluntary kin relationships with the individuals that they consider their voluntary kin, but also as a means to maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin in the larger world outside of their voluntary kin relationship.
Shared Activity When participants shared how they maintained their voluntary kin relationships many shared instances of shared activities. Shared activities are simply activities that the participant and their voluntary kin relationship engage in together; and were reported 16% (n = 124) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. These activities are really nonspecific activities that many people regularly engage in such as, sharing meals, seeing movies, and completing errands together, with the focus being on the participant and their voluntary kin actively participating in an activity together to maintain their voluntary kin relationship. These activities do not need any special skills or interest to complete. Jack shared, after being reminded by his wife regarding what he and his 51 51 voluntary kin would do after becoming more serious in his relationship with her, “We started making man nights. We said pick a night. Monday night. Man night was
Monday night. We did that for 4 years straight. Every Monday. Like clockwork. We moved in here, and it continued every Monday night” (Interview, p. 13). Jack makes it a point to schedule time to spend with his voluntary kin, very much akin to dating. Jack and his voluntary kin relationship schedule a weekly time to schedule an activity to maintain their relationship, sometimes the activity is to watch a game on television, sometimes the activity is beer and wings at a bar, but the activity is always just time for them both, to spend together and check in with each other. Participant Missy also shared during her interview:
Actually, I am at one of their houses right now, we make a point for kids to get together and play and we swap babysitting and so that always gives us an opportunity to kind of be around each other at one point. (Interview, p. 2) While babysitting could be seen as more of a supportive maintenance behavior,
Missy and her voluntary kin utilized babysitting as more of an activity and an opportunity to get their children together and spend time with everyone. There were many mentions of meals together (lunch, dinner, barbeques, etc.), watching movies and television together, and various activities that two or more can participate in together, the common thread that pulled them all together were activities that enabled the participant maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin.
Enacted Social Support Being supportive is a way to maintain one’s personal relationships and can take all manner of forms including emotional support, financial support, and support in one’s time of need of need but these are just a few examples of support. Goldsmith (2004) defined social support as “the ways in which social relationships moderated the influence 52 52 of stress on health and well-being” (p. 12) and then went on to define enacted social support as “what individuals say and do to help one another” (p. 13). Since enacted social support can cover a vast amount of human interactions, enacted social support was chosen to represent the actual employment of support. In other words, actually being supportive. Enacted social support has been broken down in to emotional support, instrumental support, financial and legal support; and medical support. The total instances of all forms of enacted social support shared was n = 91 times, or 12% of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported.
Emotional support. Emotional support was defined by Goldsmith (2004) as “expressions of caring, concern, empathy, and reassurance of worth” (p. 13); emotional support to or for the voluntary kin and help maintains the relationship. Some examples of emotional support would be providing reassurances, compassion, empathy, nurturing, being a good role model, being a good listener, showing unconditional love, or just “being there” for the individual. Emotional support was reported 7% (n = 51) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. One participant, Karen, wrote in her questionnaire that her voluntary kin “is someone I can always turn to for advice or comfort” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Karen’s comment is a simple example of the vastness that this category encompasses; her voluntary kin is someone that she can turn to when she is in need of guidance and support. Jane took a different perspective, during her interview she shared: When shit hits the fan, she calls me. So it’s like, yep, she’s like a little sister, somebody that calls when they need you. So I’m family to her. She’s going to call me when she needs something. She knowns I am someone in her life that she can depend on. (Interview, p. 12) 53 53
Jane shared that her voluntary kin reach out and count on her support when things are at their most difficult. A few participants tried to put this very complicated and personal type of support into words, but many times words fail to convey this type of emotional support. Participant Elisabeth shared during her interview: I think it also comes back to, for me, it “takes a village to raise a child” type of thing, that I don’t think that you should conform to the fact of that DNA you’re obligated... I choose who I want to associate with. I’m definitely very, very close with this group of people that it’s like I would go out of my way for them. I would do things for them that I wouldn’t necessarily do for anyone else. I think it comes to why I feel that they’re my kin is because I know that they would do the same for me. It’s that I know deep down that if I needed something and I needed help, they would be there. (Interview, p. 14) Elisabeth tried to put into works the complex idea of support and unconditional love. Participants were asked to try to be more specific, but this is an abstract concept, and the participants could simply list the times and situations in which they were supportive or felt supported but that would not convey the true meaning or importance of emotional support. What the participants were clear about is that emotional support was a means of relational maintenance that they employed to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin.
Instrumental support. Instrumental support is another way one can support their voluntary kin. Goldsmith (2004) defines instrumental support as “offers of goods and services” (p. 13). This type of enacted social support can simply be defined as completion of favors, task, or errands that voluntary kin do to maintain their relationship. These can be completed by the voluntary kin or for the voluntary kin. Instrumental support comprised 3% (n = 25) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. 54 54
Participant Astrid wrote in her questionnaire, “I often went over and helped Pat with various task and errands” (Questionnaire, p. 2). A few participants discussed housesitting or taking care of pet when their voluntary kin are away. One of these examples Jenna wrote in her questionnaire, “We have often house/dog sat when either family was away” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Jenna maintains a voluntary kin relationship with an entire family and when the family leaves town, they call on Jenna to take care of their residence and pets. Some participants shared stories of either being taken and picked up from school or after school activities by their voluntary kin or they were the ones doing the taking or picking up from school and after school activities. Sarah shared in her interview that her voluntary kin was involved with many school related task, “he would take us back and forth to school, helped us with our homework, he taught us how to play softball, he taught us how to play soccer” (Interview, p. 1). Rory shared during his interview, that when voluntary kin mother cannot take his voluntary kin sister to swim practice, he is the one that steps in. Rory said, “If she has Sophie has to go swimming and she can’t do it I go pick her up and take her” (Interview, p. 3). Helping one’s voluntary kin by doing favors, completing task, or running errands is a way to, not only support your voluntary kin, but also maintain the voluntary kin relationship.
Financial and legal support. A more concrete form of enacted social support as relational maintenance is financial and legal support. Financial and legal support is easier to define: support given or received by voluntary kin that is either monetary, financial or of a legal nature and the individual will continue to assume some liability for the given support. Individuals that provide this type of support have the financial means and/or backgrounds in financial or legal areas. Examples of financial and legal support are loaning money, paying for different expenses like educational cost, offering up legal 55 55 support, completing financial or legal documents, filing and recording the financial or legal documents with the governing agencies, acting as or representing voluntary kin in a court of law or with governing agencies. Financial and legal support was reported 1% (n = 10) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Jane wrote in her questionnaire that her voluntary kin “has offered to pay for college for both of my children after they go to junior college” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Jane also shared in her interview that her voluntary kin “loves both of my kids and he offered to pay for both of them to go to college” (Interview, p. 5). Jane’s voluntary kin is someone who has done well in their life and likes to aid his loved ones monetarily, providing something for them that they might otherwise have difficulty providing. College would be much more accessible for Jane’s children with financial support, and once they have proven that they are serious about college and completed junior college, her voluntary kin will pay the remainder of schooling until they obtain their degree. Participant Rory has experience in the financial and legal fields so he helps his voluntary kin in that area. Rory shared during his interview: Oh yeah so like I would give them legal financial advice like they put money away for Sophie, because they’re older and so they’re worried about Sophie; them not being around when Sophie is going to college. I found a savings account, it’s special saving accounts they can only spend it for her education. It grew exponentially now she can go wherever she wants with that money. I mean now I have gotten into a position that now I loan them money, it’s like when they’re stuck because a lot of the money is tied up in different things. (Interview, p. 4) Not everyone has the means or the ability to help their voluntary kin financially or the knowledge to add in legal matters, but some people do, and these instances are 56 56 evident when the participants shared instances of financial and legal support as a means of relational maintenance within their voluntary kin relationships.
Medical support. Another way that the participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships was to be supportive during medical emergencies. Medical support, a subcategory of enacted social support, is defined as being supportive during a sudden or urgent medical situation or event. The medical situation or event was left to the participant to identify. Medical support was reported 1% (n = 5) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Sarah shared during her interview how her voluntary kin brother and other voluntary kin were there when her partner was in a very serious accident. Sarah said: They were there through all of it. My brother met me, met us, at the hospital. He beat the ambulance to the hospital and beat us there and he is not even my bother. He is my best friend’s brother but I call him my brother and he was there through the whole thing. From the very beginning, you know, explaining
what the doctor was trying to explain to us since he is a med student. (Interview, p. 2) Another participant Karen shared in her interview that after voluntary kin had a surgical procedure she “slept at her house just because I wanted to see how she was doing because I knew she had her surgery. I’m like I know I talk to her on the phone, but I’d feel better if I saw her and just knew she was okay” (Interview, p. 10). Karen is a nurse and being a nurse gives her the skills and the knowledge to maintain her relationship with her voluntary kin by employing medical support as a means of relational maintenance. There are many ways that individuals can maintain their relationships but it is clear that being able to depend on or giving different types of support to one’s voluntary 57 57 kin is an important way some participants chose to maintain their voluntary kin relationships.
Attending/Participating in Family Events Participants also shared information regarding attending/participating in family events and how their voluntary kin are expected to participate in events that were usually seen as events where biological and legal family would participate. Attending/ participating in family events were reported 11% (n = 89) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Examples of attending/participating in family events would be birthday parties, holidays, weddings, funerals, etc.; any event in which one would expect biological and legal family to attend. Attending/participating in family events were commonly mentioned during the initial questionnaires and early on in the course of the interview. Within her questionnaire Astrid wrote, “They treated me as they would a daughter – I often went to family holiday events with their four sons and families for instance” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Christina also wrote in her initial questionnaire, “We always introduce as family and are included in family functions, and family tables for weddings/graduations, etc.” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Family Events became part of the conversations regarding maintaining voluntary kin relationships. Some participants spoke of family events and how their voluntary kin were just expected to attend the event. Sarah shared during her interview that: Whenever we do any family functions, whether it is going to my grandma’s house to have Thanksgiving or going to her grandparents’ house for Easter, we all just go together and it is all of us. Like you bring this and you bring that, it is even like that now. It is like ok we are having Christmas at my house it is going to be potluck, so bring this and this you know. It is not even a thought of should we invite them or not, they are just expected. (Interview, p. 2) 58 58
Sarah stressed how there were no “formal invites” and that their voluntary kin is expected to be involved in the family holiday and even bring a dish to share with the entire party.
The mention of holidays were quite common, but family events were not limited to holidays. Lindsey shared during her interview, that “Big parties, we always invite them. Like you know, when kids are graduating high school, my Dad’s funeral, if anybody gets married, or you know those big things” (Interview, p. 6). The discussion of attending/participating in family events with the participants were so natural that is seemed that attending/participating in family events are a very natural place for voluntary kin to be included and mixed with the participants’ biological and legal families. If there is an event, and their biological and legal family are expected to attend, so are their voluntary kin relationships expected to attend. Attending/participating in family events was an essential way that the participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin.
Channel of Communication Communication with voluntary kin can be one of the best and easiest ways to maintain a relationship. There are so many ways that one can communicate with their voluntary kin and the subcategories of channel of communication reflect all the different ways that participants shared that they employ to help maintain their voluntary kin relationships. The channel of communication subcategories are mediated communication, face-to-face talking, mail, and mind-reading. The total instances of all forms of channel of communication shared was 10% (n = 74) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported.
Mediated communication. Communication through various mediated means was a very common way that participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships. Mediated communication is defined as communication with one’s voluntary kin through 59 59 a device or application that enables one to communicate and maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin. Mediated communication was reported 7% (n = 55) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Examples of devices or applications that could be used for mediated communication are telephones, cellular phones, computers, Facebook or any other social media program, email applications, text-messaging applications, Skype, Face Time, and any other device or application that allows one to communicate with their voluntary kin relationships, other than being face-to-face with one’s voluntary kin. During her interview, participant Claire shared, “We constantly communicate with text, with phone calls you know, we have social media, Facebook, and stuff and so it’s just part of our thing” (Interview, p. 2). Claire represents a common statement made by many participants. Participant Donna shared during her interview: Now, we do Face Timing. I’ve done some telephone conversations but our personal phone won’t be set up until next week so I probably... We’re not using phones as much but right now Facebook Messenger and FaceTime is the
biggest. (Interview, p. 3) Donna’s situation finds her very far from her voluntary kin, since she has moved to another country, which means that mediated communication is her main means of communication and the main way that she maintains her voluntary kin relationships while so far away. Participant Missy shared during her interview a way her and her voluntary kin use a constant group text message as a way of staying connected and communicate with each other. Missy said about their group text message: We also make a point to talk all the time over text message. Yeah sometimes, they are just like really silly, like my daughter put underwear on her head today so I took a picture, and I like just you know is a silly thing. Or sometimes something like I’m having this problem and I just don’t know how to handle it and, I won’t get into more in-depth discussions but you know. Pretty much we 60 60
all will just say something to each other at some point throughout the day, and we all get busy, but I feel like there’s a pretty consistent dialogue happening.
Yeah I mean definitely, the nice thing is that it’s a group sometimes you know one of them will be busy and can’t answer and I’m just like oh my gosh my children are driving me crazy or whatever and then somebody else will be like I totally understand where you’re coming from sorry or you know. Whatever so it’s kind of it’s nice to have that support you know when you’re a mom and you are at home and you don’t have anyone else to talk to except for your children. (Interview, p. 2) Missy shared that she is always connected and communicating with her voluntary kin as long as that group text message is still on going. The only way that communication can be continuous is through mediated communication and the ability to keep a conversation going through time and over any distance. Mediated communication has enabled relational maintenance for these participants.
Face-to-face talking. Participants also discussed how they, just simply, talk to their voluntary kin as a way of maintaining their relationship. Face-to-face talking, a subcategory of channel of communication, is defined as taking the time to actually have a conversation or a discussion in person with their voluntary kin as a means of maintaining their voluntary kin relationship. Two percent (n = 13) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported, participants shared that they make it a point to talk to their voluntary kin; some participants said that they talk periodically; some said that they talk weekly, and some say they try to talk daily, but the common thread is that they make it a point to have a conversation with their voluntary kin. Participant Astrid wrote, “We talk periodically” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Therefore, while Astrid and her voluntary kin do send each other emails, she still tries to have a face-to-face conversation with her 61 61 voluntary kin when she is able. Participant Jack shared during his interview, when asked how he keeps his relationship with his voluntary kin relevant, “Our relationship I guess stays relevant, because we’re constantly talking about stuff. Andy is like, ‘Oh. What have you been up to?’ Okay. ‘Well, what’s the last thing we said?’ Then we have to catch up” (Interview, p. 6). Jack makes it a point to say that he and his voluntary kin are “constantly talking about stuff” almost as if their relationship is one big conversation that they may just pause from time to time. Most times having a conversation is part of many things that one does to maintain a relationship, conversations are part of “hanging out” and things like sharing meals, but in these instances talking was the main focus, it was not part or an accompanying element to another activity. The conversation was the focus of the statement and the main activity in this method of relational maintenance; what the topic of conversation was or what they are talking about, does not matter.
