AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Walter T. Kawamoto for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Human Development and Family Science presented on Mav 23,
1995. Title: Stability and Process Issues in Intermarriage:
A Study of Marital Satisfaction and Problem Solvina in
American Indian Intermarried and European American
Endoaamous Families.
Redacted for Privacy
Abstract approved:
Samuel Vuchinich
The purpose of the study was to investigate process and
stability issues in intermarried families utilizing data
from a group of American Indian intermarried families and a
group of endogamous European American families.
Stability
issues such as marital satisfaction and overall problem
solving were investigated by comparing scores between the
two groups.
Process issues such as the participation and
the coalition practices related to intermarriage were
investigated by comparing scores between the two groups and
analyzing in more depth the gender and ethnic data of the
parents in the American Indian intermarried group.
Supplementary qualitative analysis was also supplied by
focus groups of American Indian college students discussing
the subject of American Indian intermarried families.
Significant distinctions were identified by both analyses
which indicate a complex relationship between intermarriage
status, American Indian culture, family problem solving, and
marital satisfaction.
Copyright by Walter T. Kawamoto
May 23, 1995
All Rights Reserved
Stability and Process Issues in Intermarriage:
A Study of Marital Satisfaction and Problem Solving
in American Indian Intermarried
and European American Endogamous Families
by
Walter T. Kawamoto
A DISSERTATION
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Completed May 23, 1995
Commencement June, 1996
poctor of Philosophy thesis of Walter T. Kawamoto presented
on May 23, 1995
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Major Professor, representing Human Development and Family
Sciences
Redacted for Privacy
Chair of Department, of Human Development and Family
Sciences
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of Gradua
chool
I understand that my thesis will become part of the
permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries.
My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any
reader upon request.
Redacted for Privacy
Walter T. Kawamoto, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my advisor, Dr. Samuel Vuchinich, and all the
faculty, administration, and staff of OSU who have assisted
me, I wish to express my thanks for all their time and
effort on my behalf.
To my sources of financial support, the OSU Graduate
School, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Gil-
Hammond Fellowship, the Schild-Nicholson Fellowship, and the
Oregon Sports Lottery Scholarship thank you from the bottom
of my pockets.
To Michael Darcy, George Nagel, and all the people of
the Confederated Tribes of Siletz who were a part of this
study, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness and
gratefulness for giving me the honor of opening up your
homes and families to this very important work.
Finally, to my wife, Tami, whose encouragement,
confidence, and insights made this project a reality,
I give my undying love.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
paae
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4
2.1 Definition(s) of Intermarriage
4
2.2 The Study of Intermarriage
5
2.3 Intermarriage in Hawaii
8
2.4 Stability in
Endogamous vs. Intermarried Families
11
2.5 Questions la and lb
12
2.6 American Indian Intermarriage
13
2.7 Problem Solving Process Issues
16
In American Indian Intermarriage
3.
2.8 Questions 2a and 2b
18
2.9 Question 3
19
2.10 Summary
20
METHODS
3.1 Subjects
3.1.1 The American Indian subjects
3.1.2 The Non-Indian subjects
3.2 Instruments
3.2.1 General Information Form
3.2.2 Dayadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
3.2.3 Global Family Problem Solving Coding
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Quantitative Analysis
3.3.2 Qualitative Analysis
21
21
21
27
29
30
30
31
32
32
34
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
_Paae
4. RESULTS
39
4.1 Qualitative Results
4.1.1 Methodological Issues
4.1.2 Special Contributions of the
American Indian College Students
4.1.3 Personal Experiences of the
American Indian College Students
4.1.3 Gender Observations for
Indian and Non-Indian Parents
4.1.3.1 Non-Indian Parents
4.1.3.2 American Indian Parents
39
40
43
48
49
49
51
4.1.4 Indian Parenting Issues
54
4.1.5 Quality of Problem Solving
in Indian Intermarried Families
55
4.1.6 Children of Indian Intermarried Families
58
4.2 Qualitative Discussion
58
4.3 Quantitative Results
59
4.3.1 Questions la and lb
4.3.2 Questions 2a and 2b
4.3.3 Question 3
59
62
65
4.4 Quantitative Discussion
67
4.5 Limitations
70
5. CONCLUSION
73
REFERENCES
75
APPENDIX
81
1. The Oregon Family Study: Siletz Sample
And this Project
2. Other Studies done with the participation
of the people of Siletz
3. More about the Confederated Tribes of Siletz
4. The process behind this study's definition
of an "American Indian Family"
5. Official Descriptions of Key Global Codes
82
83
85
87
89
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paae
1.
Demographic information
28
2.
The methodological breakdown of the questions
38
3.
Question la
61
4.
Question lb
62
5.
Questions 2a and 2b
64
6.
Question 3
65
Stability and Process Issues in Intermarriage:
A Study of Marital Satisfaction and Problem Solving
in American Indian Intermarried
and European American Endogamous Families
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Interethnic marriages create many important challenges
based on the conflict that can arise from the union of
differing cultural perspectives.
They also create many
important opportunities based on the sharing that can come
from the union of differing cultural perspectives.
The goal
of this study was to address some of those challenges and
opportunities by comparing problem solving practices and
marital satisfaction in American Indian intermarried and
European American endogamous families.
Research on intermarriage has a long and politically
volatile history which must be carefully evaluated.
Because
it is one of the fastest growing social phenomena in the
country, the study of intermarriage (Carter and Glick, 1970;
Wright, 1994) has focussed on many issues.
These include
racial politics, statistics, and identity issues inherent
when children end up with multiple ethnic heritages (Wright,
1994).
Others have used the study of intermarriage as a
tool to support racist anti-micegenation policies
(Burma,
1972).
Still others have been primarily interested in the
causes of intermarriage (Lee and Yamanaka, 1990; Burma,
2
1972; Merton, 1972).
It is difficult to find literature
that addresses marriage and family issues in intermarriage.
The most extensive body of research on intermarriage has
been the work done which debates the issue regarding the
likelihood of divorce in intermarriage (Furlong, 1972; Chung
Ho & Johnson, 1990).
While the research on intermarriage in general is
small, it is infinitesimal when it comes to American
Indian/Non-Indian marriages.
Historically, the subject has
been alluded to in larger discussions of Indian/Non-Indian
relations (Berry, 1963).
Today the primary focus of the
study of Indian intermarriage is a concern over the loss of
cultural identity and assimilation (Wagner, 1976).
The
American Indian intermarriage research community has thus
far not taken the opportunity to apply knowledge from and
contribute to the greater intermarriage research literature
on family processes and stability.
This analysis drew from the intermarriage research as
it pertains to two key marital stability variables, marital
satisfaction and family problem solving.
One perspective
suggests that intermarriage is inherently a clash of
cultural perspectives and can lead to irreconcilable
conflicts and divorce (Romano, 1988; Furlong, 1972).
Another suggests that intermarried partners have more
commitment to each other in the face of societal pressures
and are more likely to have healthy conflict strategies and
less divorce (Chu Ho & Johnson, 1990).
None of these
3
studies on divorce and intermarriage were conducted with
American Indian intermarried families. In this study
tested whether either of these perspectives are applicable
to American Indian intermarried families, using a matched
group of Non-Indian endogamous families.
This study extended current knowledge about
intermarriage by investigating the family problem solving
process in a sample of Indian intermarried families.
Analyses was conducted on two important areas of family
problem solving.
First, family member participation was
investigated between a group of intermarried and a group of
endogamous families.
Also, participation was analyzed along
gender and ethnic lines within an intermarried Indian
sample.
And second, family member coalition was
investigated between intermarried and endogamous families
and also within the intermarried Indian sample.
In a field that is still very much in its infancy, a
qualitative analysis was also conducted to have a somewhat
parrallel, yet definitely independent analysis of the data.
This analysis featured focus groups of American Indian
college students.
These students viewed problem solving
videotape data of Indian intermarried families in an effort
to illicit discussion related to American Indian
intermarriage.
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Definition(s) of Intermarriage
There is debate between differing definitions of
"intermarriage".
Some of the basis for this conflict comes
from the three forms that intermarriage can take:
interfaith, interracial, and interethnic.
Religious
scholars focus more on issues created when people from
different religions get together, or interfaith marriage
(Gordon, 1972; Rosenberg et al. 1988).
Merton (1972), noted
that, just as all families are dysfunctional to one degree
or another, nearly all marriages are intermarriages, since
in most cases the husband and wife come from different
social groups of one kind or another and to one degree or
another.
Still others, like Romano (1988), see
intermarriage as a union between people from different
cultures, leaving the reader to define what "culture" means.
Romano also went one step further, identifying different
types of intermarriages as being one of submission,
compromise, obliteration, or consensus.
Like Romano, others
choose inclusive definitions, recognizing all three forms of
intermarriage (Gordon, 1972).
Some circumvent the above
mentioned forms and instead choose to use the rhetoric of
in-group/out-group marriage (Hutter, 1990).
5
This study does recognize all forms of intermarriage
like Gordon (1972), but will only be investigating
interethnic marriages between American Indians and Non-
Indians.
Intermarriage then, for the purposes of this
study, is much like Hutter's (1990) in-group/out-group
perspective.
It is characterized by a person in one of the
generally accepted United States ethnic groups (African
American, European American, Asian/Pacific Islander
American, American Indian, and Latino) marrying someone from
outside their particular ethnic group.