Mail. Participants shared how they employ the postal services of the world to help keep in contact and maintain and relationship with their voluntary kin. This subcategory is simply defined as sending cards, letters, pictures, care packages, gifts, and so on through the mail to help maintain a voluntary kin relationship. Mail was reported 0.5% (n = 3) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Participant Donna shared how she and her voluntary kin use mail as part of their relational maintenance since she has moved to another country. Donna said, “Yeah, postcards and just random little mail… I don’t know. It makes it nice because people don’t do mail so often anymore” (Interview, p. 3). As Donna states, regular mail has become something special and purposeful since it is much easier to send an email or a text these days. Sending voluntary kin mail is a simple and special way to let them know that you are thinking about them and that someone cares, thus being a way to maintain a voluntary kin relationship. 62 62
Mind-reading. Participants shared stories of how they communicate nonverbally with their voluntary kin. Thomas and Fletcher (2003) defined mind-reading as “the ability to read others’ thought and feelings” (p. 1079). In this case, mind-reading, a subcategory of channel of communication, is defined as communicating with one’s voluntary kin without words, possibly through looks, facial expressions, or body language but not speaking. Mind-reading was reported 0.5% (n = 3) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Participant Elisabeth shared during her interview, when asked how she communicates and maintains her relationship with her voluntary kin, that they use mind-reading: I think also kind of nonverbal keys, like definitely being able to pick up on somebody’s nonverbal cue is a very family indicative type of thing, because I can give my roommate a look and just kind of purse my lip and almost stick out my tongue, like that kind of like annoyed thing, and she knows. She knows what I’m talking about. She’ll do it back, and I know exactly what
she’s talking about. It’s just nonverbal cues that we can just give each other this look like understand each other. (Interview, p. 20) Elisabeth discussed how she and her voluntary kin have a way of communicating with each other without using words; this is also something that she believes only individuals with a close relationship can do. Elisabeth even states that understanding and using nonverbal cues, as communication is something that she believes is a hallmark of a close familial connection. Participant Karen also shared how her voluntary kin can read her emotions and become aware that something is wrong without ushering a single word. Karen said in her interview, “You have to figure out what someone likes, what someone doesn’t like, and then now we’ve been friends so long she can kind of read me without even asking me. She knows something’s wrong” (Interview, p. 6). Karen shares that after you have known someone for a long time, and have had a close relationship, you 63 63 learn those cues and how to know what someone is feeling without even uttering a word. Mind-reading is a way some of the participants can communicate with their voluntary kin and also a means of relational maintenance for the participants and their voluntary kin that have developed this way of communicating.
Shared Time Participants shared instances of shared time or very simply time that the participant indicated that they spend with their voluntary kin, which was really just unspecified time. Shared time was reported 6% (n = 44) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Participants were asked if they could be more specific but many times all they could offer were phrased like “hanging out” or “spending time together” and were not able to identify a more specific activity. Because this was still very important to the participants as a way that they maintained their voluntary kin relationships, it became its own category. Participant Elisabeth shared one of the best and most in-depth examples of this. Elisabeth shared during her interview:
A really good example is when they come over, we just sit around. It’ s like we can enjoy each other’s company without that uncomfortable silence, without having to interact. A lot of us are really introverted where we’re like, “I love you and I love your company, but I don’t want to have to make conversation.” (Interview, p. 31) Elisabeth was very adamant about how she and her voluntary kin can share time together, and not do anything specific, but spend time together. The ability for her to spend time with her voluntary kin that did not have to be filled with specific activities, or even a conversation, was important to her. The idea of a comfortable silence was salient to her; the idea that she could sit in silence and not worry about interacting in a conversation was something that seemed to be important to both parties. 64 64
For participant Jane hanging out seemed to be a common theme throughout her interview, even when discussing different individuals, she considered voluntary kin.
First, Jane shared during her interview, “So we hung out, laughed, had a good time” (Interview, p. 2) and then shared “We hang out over there” (Interview, p. 5) later on when she was discussing a different voluntary kin relationship. Another participant also shared that sometimes she just wants to spend time with their voluntary kin, and having an activity to participate in is not of importance. Amy shared during her interview, “well we just want to hang out with Sharon and Nick” (Interview, p. 1). For Amy sometimes it was just important to hang out with her voluntary kin and spent whatever time they could together. At first, the concept of shared time might not seem like it is very specific or too board of a concept, but sometimes people just want to be with their voluntary kin, and there is not activity that needs to occupy their time, but rather the time spent together that is what is important. Shared time is one of the ways that some of the participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin.
Gifts Participants shared that gifts were an easy way to let their voluntary kin know that they care and were thinking about them or that their voluntary kin care or were thinking about the participant, thereby being a form of relational maintenance. The category of gifts was designed to include and cover gifts that the participant received from their voluntary kin or gifts they gifted to their voluntary kin. Gifts were reported 4% (n = 27) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. These gifts could be small gifts or gifts of larger monetary value, they could be gifts that were for holidays like Christmas or were for their birthdays, or they could be gifts out of the blue just to let someone know 65 65 that they were in their thoughts. Gifts, to put it simply, is buying or receiving of a gift. Participant River shared during her interview:
She brought the wedding in a bag. She brought decorations, and a cake, and little wine bottles. She looks out for me like that. She is a gifter. She’s like “It’s your birthday we should go to lunch” and then she’s like “I saw this”... My birthday’s in July so she’s like “I saw this back in February and it made me think of you.” She would give me a gift every time she sees me, except we only see each other twice a year, her birthday and my birthday. And other times she’s like “I did get this one at the second-hand store but it’s totally you.” (Interview, p. 3) River shared that her voluntary kin routinely gives her gifts as part of their relational maintenance. River’s voluntary kin gives her gifts for her birthday, but she also gives gifts when she feels that the occasion needs one. Madge shared during her interview that she will buy gifts for her voluntary kin that makes her think of her voluntary kin. Madge said she thinks to herself “‘That looks like something Alex would like.’ ‘Gee that reminds me of something Alex said.’ Basically, it’s more a feeling than it is keeping in touch as much as we probably should” (Interview, p. 3). Madge uses gifts to stay into touch with her voluntary kin even when they cannot spend as much time with each other or talk as much as they would like. Another participant shared that gifts are something that she and her voluntary kin employ as a method of relational maintenance since she has moved overseas. Donna shared during her interview that “There’s a lot of care packages going back and forth” (Interview, p. 3) since she has moved so far away from her voluntary kin. Gifts are a way to maintain voluntary kin relationship, especially when there is a distance between the two parties or the parties cannot spend as much time with each other or talk to each other, as they might like. Many times, gifts are thought about in regards to 66 66 birthdays and holidays, but gifts were also a way for the participants and their voluntary kin to let their relational partner know that they were thinking about them and they cared for them. Gifts were a way for the participants and their voluntary kin to keep in touch and stay involved in each other’s lives no matter if they were in the same residence or lived across an ocean from each other. Gifts were another way for the participants and their voluntary kin to actively maintain their relationship.
Shared Interest Participants shared instances of shared interest being a vehicle for them to help maintain their voluntary kin relationships 3% of the time (n = 26). Shared interest are different from a shared activity because a shared interest is something that both parties in the relationship have a vested interest in the activity and they both participate in the activity. Shared interest also may require some sort of special skill or knowledge to actively participate. Examples of shared interest would be a sport that both parties actively play, an interest that they both actively share, or a hobby that they both actively participate. Donna shared how roller derby was, not only important to her developing her voluntary kin relationships when she severed ties with her biological and legal family, but it was also a way that she maintained these relationships. Donna shared: Roller derby ended up being just a huge part of my life but I didn’t know it would be at that time. When I first joined it, I just did it for fun and exercise and that kind of thing and, through that, ended up meeting a lot of similar type women, some men but mostly women. In my life and they ended up being the people that I was spending the most time with so I ended up knowing them more deeply than normal friends. Spending three or four nights a week at two hours a night with somebody, you get to know them pretty quickly. (Interview, p. 2) 67 67
Roller derby became a very salient activity in Donna’s life, it not only allowed her to develop her voluntary kin relationships, but it was a maintenance tool also. Donna and her voluntary kin did not only actively participate in roller derby but they also used it as a way to maintain their relationship. Another participant also shared how actively participating in the church that her voluntary kin was involved in became a shared activity and a means to maintain their relationship. Astrid shared in her interview, “I was very active in his church in California and started just doing a lot of the organizing work. Which is stuff I’ve done all my life, help organize events” (Interview, p. 3). Astrid used an activity, which had helped build her voluntary kin relationship, to help actively maintain her voluntary kin relationship.
Travel and Vacations Some participants shared that traveling and vacations were a part of the way that they maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin. The category travel and vacations is defined as when the participant and/or their voluntary kin travel to a destination for the sole reason of a vacation with or visiting their voluntary kin. Travel and vacations was reported 3% (n = 20) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. Travel and vacations does include one of the parties in the voluntary kin relationship traveling to visit the other party. Both parties can travel together, or separately, to another location or to the other party in the voluntary kin relationship if they live a distance from each other. The travel would require at least one of the party to spend the night away from home. Jenna shared during her interview that her biological and legal family, and her voluntary kin have purchased a vacation homes together: It’s funny because there is a house up in Waterbury, Vermont. Actually, what it was, the two families, my cousin Kathleen’s family and Chrissy’s family, they used to rent a house over Christmas every year and go skiing for like a 68 68
week or two weeks. Then one year when they tried to rent the same house that they rented every year, they were told that it was unavailable, it was in
foreclosure. The two families bought the house. That’s what really cemented their relationship, and then that brought all of us together. We go up there for vacations. Then when all the kids came out, that was a big house too; it’s funny because all the kids outgrew it. In the family, there’s eight kids and they’d bring friends, so they sold that and they bought a bigger house about ten years ago. (Interview, p. 4) This is an uncommon example of travel and vacations as a means of relational maintenance in a voluntary kin relationships but it is also a great example of how strong these relationships are. These individuals felt so strongly and secure in their voluntary kin relationship, and because their vacations together were so salient to their relationship, they purchased a house that they could all use together to maintain their relationship. There were simpler examples of travel and vacations as a form of relational maintenance in voluntary kin relationships. Christina shared during her questionnaire that, “Throughout the years we/they have traveled to visit each other” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Lindsay also shared in her questionnaire, “We take vacations in summer together” (Questionnaire, p. 2) and Rose shared in her questionnaire “Over the years, we have vacationed together” (Questionnaire, p. 2). Travel and vacations is another way for these individuals to maintain their voluntary kin relationships.
Keepers of Secrets and Other Intimate Information Some participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships by keeping or trading secrets and other intimate information with their voluntary kin. Keepers of secrets and other intimate information is defined as the sharing of personal and intimate information that is agreed upon by the parties involved to keep in confidence. According 69 69 to communication privacy management theory, keeping this information in confidence is one part of the privacy rules that are agreed upon between the participant and their voluntary kin (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, Thompson, Himes, & Clingerman, 2012). Once the information is shared between the participant and their voluntary kin both parties become equitable partners in the information (Petronio, 2004). The person may be told directly to keep the information in confidence or it may be something that is implied, but these rules have been agreed upon between the participant and their voluntary kin. Keepers of secrets and other intimate information was reported 2% (n = 19) of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported. When participant River was asked during her interview how he maintained her relationship with her voluntary kin, she simply replied with “I hold all of her secrets, so… That sums it up” (Interview, p. 3). River continued on and later added, “Yeah, from the biggest things to the smallest things she’ll share those things with me. Obviously, I keep all her secrets until I get interviewed” (Interview, p. 6).
Participant Jack discussed the other side of the equations; that his voluntary kin keeps his secrets and personal information. Jack shared during his interview that his voluntary kin “he knows a lot of personal stuff about me. For me, that’s closer than just a friend. I have friends that know certain things. He knows everything” (Interview, p. 3). Trust seemed to be a common threat in voluntary kin relationships, one needs to be able to trust that their voluntary kin will support them, and keeping their secrets and intimate information was another way to demonstrate trust and use it as a tool to maintain their voluntary kin relationships.
70 70 Table 2
RQ #2: Relational Maintenance of Voluntary Kin Relationships (N = 764) Maintenance Category Statistics Definition Declaration of Family n = 250 or 33% Using biological and legal family titles to identify voluntary kin. Shared Activity n = 124 or 16% Activities that the participant and their voluntary kin engage in together. Enacted Social Support: Emotional Support n = 51 or 7% Providing reassurances, compassion, empathy, nurturing, being a good role model, being a good listener, showing unconditional love, or just “being there” for the individual. Instrumental Support n = 25 or 3% Completion of favors, task, or errands that voluntary kin do to maintain their relationship. Financial & Legal Support n = 10 or 1% Support given or received by voluntary kin that is either monetary, financial or of a legal nature and the individual will continue to assume some liability for the given support. Medical Support n = 5 or 1% Being supportive during a sudden or urgent medical situation or event. Attending/Participating in n = 89 or 11% Voluntary kin are expected to participate Family Events in events that were usually seen as events where biological and legal family would participate. Channels of Communication: Mediated Communication n = 55 or 7% Communication with one’s voluntary kin through a device or application that enables one to communicate and maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin. Face- to-Face Talking n = 13 or 2% Taking the time to actually have a conversation or a discussion in person with their voluntary kin as a means of maintaining their voluntary kin relationship Mail n = 3 or 0.5% Using the postal service to send their voluntary kin things. Mind -Reading n = 3 or 0.5% Communicating with one’s voluntary kin without words, possibly through looks, facial expressions, or body language but not speaking. Shared Time n = 44 or 6% Sharing unspecified time with their voluntary kin.
71 71 Table 2. cont. Maintenance Category Statistics Definition Gifts n = 27 or 4% Gifts that the participant received from their voluntary kin or gifts they gifted to their voluntary kin. Shared Interest n = 26 or 3% Both parties in the relationship have a vested interest in the activity and they both participate in the activity. Travel & Vacations n = 20 or 3% Participant and/or their voluntary kin travel to a destination for the sole reason of a vacation with or visiting their voluntary kin Keepers of Secrets & Other n = 19 or 2% Sharing of personal and intimate Intimate Information information that is agreed upon by the parties involved to keep in confidence. Note: All information within the above table can be found, and was taken, directly from the results section.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
This qualitative study answered two questions; how are voluntary kin relationships created and how are voluntary kin relationships maintained for these 24 participants. The 24 participants shared their experiences and the stories of their voluntary kin relationships over the course of 72 pages of Qualtrics online questionnaires and 1,091.54 minutes of interviews. These voluntary kin relationships have taken place over the course of 2 years to 42 years, where the distance between the participants and their voluntary kin ranged from zero miles to 5,800 miles. The stories of how people come together to develop their own “family,” outside of biological and legal connections, offer a glimpse into how individuals negotiate their familial ties absent those connections.