An American Indian
intermarried couple then, is a marriage between an American
Indian and a Non-Indian (any member of the other four ethnic
groups, although usually a European American).
This
definition is also covered by Romano's (1988) combination of
cultures definition.
Ethnic groups are cultures, and they
are combined in a very special way in intermarriages.
of course, individual tribes, political parties,
But
age
cohorts, entire countries etc. are also cultures.
2.2 The Study of Intermarriage
Literature in the form of essays and opinion articles
and research based on the analysis of data on the topic of
intermarriage before the sixties and seventies were very
different from what one would expect when discussing
intermarriage today.
The further you go back, beginning
with the fifties, overtly racist attitudes are reflected in
6
literature and policies supporting anti-miscegenistic'
attitudes such as those discussed in Burma (1972), Merton
(1972), and Hutter (1990).
There were very low numbers of
interracial marriages before the sixties and seventies, due
to anti-miscegenation laws and heightened awareness of
different European ethnic groups in the early part of the
century.
Accordingly, much of the research on intermarriage
during this time dealt with intermarriage issues and trends
between European ethnic and religious groups (Barron, 1972;
Besanceney, 1972; Fitzpatrick, 1972; Gordon, 1972).
During the sixties and seventies, a new generation of
social scientists began to look at human relationships
differently and the modern study of intermarriage commenced.
First, it became less and less professionally acceptable to
be racist.
In fact, the new social scientists hardly ever
admit to any kind of bias (Hutter, 1990).
Changes in laws
opened the way for interracial marriages.
The most visible
marriages and the first studied were those between African-
Americans and Euro-Americans (Barron, 1972; Gordon, 1972).
During this time, a new paradigm of approaching
research on intermarriage, which persists in many circles
today, was born.
This approach, with its roots in the
racist early years, and the researcher's tendency to look
for the problems in any particular phenomenon, suggests that
there were numerous negative consequences to intermarriage,
without the possibility of positive outcomes.
Among the
negative outcomes that researchers promoted as attributable
7
to intermarriage, were such outcomes as the loss of cultural
identity (assimilation) and child pathologies (Spickard,
1989; Hutter, 1990).
Some have even suggested negative,
pathological causes for intermarriage such as Euro-Americans
marrying people of color out of guilt, and people of color
marrying Euro-Americans out of revenge or a desire to marry-
up (Furlong, 1972).
Even the modern pop-counseling book,
Intercultural Marriaae: Promises and Pitfalls (Romano, 1988)
had a long list of potential pitfalls, but no real list of
potentially beneficial consequences of intermarriage.
The one negative assumption that this study is
particularly interested in is that intermarriage is
automatically a handicap, and is necessarily a problem.
Furlong (1972) tried to play down the growing numbers of
intermarriage unions describing them as having many
different kinds of, "woes and worries," (Furlong, 1972:114).
At a time when all the leading indicators from places like
the Census Bureau and the Department of Health,
Education,
and Welfare were suggesting dramatic rises in intermarriage
rates, Furlong (1972), challenged the accuracy of these
departments and proceeded to describe several
intermarriages.
another.
All of them were problematic in one way or
Berry (1963) described a number of interracial
communities that were only interested in being as white as
possible.
He also described them as living more like
animals, the more he perceived them as being less white.
Gordon (1963) insisted that interracial marriages are less
8
likely to succeed than interfaith marriages.
Furthermore,
lest we think that this is all part of the past, we saw
evidence of this attitude in the summer of 1994.
At
Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama, a biracial
girl was told by her principal that her parents had made a
mistake when they had her.
This turned into a period of
racial tension that climaxed in the burning of the school
(Gross and Smothers, 1994).
2.3 Intermarriage in Hawaii
Because of its history of ethnic diversity, research on
intermarriage is more developed in Hawaii than in other
areas.
In fact, the study of intermarriage in Hawaii has
recently begun to mature and grow out of the negative
rhetoric so common in studies featuring samples from other
geographical areas.
Perhaps the best explanation for this
trend is the depth of the study of intermarriage in Hawaii
dating back to Romanzo's 1937 Book, Interracial Marriage in
Hawaii: A Study of the Mutually Conditioned Process of
Acculturation and Amalgamation.
This book was one of the
first books about intermarriage in the country, and is still
referred to as a model by many social scientists.
Contemporarily,
in the book he edited, Hawaii. Luceras
(1988) cited George Tokuyama as reporting that 50% of
Hawaii's marriages each year are now interracial.
noted,
Luceras
"On a world-wide basis, that may well be the highest
9
incidence of interracial marriages being consummated in any
known society." (Lueras, 1988: 69).
Hawaii also continues
to play a leading role in facilitating alternative unions
such as when it recently opened the door for marriages
between people of the same sex (Reske,1993).
The research coming out of Hawaii today brings a fresh
perspective to the negative concerns associated with
intermarriage discussed earlier.
One of the concerns
mentioned earlier had to do with the consequences of
intermarriage for the child, theoretically caught between
two social groups.
Johnson and Nagoshi (1986) addressed
this issue by comparing children born of within and across
group marriages in Hawaii.
The ethnic groups that were a
part of this study were Euro-Americans, Japanese-Americans,
Chinese-Americans, and Hawaiians.
Their study concluded
that,
children of cross-ethnic marriages are not much
different from children of within-ethnic marriages in
Hawaii, and what few significant differences that are
present do not produce a pattern suggesting any kind of
increased risk (for children of intermarriages).
(Johnson
and Nagoshi 1986: 282).
In fact, male offspring of intermarriages scored higher in
social desirability over all other child groups in the
study.
Stephan and Stephan (1989) focussed on the
assimilationist/loss-of-culture concern in a study
undertaken on ethnic identity among mixed-heritage Japanese­
10
Americans and Latino Americans.
Seventy-three percent of
the Japanese-Americans from Hawaii reported a multiple
ethnic identity due to their mixed heritage, rather than
claiming only one aspect of their ancestry.
Chu Ho and Johnson (1990) investigated the third area
of concern for those who bemoan the relationship between
intermarriage, marital instability and divorce.
They first
discussed how many researchers who first looked at the
marriage/divorce statistics in Hawaii were obtaining an
inaccurate picture of intermarriage in Hawaii, since they
were using data inappropriately.
They detailed how in the
past, all interethnic and endogamous marriages were compared
to all interethnic and endogamous divorces in Hawaii.
But
many of the endogamous Euro-Americans who got married in
Hawaii were getting married in Hawaii because it was a
beautiful place to get married.
After marriage they then
move back home to the mainland United States, where their
possible divorce is not recorded in Hawaii.
So the
complexity of such an issue was not sufficiently thought
through, and the results were skewed.
This was not the
first time such methodological defects have occurred in the
field of intermarriage (Besanceney,1972)
or in the study of
the people in Hawaii (Waldrop, 1993).
With improved methods, Chu Ho and Johnson (1990) found
that intermarriages in general in Hawaii are actually less
at risk for divorce than endogamous marriages.
Although
they did not have an opportunity to test this,
they
11
speculated that this is due to the increased commitment
among intermarried couples in the face of competing social
traditions.
This explanation has support in the classic
sociological essays by Simmel (1955) and Coser (1956) which
discuss the phenomenon of increases in group solidarity in
the midst of outside societal pressure.
Utilizing health department numbers, Chu Ho and Johnson
(1990) were able to examine intermarriage and divorce rates
among thousands of Hawaii residents and several ethnic
groups. They actually found stronger relationships between
income variables than ethnic ones.
Marriages where the wife
came to the marriage with more money were more likely to end
in divorce.
The case of modern urban Hawaii makes for a genuinely
positive response to all the negativity about intermarriage.
The Chu Ho and Johnson (1990) study counters all the doom
and gloom predictions, including higher chances of marital
conflict, dissatisfaction, and eventual divorce among
intermarriages.
Difficult experiences can happen in
intermarriage, but the case of urban Hawaii shows that they
don't always have to happen.
2.4 Stability in Endogamous vs. Intermarried Families
The example of the people of Hawaii is not unique. The
structural conditions which most agree foster intermarriage,
such as multiethnic high density communities, can be found
12
throughout the country
(Fitzpatrick, 1972; Merton, 1972).
The literature reviewed thus far suggests that there are two
well established communities of thought coming down
positively and negatively for intermarriage.
Of particular
interest to this study is the debate symbolized by the
different perspectives of Chu Ho and Johnson with their
positive viewpoint (1990) and Furlong (1972) with his
negative approach to the likelihood of divorce among
intermarried families.
These two studies are not directly
comparable, but they do accurately symbolize the different
sides of the debate.
This study entered into this debate by
examining two phenomena recognized as closely related to
relationship maintenance, conflict management and
relationship satisfaction (Gottman, 1994; Heavey et al.,
1993; Markman et al., 1993).
This study suggested that
there is a wide range of stability for intermarriages, just
as there is a wide range of levels of stability for
endogamous marriages, and that Chu Ho and Johnson (1990) and
Furlong (1972) represent the extremes of that range.
2.5 Questions la and lb
This study examined marital satisfaction and overall
family problem solving scores in a group of intermarried
Indian families and in a matched group of endogamous Non-
Indian families.
If the negative perspective was accurate
marital satisfaction and problem solving scores would have
13
been lower in intermarried families than in endogamous
families.
If the positive perspective was accurate, marital
satisfaction and problem solving should have been higher in
the intermarried families.
For convenience we referred to
the comparison of marital satisfaction across intermarried
status as Question la.
The comparison of family problem
solving across intermarried status was referred to as
Question lb.
2.6 American Indian Intermarriage
The study of American Indian intermarriage while
definitely a part of the larger intermarriage phenomena, has
a character all its own.
While interracial in the Americas
unions have been a fact of life since before Columbus
landed, quality research on them is rare.
This is
unfortunate because the unique combination of American
Indian and Non-Indian (usually European American) cultural
perspectives makes for some intriguing family problem
solving process characteristics.
Eighteenth century accounts of Indian/Non-Indian
contact (Kersey, 1975; Coker and Watson, 1986; Siegel, 1987;
McNitt, 1989; Braud, 1993) often mention unions between
Indians and Non-Indians.
Brewton Berry (1963) discussed
several Indian/Non-Indian communities in the South.
early accounts can be broken up into two groups.
These
Some of
them discuss how intermarriage is indicative of openness to
14
western society and assimilation.
Others discuss how
intermarriage is yet another instrument of subjugation and
the destruction of Indian communities.
However, these
accounts of early Indian/Non-Indian contact never really
discuss issues surrounding family dynamics.
While the study of intermarriage in general is
disappointing, the study of contemporary American Indian
intermarriage is clearly dismal. Methodological difficulties
go back as far as the Burma (1972) study of Los Angeles
which was intended to be a study of L.A. County records of
ethnic marriage patterns from 1948-1959.
However, Los
Angeles County only kept records of American Indian data
from 1957-1959.
Inspired by assimilationist rhetoric, Alba
and Golden (1986) saw so many commonalties between American
Indian and Euro-American marriage patterns, that they
grouped them with the Euro-Americans in their study of
ethnic marriage patterns.
It is hard to tell which is more
irritating to an American Indian when reading ethnic
research; to be an afterthought as in the Burma (1972)
study; to be grouped with Euro-Americans as in the Alba and
Golden (1986) study; to be referred to as "other" as in the
Lee and Yamanaka (1990) study; or to be completely left out
because of small numbers.
With the methodological difficulties of analysis in
mind, most agree that the rates of urbanization and
intermarriage have been increasing for the American Indian
(Sandefur and McKinnell, 1986; Dennard, 1994).
The
15
Statistical Record of Native North Americans (1993) reports
a doubling of mixed-race births from 1978-1989. Urbanization
is a concern because it is seen as a factor that leads to
intermarriage, and altered ties to the community and tribe.
When ties to the tribe and Indian communities are seen as a
basis of Indian identity, urbanization and intermarriage
become a threat to that identity.
Continued urbanization,
and intermarriage may lead to changing the basis of Indian
identity from tribal ties to self identification. Self
identification, urbanization and intermarriage are seen by
some American Indians as negative and hurtful to traditional
ways, which will in turn lead to divisions within Indian
nations as a whole (Wagner, 1976).
The divisions would be
along lines including intermarriage, mixed racial descent,
and urbanization as well as class.
Often times people want
so much to return to traditional ways that they buy into
'white', male histories of American Indians and start
oppressing their own people without adhering to traditional
respect for difference. Some of these people who only see
negative outcomes also don't see that many urban Indian
communities are forming support systems for all kinds of
American Indian families, including intermarriages.
While preoccupied with the issue of assimilation and
loss of culture, the Sandefur and Mckinnell (1986) and the
Wagner (1976) studies are the only contemporary
investigations found that address American Indian
intermarriage at any depth, and warrant further review.
The
16
Wagner (1976) study had several important findings due in
part to subdividing and analyzing a sample of seventeen
Indian women in intermarriages.
The Sandefur and Mckinnell
study (1986) broke ground and investigated gender
differences in marital choice patterns.
They found no
significant difference in the prevalence of intermarriage
between Indian men and Non-Indian women than between Indian
women and Non-Indian men.
2.7 Problem Solving Process Issues
in American Indian Intermarriage
The Oregon Family Study dataset (See Appendix
1)
provides an important opportunity to study the inner
workings of problem solving in American Indian intermarried
families.
This endeavor is particularly important in light
of the significant role family problem solving has in
relation to family stability and child development.
Kurdek
(1994) found a direct link between the ability of a sample
of parent couples in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
relationships to resolve conflicts and their relationship
stability.
Recognizing the importance of family problem
solving in child development, Kazdin et al.
(1992) made it a
key element in a model for the treatment of antisocial
behavior in children.
The American Indian intermarriage research community
has yet to investigate many aspects of family life,
including family problem solving.
In the absence of useful
17
process literature regarding problem solving in Ameridan
Indian intermarried families, related bodies of literature
must be consulted for guidance in this area.
One process elementof the family is the amount of
participation each member gives to the group in family
problem solving.
The general subject of participation was
addressed in the investigation of a related topic, parental
involvement, by Kawamoto (1994).
In this study parental
involvement was determined by an original measure featuring
a number of variables which measured aspects of parental
activity with pre-adolescent target children.
The mean
parental involvement scores for mothers and fathers in non-
Indian families were higher than the respective mean
parental involvement scores for mothers and fathers in
American Indian families (Kawamoto, 1994).
This study
addressed two phenomena that might account for difference.
First, there is the documented tradition of talking with or
engaging with another individual only when appropriate and
necessary (Basso, 1970).
Second, the study discussed the
tradition of valuing lessons taught through independent
experience and not through direct one-on-one modeling
(Kawamoto, 1994).
18
2.8 Questions 2a and 2b
This study followed up on the above mentioned research
by analyzing participation in family problem solving in two
ways. First it compared the participation scores of
individual Indian and Non-Indian parents in the intermarried
group.
This enabled the researcher to attempt to see if the
American Indian mothers and fathers do appear to be less
overt in their parenting practices and have lower observed
participation patterns as suggested by Basso (1970) and
Kawamoto (1994).
The American Indian intermarriage research
is developing an interest in the distinctive issues for men
and women in intermarriage as evidenced by the study by
Seandefur and Mckinnell (1986) which featured gender
specific analyses.
This part of the study also investigated
sex differences in participation by using sex as an
independent variable.
analysis as Question 2a.
For convenience we referred to this
Second, this study compared the
combined participation scores of both parents in the
intermarried and endogamous groups.
Logically, the lower
scores predicted by Basso (1970) and Kawamoto (1994) for the
American Indian parents should have caused the intermarried
group to have lower overall scores.
For convenience we
referred to this comparison as Question 2b.
The sample size of question 2a was extremely small,
undoubtably posing some statistical challenges.
But this
simple exploratory analysis of the scores of the Indian and
19
Non-Indian parents in the intermarried sample could have
provided us with some exciting trends.
These trends in the
data could then be followed up on in future research using
larger samples.
2.9 Question 3
Another key process element of family problem solving
is the creation of coalitions between family members.
Although there is nothing in the American Indian literature
that addresses coalition, there are a few sources of
guidance on this issue.
Madanes (1981) and others (Lewis et
al., 1976; Man et al., 1990) discussed how maintaining the
generational hierarchy is important to family functioning,
indicating the importance of the primacy of the
mother/father coalition over parent/child coalitions.
But
on the other hand parental coalitions can sometimes go to
far.
Vuchinich et. al (1994), for example, identified a
link between strong parental coalitions and poor problem
solving in at-risk and referred samples of families.
Both
of the above findings were based on primarily European
endogamous samples.
This part of the study followed up this research and
the prevailing intermarriage paradigm by examining the
mother/father coalition scores of the intermarried and the
endogamous groups.
Man et al.
Madanes (1981), Lewis et al.
(1976), and
(1990) argue that the key to good problem solving
20
in healthy families is the coalition between the parents.
Numerous researchers argue that the endogamous families are
healthier in various respects than intermarried families
(Furlong, 1972; Romano, 1988; Spickard, 1989; Hutter, 1990).
So according to these two perspectives, the group with the
stronger parental coalitions should be the endogamous group.
For convenience we referred to this comparison as Question3.
2.10 Summary
While the literature dealing with intermarriage has a
long and diverse history, the literature dealing with
marital stability and family process in intermarried
families is scarce.
The most often studied consequence of
marital stability, divorce, is heavily laden with negative
perspectives.
This study attempted to see if all the
negativity is supported by a fresh analysis of related
phenomena, marital satisfaction and overall problem solving,
with an often overlooked group, American Indian intermarried
families.
The American Indian intermarriage research is so
preoccupied with identity issues, that it has yet to
investigate process elements of family life such as member
participation and coalition in family problem solving.
The
quantitative part of this study had to look to related
literature for direction.
This research is answering a
definite need and contributed to the study of intermarriage
in general and the study of American Indian intermarried
families in particular.
21
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
3.1 Subjects
3.1.1 The American Indian Subjects
Most of the subjects in this study were a part of the
community of The Confederated Tribes of Siletz (See
Appendixes 1, 2, and 3).
This confederation consists of
twenty-four separate bands and tribes of Native Americans
who have come together for one reason or another from all
over the Oregon Coast west of the Cascades, as far south as
Northern California and as far north as Southern Washington
(Siletz Newsletter, 1993).
This study's definition of Indian identity (See
Appendix 4) is based on the intercultural communication
definition of cultural identity.
At the core of this
definition is the dialectic relationship between avowed
(self definition) and ascribed (definition given by others)
cultural identity (Collier, 1993).
The various aspects of a
person's or family's cultural identity,
or system of shared
norms, symbols, meanings, and premises historically
transmitted, are a delicate balance of inward and outward
enactments. Identifying a family as having an ascribed
Indian family identity was defined as the act of having been
given the names and addresses of Indian families by
22
authorities such as the Siletz officials who helped with
this project.