Research Question #1: How are Voluntary Kin Relationships Created? Five common themes emerged from the participant stories of their voluntary kin creation. One of the purposes of this study was to discover the reported ways that these participants created their voluntary kin relationships. While these might not be how all voluntary kin relationships are created, these five themes kept reemerging time after time and demonstrate how these participants created their voluntary kin relationships: time, born into, traumatic events, proxy-families, and godparents. The category of proxy- families had two subcategories of proxy-families in addition and proxy-families as replacement. All five of the themes that were found in the shared lived experiences of the participants fall into the transactional approach to defining “family” (Baxter et al., 2009). Individuals coming together, feeling like a family, and acting like a family are how the participants and their voluntary kin qualify as family under this transactional approach to defining families. 73 73 Comparing Braithwaite et al. (2010) to Current Study Braithwaite et al. (2010) developed the first typology of voluntary kin relationships. Their typology consisted of four types of voluntary kin relationships: “voluntary kin as substitute family,” as “supplemental family,” “convenience family,” and “extended family.” While their typology seems to be comparable to one of the categories in this study, proxy-families, the similarities end there. While both studies utilized unstructured interviews with the participants, and both studies asked the participant to share the story of their voluntary kin relationships Braithwaite et al.’s focus were on different elements of the participants’ story of their voluntary kin relationship. Braithwaite et al. used interview probes to discover how their participants compared their voluntary kin relationships’ communication, expectations, interactions, and activities to other relationships including their biological and legal family members. The current study set out to see how these 24 participants created their voluntary kin, or how the participants’ voluntary kin became their voluntary kin, not to create a typology or find what type of voluntary kin relationship in which they participate. In addition, within the four categories Braithwaite et al. identified, three were due to some deficit or missing element in the participants’ biological and legal family members. The current study only identified a very small portion, the subcategory of proxy-families to replace was 5% (n = 3 of N = 72), were created because of a deficit in the participants’ biological or legal families. Even though it is easy to see some parallels in the Braithwaite et al. study and the current study, both studies had objectives and goals that were very different. The proxy-families category came the closest to two of the categories in Braithwaite et al.’s (2010) typology. Their typology identified “voluntary kin as substitute family” and “voluntary kin as supplemental family” (pp. 396-397). For the purposes of the present study, the term proxy-families was chosen in order to best represent the lived experience of the participants, which is also why there are two 74 74 subcategories. The category of proxy-families could not encompass, in the most respectful and representative way, all of the participants lived experiences. Some participants shared stories of their voluntary kin stepping in and taking the place of biological or legal family that they had lost for various reasons. Other participants also shared stories of their voluntary kin becoming family in addition to their own biological and legal families, which is similar to Braithwaite et al.’s “voluntary kin as extended family.” “Voluntary kin as extended family” was defined as voluntary kin relationships that mixed with biologically and legally connected family. Both voluntary kin, biological and legally connected family members considered everyone as part of the same family. Braithwaite et al.’s (2010) “voluntary kin as supplemental family” was participant defined as voluntary kin that they maintained relationships with, in addition to their biological and legal families, because they fulfilled roles that their biological and legal families did not fulfill (p. 397). This was also broken down into four subcategories of “voluntary kin fulfilled emotional needs unmet by the blood and legal family as a whole,”
“voluntary kin enact a role not present in the blood or legal family,” “voluntary kin enacts a role present but underperformed in the blood or legal family,” and “voluntary kin enacts a family roles that have a geographic distance in between the participant and their biological and legal family.” One of the biggest differences in the Braithwaite et al. study and this study is the sub-category proxy-family in addition. In the sub-category proxy-family in addition the participants actively maintained relationships with their biological and legal family and also had the addition of their voluntary kin. In addition, the participants’ biological and legal family also maintained a relationship with the participants’ voluntary kin. This blend was much like the findings of Hull and Ortyl (2018) where their participants defined their family as being made of a mixture of their biological and legal family members with their chosen family. “Chosen family complements rather than competes with biolegal family in both abstract and concrete 75 75 definitions of family” (Hull & Ortyl, 2018, p. 10). Having this type of voluntary kin is really the best of both worlds; these participants have a relationship with their biological and legal family and they also have the strong voluntary kin relationships that are created because of a desire to be family and not out of obligation. This resembled the Braithwaite et al.’s (2016) communication structure of “intertwined triad,” or a triad within the supplemental type of voluntary kin, where positive acts of communication took place between all the parties involved: the participant, their voluntary kin, and their biological and legal families. Only supplemental types of voluntary kin were studied in the Braithwaite et al. (2016) study since participants were required to still be in contact with their biological and legal families and their voluntary kin. Proxy-family in addition was the only type of voluntary kin in the current study where the participants clearly discussed their biologically and legally family in connection with their voluntary kin. Not all of the participants’ biological and legal family saw their voluntary kin as also their voluntary kin, but they still appreciated what the participants’ voluntary kin had done for the participants and at least maintained friendly or cordial relations with the voluntary kin. Braithwaite et al.’s (2010) typology also offered the category “voluntary kin as substitute family” that was defined as replacements for their participants’ legal and biological family (p. 396). This category also included the subcategories of “substitute family because of a death of a legal or biological family member” and “substitute family after estrangement of biological and legal family members.” This category and subcategories were similar to this study’s proxy-family as replacement category; however, with proxy-family as replacement, this was only reported by 5% of the participants. Voorpostel (2013) also found that older adults in the Netherlands were forming voluntary kin relationships to help fill the roles within their lives that were not filled by their biological and legal families. Gazso and McDaniel (2015) found that low- 76 76 income and immigrant families developed family outside of biological and legal connections in what they referred to as “generationing.” “Generationing” was defined as fulfilling family roles that were missing by individuals providing instrumental and expressive support and mothering someone not biologically or legally their child. It was found that “being close and feeling like a family is not determined by kinship or ancestry” (p. 389). Braithwaite et al.’s typology does not represent this study’s participants’ lived experiences because these voluntary kin relationship were not a substitution for a relationship that the participant believed was missing or underperformed in their biological and legal family; these voluntary kin relationships were truly additional to the relationships that the participant maintains with their biological and legal family. In addition, had this study included more participants, this subcategory could warrant sub- subcategories that could possibly identify who severed ties or why ties were severed with the participants’ biological and legal family. This study’s participants seemed to be very aware of the fact that they had created their family from their voluntary kin. They were the participants that were the most aware that they had created their families by means that were by choice and not the more traditional means, through biology and legally. They were very open about their voluntary kin and their choices; like godparents, these participants were very clear and aware of their voluntary kin relationships. They were also curious to know about how the academic community viewed these types of relationships.
Current Typology Time was the largest category with 38% of the creation stories that the participants shared. Time was interesting because the participants used the concept of time to explain the creation of their voluntary kin relationships in two different ways. 77 77
The participants shared time in the sense of how long they have known their voluntary kin and how much time they had spent with their voluntary kin, sometimes using both in the same voluntary kin relationship. Even though the participants did not share the exact amount of time that had passed since the participants and their voluntary kin had met, or how much time they had spent together before they considered then voluntary kin, some current research has shed some light on the time required to build relationships. Hall’s (2018) recent study found that the time investments of 30 hours was required to start to consider someone a causal friend, 50 hours was required for a friend, 140 hours for a good friend, and 300 hours for a best friend. While Hall’s study is just exploring the time investments that are required to develop different types of friendships, it does offer an idea of what type of time investments are needed in order to develop close relationships. As River states, “I can’t go through 27 years and not consider her family” (Questionnaire, p. 2). The amount of time that River has known her voluntary kin is an essential part of the creation story that she offers when sharing the story about how they created their relationship. The time that one invests into a relationship is important, the time that these participants have invested into their relationship has taken a friend and transformed them into family. Not every person that one has known for a long time or has spent a lot of time with automatically becomes voluntary kin. When the participants shared what the difference was and why they felt someone was voluntary kin and why another person was not, they could not verbalize or explain the difference. Many times, it just came down to a feeling; a feeling that they could not describe or explain. Their responses were very much a-kin to the “you just know” type of response. Gazso and McDaniel (2015) found “that the family as a community of personal relations was created through the sharing of life course event and practices and relations with others” (p. 388). Sharing of life and life events together, over time, is what formed a sense of family in low-income and 78 78 immigrant populations. Rusbult’s (1983) investment model offers some insight into why perhaps not all individuals that one spends a lot of time with will develop into voluntary kin. The investment model explains that, in order for a close relationship to develop there needs to be two types of investment of resources by the individuals; these investments are intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investments are investments like self- disclosures, emotional support, or time that are invested directly into the relationship. Once the intrinsic investments are made, the extrinsic investments will start to emerge and develop. These extrinsic investments develop when resources become part of the relationship that were previously not part of the relationship. Extrinsic investments can be shared memories, social groups, activities, or any resource that is specific to the relationship. In River’s case, her voluntary kin have made the intrinsic investment of time over the 27 years, which has led to an extrinsic investment of shared memories that are specific and special to their voluntary kin relationship. The intrinsic investment of time has led to the extrinsic investment of shared memories.
The born into category is quite different from time and most of the other categories, since these participants were born into a well-established and previously created relationship with their voluntary kin. Most of these participants were in a voluntary kin relationship with someone that was close to a parent; for example, their voluntary kin was their mother’s or father’s best friend. Their voluntary kin was someone that they considered a part of their family, just like their biological and legal family. These relationships were along the same lines as the participants that have voluntary kin relationships with their godparents. These voluntary kin relationships were taken at face value and never questioned. The born into types of voluntary kin relationships are the type that one may not even realize that they are not biologically or legally connected until the relationship is questioned. These were some of the most straightforward of all of the voluntary kin 79 79 relationships. They were accepted without questions since they were a voluntary kin relationship that were started in the prior generations. These voluntary kin relationships were ones that even the biological and legal families would participate in the voluntary kin relationship. For example, one of the participants had a voluntary kin relationship with her father’s childhood best friend, and even after she and her immediate family lost their father, their voluntary kin relationship became even more important. The voluntary kin now calls and checks in with the family and he is always invited to any family celebration or get together. The increased importance of this relationship is seen in her increased efforts to maintain given the fact that now her father no longer also maintains it. Braithwaite el al.’s (2010) study found that some of their participants developed voluntary kin relationships after a death of a family member in the “voluntary kin as a substitute family after the death of a family member” (p. 396). Braithwaite et al.’s participants experienced a death in their family and created a voluntary kin relationship in an attempt to fill the void that the death left. In the current study, that participant’s father’s death may be part of the story of the voluntary kin relationship, which is where the similarity ended. The participant’s voluntary kin was not stepping in to take her father’s place, but rather it was now her voluntary kin relationship to maintain since her father was no longer there to maintain the relationship. The traumatic events category sheds light on a unique symbolic moves these participants use to create their voluntary kin reality. This category is the one instance when the participants could pinpoint an event where they started to consider their voluntary kin as family. These can be identified as turning points in their voluntary kin relationships. Turning points are events that change the relationship; they can change the trajectory of the relationship in both positive and negative ways (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). These traumatic events were ones that, even though they were traumatic points within their own lives, sent their relationships with their voluntary kin in a positive direction and 80 80 changed how the participants classified their relationships with these individuals. Participants realized that they could depend on this person in even the worst times and started to view them as family. This finding is similar to what Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson (1999) found exploring turning points in the development of stepfamilies feeling like a family. They found that family crises were the fifth most common turning point in the development of the stepfamily feeling like a family. During the family crisis turning point, the individual shared that they realized that the stepfamily was there in their time of need and that they were cared for and could count on their stepfamily. Similar to Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson (1999) whose participants mentioned that during the family crisis, it was the first time that they started to feel like a family, so did the participants mentioned in the current study. In addition, within both studies, the family crisis and traumatic event were reported to have a positive effect and trajectory within the relationship. Godparents (n=3) were the simplest and the clearest way that the participants created their voluntary kin relationships. Much like the participants that were born into their voluntary kin relationships, these were also voluntary kin relationships that had emerged and were created previously for the participant or the participants had chosen godparents for their children. Of the three participants, two participants discussed their godparents, and one discussed godparents that they had chosen for their children. This was also a voluntary kin relationship where the participants’ biological or legal family also participated in the voluntary kin relationship. Nelson (2013) referred to family bonds formed through religious rites as ritual kin typology. Ritual kin have a particular job within the family, since they are accepted there to reinforce religious beliefs. The current study’s participants shared that their godparents did more than just reinforce religious beliefs, because they shared that their godparents were much more than just religiously involved in their lives. There are times when biological or legal family might 81 81 be chosen as godparents, and in those cases, godparents are not voluntary kin; but these three participants had godparents in their lives that had no other biological or legal ties to the participant. This was also the only category of voluntary kin that the participants were surprised that these relationships were voluntary kin since they were not family through legal or biological means. A bigger sample may render a need for subcategories in order to differentiate between the participants’ own godparents or the participant choosing godparents for their own children. When choosing godparents for one’s own children, this could be another turning point, like in the creation of voluntary kin through traumatic events. This is a point when a person was seen more as family than just a close friend. The two participants that discussed their very own godparents, which is a voluntary kin relationship that was previously developed and maintained by their parents. The participants were gifted with this relationship at baptism, or perhaps even at birth, much like the voluntary kin category born into. The two participants that discussed their own godparents and the voluntary kin relationships in the born into category were not only different because they were brought into an already established relationship but they were also part of the extrinsic investment in Rusbult’s (1983) investment model. Their parents had already made the intrinsic investment within the relationship and by bring the child into the established voluntary kin relationship, especially as a godparent, they were making an extrinsic investment specific to their relationship. The results from the inquiry into how these participants create a family reality of “voluntary kin” clearly show individuals using a variety of communicative moves to do so. By recognizing the ability to create a symbolic sense of “family” outside of biological or legal parameters, opens a new avenue for one’s creation of their family and the study of families and communication. Time offered insight into how the time spent with someone, going through the experience of life together, could act as a bonding agent 82 82 and create voluntary kin. Born into showed how the participants entered into previously established voluntary kin relationships upon their birth. Traumatic events displayed how a significant turning point can change how an individual sees another individual. The traumatic events made the participants realize that their voluntary kin was actually their family. Proxy-families in addition provided examples of how the participants expanded their families with their voluntary kin. The voluntary kin were not there to replace a missing family member but rather add to the participant’s family. Proxy-family as replacement displayed how voluntary kin can be created to replace biological or legal family that was lost or is missing for various reasons. Godparents offered the simplest and clearest way that voluntary kin was created. Like the category born into, these voluntary kin were created by others and gifted to the participant by their parents or were chosen by the participant to gift to their children. Voluntary kin offer many more possibilities in creating one’s family beyond creating family through biological or legal means and while this study was focused on how the participants created their family outside of the biological and legal ways, it reflects the ways that real individuals create and define their families. The definitions of what constitutes as family should reflect the ways that individuals actually create and define their families. At first thought, the definitions of family may not seem like it has huge implications but the accepted definitions of what constitutes a family has far- reaching implications. The way that “family” is defined has effects on adoptions, taxes, employee benefits, inheritance, retirement benefits, immigration, medical decisions and benefits, and a myriad of different public and private sector policies. The classification and definitions of what is “family” also affect medical and health based research, and while the sharing of inherited illnesses may not be important in a voluntary kin relationship, the sharing of resources and caring for individuals that can take place within a voluntary kin relationship can affect one’s health and medical research (Sharma, 2013). 83 83
These policies make it very important that the way individuals define and create their own families be recognized as valid and accepted, even outside of the biological and legal definitions of family. Once the voluntary kin relationship is created and takes hold in importance to the participants, the relationship’s existence now should be maintained. Dindia and Canary (1993) defined relational maintenance in four ways; relational maintenance keeps the relationship in “existence,” in “a specific state or condition,” in “satisfactory condition,” and “in repair” (p. 163). Dindia (2003) later explained that to keep a relationship in repair is not the same as relational repair, but rather the exact opposite. Repair is part of keeping the relationship in existence, not allowing the relationship to breakdown so that relational repair is needed. The following discussion will focus exclusively on the myriad of relational maintenance behaviors the 24 participants shared in their written questionnaire and in their interviews as representative of their efforts to keep their voluntary kin family in existence.