An avowed Indian family identity was defined
as the act of a family choosing to be a part of this study
knowing that this is a study of American Indian families.
The entire process of subject recruitment turned out to be
an elaborate way of determining if a family had an ascribed
and an avowed American Indian identity.
Due to the desire to study families with
"preadolescent" children, the required age of the target
child in this study was nine to eleven years old, or third
to fifth grade.
Participant families were required to be
two-parent families, but they could be any form of two-
parent families, including biological,
step, or adopted.
Adopted families were accepted because of the Indian Child
Welfare Act policy, which requires American Indian children
to be given to American Indian parents for adoption.
All
these measures were necessary to recruit the desired initial
sample size of twenty-five American Indian two-parent
families with at least one pre-adolescent child for
comparison with other non-Indian subject families of the
Oregon Family Study.
Recruitment tactics involved nearly every possible way
of recruiting subjects from a small, traditionally
unrepresented population.
Every significant step of the
recruitment process and other areas of concern regarding
etiquette and protocol of an official or unofficial nature
in the Siletz community were brought before either Community
23
Planner Tina Retasket, Medical Social Worker George Nagel,
or Elementary School Principal and Tribal Council member
Mike Darcy for advice and consent.
An open letter was
printed in the June 1992 issue of the Siletz News.
A press
release was also made by the media relations department of
Administrative Services which, in one form or another, was
announced in the Oreaon State University Daily Barometer,
the Corvallis Gazette-Times, and other Oregon newspapers and
radio stations.
A list of possible questions and their
answers was prepared and given to any family or official who
wished to have a copy.
As names to call or write to began
to be used up, the interviewer/recruiter utilized the
technique of snowballing, and asked families if they knew of
other Indian families who met the project's criteria.
Assistance was accepted from various Siletz officials
according to the dictates of their own conscience and
ethical standards.
In the Springfield area, Johnson 0'
Malley (JOM) Education Outreach Coordinator Lavina Moceikis
chose to notify Indian families she knew who qualified for
the study.
In the Salem area, JOM Education Outreach
Coordinator Brian Azule provided names and addresses of his
clients, and a letter was sent to families notifying them
about the details and opportunities of the study.
Letters
were also sent to families with the assistance of Siletz
elementary school principal, Michael Darcy. In Salem and
Siletz, updated lists were provided, and a second wave of
letters was disseminated.
Former JOM Education Outreach
24
Coordinator Selene Lynch provided addresses and made some
personal solicitations of families outside the jurisdiction
of Siletz elementary school such as Newport and Toledo.
Door to door and phone solicitations were made of some of
those who did not respond initially to the solicitations by
mail.
The initial goal of twenty-five participating families
in the Oregon Family Study: Siletz Sample (see Appendix 1),
was reached.
Each family was visited at least twice.
The
first visit was to answer questions, demonstrate, and drop
off the video equipment for the other part of the Oregon
Family Study.
The second visit was to pick up the equipment
and to administer the paper/pen instruments.
Earlier a
three visit system was tried, but travel expenses
necessitated the switch to two visits per family.
Data were
collected between May 1992 and June 1993.
After deciding upon the direction of this dissertation
research project, a decision was made to approve
participation of four more families due to the fact that
only nineteen
of the original twenty-five families were
intermarried families.
All four families were recruited
through utilizing the assistance of the Siletz elementary
school Title V program.
The additional four families were
recruited during the Winter of 1994.
All participating
families were paid and given an opportunity to attend a free
family problem solving workshop.
25
With the exclusion of six endogamous American Indian
families and the inclusion of four intermarried American
Indian families for this special project, the American
Indian intermarried sample now stands at twenty-three.
Fifteen of the twenty-three participating families (65%)
were contacted through lists provided by Salem or Siletz
elementary officials, and the remaining eight were recruited
through snowballing with Siletz officials, and friends and
family of participating families.
One-hundred-two names
were provided by Salem and Siletz area officials. The
official acceptance rate was the number of participating
families contacted with mailing lists (15) divided by the
number of families provided on lists (102), or slightly less
than 15%. A more accurate acceptance rate would be
impossible because much of the recruiting was unofficial.
Twelve families were Siletz tribal members.
families were living in the town of Siletz.
Thirteen
Four of the
families living in the town of Siletz were affiliated with
other tribes.
Seven of the families living in the town of
Siletz were living in the Government Hill tribal housing
community.
All but one of the participating families was
contacted with the assistance of Siletz officials.
The
preceding observations suggest that this sample for many
different reasons does seem to give a good picture of the
greater Siletz community.
The modal income level was 3
(34.8%), or a yearly
household income of between $21,000
$30,000.
(See Table
26
1). The Hall (1985) survey showed only 15.7% of the Siletz
respondents with households of three or more reporting a
household income equivalent to this category.
The Nelson
(1993) survey reported an average annual income of the
Native American sample of $12,810.
Although inconclusive,
these numbers suggest that this sample may consist of
families that are slightly more affluent than the average
Siletz family.
The average number of years of education for both
mothers and fathers in this sample was thirteen. The average
for fathers was 13.12 with a standard deviation of 2.54.
The average for mothers was 12.80 with a standard deviation
of 1.87 (See Table 1). This amount is consistent with the
amount of education reported in the Hall (1985) and Nelson
(1993) studies.
The average age of the target child was 9.65 with a
standard deviation of 0.98.
This age was almost exactly at
the center of the allowed age range of nine to eleven and/or
third to fifth grade, suggesting that the variation in ages
was balanced around the optimal age of ten.
Each family that participated was compensated in two
ways. They were paid and were given the opportunity to
participate in a free family problem solving workshop.
27
3.1.2 The Non-Indian Subjects
Twenty-three Non-Indian endogamous families were
matched with the American Indian sample.
The data from
these families was pulled from a sample of ninety-five Non-
Indian endogamous families participating in the Oregon
Family Study from Linn and Benton Counties.
Both samples
were required to have at least one pre-adolescent child to
participate.
Direct matches were made according to income
and education data for each family.
These families were
also paid and offered free attendance at a family problem
solving workshop.
The modal income level was 3 (30.4%), or a yearly
household income of between $21,000
$30,000. (See Table
1). The average number of years of education for both
mothers and fathers in this sample was thirteen. The average
for fathers was 13.34 with a standard deviation of 2.05. And
the average for mothers was 12.78 with a standard deviation
of 1.41 (See Table 1). The average age of the target child
was 9.34 with a standard deviation of 0.57.
All of these
numbers, when compared with the demographic data from the
American-Indian intermarried sample,
suggest that the
matching was fairly accurate.
A respectable effort has been
made to see that these two groups do not differ in terms of
several key demographic variables, and the only known
difference between these two groups is membership in a
European American endogamous or an American Indian
intermarried family.
28
Table 1: Demographic Information
Income Frequency
American Indian
Intermarried Families
European American
Endogamous Families
Cateaory
Freauencv
Frequency
Percent
Percent
1.
$ 1,000-$10,000
2
8.7
0
0.0
2.
$11,000-$20,000
8
34.8
10
43.5
3.
$21,000-$30,000
8
34.8
7
30.4
4.
$31,000-$40,000
3
13.0
4
17.4
5.
$41,000 or more
2
Demographic
Information
Target Child Age
Mean
9.65
8.7
8.7
2
Std.Dev.
Mean
Std.Dev.
0.98
9.34
0.57
Father's Ed.
13.00
2.39
13.35
2.06
Father's Age
39.13
8.48
34.87
4.13
Mother's Ed.
12.96
1.97
12.78
1.41
Mother's Age
34.57
5.43
33.52
4.26
Years Married
11.17
5.87
11.13
4.57
2.78
1.09
2.91
1.00
Household Income
29
3.2 Instruments
Before describing the instruments used in this study, a
word of caution about them for use with individuals from
various cultures appears appropriate.
The instruments used
in this study were part of a set group of instruments used
in the greater Oregon Family Study.
Although the
instruments used have varying amounts of research to support
them, there was no opportunity to undertake any kind of
validity or reliability studies for their use with an
American Indian population.
Data obtained from using these
instruments in this study, therefore, must be interpreted
with caution. But then again, Knight et al.
(1992) used
several family-oriented measures and found them all to have
equivalent validity across a sample of Latino- and Euro-
American families.
The data for the variables of interest in this study
came from three sources.
The General Information Form
provided basic demographic information including the
demographic variables used in this study, education and
income.
The Dyadic Adjustment scale provided a measure of
marital satisfaction.
The Global Problem Solving Scale
provided process and outcome problem solving data. An
economically, educationally, and structurally (biological or
non-biological) matched set of data from twenty-five
endogamous Euro-American families was used to create a
variable of group membership in an Indian intermarried or
30
Non-Indian endogamous family.
The next three sections are
more detailed descriptions of the General Information Form,
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and the Global Problem Solving
system.
3.2.1 General Information Form
This form provided most of the basic demographic
information used in social research.
Regarding the parents,
it asks their job status, age, education, years married,
total income, and relation to the target child (biological
or step parent). One preadolescent child, between nine and
eleven years old (third to fifth grade), was designated the
"target child" for purposes of some of the instruments.
Information about the children involved the number of
children, their ages, and sex.
3.2.2 Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
The DAS, developed by Spanier (1976), is a thirty-two
item, multiple-domain instrument that measures marital
satisfaction.