Research Question #2: How are Voluntary Kin Relationships Maintained? Participants shared 72 stories of their voluntary kin and all the various ways that they maintain their relationships to the levels they desire (Dindia & Canary, 1993), N = 764 total relational maintenance behaviors were reported by the participants. Ten common themes emerged from the lived experiences shared by these 24 participants. These common themes were developed into categories, some having subcategories. The ten categories of relational maintenance are declaration of family, shared activities, enacted social support, attending/participating family events, channel of communication, shared time, gifts, shared interest, travel and vacations, and keepers of secrets and other intimate information. Two of the relational maintenance behavior categories have subcategories. The category of enacted social support includes the four subcategories of 84 84 emotional support, instrumental support, financial and legal support, and medical support. The category of channel of communication includes the four subcategories of mediated communication, face-to-face talking, mind-reading, and mail. There are some of the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants shared that have parallels with the previous relational maintenance strategies that were identified by Canary et al. (1993); however, there are also some important differences that emerged from the current data. These commonalities and differences will be discussed within the following discussion.
Declaration of Family Declaration of family was the largest portion of all reported relational maintenance behaviors at 33% (n = 250, of N = 764). These were instances when the participants referred to their voluntary kin using terms and labels that are usually reserved for individuals that are family through biological and legal means. These labels, referred to as “address terms” (Koening Kellas, LeClair-Underberg, & Lamb Normand, 2008) have socially obvious meanings. The bestowing of a family title allows the individual to tell others how important they are, how close they are, and where they see them in the order of their life. Declaration of family is a way that the participants can both maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin, and explain their relationship with their voluntary kin to individuals both inside and outside their relationship. The statement “You are my brother” can tell the individual everything that they need to know about their relationship with the individual making the declaration, at least at a surface level. In addition, with one quick word or phrase, the participant can clearly define and explain who this individual is in their life to outsiders. Outsiders do not question declarations of commonly understood social roles. In addition, the outsiders also take the statement at 85 85 face value, and while family labels can carry a whole host of meanings to the individual using them and to the individual hearing the term, statements like “She is my sister” can tell the people on the outside of the relationship what they need to know. These declarations of family offer others something to qualify the relationship and understand the relationship. Consider the participant’s example of declaring her voluntary kin her “sisters” in the hospital while she was giving birth to her children. This declaration of family gave the hospital all that they needed to know regarding their relationship and granted her voluntary kin access to her, since access was restricted to “family.” Koening Kellas et al. (2008), in their study of stepfamilies and the terms they use to address each other, found that these address terms hold great meaning and significance for step families; “although rudimentary and everyday, address terms affect and reflect relationships and relationship quality” (p. 258). When families that were formed outside of biological and legal connections were first studied as fictive kin, the anthologist Ballweg (1969) and the sociologists Ibsen and Klobus (1972) had to find an identifier in order to identify the fictive kin, both used address terms associated with biological and legal families as these identifiers. So, while address terms that are used traditionally for biological and legal family members and their use within voluntary kin relationships and their relational maintenance properties have not been previously explored, these family address terms have been used to identify familial type relationships outside of biological and legal relationships. When one deems another individual as a family member, and gives them a family title, that term carries with it important semantic markers for insiders and outsiders to make sense of the relationship between the individuals while legitimizing the relationship. Using familial terms for one’s voluntary kin is doing the work of discursively creating and reinforcing the family for the individuals both inside of the relationship and outside. Declarations of family is an example of the discursive work and how discourse dependent families, families outside of the biological and legal ties norm, 86 86 have to continuously take part in, within the family and with those on the outside, to continuously build and reinforce their family (Galvin, 2006, 2014).
Declaration of family is comparable to Canary et al.’s (1993) prosocial relational maintenance behavior, “assurances,” as “covertly and overtly assuring each other of the importance of the relationship” (p. 9). Every time that the participant uses a title usually reserved for biological or legal family members, the participant is reinforcing, reassuring, and maintaining their relationship with their voluntary kin, with outsiders, and even with the participant. “Assurances” differed in amount of times it is used across the different types of relationships (Canary et al., 1993). “Assurances” were found to be used more within family and romantic relationships because these relationships were more important to maintain due to the interdependence familial and romantic relationships have within those relationship types, which also supports Canary and Stafford’s (1994) proposition 5 of relational maintenance that relatives use “assurances” more as a means of relational maintenance. It would make sense that the participants would use declarations of family within their voluntary kin relationships to maintain the relationship, not only for the individuals within the relationship, but to others outside of the voluntary kin relationship. Thus, supporting Canary et al.’s claim that “assurances” are used at a higher rate, than relationships that are not interdependent, to maintain family relationships.
Shared Activities Shared activities were 16% of all the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants used. Shared activities are not specific, did not require any special skills or knowledge to take part in the activities, and the goal of the activities was really to just spend time together. These activities were comprised of things like sharing meals, going to or watching movies or television together, shopping, or the very general “just hanging 87 87 out.” The activity for these participants was as important as the opportunity to spend the time with their voluntary kin and maintain their relationship; resembling Canary et al.’s
(1993) maintenance behavior, “joint activities.” They found that “joint activities” “appeared to be a commonly cited one” over all of the various relationship types (p. 12). This was not surprising since spending time together and taking part in activities together are common ways to maintain relationships across all different types of relationships. This category extends Canary et al.’s (1993) typology to voluntary kin relationships. However, the study only goes as far as to say that participating in activities together can help maintain a relationship, it does not discuss how the activity can be important beyond the activity. The largest category of how the participants created their voluntary kin was time, and shared activities as a type relational maintenance is part of the time that they spend together creating and maintaining this voluntary kin relationship. Shared activities allow the participants to spend time with their voluntary kin and this created behavioral interdependence and emotional interdependence with them.
Wood (2000) explained that for relationships to develop into more intimate, close relationships they must develop behavioral interdependence and emotional interdependence. In voluntary kin relationships, behavioral interdependence can be the companionship that one can depend on, the shared activities, the time, joint activities that they share. This shared time does not need to be specific and it can vary in expectations depending on the relationship. Emotional interdependence in a voluntary kin relationship are the feelings of affection that one starts to develop in a close, intimate relationship. Emotional interdependence can be developed and continued through relational maintenance behaviors. 88 88 Enacted Social Support Enacted social support, as a means of relational maintenance, in all of its various forms, was disused n = 91 times by the participants. Being supporting or receiving support from their voluntary kin seemed to be a very essential element in the way that they participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships. Gazso and McDaniel (2015) echoed the same sentiments when they wrote, “the theme ‘Shared Experiences Are What Count’ captures how perceptions of who counts as family and familial support are informed by sharing of life experiences” (p. 381). Gazso and McDaniel (2015) found that in low-income and immigrant communities developed familial relationships with those not biologically or legally connected to them that they received expressive and instrumental support from their voluntary kin. While the participants in Gazso and McDaniel’s (2015) study are discussing how their voluntary kin were created, it is important mention that in connection to this study’s participants maintaining their voluntary kin relationships by receiving and providing different types of support within their relationships. Five different categories or ways that the participants maintain their voluntary kin emerged within the current study. Canary et al. (1993) identified “supportiveness” under “assurances” but identified “assurances” as “covertly and overtly assuring each other of the importance of the relationship” (p. 9). In addition, Canary and Stafford’s (1994) third proposition of relational maintenance states that “assurances” are employed more in familial relationships as a means of relational maintenance. These stories of support were not about assuring their voluntary kin that their relationship is important but rather supporting the other because support is generally expected of a close, family type of relationship. “Supportiveness” was a subcategory of Canary et al.’s (1993) “assurances” behaviors, but it was narrowly defined as only relying “on each other for support” (p. 9). Enacted social support for these participants showed a variety of ways that the 89 89 participants supported their voluntary kin, thus producing four subcategories of enacted social support: emotional support, instrumental, financial and legal support, and medical support. Wood (2000) wrote that interdependence is when “you can count on another for certain things, and you allow that person to count on you” (p. 8). The category of enacted social support is about the participants and their voluntary kin being able to count on and depend upon each other for various types of support. The category of enacted social support is another category that shows that these voluntary kin relationships have an element of interdependence, something that Canary et al. (1993) had hypothesized that family and romantic relationships used relational maintenance behaviors more in relationships with interdependence. Canary et al. believed that relationships that are familial or romantic used “assurances” as a relational maintenance behavior more than other types of relationships because of the interdependence. Thus, this supports Canary et al.’s hypothesis that “supportiveness” is used at a higher rate to maintain relationships that contain interdependence, like the familial relationships of voluntary kin. The four different types of enacted social support that the participants shared span various categories, from tangible (e.g., monetary support) to the intangible (e.g., emotional support). Even though there may be some subcategories of these enacted social support categories that one may be able to draw parallels to Canary et al. (1993) research results, most of the subcategories are not found under the “assurances” category. Burleson and MacGeorge (2002) define supportive communication as “verbal and nonverbal behavior produced with the intention of providing assistance to others perceived as needing aid” (p. 374). The participants made it clear that these were behaviors that they used to support their voluntary kin relationships, and that supporting their voluntary kin and receiving support from their voluntary kin were the purpose of their actions. 90 90
Emotional support. The various forms of enacted social support comprised a large portion of the reported relational maintenance behaviors; being there for their voluntary kin and knowing that their voluntary kin are there for them are foundational to many of these voluntary kin relationships. Emotional support can give individuals a sense that they are bonded and a sense of belonging to those providing the support (Ki & Jang, 2018). Cutrona and Suhr (1992) wrote that the purpose of emotional support “stresses the importance of closeness and love in a relationship with the recipient” (p. 161). Emotional support is also how responsive one is to their relational partner (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2018). According to Fehr (2008), responsiveness is an important element of developing a relationship into a friendship. Showing caring, concern, and interest in another person is essential in the formation of a friendship, so it would be fair to assume that higher levels of responsiveness are employed within voluntary kin relationships since the individuals have progressed beyond a friendship, to a relationship that is more familial in nature.
Shelton, Trail, West, and Bergsieker (2010) studied responsiveness in the context of friendship development in interracial friendships and found that the perceived responsiveness of one’s friend effects the intimacy and self-disclosure in the relationship. Responsiveness is essential to the development of intimacy, and could be even more essential in relationships that do not have a social script for their creation, like the interracial friendships. Voluntary kin relationships also lack a social script for their creation, and responsiveness can convey that one’s relational partner likes them, and has feelings of caring, concern, and warmth towards them. This responsiveness can help to develop feelings of intimacy between the relational partners and help the relational partners feel secure enough to self-disclose and share private information. Emotional support is providing those reassurances, empathy, and instances when one needs to know that someone cares (Goldsmith, 2004). The category of emotional support starts to paint 91 91 the picture that these voluntary kin relationships are relationships that are very close, warm, open, caring, loving, intimate, nurturing, and secure.
Emotional support is one of those subcategories that does not fit completely into any of Canary et al.’s (1993) categories or subcategories. One can find some aspect in their category of “openness,” being completely open and honest with one’s relational partner, but the supportive aspect is missing; and their subcategory of “supportiveness” is too vast.
Instrumental support. The subcategory of instrumental support could be seen as a parallel to Canary et al.’s (1993) “sharing task” but “sharking tasks” was defined as “preforming routine tasks and chores in a relationship” (p. 10). The participants spoke many times about helping or having help with things like picking up children from school or activities, general errands, or going so far as house and pet sitting. This also reflects the Burleson and MacGeorge (2002) definition of supportive communication when one is providing aid and assistance to someone that they perceive is in need of aid and assistance. It was important for the participant to have the help or help their voluntary kin with everyday task or special task that may come up in a special situation, regardless of whether the task has a direct connection to the participants’ own household; examples of the “offer of goods and services” as Goldsmith (2004) defined this type of support (p. 13). Canary et al.’s (1993) example for the category “sharing task,” “preforming routine tasks and chores in a relationship” (p. 10) and the example presented as “we share the cleaning responsibilities,” (p. 10) does seem to imply that these tasks are shared within the same household, which is not the case for these participants. These participants may feed their voluntary kin’s pet while they are away, but they are not residing in the same household. 92 92
Financial and legal support and medical support. Financial and legal support and medical support, subcategories of enacted social support, have no equals or parallels in the typology that Canary et al. developed in 1993. Participants shared stories of financial and legal support received from voluntary kin and provided to voluntary kin. Financial and legal support is not a type of support that just anyone can provide or that individuals with the means to provide this type of support would provide to just anyone in their lives. Financial and legal support are types of support that an individual has to have the financial ability to provide or the legal knowledge and ability to share. Providing financial support, many times in an ongoing capacity, or being involved in another’s legal worries creates a type of interdependence, one that someone could expect from a family member. As discussed previously, interdependence is a reciprocal system of dependence; one being able to emotionally and behaviorally depend on their relational partner and their partner being able to depend on them (Wood, 2002). Financial and legal support relies on the more tasks based behavioral interdependence. Individuals providing financial and legal support knowingly carry on the burden and liability of their voluntary kin’s financial or legal situation. In addition, being able to count on someone during a medical emergency may also create a type of interdependence. The interdependence employed within medical support could contain both behavioral and emotional interdependence since the voluntary kin may need help completing tasks and things that would fall into the behavioral interdependence but they may also need the emotional support that emotional interdependence provides. The subcategory of medical support is not as specialized as financial or legal support, but one needs to be able to trust and count on the individual they would call on during a medical emergency and have the background and the knowledge to provide this type of enacted social support. 93 93 Attending/Participating in Family Events Participants also used attending/participating in family events as a way to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin. This category may appear to be similar to one of the categories or subcategories of Canary et al.’s (1993) typology; however, not perfectly. Take for example, attending/participating in family events, this category might be similar to Canary et al.’s “joint activities” category; perhaps the subcategory “rituals” would be the closest fit. Canary et al. noted that “joint activities” was a very common way to maintain relationships across all types of relationships. What makes this category so interesting and essential to the maintenance of voluntary kin relationships is that the participants were very explicit and clear that their voluntary kin were expected at all family functions and gathering demonstrating that the expectation may far outweigh simply attending. Attending/participating in family events can also be an element of the creating, reinforcing, and maintaining work that the discourse dependent family has to do hold the family together (Galvin, 2006). Attending/participating in family events are part of the rituals that families take part in order to reinforce their bonds, which becomes even more salient when the family bonds are discourse dependent. Rituals are events that help create and reinforce family identity, “they are important recurring communication practices that pay homage to, or honor, some aspect of family life” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006, p. 260). Rituals are also a way to get family members to enact the family identity (Galvin, 2014). Tew et al. (2013) found that rituals were even used to form families, and continue families, in the online virtual world, Second Life (https://secondlife.com/). Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson (1999) found that special events, such as holidays, were chances for families to foster and reinforce their connections; they found that these holidays and special events were positive turning points for stepfamilies in their development of feeling like a family. Even though the 94 94
Baxter, Brathwaite, and Nicholson study was focused on the turning points that their participants identified as important to them when they were coming together as a family unit, the study still shows how important these family event are to the development and maintaining of families. Rituals also help to maintain the family boundaries, both internally and externally (Baxter, 2014). Braithwaite et al. (2016) also found that rituals were regularly attended in families with voluntary kin where the individual participant, their biological and legal family, and their voluntary kin maintained an “intertwined triad.” An “intertwined triad” was where the individual participant had positive communication with their voluntary kin, and their biological and legal family, while the voluntary kin had positive communication with the biological and legal family. These family events are part of the rituals that families use to create and maintain their families, not just within the families, but also with outsiders. Therefore, while “joint activities” may be a very common way to maintain many types of relationships, not every type of relationship calls for its members to be invited and expected to attend activities that are only meant for one’s family. The participants were very clear, when events happen that biological and legal family are expected to attend, the participants expect their voluntary kin to also attend these events. Many of the events that the participants spoke about were annual events, for example, Christmas parties, Thanksgiving dinners, or Fourth of July barbeques, that were family traditions. These family traditions are not always the type of events where one would mail out invitations or email invites. Many of these events where ongoing traditions, for example Thanksgiving dinner at a grandmother’s house, where the voluntary kin were just expected to attend without a formal type of invite year after year. The voluntary kin just know that Thanksgiving is at their voluntary kin’s grandmother’s house. Employing family events as a way of maintaining one’s relationship with their voluntary kin 95 95 reinforces that the participants view and believe that their voluntary kin are actually a part of their family, even parts of the same family they include biological and legal family.
Channel of Communication Channel of communication was not a surprising way that the participants used to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin. Channel of communication is one of the most common and simplest ways to maintain a relationship; what was surprising was all the different types of communication channels that the participants noted themselves to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. Since there were so many different ways that the participants used communication channels to maintain their voluntary kin relationships, it was necessary to break the different types of communication channels into four different subcategories. The subcategories of channel of communication were mediated communication, face-to-face talking, mail, and mind-reading. Canary et al.’s (1993) typology has a category titled “cards, letters, and calls” that is broken down into the subcategories of “cards and letters,” “phone calls,” and “combination.” “Cards, letters, and calls” were also another category that was utilized more within the familial or romantic relationships and a means of relational maintenance, which also supports Canary and Stafford’s (1994) third proposition of relational maintenance. While it is easy to see some parallels, these subcategories do provide an opportunity to extend what is known about relational maintenance, specifically relational maintenance in a relationship that is a familial relationship created outside of the traditional biological and legal means. In addition, it points to the growing sense about how we note the communication itself is used to maintain our relationships.
Mediated communication. Mediated communication was the most common use of channel of communication that the participants used to maintain their relationship with their voluntary kin. Mediated communication was an important way for the participants 96 96 to maintain their voluntary kin relationships since the distance between the participant and their voluntary kin range from zero miles to 5,800, some even having international borders between them. With the very broad definition of any device or application that can be used to communicate with one’s voluntary kin, the participants shared that they used everything from text messages to telephone calls, Facebook to Skype, and everything in between. Rabby and Walther (2003) state that “if relational partners feel close enough to each other they will use a variety of mediated and even face-to-face contact to maintain their relationships” (p. 148). Craig and Wright (2012) found “that individual spend a great deal of time developing and maintaining relationships on Facebook” (p. 126). Mediated communication also allowed the participants to be in constant contact with their voluntary kin; some having text message conversations that are constantly being updated between the participant and their voluntary kin. Houser, Fleuriet, and Estrada (2012) found that individuals specifically used texting and Internet messaging to communicate openness and to communicate positivity social networking sites were employed, and email were employed to maintain relationships. Modes of text communication were not the only way that the participants employed means of mediated communicated with their voluntary kin; they also used telephones and applications like Skype to actually speak to one another. The participants used forms of mediated communication that could be used asynchronously, synchronously, and instant messaging. Rabby and Walther (2003) defined asynchronous as when the message sender and the message receiver do not need to be online at the same time to receive messages like Facebook Messenger. Synchronous is when the message sender and receiver need to be online at the same time like a chatroom, and instant messaging as something along the lines of a text message were the message sender sends the message to the receiver instantly. In the current state of mediate communication, many of the tools the participants have at their fingertips to use to 97 97 maintain their relationships can be used in all three ways. For example, Skype can be used synchronously to talk or video chat, or it can be used asynchronously by sending the message receiver a message that they will receive when they next logon, and it can also be used to send instant messages if one has their account set up in a way that allows instant messages. Since it was not discussed with the participants how they used different devices and applications, it would be impossible to determine if they used any once method asynchronously, synchronously, or instant messaging; or if the ability to communicate asynchronously, synchronously, or instant messaging had any bearing on which method the participants employed. It was interesting to see how creative the participants were with their mediated communication and how they used all the different pieces of technology to stay in touch with their voluntary kin, and maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin whether they lived in the same home or different countries across oceans from each other.
Canary et al.’s (1993) typology only accounted for the “telephone calls” and did not have all the various pieces of technology available now that can be used to communicate and to maintain a relationship. Tong and Walther (2011) wrote that “the sharing of mundane discussions has not frequently been a focus on relational maintenance behavior typologies; new technologies may make this activity more salient” (p. 113). New technologies that are forms of mediated communication have made the sharing of daily experiences an essential part of relational maintenance since many of the common technological platforms (Facebook, Twitter, micro blogs, etc.) are focused on sharing daily experiences. The mundane and talk of everyday activities has a specific place in the maintaining of a relationships, one that also flows into the discussion of the category face-to-face talking. 98 98
Face-to-face talking. The participants also employed face-to-face talking as a vehicle to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin. Duck (1994) wrote, “Talk is the essence of relational maintenance,” he continued on to explain that it is the “everyday talk that presents a rhetorical vision and hence projects a continued future for the relationship” (p. 52). The everyday talk, or the mundane discussions, are where the future is created, and where future expectations are formed. This everyday talk can take place in a conversation or by mediated communication. Voluntary kin relationships, are created solely through discourse, and this makes their everyday talk so significant to maintaining the relationship. The rhetorical vision is where the future expectation of the voluntary kin relationship is created, agreed upon, and carried out. The everyday talk is where relational partners build their relationship and their shared meaning, and this is how everyday talk becomes more than just trivial “how’s the weather” talk. “The more you get to know someone, the more you come to understand what you can say to them without explanation,” which all happens through the everyday talk (Duck, 2011, p. 45), which also flows into mind-reading, another subcategory of channel of communication. Canary et al. (1993) classified “talk time” in their typology as a subcategory of “joint activities,” but within the information the participants share in this study, face-to- face talking had a more natural fit under the channel of communication category. Canary et al.’s “talk time” puts the focus on the activity but does not take into account how the activity of face-to-face talking is part of the creation of the relationship. Ledbetter et al. (2010) also found that talking was an important part of relational maintenance, regardless if the talk was “casual talk” or “deep talk,” the act of these different types of talking allowed for individuals to develop the shared perspectives that was found to maintain relationships. Many of the participants shared that it was important to take the time, and set aside the time, to just talk with their voluntary kin. Taking the time to catch up with their voluntary kin is important to them, whether it was taking the time every day or once 99 99 a month, it was simply important to take the time to talk with their voluntary kin. In the everyday talk, relationships are created, built, maintained, and reinforced and this can be seen in the subcategories of mediated communication and face-to-face talking.
Mail. Mail as a means of relational maintenance received its own subcategory because sending items in the mail is a much more purposeful act in the modern era. When one can send an email with the same information, whether that being a letter or photographs for example, to write a letter or card, or send a package takes much more effort and time. We are reminded that the modality, or channel of communication as maintenance behaviors, influences the meaning of any message sent through difference modalities. Mail, for instance these days, is seen as more intentional and special than it used to be in the context of email. Donna reflects this importance when she talks about how mail is special. Sending one’s voluntary kin a letter, a card, or a package is a very special way to maintain a relationship with their voluntary kin. Taking the time to send a birthday card, instead of a “happy birthday” text message, is something that the participants reserved for the most important people in their lives, which included their voluntary kin.
Mind-reading. The participants shared other instances of relational maintenance that were categorized as mind-reading. Mind-reading, a subcategory of channel of communication, is a way of communicating nonverbally that the participant has developed over the length of their relationship with their voluntary kin. Mind-reading is a way of maintaining their voluntary kin relationship through communicating in ways that only the participant and their voluntary kin may understand, a sort of shorthand to their communication. While there is no category in the Canary et al. (1993) relational maintenance typology for this type of communication and relational maintenance, mind- reading is a part of personal relationships. Ledbetter et al. (2010) found that a shared 100 100 perspective is a means of relational maintenance and the only way to develop these shared perspectives is by the “shared experience and allowing individuals to see the world through their partners’ view point” (p. 25). The only way that one can employ mind-reading as a means of relational maintenance is through shared experiences, and creating a shared perspective that allows two individuals to know each other so well, and so intimately, that they know what each other are thinking without uttering a word. These voluntary kin relationships are also relationships where high context communication takes place. For high context communication to be a viable communication option, the individuals must know a lot about each other and their situation, and with the knowledge the receiver is able to decipher messages that are implied and not explicitly stated (Larsen, Rosenbloom, & Smith, 2002). In high context communication, the receiver of the message has to be able to read between the lines and understand what is not said as clearly as what is actually said, like the participants that employ mind-reading as a means of relational maintenance within their voluntary kin relationships. Thomas and Fletcher (2003) completed a study in mind-reading in which they defined it as “the ability to read others’ thought and feelings” (p. 1079). They argue that the better two people knew each other, the more accurate their mind-reading was found to be, which was also connected to how close and satisfied the individuals were in their relationship. The nature of the relationship between the two communication partners “occupies a pivotal role in determining mind-reading accuracy” (p. 1079). Mind-reading is also similar to perspective-taking, which is “the notion of taking the perspective of another person is essential to communication” (Gasiorek & Ebesu Hubbard, 2017, p. 87). Perspective-taking is essential in order to understand someone else, their perspectives, ideas, and anything that may be going on in their head. Perspective-taking is an important aspect to understanding one’s voluntary kin so well, that mind-reading can be used as a means of relational maintenance in their relationship. 101 101
This is also related to cognitive complexity, and that the participant and their voluntary kin have developed, through their interactions and past history, interpersonal constructs that allow them to understand each other and pick-up on verbal, nonverbal, and situational clues that outsiders may not understand (Youngvorst & Jones, 2017). The ability to decipher and understand one’s verbal, nonverbal, and situational clues would mean that the participants that use mind-reading as a means of relational maintenance within their voluntary kin relationships have a very high degree of cognitive complexity within their relationship. Since the relationship between the two individuals was found to be so salient to the accuracy of the nonverbal messages that were being sent and received, with closer relational partners being more accurate in their mind-reading abilities, it would not be a huge leap to assume that voluntary kin relationship would be a perfect opportunity to employ this type of communication. In addition, Thomas and Fletcher (2003) discovered that women were more accurate in their use of mind-reading, and it is worth noting that the three instances that were shared by participants were all from participants that happen to be women.
Shared Time The category of shared time can be compared to the subcategory of Canary et al.’s (1993) “joint activities: shared time together.” The emphasis of shared time is the time that the participants spent with their voluntary kin. Through all of the participants’ questionnaires and interviews there were many different activities and ways that the participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin but 6% (n = 44) times the participants shared that they just spent time with their voluntary kin. While most of these ten categories and subcategories of relational maintenance are a way of the participants to share time, in one way or another, with their voluntary kin, the other 102 102 categories and subcategories are more structured or focused on another activity or element. Shared time is only about the participants sharing time with their voluntary kin as a way of maintaining their relationships. Some of the participants spoke about how important it was to just spend time together, sometimes not speaking to each other, but rather just being together in a “comfortable silence” and sharing time in close proximity with their voluntary kin. Ledbetter et al. (2010) found that “hanging out” was an important part of creating the shared perspectives that they found was a means of relational maintenance. Canary et al.’s (1993) “joint activities: shared time together” was one of the few types of relational maintenance that did not differ in the frequency reported over the different relational types, though one may be able to hypothesize that individuals could spend more time maintaining a relationship with a romantic partner or family, voluntary kin being part of the family relationship type.
Gifts The participants also shared that they give and received gifts from their voluntary kin as a means of relational maintenance, so the category gifts was developed to represent gift giving. Gifts were given and received from the participants and their voluntary kin, not only for birthdays or appropriate holidays, but also just for no reason at all besides letting the individual know that they are thought of, and that the individual is cared about. Komter and Vollebergh (1997) stated that “gift giving might be considered a good indicator of emotional involvement in family and friends because it is such a tangible and concrete, and therefore, measurable expression of feeling toward other people” (p. 748). Komter and Vollebergh go on to explain that gift giving also can create a sense of obligation, a sense of reciprocity is created between the individuals that are giving and receiving the gift. The giving of gifts as relational maintenance did not seem to matter how far the participant was from their voluntary kin, or how many times of year they 103 103 would see each other, it seemed to be more of a part of their relationship. The participant, River actually refers to one of her voluntary kin as a “gifter” (Interview, p. 3) almost as if that is your title or role in their relationship. Of the participants that shared gifts as a type of relational maintenance, only one discussed gifting as a way of maintaining her relationship with her voluntary kin because of the distance that was now in between herself and her voluntary kin. Donna shared that since she had moved so far away from her voluntary kin that gifts as a way to maintain their relationship had become an even bigger part of their relational maintenance. Gifts do serve a function in relationships, at the very least, they symbolize that there is a relationship; they are a token of the relationship (Duck, 2011). There can be several reasons why someone gives a gift but the reasons that the participants shared were either to strengthen their relationship or to affirm that there is a relationship and the relationship is important. The very act of giving a gift can strengthen a relationship and provide a bonding opportunity. When a gift is given to affirm a relationship, the gift giver is confirming that the person that they are giving a gift to is important to them and that there is a relationship between them. Both of these reasons for the gifts are positive. Gifts were also found to be symbols of the individual giving the gift or a symbol of how the individual giving the gift sees the receiver (Wolfinbarger, 1990). This would mean that the gift giver gives a gift they see themselves in or their voluntary kin, or the gift could be a representation of their relationship. In the typology that Canary et al. (1993) developed, at first glance, gifts could be compared to the typology’s “cards, letters, and calls” category but if a closer comparison is made the typology really uses this category as more of a mediated communication category and it is focused more on ways to convey communication and not the giving or receiving of gifts. Gifts may not be the way that all individuals maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin but gifts 104 104 are a viable way that some employ to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin.
Shared Interest Shared interest as a means of relational maintenance was interesting and different from the other “shared” categories in the present study. The participants shared many different activities and ways that they maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin, but shared interest was different from shared activities and shared time. With shared activities, the focus was not completely on the activity, but rather taking part in the activity with their voluntary kin. Many times, the shared activities were activities like having dinner or lunch together, shopping together, watching movies together; activities that were a means of spending time with each other. Moreover, shared time was simply spending time together and not actually needing to participate in any activity at all. What makes shared interest different from shared activity or shared time is that the individuals both have a very vested interest in the actual activity. The activity may require a set of specific skills or knowledge to participate in the activity, and both parties must actively participate in the activity. Examples of a shared interest would be a sport both individuals play, or a special hobby that both individual have and participate in together. A shared interest gave our participants a reason and a vehicle to spend time with and maintain a relationship with their voluntary kin. There is not a category in Canary et al.’s (1993) typology that completely fits the shared interest category. Canary et al. do have the category of “joint activities” but this category and its subcategories does not completely represent the way that these participants and their voluntary kin employ the shared interest in a way to maintain their relationship. Yes, the participant and their voluntary kin share time together but these instances were more about the activity than only using them to spend time together. 105 105
When the participant and their voluntary kin need to develop, and maintain specific skills or knowledge to participate in the activity their shared interest is based on, the activity is more than just spending time together. In some instances, the participants spoke about the shared interest being the way that they met, built, and created their voluntary kin relationships with their voluntary kin, but once the relationship was established, these shared interests were a way they employed to continue to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. In some instances, the participants discussed how the shared interest was something that the participant and their voluntary kin decides to participate in together as a way to maintain their relationship. Nevertheless, regardless of the way that the participant and their voluntary kin came to participate in the shared interest together, it has become a part of their relational maintenance.