Scores range from 0 to 151.
The adjustment
domains that the DAS covers are dyadic satisfaction,
dyadic
cohesion, dyadic consensus, and affectional expression
(Spanier, 1976)
The DAS has been found to correlate with
other, previously-used marital adjustment scales, and to
have a high degree of reliability (Spanier, 1976).
This
study will use the one score which measures overall marital
31
satisfaction. The mother and the father are asked to fill
out one of these instruments separately.
3.2.3 Global Family Problem Solving Coding
Family problem solving processes and outcomes were
reported by trained coders as they observed videotaped
recordings of family problem solving sessions.
Although
money and time restraints prevented intercoder reliability
tests based on the American Indian data, coders were not
allowed to code videotapes until they had achieved
significant intercoder reliability scores based upon
previous videotape data of Non-Indian families
al., 1993).
(Vuchinich et
Each session lasted ten minutes, the parents
and the target child took turns choosing the topic, and each
family did a set of sessions twice.
This measurement
entails coders making ratings on a scale of 1 to 7 for a
number of variables which measure different aspects of
family problem solving.
It was used consistently throughout
the Oregon Family Study to investigate many aspects of
family interaction and family problem solving with
preadolescent children (Vuchinich et al., 1993).
Interaction measurement systems such as this have been found
to be useful in numerous other studies as well (Cox et al.,
1989; Frankel and Bates, 1990).
This part of the study used three main variables from
the Global Coding, overall problem solving, participation,
32
and coalition.
The overall problem solving variable refers
to the total problem solving effectiveness of the family.
This rating was calculated by summing coder ratings of the
extent to which the problem was defined, the overall quality
of the problem solving, and the extent to which the problem
was resolved (possible range of scores 3-21).
The
participation variable refers to the participation of
various family members in relation to the other family
members.
The coalition variable refers to the extent to
which the family members "ganged-up on" or formed an
alliance against the other family members (see Appendix 6).
intercoder reliability was assessed with the Pearson
correlation coefficient between different coders' individual
measurement of the same problem solving session.
Reliability codes for the coders in some of the main
variables of this study were: 0.77 for the quality of
solutions; 0.82 for the extent of resolution;
0.76 for
overall problem-solving; and 0.61 for parental coalition
(Vuchinich et al., 1994).
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Quantitative Analysis
The analysis of the problem solving data utilized the
mean of a score from a parent-choice session and of a score
from child-choice session.
This use of multiple measures of
33
the same phenomenon increased the reliability of the
analysis.
For Question 2b, the parents' participation
scores from the two separate sessions were also combined,
so
that the analysis would be focussed on group difference.
The analysis of the data for Questions la, lb, 2b, and
3 was based on a regression analysis.
Regression analysis
was the best method of analysis for this study because it
enables the researcher to bring important variables into the
equation as statistical controls.
The dependent variables
were the stability (overall marital satisfaction and overall
problem solving) and process (participation and coalition)
variables. The independent variables were group membership
(intermarried vs. endogamous) to directly address the
questions, and education as a statistical control due to the
importance it plays in family interaction in both American
Indian and Non-Indian families. Kawamoto (1994), found that
for a group of mothers and fathers in American Indian
families, education had a significantly positive association
with parental involvement in childrearing.
Simons et. al.
(1990) had a similar finding for Non-Indian families.
Potential problems in multicolinearity between variables
such as income and education that could bias the regression
results would have been addressed by variance inflation
factors which SAS commands can calculate (Bradshaw &
Mitchell, 1991).
The analysis for question 2a required methods that can
analyze the relationship between Indian and Non-Indian
34
parents in the intermarried sample, such as a simple T-test,
and also investige the possibility of interaction effects
between ethnicity and sex, such as a repeated measures
design.
3.3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Faced with the dilemma of only two modern studies of
American Indian intermarried families, neither of which
explores to any degree the inner workings of the family, the
relatively unexplored nature of the phenomenon of American
Indian intermarriage also called for a qualitative
investigation openly dedicated to the phenomenon of Indian
intermarriage.
This focus group analysis of the videotape
data was guided by a few basic questions: 1) What are the
issues facing Indian intermarried families? 2) Are there
distinguishing characteristics of Indian intermarried
families.
3) Are there ethnic and/or gender distinctions in
Indian Intermarried families?
4) What can be said about the
quality of problem solving in Indian intermarried families?
Although useful as guides, the above questions were
secondary to the dynamics of the discussions detailed below
which often took on a life of their own.
This
methodological approach is consistent with David L. Morgan's
(1988) discussion of the way in which focus groups need to
be open ended while still having a plan.
35
Data for this part of the study was gathered at five
focus group sessions at the researcher's home.
American
Indian college students were recruited through contacts at
the Oregon State University Native American Longhouse.
The
focus group participants viewed ten minute problem solving
sessions of American Indian intermarried families (mother,
father, and one pre-adolescent target child) discussing
family issues.
After each problem solving session, the
focus group participants would discuss Indian intermarriage.
The researcher would act as the focus group facilitator when
necessary eliciting discussion of the tapes and of
participants own experiences with Indian intermarriage. When
the group had nothing more to say, the group would view
another session featuring another family in hopes of
eliciting more discussion.
sessions.
Each group viewed three or four
Each focus group session lasted ninety minutes.
There are two groups of subjects that need to be
recognized for this study.
First, there were eight students
who participated in the focus groups.
female.
Seven of these were
One of the women was an older-than-average student
with a family of her own.
Twelve tribes in all were
represented by the students including, Seneca, Delaware,
Lakota, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Flathead, Coos, Comanche, Warm
Springs, Papago, and Choctaw.
Many American Indians are
multi-tribal and many are coming back to school after
raising a family.
While far from representative, the focus
group participants do exhibit many elements of contemporary
36
Indian society.
The gender ratio and educational leve added
to the Indian background of the dicsussants, make for a
decidedly unique perspective with some very apparent
contextual limitations.
Some American Indian scholars have complained that
studies featuring Indian populations that are driven by Non-
Indian theory, research, researchers, and coders has no
relevance to American Indians.
John Red Horse (1980)
suggested that if there is to be a perspective that drives
research, theory, and policy having to do with American
Indians, it should be an American Indian perspective.
This
focus group analysis featuring this group of discussants is
an attempt to incorporate an Indian perspective to the
investigation of the phenomenon of American Indian
intermarriage.
The videotaped family data was collected as a part of
the Oregon Family Study: Siletz Sample.
Each of the
families participating in the Oregon Family Study signed
consent forms allowing for the use of their interactions in
all aspects of the research coding procedure including focus
group study.
The families viewed were selected because they
were all Indian intermarriages.
Every attempt was made to
select a balance of families with Mothers and Fathers as the
Indian parent.
Seventeen problem solving sessions were
viewed.
Seven had Indian fathers and ten had Indian
mothers.
Of the seventeen videos viewed, only four had
target children who were boys.
The disappointing ratio of
37
male to female target children was significantly out of the
representation one would expect based upon my experience.
Notes from the discussions and transcriptions
were
compiled and categorized based upon patterns identified as
they occured based upon the different interests of the
study. Consistent patterns and memorable quotes were
reported and discussed.
For instance, all references to the
American Indian mothers in the problem solving sessions and
Indian mothers in general made by the discussants was
complied in a list.
Each list was subdivided into
categories such as responsibility/empowerment,
calm/determined, and role in the family.
The categories
with the largest number of comments were reported in the
dissertation.
If necessary, a supplementary statistical
analysis would have deleted data from tapes used in the
focus groups.
38
Table 2: The Methodological Breakdown of the Questions
Questions
Dep. Var.
Ind- Var.
N=
Method
Qla
Prob. Solving
Group
Education
46
Reg.
Qlb
Mar. Sat.(DAS)
Group
Education
46
Reg
Q2a
Participation
Group
X Sex
23
T-Test/
Repeated
Measures
Q2b
Participation
Group
Education
46
Reg.
Q3
M/F Coalition
Group
Education
46
Reg.
39
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter of the dissertation is divided into
sections based on the methodological perspective taken.
The
Results and Discussion sections have qualitative and
quantitative sub-sections.
This is done to clarify the
parallel yet distinct purposes of each perspective.
Both
were undertaken to learn more about the phenomenon of
American Indian intermarriage.
The qualitative analysis was
pursued to investigate this phenomenon from the unique
perspective of American Indian college students.
The
quantitative analysis was pursued to take advantage of a
valuable pre-existing dataset and to address the phenomenon
based upon previous research and theory.
Qualitative Results
This section will be a comprehensive accounting of the
seven major themes identified while reviewing transcripts
and notes of the five focus group sessions.
First, there
were numerous methodological issues that came out that will
help in any future qualitative research.
Second, numerous
comments by group participants brought about the realization
that the unusual element of having American Indian college
students serve as "coders" helped reveal information that
might never have been obtained otherwise.
Related to the
40
above theme, the focus group participants shared some very
moving personal experiences that demand their own section.
The participants identified themes along gender lines for
each ethnic group. The nature of the videotape sessions
being observed necessitated a section on the quality of
problem solving identified in the various families.
The
focus groups made observations on the children, an element
of the family that some would consider the ultimate
functional output of families and the final measure of their
quality.
Finally, the groups also brought out a few issues
or concerns especially pertinent for American Indian
intermarried families.
4.1.1 Methodological Issues
The methodological issues identified from the
transcripts and notes of the focus groups can be put into
two sections.