Travel and Vacations Travel and vacations was another way that the participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin. Canary et al.’s (1993) typology does not have a category to completely represent the way the participants shared stories of their travel and vacations with their voluntary kin other than lumping it into the “joint activities” subcategory of “occasional visits/road trips.” While some of the shared instances of travel and vacations do include visits to and from the participants’ voluntary kin, the participants did share instances of traveling together beyond the occasional visit and road trip. A few of the participants shared instances that they and their voluntary kin take vacations together, cruises and trips to foreign countries are some of the examples the participants shared. The most extreme example of travel and vacations was one participant shared that their biological and legal family and voluntary kin have purchased, not one but two, vacation homes together. Entering into a purchase of real estate is not an activity that one would enter into with just anyone in their life, and it would be fair to 106 106 believe that purchasing real estate is something that one would only do, outside of business, with someone they were especially close to, like a family member or romantic partner. So, while travel and vacations are not an everyday means of relational maintenance they are still a very viable way for the participants to maintain their voluntary kin relationships.
Keepers of Secrets and Other Intimate Information The category of keepers of secrets and other intimate information is one category that draws close parallels with Canary et al.’s (1993) typology and the subcategory of “openness” referred to as “self-disclosure.” Canary et al. provided an example of “self- disclosure” as “we share things with each other that no one else knows” (p. 9). Keepers of secrets and other intimate information was the one category that most closely resembled a category or subcategory of Canary et al.’s typology. According to social penetration theory, individuals grow closer over time as their self-disclosures become deeper, more frequent, and over several topics (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Someone entrusted with secrets and intimate information about their voluntary kin, or vice versa, an outsider could assume that the relationship is a close. Petronio’s (2004) communication privacy management theory offers more insight into the disclosures that happen within keepers of secrets and other intimate information. Communication privacy management explains that when individuals share information they believe they own (privacy) with another individual, the disclosing individual now shares ownership of the information that disclosed to the receiver; broadening the types of information, beyond self-information, others may keep to themselves or share with others (Petronio, 2004). They are both now co-owners of this information. The privacy boundaries are negotiated between the co-owners, but the individuals can enter into already established collective boundaries like those that the ones found in families. In the 107 107 case of voluntary kin, the receivers of the disclosures become part of the family’s established collective boundaries and now a co-owner of the secrets and privileged information from within the family. This co-ownership actually was demonstrated in the participant River’s interview when she was discussing holding her voluntary kin’s secrets and said “Obviously, I keep all her secrets until I get interviewed” (Interview, p. 6). River was demonstrating the established privacy boundaries between herself and her voluntary kin. “Self-disclosure” was also a subcategory of “openness” and one of the categories that Canary et al. (1993) hypothesized that families and romantic partners would utilize more as a means of relational maintenance because of the importance of maintaining familial and romantic relationships.
Relational Maintenance Summary Overall, the reported relational maintenance behaviors in this study support Canary and Stafford’s (1994) proposition 6; relational maintenance can be both strategic and routine. Relational maintenance strategies are relational maintenance behaviors that are more conscious, tactical, and intentional acts that are done to maintain a relationship, while routine maintenance behaviors are not done so intentionally and are more habitual (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Dindia, 2003; Dindia & Canary, 1993). Relational maintenance strategies and routine maintenance behaviors can both be employed as part of the same relationship and some relational maintenance strategies, which started out as a more strategic move to maintain a relationship, can become part of a routine and become a routine maintenance behavior. This is where most of these relational maintenance behaviors shared by the participants fall. Many of the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants shared in their narratives demonstrated a strategic decision in the beginning but became, over time, part of their routine with their voluntary kin. As participant Jack shared, “We started making 108 108 man nights. We said pick a night. Monday night. Man night was Monday night. We did that for 4 years straight. Every Monday. Like clockwork. We moved in here, and it continued every Monday night” (Interview, p. 13). This shared activity was once a very strategic move that was made in order to maintain his relationship with his voluntary kin but it led into a routine for Jack and his voluntary kin. Attending/participating in family events is another great example of how relational maintenance strategies can become routine maintenance behaviors. The first invite to one’s voluntary kin to their family event was a strategic one, but over the years, it has become routine to have their voluntary kin at their family events. The attendance to these events have become so routine, that invites are not even offered, and their voluntary kin are just expected to be there. The same could be said for most, if not all, of the relational maintenance behaviors, the first time or the first few times may have been a very conscious and strategic choice but they can then become part of the routine, part of the routine that holds these voluntary kin relationships together. This very phenomenon is what Duck (1994) argued were the two integral parts of relational maintenance, “the first is strategic planning for the continuance of the relationship; and the second is the breezy allowance of the relationship to continue by means of the everyday interactions and conversations that make the relationship what it is” (p. 46). For Duck, relational maintenance includes both the strategic and the routine to maintain a relationship and these relational maintenance behaviors that the participants used to maintain their voluntary kin relationships are examples of both of Duck’s required elements. It is in the routine that is the “doing” of the relationship and the routine becomes even more important in voluntary kin relationships because these are the communicative acts, which holds these discourse dependent relationships together. 109 109
Canary et al. (1993) created a typology of relational maintenance behaviors across different types of relationships: romantic partners, family, friends, and others. The current study compared and contrasted the Canary et al.’s typology to the ways that these participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin. This current study extends the information that Canary et al. (1993) presented by providing more insight into how relationships are maintained; specifically, those relationships highly dependent on their symbolic existence as voluntary kin relationships are. All relationships are built and maintained through communication and discourse (Duck, 1994), but what makes voluntary kin relationships different is that these relationships are not defined through other involuntary means. Biological and legal family are defined and created through the structural family definitions due to the biological and legal connections. Voluntary kin are “family” created voluntarily, created socially through discourse and communicative acts. Canary et al. (1993) offered 11 major categories of relational maintenance: “positivity,” “openness,” “assurances,” “social networks,” “sharing task,” “joint activities,” “cards, letters, and calls,” “avoidance,” anti-social,” “humor,” and “miscellaneous.” All of the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants shared most matched the Canary et al. categories of “openness,” “assurances,” “joint activities,” and “cards, letters, and calls.” The categories that emerged not only mirrored these but also broadened their original meaning and some were new. The results of the inquiry into how the participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships brought to light several different methods of relational maintenance that are employed. Declarations of family displayed the power of address terms; they use of titles and address terms usually reserved for biological and legal family. Declarations of family was compared to Canary et al.’s (1993) “assurances” but since using a title usually researched for biological and legal family members, “assurances” does not accurately represent how the use of a familial term can help maintain a voluntary kin relationship, 110 110 not only within the relationships but also with others on the outside, “assurances” could not be used.
Shared activities are how the participants maintained their relationship with their voluntary kin by participating in activities together. The shared activities did not have to be specific but the goal was always to participant in something with their voluntary kin. Shared activities extends the Canary et al. (1993) category of “joint activities” and focused on the importance it was for the participant to participate in activities, like meals and movies, with their voluntary kin. Enacted social support was a category that contained subcategories that were all focused on the different ways that the participants gave or received different types of support from their voluntary kin. Enacted social support was compared to Canary et al.’s (1993) subcategory “supportiveness,” a subcategory of “assurance.” Enacted social support focuses on the support and the different types of support used within the participants’ voluntary kin relationship, and not just the assurance their voluntary kin of the importance of the relationship. Enacted social support also provided subcategories of the different types of support within these voluntary kin relationships. The subcategories are emotional support, instrumental support, financial and legal support, and medical support. Emotional support shows how the participants are there for their voluntary kin and their voluntary kin are there for them, and how they show caring, concern, and interest in their relationship. Instrumental support was how the participants helped and received help with task, providing aid when aid was needed. Financial and legal support and medical support showed how interdependence was created within the voluntary kin relationships by providing financial and legal support if the individual has the financial means or the specialized knowledge required to be involved in financial or legal matters, or the ability to be depended upon for a medical matter. 111 111
Attending/participating in family events was compared to the categories “joint activities” and its subcategory “ritual” from Canary et al. (1993). Canary et al.’s (1993)
“joint activities” did not offer such specialized activity like a family event, and “ritual” were focused on the rituals that individuals build together. Attending/participating in family events was more than just activities that the participants did with their voluntary kin, this was expecting your voluntary kin to attend activities and events that were specific to the participants’ family without a formal invite. An example of this would be expecting one’s voluntary kin, without a formal invitation, to Christmas at their grandmother’s house. It was expected that the voluntary kin attend this event, and the event was one that was reserved for people that were family. The category channel of communication displayed how the participants used various forms of communication to maintain their voluntary kin relationships through the subcategories mediated communication, face-to-face talking, mind-reading, and mail. The category of channel of communication was compared to a variety of Canary et al.’s
(1993) categories; these categories were “joint activities’” subcategory of “talk time,” and the category of “card, letters, and calls.” Mediated communication offered insight into how the participants used technology and applications like Facebook, Skype, and text messages to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin. Face-to-face talking offered a look at how the participants maintained their relationship with their voluntary kin using everyday, mundane talk. Channel of communication’s subcategories of mediated communication, and mail were compared to Canary et al.’s “card, letters, and calls” while face-to-face talking was compared to “joint activities’” subcategory of “talk time.” Mind-reading offered a look at how the participants used nonverbal communication to communicate with their voluntary kin. Mail also showed how the participant employed mail to and from their voluntary kin as a means of relational maintenance. Channel of communication’s subcategory of mind-reading had no category 112 112 of subcategory of Canary et al.’s typology to compare and contrast it with; mind-reading is completely new. Mind-reading was the nonverbal communication and nonverbal ques that are created and developed, over time, between individuals who are close. Shared time was how the participants maintained their voluntary kin relationships through spending nonspecific time together. This nonspecific time could be as simple as hanging out and sitting around with no plans of participating in an activity together. Shared time was compared and contrasted to Canary et al.’s (1993) “joint activity,” but since shared time was about just being together, spending time together, and not necessarily partaking in an activity together, “joint activities” were not a fit. Gifts explained how the participants used the giving and receiving of gifts as an avenue of relational maintenance, and these gifts were not always in conjunction with birthdays or holidays. Gifts was compared to Canary et al.’s (1993) category of “cards, letters, and calls” but this was not a complete fit either. “Card, letters, and calls” were closer to a form of mediated communication and not the act of giving a gift, and there was no importance placed on what the giving of a gift can represent and mean within the participants’ voluntary kin relationships. Shared interest was a category different from shared activity and shared time because the participant and their voluntary kin used participating in an activity that they both had a vested interest in as a means of relational maintenance. Shared interest had the activity in common with Canary et al.’s (1993) “joint activities” but that is where the similarities stopped. Shared interest was the participant and their voluntary kin participating in an activity that both of the individuals have a vested interest in the activity and the activity may need the development of specific skills, knowledge or ability. An example of shared interest would be when the participant and their voluntary kin play a sport together, or perhaps getting together to make a quilt. 113 113
Travel and vacations is how some of the participants maintained their relationships with their voluntary kin using travel and taking vacations together. The ways that travel and vacations were used to maintain their relationship ranged from simple road trips to buying vacations homes together to use in their annual vacations. Travel and vacations was compared to Canary et al.’s (1993) “occasional visits/road trips,” a subcategory of “joint activities,” but it was more than “I visit my bother when he is away at school” (p. 10). Travel and vacations reflects that, while the participants may occasionally visit their voluntary kin or take a road trip with them, the participants also took vacations with their voluntary kin. These vacations were major trips together, like cruises or ski trips, where both the participant and their voluntary kin left their homes and met-up together at a location. One participant even share that their biological and legal family had purchased multiple vacation homes with their voluntary kin to specifically use together. The category of keepers of secrets and other intimate information showed how disclosures shared between the participants and their voluntary kin makes them co- owners of the information and becoming part of the collective boundaries already in place, helping them become closer, while maintaining their relationship. Keepers of secrets and other intimate information was compared to Canary et al.’s (1993) subcategory of “self-disclosures,” a subcategory of “openness,” yet it was not a good fit. Keepers of secrets and other intimate information was more than “we share things with each other that no one else knows;” that was just the start of sharing the intimate information. Keepers of secrets and other intimate information was specifically important to the individuals and their voluntary kin since it started to show the importance of these disclosures and the sharing of information. In a relationship that is completely dependent on discourse becoming co-owners of information, negotiate privacy boundaries together, and they become part of the family’s previously established 114 114 collective boundaries (Petronio, 2004). Keepers of secrets and other intimate information demonstrates how voluntary kin are brought into previously established collective boundaries of the family and how they become co-owners of information that is privy to people within the family. While the current study expands upon Canary et al.’s (1993) original typology, there were some categories that were not comparable. The first category “positivity” was not comparable to any of the categories within this study. The participants did not discuss being pleasant and cheerful with their voluntary kin as a way of maintaining their relationships. “Social networks” was another Canary et al. (1993) category that was not shared by the participants. While the participants discussed relying on each other as a means of relational maintenance, they did not discuss relying on each other’s extended social connections as a means of relational maintenance. “Avoidance,” “humor,” and “anti-social” as a means of relational maintenance were not discussed as ways that the current participants used to maintain their relationships with their voluntary kin; these were another way that this study deviated from the Canary et al. (1993) typology. What the current study does is offer an extension of the Canary et al. (1993) typology and a more nuanced look at the relational maintenance, specifically the relational maintenance that takes place within the 24 participants’ voluntary kin relationships. Previously it was asked whether the relational maintenance behaviors employed within these voluntary kin relationships would use “positivity,” “openness,” “assurance,” and “cards/letters/calls” and a higher rate like Canary et al. (1993) and Canary and Stafford (1994) believed familial relationships would? In addition, would the relational maintenance used within these voluntary kin relationships fall outside of the Canary et al. (1993) typology? Well, it turns out that it seems like a little bit of both are part of the relational maintenance recipe for voluntary kin. The participants shared relational maintenance behaviors and 57% of the total relational maintenance behaviors shared, are 115 115 comparable to “positivity,” “openness,” “assurance,” and “cards/letters/calls.” The current comparable categories that make up the 57% are declarations of family, communication, enacted support, and keepers of secrets and other intimate information. With such a majority of all the relational maintenance behaviors shared, it is easy to see how much these participants rely on these modes of maintenance. The other current categories may not fall outside of the Canary et al. (1993) typology, but it offers the opportunity to greatly expand ideas of relational maintenance. Even though there are so many different relational maintenance behaviors that the participants employed within their voluntary kin relationships, there was one main purpose for every one of them: to sustain the voluntary kin relationship that they had previously created. Each voluntary kin relationship is different and thus every relationship is maintained differently, even if the relational maintenance behaviors have common themes. Regardless of how each relationship is kept symbolically alive, it was sustained in such a way that the individuals within the voluntary kin relationships continued to enact and support their familial relationship.