First, my role as focus group facilitator,
and the growth and experiences that I went through in this
role.
The other section consists of comments by the focus
groups about the Oregon Family Study directed structure and
format of the problem solving sessions they were observing.
In the first and second focus group sessions I was
still developing my understanding of how focus groups should
ideally be conducted.
There were two things I did then,
that I try to avoid now.
interviewer.
I sometimes acted as an
As an interviewer, I would ask very specific
41
questions to clarify what I thought I heard a participant
saying such as, "Are you saying that Indian intermarried
families are more functional/stable with the mother as the
Indian parent?"
Sometimes it worked, and I got some very
valuable information, but I did it too much.
The other
thing I did was participate too much in the first couple
focus groups.
As a facilitator, I got in a debate with
participants in the first and second focus groups over the
definitions of words pertinent to the group discussion.
I
now know that the focus group facilitator should never be a
participant, and should rarely be an interviewer.
In the third group session, I tried very hard to not be
involved with the life of the focus group participants.
went to far.
I
This time I was accused of not getting to the
point in my efforts to not influence the group.
Members of
the group got frustrated at times when I would not give them
what they considered a straight answer:
B:It's a different kind of dominance.
sense Mr. Walter?
W: I'm not supposed to say.
Does that make any
By the last two focus group sessions, I had learned a
lot about the folly of extremes in being a group
facilitator.
But I learned that even an experienced
facilitator is only as effective as the focus group allows.
The fourth focus group, everyone was especially tired, and
no tactic was effective in getting active discussion.
The
fifth focus group, was the largest and had some of the most
42
outward personalities I have ever met.
They just needed me
to put the tape in the machine.
The other methodological concerns were about the videos
themselves and how the problem solving discussions were
conducted.
You often get the comment that what a researcher
sees on a videotape or on survey is not reality, but rather
the reality the subject thinks the researcher wants to see.
Many of the group participants felt this way, but they did
not agree on how the camera affected the family:
E: I think a lot of the way people act or react, mainly react, is
because of the video.
They are conscious that there is a video watching
them, and they want to be careful with how people see them.
That could
be my family there, and its all appearances.
C: I'm just wondering how much of these people's responses, their
actions and behaviors, has to do with the fact their being videotaped.
I'm wondering if it makes them nervous causing the woman to talk non­
stop or the man to insist on things. I'm just wondering if they weren't
being videotaped what they're saying might be different.
Another concern about the influence of the act of
videotaping was the possibility that these sessions might
have caused fights where there might not have been fights
without the sessions.
Of course, understanding might have
occurred where it otherwise wouldn't have as well.
There was a set way that the problem solving sessions
had to be set up, and requirements for it to even occur to
ensure a good comparison group for the other Non-Indian
subjects.
The participants were sometimes uncomfortable
with the requirements placed on the families, but ultimately
understood the need for such measures.
Perhaps the biggest
concern was the need to stick to the mother-father-target
43
child format.
Many of the group participants felt strongly
about the importance of other family members in the problem
solving process.
C: You know in some ways that kind of bothers me because it doesn't
really show the cultural side of a family. Because in a culture like
Native American culture and Mexican culture, family is always involved,
all family.
T. As far
discussed
stronger)
missing a
as the family with a Non-Indian mother. If the Grandma
is the Indian Grandma, there may be a very strong (even
relationship between child and Grandmother. So we may be
lot.
One person commented that the whole idea of family meetings
to resolve family issues is an alien concept for some of the
Indian families she knows.
4.1.2 Special Contributions of the
American Indian College Students
This study is special for many reasons, and one reason
that others might be quick to overlook is the tactic of
using American Indian college students as the people who are
observing and commenting on the Indian intermarried
families.
It is not surprising these days to have American
Indians be in charge of individual research projects and
bring that special blend of Western training and a
lifetime's experience to issues of interest to the Indian
community.
But when the entire team of coders are college
educated Indians, you get a perspective that is still very
rare.
44
Sometimes their college classes helped them to
understand what they were watching.
One person used
information from a class when her group was discussing a
target child who was being very difficult, yet not very
loud.
E: And she was quiet, but I've learned from classes that louder doesn't
necessarily mean that you're going to get your point through.
Some
people have this quiet "intentness" about them because they're so quiet.
They enunciate their words, and they're being very exact about
everything. These people draw others in, and that's why the girl is
very quiet.
Another participant brought out a surprising reference.
J: It was like Socrates actually.
The mother was asking the daughter,
the way I learned in my Philosophy class that Socrates asked his
students. Well the daughter told the mother that she did a lot of work
around the house. And the mother said, "Ok, what do you do? Do you do
your dishes? Do you vacuum?". And the daughter said "no" to every
question. And she was asking her daughter questions about whether she
does stuff or not. Again the daughter mostly said no or recognized that
she only helped a couple times with a job.
The mother was just showing
the daughter that she didn't do anything.
That she was a lazy kid.
That's what she was showing her.
Other students who were farther along in their programs
showed evidence of influence from their general field of
study and not necessarily from specific classes.
One
student did not have to identify her field, somebody else
identified it for her.
B: I would be willing to bet that the underlying behavioral
patterns are pretty much the same.
It's the way that they
are expressed that are different.
J: A psychology major, you can tell.
Two of the participants, Lana and Tanya have interests in
Family Studies.
So their observations were more specific
and analytical along traditional Family Studies lines than
45
the other participants.
One time Lana made the comment that
she was having a hard time identifying cultural elements (4
the families when the families were rarely discussing
cultural issues.
Later when discussing the target child and
how dissappointing it was that she didn't want to spend time
with the family, Lana noted that, "This behavior is typical
of any pre-adolescent. At this age they want to be with
their friends and not with family."
Tanya, when asked if
she saw signs of European American characteristics, said
that the only thing close that she saw was that the family
had a lot of signs of higher education.
But then she
corrected herself and said that education alone shouldn't
necessarily be seen as cultural.
When they were asked if
education is the key to healthy communication within the
family they both commented that the question was a very
loaded question.
Education doesn't mean good communication.
Good communication usually means better families.
basically putting two unrelated comments together.
But I was
Lana did
add though, that the literature also says that with higher
SES, ethnic minority families become more assimilated.
The
higher up, the more alike people are, no matter what
background.
I have heard that in some focus groups, there is a
danger of the facilitator talking down to or misleading his
or her group participants, I was never in any such danger
with these groups.
46
I have a great deal of interest in and respect for the
American Indian community.
Also, some would say that being
married to a Lakota and/or having almost half native blood
from my Mexican ancestors makes me a part of the community.
But the fact is I do not have the benefit of a life's
experience growing up "Indian" to help me understand
American Indian families.
The students who were a part of
the focus groups do have those experiences, and they brought
the full benefit of those experiences to the discussions.
The most striking examples of the benefits of their
experience were when they made observations with references
to specific tribes.
It was especially helpful when one
person made a comment about the people of Siletz, the core
of the sample of American Indian families in the study.
C: Well, if you think about it, there are no real full-blood Siletz
tribal members left. To me this is just another example of how Western
civilization concepts and thinking have infiltrated into tribal culture.
You know, whereas once we taught our children by not teaching them.
By
allowing them to discover for themselves. Now, we tell them, without
giving them a chance to find out for themselves.
Although most of the families were members of the
Confederated Tribes of Siletz, some of them were from all
over Oregon and the country.
So it was also helpful when
two participants had an exchange about one of the mothers
they were viewing.
J: She expected that people listen to her. She, I think, ran the family.
She was in charge, not out of force, but just because she had the power
to do that.
In fact, I thought just from my experiences with other
people
I thought she was Navajo. Because I have seen that Navajo
women are much more forceful than most Indian women.
P: They are a matriarchal society.
47
Mostly, however, the participants' references to what
they perceived to be Indian or not, was in the form of
generalities based upon a lifetime's worth of being Indian
and interacting with Indians from many tribes.
Some of the
observations included noticing that many American Indians
are quieter in confrontations, more traditional Indian
families had set roles for each member, and that maintaining
Indian cultural traditions and customs takes constant
vigilance.
Another area that some of the participants took note of
was the American Indian experience of the boarding schools.
No phenomenon should be taken out of context, and the
boarding schools significantly affected the way those
children would eventually parent and grandparent.
T: Many Indian people were taken away as younger children away from
their parents...
P: Boarding schools.
T: ...and placed in boarding schools.
So people didn't learn from their
parents how to teach their children. Many of today's parents and
grandparents were learning new/foreign ways.
P: They were abused often.
I've heard that's why there are so many
messed up Indians because they were abused by teachers, missionaries,
and whoever was in that school.
It just messed them all up and turned
them upside down. And I've seen older Indian people talk about getting
beaten for speaking their own language.
The following comment, perhaps the most telling remark from
the participants, I think sums up what the American Indian
college students who were participating wanted to convey
about endogamous and intermarried Indian families alike,
F: "Your importance lies where you are in relation to your
people, your family, and your tribe."
48
4.1.3 Personal Experiences of the
American Indian College Students
Not only did the group participants help in the
understanding of Indian intermarried families by discussing
the families they observed, they also helped by discussing
their own families.
Many of the discussions viewed dealt
with important family matters that were sometimes difficult
to discuss such as sex and drugs.
A few of the participants
had their own experiences about such issues.
C. I'm wondering, because of crime and drugs and all this other stuff,
that this is the way (referring to very restrictive parents)
that we
have to treat our kids now.