The Interplay Between “Creating” Family and “Maintaining” its Existence A study like this presents a unique opportunity to see two different phenomena in relational communication come together: the discursive creation of voluntary kin and the simultaneous relational maintenance of the relationship. To see how the creation of voluntary kin and relational maintenance come together, one may need to pull several different studies and try to thread them together. With both creation of voluntary kin and the relational maintenance behaviors used with in the voluntary kin relationships being within one study, this has hopefully allowed for the reader to start seeing some parallels or making some connections of their own. More importantly, this shows just how these 116 116 two relational phenomena, voluntary kin and relational maintenance, are intertwined or inseparable over time.
At the beginning of this study, relational maintenance behaviors were defined as behaviors and strategies that are enacted to maintain the relationship at the desired state (Canary et al., 1993; Canary & Stafford, 1994; Dindia, 2003; Dindia & Canary, 1993). There are four parts to the definition of what relational maintenance does: the first being to keep the relationship alive, second to maintain its conditions, third to maintain relational satisfaction, and fourth to allow its repair but this is not seen as part of relational maintenance currently (Dindia, 2003; Dindia & Canary, 1993). Another way of looking at relational maintenance behaviors is that relational maintenance is how we “do” relationships and how we engage with our relational partners, whether that be in our routines or strategic moves to repair the relationship. Familial relationships are no different, familial relationships also need to be maintained. When it comes to voluntary kin relationships, the first three purposes for relational maintenance are key since these familial connections are uniquely dependent on discourse. Consider then the transactional approach to family; an approach based in intersubjectivity and acting “like a family” (Baxter et al., 2009). Voluntary kin relationships must be maintained in order to continue the familial relationship. In order to qualify as a family under the transactional approach the voluntary kin must continue to identify as family. Baxter (2014) reiterated; “families are the result of what we do-the product of our everyday communicative accomplishments of functioning and feeling like a family” (p. 12). This becomes even more evident when the relational maintenance categories are examined. All ten of the relational maintenance categories are about the participants sharing time, a connection, and communicating with or about their voluntary kin relationship. Over the course of their voluntary kin relationship, what was once a strategic choice in maintaining their relationship has now become a routine. 117 117
Declarations of family, shared activity, enacted social support, attending/participating in family events, channel of communication, shared time, gifts, shared interest, travel and vacations, and finally keeper of secrets and other intimate information all have the commonality of the participant sharing time, a connection, and communicating in one way or another with their voluntary kin. Relational maintenance behaviors are the “doing” of the relationship. What if one of the relational partners quit participating in the relational maintenance, would the relational satisfaction take a downturn and the relationship cease to be a relationship especially in one that is completely voluntary like the voluntary kin? The first definition of relational maintenance (Dindia, 2004; Dindia & Canary, 1994), relational maintenance is employed to keep the relationship in existence, would argue that would be the case. Voluntary kin are family because of their desire to be a family and if that desire is no longer there, the voluntary kin relationship is no longer there. There may in fact be a “relationship” yet it would not be the one originally created. In addition, this study supports all six of Canary and Stafford’s (1994) propositions of relational maintenance. The six propositions presented by Canary and Stafford (1994) can be seen throughout this study. The first proposition offered is that all relationships require relational maintenance or the relationship deteriorates and may even end. This can be seen in all the various ways that the participants maintain their voluntary kin relationships. The participants invest their time, themselves, and their resources into their voluntary kin relationships and the assumption is that if these are taken away, reduced, or changed so would the relationship. Proposition 2, that individuals will maintain relationships that are equitable, is not as easy to see but it is implied that the participants are satisfied with what they put into the relationship and what they get out of the relationship. The participants did not discuss it but one could argue that if the 118 118 participants were not happy with what they were receiving from the relationship, they would stop investing themselves, their time, and their resources into the voluntary kin relationship. Proposition 3 offers that the relational maintenance employed to maintain a relationship will vary depending on the relationship. The ways that the participants shared that they maintained their voluntary kin relationships shows a vast similarity to other types of familial relationships and differences that are indicative of voluntary kin. Canary and Stafford (1993, 1994) identified their categories of “assurances,” “sharing task,” and “cards/letters/calls” were used more frequently in familial relationships, the current study’s categories of declarations of family, channel of communication, and enacted support were all categories that were comparable to the Canary and Stafford categories, and in total were 55% of all relational maintenance behaviors that were reported. Since these behaviors were over half of all the relational maintenance behaviors reported, it is clear that these participants relied heavily on declarations of family, channel of communication, and enacted support to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. Yet there were also reported differences. Mind-reading was a way the participants used nonverbal communication, or could read their voluntary kin and know what their voluntary kin were thinking without any explanations. Mind-reading, or a comparable style of communication, was not reported in any type of relationship that was studied in the Canary et al. (1993) typology. Thereby supporting Canary and Stafford’s third proposition. Canary and Stafford’s (1994) fourth proposition states that relational maintenance behaviors can be used together with any other relational maintenance behavior or alone. All of the relational maintenance behaviors that the participants shared were used in connection with other relational maintenance behaviors in order to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. Not one participant shared that they only employed one type of relational maintenance to maintain their voluntary kin relationships. Canary and 119 119
Stafford’s proposition 5 proposes that relational maintenance can be a combination of communication and symbolic exchanges. This proposes that while the relational maintenance that the participants reported can be a communicative act, the act can also be symbolic to the individual and the relationship and the symbolism can communicate more than just the actual communicative act. This study supports proposition 5, alone these relational maintenance behaviors are communicative acts but coupled with the relationships that the participants and their voluntary kin have built, the relational maintenance means much more than the actual communicative act. Finally, proposition 6 (Canary & Stafford, 1994) states that a combination of routine and strategic maintenance behaviors can be employed to maintain a relationship. As discussed previously, the relational maintenance that the participants shared may have started out as intentional, strategic choices in their relational maintenance but then became routine relational maintenance behaviors. This study still supports proposition 6 because it offers examples of how routine and strategic can be used to maintain voluntary kin relationships. In addition, two of the creation of voluntary kin categories, specifically time and traumatic events, have a lot in common with a few of the relational maintenance categories. The relational maintenance category shared time and the subcategory of enacted social support: medical support have a very evident commonality to them, but there could also be a case built around any of the relational maintenance categories, with the exception of declarations of family, having commonalities with the creation of voluntary kin category of time since they all have an element of time spent together. This suggested that relational maintenance behaviors are the foundation on which some voluntary kin relationships are developed and created. The relational maintenance behaviors that the participants shared suggests various degrees of interdependence in their voluntary kin relationships. Interdependence and the 120 120 interactions that happen within the relationship were the hallmark of the third approach to defining family (Baxter et al., 2009). This approach is the one that this study is focused on, and allows for individuals that believe that they are family and function as they are family, to in fact be classified as a family. The relational maintenance categories of enacted social support and keepers of secrets and other intimate information were examples of how the participant and their voluntary kin really relied on each other and created interdependence. A great example of interdependence is when participant Jane shared, in both her questionnaire and in her interview, that her voluntary kin has offered to pay for college for both of her children if they meet some agreed upon requirements, while Jane provides support in other ways. Alternatively, when participant Rory discussed taking on some legal and financial responsibilities of his voluntary kin, after he had depended on his voluntary kin for the same types of support while he was younger. Both of these examples create a situation where the participant and their voluntary kin are dependent upon each other, they have created a cycle or web of reciprocity and dependence between each other. The most unexpected finding was the relational maintenance category declarations of family. Declarations of family happened at a rate much higher than the other relational maintenance categories and was a very pleasant surprise. Koening Kellas et al. (2008) wrote that “little research to date had focused explicitly on address terms in the family” (p. 242) and a current search has led to very little change since they wrote that statement. Therefore, while it may not be a surprise that familial address terms are used within voluntary kin relationships, the lack of prior research in familial address terms altogether is a surprise. This is especially surprising since the familial address terms were used in the discovery and identification of fictive kin in 1969 by anthropologist Ballweg, and in 1972 by the sociologists Ibsen and Klobus. As discussed prior, declarations of family are a way that the participant can maintain their relationship 121 121 with their voluntary kin, but also firmly making outsiders aware that their relationship is a familial relationship.
The use of traditional address terms for biological and legal family members was another element of the transactional definition of family that Baxter et al. (2009) presented. Galvin (2006) stated that “family identity depends, in part, on members’ communication with outsiders, as well as with each other, regarding their familial connections” (p. 3). Declarations of family is an example of relational maintenance through communicating the participants’ family connection, not only with their voluntary kin, but also with the outside world and reinforcing their family. The very act of participating in the study, sharing their voluntary kin story, reinforces their family through discourse. Galvin (2006) stated that “communicative practices contribute to family functioning, especially in families formed, fully or partly, outside of traditional means” (p. 4). Taking this study as a whole reinforces that voluntary kin relationships and relational maintenance behaviors are both part of a reflexive cycle of communication. Voluntary kin are a familial relationship that relies so heavily on discursive foundations, and the maintenance of these relationships are occurring within a voluntary relationship.
Conclusion and Future Directions The main objective of this study was to better understand the voluntary kin relationship, specifically how voluntary kin relationships are created and maintained through the use of relational maintenance behaviors, and to add to the scholarly information available on the voluntary kin relationships. Contributing more information to the larger question of what makes a “family” and that a family can be defined outside of the biological and legal definitions. In addition, this study offered a glimpse as to how voluntary kin relationships begin, develop, and are maintained. 122 122
Some possible future research could focus on the line between being close friends and becoming voluntary kin; what that turning point is and how the change in the relationship is negotiated and a new identity of voluntary kin is formed. One of the biggest roadblocks that was revealed in the interviews conducted in the current study was that the participant had a hard time putting their relationship into words. Participants offered responses like “you just know” or others indicated a feeling but that they could not put that feeling into words. Future research should focus on trying to find a way to help the participant explain and articulate the “you just know” response. Turning points could be a possible way to help the participants avoid those types of responses, and could be a rather fruitful tool for future research. By having participants map out the turning points of their voluntary kin relationship, the map might make it easier for the participant to find that point and define that line between a close friend and someone that they consider voluntary kin. Even though only 21% of the voluntary kin relationships in the current study discussed turning points, this is still a large percentage and could warrant further research in the area of turning points and voluntary kin relationships. Asking participants to map their turning points within their voluntary kin relationships may help the participants to identify where they started considering someone more familial than just a close friendship. If all participants were asked to chart their turning points with their voluntary kin, there may be many more turning points to consider outside of traumatic events. Turning points should be considered as another concept to study and understand voluntary kin relationship in future research that could be very fruitful. Asking the participants to chart their turning points within their voluntary kin relationships may allow the participants to move beyond the common response of “you just know” or explaining the voluntary kin relationship as just a feeling type of response. Traumatic events as a turning point and a bonding agent seemed to be a common theme. Individuals 123 123 that go through a traumatic event, or share in extremely stressful situation, with each other seem to identify each other as voluntary kin and the traumatic event is a turning point for their voluntary kin relationship. What makes a traumatic event such as strong bonding agent? Another possible avenue for future research is research into godparents and how the title gives the role a legitimate place in the family even though that relationship is a voluntary kin relationship due to godparents lacking the biological and legal ties. Research seems to be lacking in the area of godparents and that could be because the title and the religious rites that accompany the title give the family connection validation even though it lacks the biological and legal bonds of the traditional family definitions. In addition, examination of the “aunt” as voluntary kin and how the very act of assigning a familiar term changes the relationship and how the individual is identified within the family. How does a declaration of family, such as “aunt,” or any other familial address term, change the relationship and how the roles change after the title is given? Some future research could also explore the use of familial address terms and the meanings attached to them. Since, as discussed previously, research in the address terms or titles used within families is lacking (Koening Kellas et al., 2008), research into family terms and how they are used could offer some new insight into families and for family communication research. The proxy-family relationship in another area of voluntary kin that is worth future attention, regardless if the relationship is proxy-family in addition or proxy-family as replacement. Braithwaite et al. (2016) followed up the voluntary kin typology study of Braithwaite et al. (2010) with a look into the “supplemental family” communication structure and how the participant, their biological and legal family, and their voluntary kin communicate but there is still plenty to explore in this area. One participant in this study shared his experiences with his proxy-family in addition voluntary kin that were 124 124 developed from his experiences when he came to the United States for his education. This experience lead to the formation of voluntary kin relationships with his host family.
As stated before, not all host families and their students have a relationship that blossoms into a voluntary kin family but the situation and the experiences of living as a family can position the individuals into an ideal situation for voluntary kin to form. Proxy-family in addition that are developed from the host family and student situation may also have experiences that are circumstantial to this type of relationship. These experiences could also offer turning points that could help chart the changes in their relationships. Some circumstances and turning points could be the process and challenges of immigration, emergency health situations, the student’s arrival and eventual departure from the host family’s home, or even the completion or graduation of the student from their school or program to list some possible turning points. The exploration of how proxy-family in addition can help support the biological and legal family during the time their student is away, and how they may help the biological and legal family feel as they are part of the entire experience. This exploration could offer some insight for not only family communication scholars, but to help other students, families, and host families that consider and take part in this experience. Exploring this situation and experience could help future families and individuals involved in host family and exchange student programs, or perhaps thinking about becoming part of the programs, make the experience a better one or help relieve part of the stress associated with these programs. In addition, the maintenance of a continued relationship that takes place between the original host family and their student, if they chose to continue their relationships once they no longer live together, would be an interesting avenue to explore, not only as it pertains to voluntary kin, but also how it pertains to relational maintenance. The relationships between a host family and their student is a relationship that not everyone 125 125 has an opportunity to be part of, but the insights this relationship could offer interpersonal communication scholars, especially in the avenues of building familial bonds outside of biological and legal family connections and how these bonds are maintained, could be fruitful. Another avenue for future research could be the effects of distance on friendships and voluntary kin relationships. Distance can also be explored in order to understand what maintenance behaviors and strategies are used to maintain a constant presence in the lives of friends and voluntary kin relationships when there is a significant geographical distance between the individuals involved in the relationship. Voluntary kin should also be studied at the international level, having participants from outside of the United States could shed light on the way culture influences one’s views on how family is defined and created. Cultural views can also play into views on the LGBTQ+ and how that have effects on how families are defined, which can lead to another area for future research in studying the voluntary kin relationship and LGBTQ+. Exploring voluntary kin in the
LGBTQ+ communities and how they create their families with voluntary kin when they may lose their biological and legal families, or how those previous norms could be changing. Lastly, the study of the voluntary kin relationship in its entirety could offer greater insight in to the voluntary kin relationship. This study was focused on one side of the voluntary kin relationship, even if both participants of the voluntary kin relationship took part in this study, they were not examined as a whole, but rather as two separate points of data. Creating a future study where both voluntary kin relational partners take part, both interviewed separately to begin with and then interviewing them together, allowing them to carry on a conversation between each other about their relationship could be very fruitful. It would be interesting to see how both parties explain and negotiate their voluntary kin relationship separately and together. 126 126
The findings of this current study should be examined keeping the limitations in mind. The sample size was small at 24 participants and data and results could be different with a larger sample. The sample was also predominantly female with 21 participants being female and 3 participants being male. The voluntary kin relationships that they shared were also predominantly female. The voluntary kin relationships that the participants shared were relationships with 41 females and 20 males. In the future, it could benefit the researcher to strive for a more balanced sample, with as much of a balance as possible in the voluntary kin relationships they discuss. The voluntary kin relationship was only studied on one side, and relational partner may view and define their relationship differently than the participant. The participants were predominantly within the United States, and if they were outside of the United States, the participant and/or their voluntary kin were raised in the United States and moved out of the United States as an adult. This makes the sample overwhelmingly influenced by the culture of the United States and the views and definitions of family could change if more international participants were to take part. The biggest limitation is that the participants have a very hard time verbalizing their voluntary kin relationship and when they became more than close friends and identified their relationship as more like family. An attempt should be made to give the participants the tools to help explain and discuss their voluntary kin relationship beyond “you just know.” It is also important to note that not all of the discursive practices were captured. The study of creation and maintenance of voluntary kin relationships is an important avenue to explore for communication scholars, especially those focused on the study and exploration of family communication. Previously, the study of family communication has been focused on the family that is comprised of a mixture of biological and legal connections, but families cannot be completely explored if all types of families are not studied. With more families becoming discourse dependent or having 127 127 some discourse dependent bonds (Galvin, 2006), and with the rise in popularity of cohousing and communal living (Strauss, 2016) providing more structural opportunities to develop voluntary kin relationships, it is of increasing importance to explore, study, and understand all the ways that individuals actually create and live within their families. To truly study family communication, all family types must be included, not just the families that are bound together through biology and legal connections. Studying how people actual build and “do” their families is vital to our understanding of how human beings create familial connections.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 31, 62-67. doi: 10.1080/01463378309369487
Ballweg, J. A. (1969). Extensions of the meaning and use for kinship terms. American Anthropologist, 71, 84-84. doi: 10.1525/aa.1969.71.1.02a00100
Baxter, L. A. (2014). Theorizing the communicative construction. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.). Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 33-47). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Rituals as communication constituting families. In L. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 259-280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. H. (1999). Turning points in the development of blended families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 291-313. doi: 10.1177/0265407599163002
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. A. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493. doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2958.1986.tb00088.x
Baxter, L. A., Henauw, C., Huisman, D., Livesay, C. B., Norwood, K., Su, H., Wolf, B., & Young, B. (2009). Lay conceptions of “family”: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 170-189. doi: 10.1080/15267430902963342
Bedford, V. H., & Blieszner, R. (1997). Personal relationships in later-life families. In S. Duck (Ed.). Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 523-539). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Braithwaite, D. O., Abetz, J. S., Moore, J., & Brockhage, K. (2016). Communication structures of supplemental voluntary kin relationships. Family Relations, 65, 616- 630. doi: 10.1111/fare.12215
Braithwaite, D. O., Bach, B. W., Baxter, L. A., DiVerniero, R., Hammonds, J. R., Hosek, A. M., Willer, E. K., & Wolf, B. M. (2010). Constructing family: A typology, of voluntary kin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 388-407. doi: 10.1177/0265407510361615 130 130 Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent discourse with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23, 79-90. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2010.511398
Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 16, 113-123. doi: 10.1080/08934210309384494
Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daily (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 374-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992) Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267. doi: 10.1080/03637759209376268
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationship through strategic and routine interactions. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10, 5-14. doi: 10.1080/08824099309359913
Craig, E., & Wright, K. B. (2012). Computer-mediated relational development and maintenance on Facebook. Communication Research Reports, 29, 119-129. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2012.667777
Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154-174. doi: 10.1177/009365092019002002
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns, variations associated with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 69, 52-66. doi: 10.1080/03637750216533
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex difference. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255-271. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000206
Dindia, K. (2003). Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 1-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 131 131 Dindia K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definition and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-173. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000201
Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 45-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Duck, S. (2011). Rethinking relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durham, W., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2009). Communication privacy management within the family planning trajectories of voluntarily child-free couples. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 43-65. doi: 10.1080/1526730802561600
Edwards, A. P., & Graham, E. E. (2009). The relationship between individuals’ definitions of family and implicit personal theories of communication. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 191-208. doi: 10.1080/15267430903070147
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Fehr, B. (2008). Friendship formation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 29-54). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Fictive (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictive
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1998). Interpersonal communication on the Starship Enterprise: Resilience, stability, and change in relationships in the Twenty-First Century. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 41- 46). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2006). Widening the family circle new research on family communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483387956
Gazso, A., & McDanial, S. A. (2015). Families by choice and the management of low income through social supports. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 371-395. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13506002
Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.). The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452233024.n1
Galvin, K. M. (2014). Blood, law, and discourse constructing and managing family identity. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.). Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Peter Lang. 132 132 Gasiorek, J., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2017). Perspectives on perspective-taking in communication research. Review of Communication, 17, 87-105. doi: 10.1080/15358593.2017.1293837
Godparent. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/godparent
Goldsmith, D. J., (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606984
Goodboy, A. K, Myers, S. A., & Members of Investigating Communication. (2010). Relational quality indicators and love styles as predictors of negative relational maintenance behaviors in romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 23, 65- 78. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2010.511397
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2018). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, J. A. (2018). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0265407518761225
Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human Communication Research, 37, 529-552. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01411.x
Holtzman, M. (2008). Defining family: Young adults’ perceptions of the parent-child bond. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 167-185. doi: 10.1080/ 15267430701856887
Houser, M. L., Fleuriet, C., & Estrada, D. (2012). The cyber factor: An analysis of relational maintenance through the use of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 29, 34-43. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2011.639911
Hull, K. E., & Ortyl, T. A. (2018). Conventional and cutting-edge: Definitions of family in LGBT communities. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1007/s13178-018-0324-2
Ibsen, C. A., & Klobus, P. (1972). Fictive kin term use and social relationships: Alternative interpretations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 34, 615-620. doi: 10.2307/350312
Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Martin, M. M., Thompson, M., Himes, K. L., & Clingerman, B. Z. (2012). Communication privacy management theory: Exploring coordination and ownership between friends. Communication Quarterly, 60, 665-680. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2012.725004 133 133 Ki, E. J., & Jang, J. Y. (2018). Social support and mental health an analysis of online support forums for Asian immigrant women. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 28, 226-250. doi: 10.1075/japc.00011.ki
Koenig-Kellas, J., LeClair-Underberg, C., & Lamb Normand, E. (2008). Stepfamily address terms: “Sometimes they mean something and sometimes they don’t.” Journal of Family Communication, 8, 238-263. doi: 10.1080/1526730802397153
Komter, A., & Vollebergh, W. (1997). Gift giving and the emotional significance of family and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 747-757. doi: 10.2307/353958
Larsen, T., Rosenbloom, B., & Smith, B. (2002). Satisfaction with channel communication strategies in high vs. low context cultures. Journal of Business-to- Business Marketing, 9, 1-26. doi: 10.1300/J033v09n01_01
Ledbetter, A. M., Stassen, H., Muhammad, A., & Kotey, E. N. (2010). Relational maintenance as including the other in the self. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 11, 21-28. doi: 10.1080/17459430903413457
Mansson, D. H., Myers, S. A., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Relational maintenance behaviors in the grandchild-grandparent relationship. Communication Research Reports, 27, 68-69. doi: 10.1080/08824090903526521
Merrigan, G., & Huston, C. L. (2015). Communication research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miczo, N., Mariani, T., & Donahue, C. (2011). The strength of strong ties: Media, multiplexity, communication motives, and the maintenance of geographically close friendships. Communication Reports, 24, 12-24. doi: 10.1080/ 08934215.2011.555322
Mikkelson, A. C., Myers, S. A., & Hannawa, A. F. (2011). The differential use of relational maintenance behaviors in adult siblings. Communication Studies, 62, 258- 271. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.555490
Morman, M. T., & Whitely, M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of critical incidents of closeness in the mother/son relationship. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 22- 39. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2011.629969
Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of COMM 201. (2013). Using equity theory to explore adult siblings’ use of relational maintenance behaviors and relational characteristics. Communication Research Reports, 30, 275-281. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2013.836627 134 134 Nelson, M. K. (2013). Fictive kin, families we choose, and voluntary kin: What does the discourse tell us? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 259-281. doi: 10.1111/ jftr.12019
Nelson, M. K. (2014). Whither fictive kin? Or, what’s in a name? Journal of Family Issues, 35, 201-222. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12470621
Patterson, B., & O’Hair, D. (1992). Relational reconciliation: Toward a more comprehensive model of relational development. Communication Research Reports, 9, 19-129. doi: 10.1080/08824099209359904
Petronio, S. (2004). Privacy management theory: Narrative in progress, please stand by. The Journal of Family Communication, 4, 193-207. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2004.9670131
Rabby, M. K., & Walther, J. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication effects on relationship formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 141-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
Schrodt, P., Baxter, L. A., McBride, M. C., Braithwaite, D. O., & Fine, M. A. (2006). The divorce decree, communication, and the structuration of coparenting relationship in stepfamilies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 741- 759. doi: 10.1177/0265407506068261
Scott, E. S., & Scott, R. E. (2015). From contraction to status: Collaboration and the evolution of novel family relationships. Columbia Law Review, 115, 293-374. Retrieved from https://columbialawreview.org/content/from-contract-to-status- collaboration-and-the-evolution-of-novel-family-relationships%E2%80%A0/
Sharma, R. (2013). The family and family structure classification redefined for the current times. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2, 306-310. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.123774
Shelton, J. N., Trail, T. E., West, T. V., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2010). From strangers to friends: The interpersonal process model of intimacy in developing interracial friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 71-90. doi: 10.1177/0265407509346422
Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking family values in the postmodern age. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/ books?id=cwC9r6NjwFIC&pg=PR7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepa ge&q&f=false 135 135 Strauss, I. E. (2016, September 26). The hot new millennial housing trend is a repeat of the Middle Ages. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ business/archive/2016/09/millennial-housing-communal-living-middle- ages/501467/
Tew, C., Ackerman, A., & Harlan, S. (2013). Second to none: Voluntary family ties in Second Life. Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology, and Design, North Cyprus, 207-212. Retrieved from http://www.cmdconf.net/2013/Proceedings/Proceedings.pdf
Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading accuracy in intimate relationships: Assessing the roles of the relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1079-1094. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.85.6.1079
Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 98-118). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Trost, J. (1990). Do we mean the same by the concept of family? Communication Research, 17, 431-443. doi: 10.1771009365090017004002
Voorpostel, M. (2013). Just like family: Fictive kin relationships in the Netherlands. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Science and Social Science, 68, 816-824. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbt048
Wolfinbarger, M. F. (1990). Motivations and symbolism in gift-giving behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 699-706. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/7087/volumes/v17/NA-17
Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Youngvorst, L. J., & Jones, S. M. (2017). The influence of cognitive complexity, empathy, and mindfulness on personal-centered message evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 65, 549-564. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2017.1301508
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PHASE 1 OF DATA COLLECTION – QUALTRICS QUESTIONNAIRE PROTOCOL 138 138
Phase 1 of Data Collection - Qualtrics Questionnaire Protocol
California State University, Fresno Consent to Participate in Research Study Title: The Creation and Maintenance of Voluntary Kin Relationships Person Responsible for Research: Principal Investigator: Falon Kartch, Ph.D., Student Principal Investigator: Nicole Vulich, CSUF Department of Communication
Study Description: The purpose of this research study is to explore the voluntary kin relationships. Approximately 25 subjects will participate in this study. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to respond to an initial writing prompt and engage in a follow-up audio-recorded interview. This is the writing prompt. The writing prompt will ask you to write about your voluntary kin relationship(s). The time that it takes to respond to the initial writing prompt will vary.
Risks / Benefits: Risks that you may experience from participating are considered minimal. Your responses will never be connected to your name in any way. All files will be on a secure computer that is accessible only to the researchers. There are no costs for participating. Benefits of participating include an opportunity to talk about your experiences, and help to add to the academic discussion of voluntary kin.
Confidentiality: Your information collected for this study is completely confidential and no individual participant will ever be identified with his/her research information. Data from this study will be saved on password protected computer for one year. We may decide to present what we find to others, or publish our results in scientific journals or at scientific conferences. No real names will be used in the reporting of this study. Only the PI and Student PI, will have access to the information. However, the Institutional 139 139
Review Board at CSU, Fresno or appropriate federal agencies like the Office for Human Research Protections may review your records to protect your safety and welfare.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part in this study, or if you decide to take part, you can change your mind later and withdraw from the study. You are free to not answer any questions or withdraw at any time. Your decision will not change any present or future relationships with the California State University, Fresno. There are no known alternatives available to participating in this research study other than not taking part.
Who do I contact for questions about the study: For more information about the study or study procedures, contact Nicole Vulich at [email protected] or (559) 250-7996.
Who do I contact for questions about my rights or complaints towards my treatment as a research subject? Contact the CSUF IRB at (559) 279-5127 or [email protected].
Research Subject’s Consent to Participate in Research: Informed Consent CSU, Fresno
Clicking to the next page means you have consented to participate in this research.
Voluntary kin are those that you consider family but have no legal or genetic ties. Please complete a few questions regarding basic information for yourself your voluntary kin. If you have more than one voluntary kin relationship, please provide the information for each relationship and provide your connection, like a family tree. For example: My voluntary kin relationship is with Jennifer (age 40) and her son Jacob (age 13). 140 140
What is your age?
What is your sex? Male Female What is the highest level of education you have obtained? Some high school. High school diploma or equivalent. Some college. Associate degree or trade school. Bachelor’s degree. Master’s degree or equivalent. Doctoral degree or equivalent. As a reminder, Voluntary kin are those that you consider family but have no legal or genetic ties.
Answer the following questions with your Voluntary Kin in mind.
How many individuals do you consider to be Voluntary Kin?
What are the ages of the individuals that you consider Voluntary Kin?
What is the sex(es) of the individuals that you consider Voluntary Kin?
What is the highest level of education of the adult individuals that you consider Voluntary Kin? 141 141
What is the length of each of your Voluntary Kin relationships?
What is the geographical distance between you and each of your Voluntary Kin?
In the space below, please tell me the story of your Voluntary Kin relationship(s). Feel free to provide as much details, as you would like to provide. Please be sure to include the start of your relationship(s), how did you became more of a family than close friends, and ways that you keep this relationship(s) going. Be sure to provide this information for each of your Voluntary Kin.
Thank you for taking the time to complete phase 1 of the project. In order to complete the second phase follow-up interview the researcher must contact you. Please enter your name below, and provide an email address and telephone number. Your name will only be used to connect your follow-up interview with information that you provided during your first phase of the project.
As a reminder there are two phases to this project, you have just completed the first phase. The second phase is a follow-up audio-recorded interview. Your information collected for this study is completely confidential and no individual participant will ever be identified with his/her research information.
APPENDIX B: PHASE 2 OF DATA COLLECTION – FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
143 143
Phase 2 of Data Collection – Follow-Up Interview Protocol
Since a portion of phase 2 depends on the data received in phase 1 of data collection, this cannot be a complete representation of what the follow-up interview protocol will include. Below are the questions that will be included in the phase 2 follow-up interviews specifically designed to obtain further information and details regarding relational maintenance behaviors and strategies. The interviews were unstructured interviews and were different for each participant to facilitate a natural flowing conversation (Tracy, 2013).
Phase 2 Data Collection – Follow-Up Interview Protocol (Partial)
1) The participants will be asked to extend the information that they provided in their response to the previous writing prompt.
a) Provide examples. 2) The participants will be asked to clarify the information that they provide in their responses to the writing prompt. a) Provide examples. 3) The participants will be asked about how they feel about their voluntary kin relationships that they wrote about in their writing prompt. a) Provide examples. 4) The participants would be asked if they would change something or do something differently in their voluntary kin relationships. a) How did making or not making these changes work? b) Provide examples.