J: Um, up to a point. My family was open with that. If I wanted to go
use drugs they'd say, "Go ahead.
We'll tell you what they'll do to you.
We'll tell you exactly what they'll do because we know.
We've used
them." My mom told me that.
She said, "Look, if you want to smoke pot,
go ahead and do it. Just make sure you do it in my house."
E. In my family they are very open about certain things.
And I am very
comfortable talking with them about whatever I want to. There is no
limitations. Any person what so ever I can go up to and they will be
very truthful and very honest with me. It just depends on what family
you talk about. You have to see how they were themselves raised or what
they had been exposed to.
Participants used family experiences to discuss other issues
such as whether or not their family would be influenced by
the camera, the appropriate age of parents, support or lack
thereof given by parents, whether it is normative for
adolescents to be in conflict with their parents, what their
parents would put up with, the utility of washing the mouth
out with soap, abuse, and many others.
One time a
participant even used an experience, from when she almost
had a family when discussing conflict in intermarriage.
49
P. I've never been a parent, but I've kinda been through it myself
because I used to date a white guy who a couple times said things that
really floored me.
I don't know.
If I had kids with that guy, I don't
know.
I could see where it would lead to difficulty.
4.1.3 Gender Observations for
Indian and Non-Indian Parents
What, if anything, can be said about mothers and
fathers in Indian intermarried families?
This section will
pool the various comments about the Indian and Non-Indian
mothers and fathers and identify trends pertinent to the
gender roles of the four sub-groups of parents.
4.1.3.1 Non-Indian Parents
The focus group participants identified three
characteristics of the Non-Indian father. One characteristic
was that of a father who had to feel like he was in the lead
role no matter the consequences.
One time a Non-Indian
father was perceived to be threatening to his child, and
another time he was seen as degrading his wife by implying
that she could not be trusted with money.
While not
necessarily hierarchally motivated to dominate like the
previous characteristic, the Non-Indian father was
identified a number of times as talking a great deal more
than the mother and the target child. The final
characteristic was a parenting style that the participants
saw as especially true of Non-Indian fathers.
50
B: The father has the 'helping style' I guess it would be, sorta like he
wants to solve the problem for the child, whereas the mother is more
like helping him with her questions she asked. She is helping him to
figure out his own solutions.
Control and dominance were words used again and again
when discussing the Non-Indian mothers.
In one instance,
the participants discussed how the parents seemed to want
the child to decide for himself, but the Non-Indian mother's
way of accomplishing this goal was to explain in detail what
she felt was the best way and then to say, "Isn't that
right?"
As if the child has the freedom to chose any path,
so long as it is the path laid out by the mother.
Numerous
times the participants noted how the Non-Indian mothers
performed the role of taskmaster, kept the discussion
moving, and tried to make the family look good in front of
the camera.
The Non-Indian mothers also tended to dominate
the discussion by being louder than the other family
members.
Another characteristic was the Non-Indian mothers'
tendency to need to keep discipline by personalizing things
and looking for someone to blame.
B: Right, saying, "you do this..." Yeah its like the mother lays more
blame while the father concentrates more on fixing the problem than
trying to figure out who's fault it is.
51
4.1.3.2.American Indian parents
Perhaps the two words that best described the Indian
fathers viewed and discuSsed in the focus group discussions
would be, "quiet" and "practical".
P: Yeah he'd ask the questions and he'd talk too sometimes.
But mostly
he'd just kind of watch. Watch the mom and the kid for a while.
You
know, and put in his two cents every so often there.
And when they did, they were truly quiet.
Sometimes I had
to rewind the tape and turn up the volume so the group
.participants could hear what the father was saying. Other
words that were used to describe this quietness were,
"mellow", "gentle", and "passive".
This observation was
supported by many participants' personal experiences as
well.
While many of the Indian fathers were characterized as
quiet, they were at the same time recognized as strong,
practical, leaders of the community and the family. This
other characteristic was seen when one of the participants
noticed how a father encouraged his son to make his own
decisions.
E: I think it's mainly also because the father also wants the son to
start thinking for himself because he's at an age when he should start
thinking for himself.
It was also seen a number of other times when participants
noticed how different Indian fathers got the problem solving
discussions back on track.
Another example would be the
various instances when participants commented on how
52
different Indian fathers were more focussed on the practical
matter at hand of solving the problem and dealing with the
issue, rather than dwelling on personalities.
Participants
also noted how several of the Indian fathers used humor as a
device to facilitate the discussion and relieve tension that'
may have risen between the child and the mother.
Regarding the American Indian mothers, the focus groups
would often discuss the position of responsibility that
mothers in many American Indian communities have had for
centuries and how that tradition is seen today in many of
the American Indian mothers they were viewing.
The
participants discussed how in some tribes the mother was in
charge of the home, and all that went on inside the home.
One person commented on how a man knew he was divorced when
he came home and found his belongings outside the tipi. A
number of participants discussed how a person's family
heritage is determined matrilineally in many tribes.
How the American Indian mothers exercised their
responsibility of caring for the home and family was
discussed in great detail by many of the participants.
There was a number of comments about the calm,
sure,
determined, respectful, and quiet way mothers assumed
responsibility for the family.
53'
J: I liked what this mom was saying though. She said. "... and who does
the dishes, and who does you laundry?" etc. And the kid was going,
"You, you, you, you and Fern, you and me, me." And then the mother
asked her how often. Then the kid said, "I did it twice" (laughter).
Instead of telling her that the kid was wrong, the mother talked about
it with the kid and let her find out for herself that she wasn't
helping.
The focus groups noticed one thing that many others
might not have noticed. They recognized how a number of
American Indian mothers had their own special kind of
empowerment and responsibility within the family without
seeming to be the dominant parent.
A previously used quote
is especially useful here.
J: Something else. This mother, when her back was turned she wasn't
loud, she was quiet.
But she demanded... Not demanded, but expected
that people listen to her. She, I think, ran the family. She was in
charge, not out of force, but just because she had the power to do that.
But even another comment from another group suggested that
the mother knew what she was doing and chose to behave a
certain way in order to fulfill her role as mother.
B: I would think, OK, just from things that it strikes me that Indian
women are not overtly dominant.
Its like they choose to be meeker.
Aside from the day to day responsibilities of keeping
the home and family functioning, the focus groups noticed a
number of times that the mother is the primary source for
the transmission of Indian cultural traditions and customs
for boys and girls, from infancy to at least adolescence
where the father may take over from the mother to teach the
boys. A good example of this would be how in one videotape
family and a participant's personal experience, the Indian
mothers perceived going to Pow-Wows as about the most
important "family activity" they participated in,
even
though the respective fathers rarely accompanied the mother
54
and children.
Some even said that intermarried families
with Indian mothers tended to have stronger cultural
foundations than families with Indian fathers.
4.1.4 Indian Parenting Issues
Each of the focus group participants have been or are
presently active in any number of activities to celebrate
their' Indian heritage and/or make things better for the
American Indian community.
These students are especially
interested in, and made numerous comments about American
Indian traditions and customs in Indian intermarried
families.
One of the most universal traditional Indian parenting
practices was the practice of not teaching.
This is seen in
the practice of facilitating personal discovery.
C.
You know, whereas once we taught our children by not teaching them.
By allowing them to discover for themselves.
Now, we tell them, without
giving them a chance to find out for themselves.
This practice is also seen in the tactic of leading by
example, or "modelling" as it is called today.
P: Usually in old style parenting, what they do for kids is they kind of
lead by example. They'd show kids how you are supposed to behave. And
the family, the extended family was so important. And if the kid tried
to get out of line they'd try to ignore it for awhile and then tell the
kid that is not how you're supposed to behave.
Although these practices are some of the favorite techniques
in many progressive marriage counselling programs, many of
55
the participants do not see modern American society as a
place in which such non-normative practices are welcome.
C:
In this society, if you try and follow your way you kind of get
trampled. I mean, at one time you could teach your kids by example. By
the way you, as an indigenous person, lived.
But in today's society,
especially for minorities/indigenous people, it's really hard to do that
out here. And, if you teach your kid by example then all the rest of
society starts saying, "See, that's the way these minorities are, these
bedsheets, these redsk ;ns."
And they get the idea that you don't know
how to take care of your own kids.
So indigenous people have to kind of
balance between what their culture is and the culture they have to live
in.
Suffice it to say that it is a challenge to be an Indian
parent in today's society whether you are in an
intermarriage or not.
The participants did recognize that
elements of both parents' cultures will influence that child
to some degree no matter what the situation. And that
something as simple as respect given by all the family
members to all the family members would go a long way to
helping maintain Indian cultural traditions and customs.
4.1.5 Quality of Problem Solving
in Indian Intermarried Families
Some believe that intermarriages have less quality
problem solving and lead to unmanageable conflict and
eventual divorce (Furlong, 1972), while others believe that
in the face of competing social traditions intermarried
couples have a greater commitment to each other which leads
to better conflict management and less likely divorces (Chu
Ho and Johnson, 1990).
The Indian intermarried families in
this study, like all families, had a wide variety of ways in
56
which they attempted to resolve family issues.
Instead of,
supporting one position or the other, the discussions based
upon the videotapes suggested that the two competing points
of view above actually described the extreme scenarios in a
wide spectrum of possibilities.
The idea of competing cultures leading to competing
parenting styles was noticed a number of times.
E: He (father) was all like, "Gimme some reasons why you want to stay up
to that certain time." And like he (Child) was trying to do it. But
then the mother was all, "Wait a minute."
But at least they were doing some amount of parenting, many
of the other negative family discussions seemed to be lead
by the child who came across as the most mature person in
the room.
Perhaps the most common positive problem solving
characteristic was humor.
Parents and children, especially
the Indian fathers, used it to lighten the moment.
The
focus group participants consistently felt that families
that could laugh together were better at problem solving.
What came up in all the families with positive and
negative problem solving techniques was the importance of
respect.
Families had a very difficult time discussing
issues if the parents did not respect the concerns of the
child and simply ordered the child to do something or even
effectively ignored the child's issue and moved the
discussion to their own interests. The families were
especially problematic if the child did not respect the
57
parents, but of course the children learn about respect from
their parents.
J: Yeah, what's the deal.
There's no respect there.
I hate to say it,
but it's his parents fault! They should teach the kids to show respect
from the beginning.
Respect from the child was very important to the
participants, but they especially looked for it from the
parents who they felt should know better than to be
disrespectful and who should model respect to their
children.
B:
All the time the Dad was talking about why the child needs to bring
his clothes down and this and that, but he never said that the kid was a
slob.
Toward the end of the group sessions the participants
would often discuss all of the evening's videotape families
in the context of a discussion on Indian intermarriage.
As
the conversation went on participants in each group would
often describe how there was at least one family that
displayed positive and one family that displayed negative
problem solving.
But in the end they all recognized that
all the families in one way or another displayed
characteristics which made them undeniably "Indian
families".
4.1.6 Children of Indian Intermarried families
Like the comments made by the focus group participants
regarding the quality of problem solving in American Indian
58
intermarried families, the discussions about the children of
these families ran the full spectrum of possible child
characteristics.
The conduct of the children ran from a
child who was down right belligerent and mumbled profanity
under her breath to a child who was more mature than his
parents.
The focus group participants discussed numerous
times the "Indianness" of the children.
All the children
were acknowledged as being Indian, but some seemed to
exhibit more or less traditional Indian values than others.
The values that the group participants identified as being
traditional Indian values included humility and respect for
their elders that prompted them to speak when asked but to
primarily listen and learn.
One child so impressed a
participant, that she said the child would make a good Pow-
Wow princess.
Some of the participants went so far as to
blame society and the schools for making some of the
children less than traditional.
Most of the participants,
however, recognized that with the right amount of energy
from the parents, a child can grow up instilled with many
traditional Indian values.
4.2 Qualitative Discussion
John Red Horse once wrote that a family can be more or
less, "...traditional, transactional, bicultural,
and
pantraditional. These traits, however, do not appear to
measure 'Indianness," (Red Horse, 1980)
That is especially
59
true of Indian intermarried families across the country, who
now make up the majority of Indian families and of the group
of families the American Indian college students in this
focus group study viewed.
The focus group found some
helpful trends in their discussions of mothers and fathers
in Indian intermarried families. But when they discussed the
outcomes such as problem solving and the children, they
recognized that while the inner workings of intermarried
families may pose special challenges unique to themselves,
there was just as much variability as there is in endogamous
families of any ethnic group.
4.3 Quantitative Results
4.3.1 Questions la and lb
A comparison of the marital satisfaction and overall
problem solving means reveals some very distinct group
differences.
The endogamous European American group with a
mean of 121.54 was apparently more satisfied with their
relationships than the American Indian intermarried group
with mean of 110.00.
The regression analysis (see Table 3)
indicates that the difference for group means (-11.509332)
is statistically significant (p<0.0005).
The endogamous
European American group with an overall problem solving mean
of 4.69 is apparently better at solving problems than the
60
intermarried American Indian group with a mean of 3.17.
The
regression analysis (see Table 4) shows this difference
(-1.5073) to be statistically significant (p<0.0001).
These
results support the negative perspective of intermarriage
outlined earlier (Furlong, 1972) which predicted that there
would be a difference and the difference would show
intermarried families scoring lower on overall problem
solving and marital satisfaction.
There was also a trend in showing education as
positively related to problem solving for all the families
(see table 4).
This supports the conclusion Kawamoto (1994)
had that higher levels of education may benefit the family
in unexpected ways.
61
Table 3: Question la
A.
Marital Satisfaction between European American
endoaamous and American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Constant
0.39
-11.50* ***
116.41
R-square
0.26
Adj R-sq
0.22
Group (inter =l /endog =0)
*p<.10.
**p<.05.
***p<.01.
SE
0.90
2.99
****p<.001.
B. Marital Satisfaction between European American
endoaamous, American Indian endoaamous, and
American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Euro. Am. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Am. Ind. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Constant
0.53
10.17****
-9.38**
104.39
R-square
0.39
Adj R-sq
0.34
*p<.10.
**p<.05.
***p<.01.
****p<.001.
SE
0.86
2.95
4.38
62
Table 4: Question lb
A: Overall problem solvina between European American
endoaamous and American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Group (inter =l /endog =0)
Constant
0.165*
-1.507****
2.538
R-square
0.42
Adj R-sq
0.39
*p<.10. **p<.05.
***p<.01.
SE
0.088
0.292
****p<.001.
B. Overall problem solvina between European American
endoaamous, American Indian endoaamous, and
American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Euro. Am. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Am. Ind. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Constant
0.257**
1.391****
1.857* **
-0.059
R-square
0.33
Adj R-sq
0.29
*p<.10.
**p<.05.
***p<.01.
****p<.001.
SE
0.112
0.380
0.591
63
4.3.2 Questions 2a and 2b
A preliminary T-test analysis of the gender and ethnic
subgroups of the intermarried sample and a repeated measures
analysis to make an approximate test for interaction effects
had no significant results.
The means of the various
subgroups indicate the closeness of the participation scores
(see table 5).
The mean participation scores of the intermarried and
European American endogamous groups, however, did provide
interesting results.
The endogamous European American group
with an average participation score of 5.15 had a higher
score than the intermarried Indian group with a mean of
4.72.
These statistically significant results (see table 5)
are showing a trend in support of the influence of
traditional American Indian parenting practices.
Basso
(1970) and Kawamoto (1994) identified practices such as
being less overt and talking less as indications that a
family is exhibiting participation patterns consistent with
traditions of many American Indian communities.
64
Table 5: Ouestions 2a & 2b
Gender and Ethnic droim means within the American Indian
intermarried aroup.
Fathers
Mothers
Participation
Mean
SD
4.7000
0.9375
4.9791
0.9943
Indian
Non-Indian
4.9130
4.7857
0.8745
1.0790
Ind. Fathers
Nonind.Fathers
Ind. Mothers
Nonind.Mothers
5.0454
4.2777
4.7916
5.1666
0.6501
1.0929
1.9543
0.9374
A: Parental participation between European American
endoaamous and American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Group (inter=1/endog=0)
Constant
0.008
-0.434**
5.048
R-square
0.09
Adj R-sq
0.04
*p<.10. **p<.05.
***p<.01.
SE
0.066
0.218
****p<.001.
B. Parental participation_between European American
endoaamous. American Indian endoaamous. and
American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Euro. Am. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Am. Ind. endog vs Am. Ind. inter.
Constant
0.098
0.328
1.383* **
3.543
R-square
0.19
Adj R-sq
0.14
*p<.10.
**p<.05.
***p<.01.
****p<.001.
SE
0.085
0.289
0.450
65
4.3.3 Question 3
The mother/father to child mean coalition score of 3.17
for the endogamous American Indian group and the mean
coalition score of 3.21 for the American Indian intermarried
group indicate relatively little difference in the apparent
coalition practices of the groups.
This is supported by the
regression analysis (see table 6).
Accordingly, the data
does not support or contradict either perspective about
intermarriage.
Table 6: Question 3
Mother/Father to Child Coalition between European American
endoaamous and American Indian intermarried families
Variable
b
Education
Group (inter=1/endog=0)
Constant
-0.063
0.038
3.994
R-square
0.01
Adj R-sq
-0.04
*p<.10. **p<.05.
***p<.01.
****p<.001.
SE
0.093
0.309
66
The difference between groups in marital satisfaction
and overall problem solving scores seems to indicate support
for the negative perspective of intermarriage discussed
earlier.
However, the participation score results suggest
that 'Indianness' as well as 'intermarriage' is at work
here.
In order to address this concern the six endogamous
American Indian families that were initially separated from
the larger Siletz sample of American Indian families were
brought back in as a third group.
Regression analysis was
done with the use of three group categories: European
American endogamous, American Indian endogamous, and
American Indian intermarried.
Two variables were created to
represent the contrast between (1) European American
endogamous vs. American Indian intermarried and (2) American
Indian endogamous vs. American Indian intermarried.
intermarried group was the reference category.
The
Comparing
both European American and American Indian endogamous groups
with the intermarried group provides a more comprehensive
view of whether Indianness or intermarriage is responsible
for the difference found in this study.
The conceptual
advantages of this test justify the use of a small (n=6)
Indian endogamous group, though generalization must be
considered with caution.
Separate regression equations were
estimated for marital satisfaction (see table 3), overall
problem solving (see table 4), and participation (see table
5).
If the difference is due to intermarriedness,
then both
67
endogamous groups would score higher (or lower) than the
intermarried group in a particular equation.
If the
difference in a particular anaysis is due to Indianness,
then there will be a range from the European American group
to the intermarried group to the American Indian group,
indicating a progression from Indian based to Non-Indian
based influences.
The results reveal an even more complex picture.
The
intermarried negative perspective is supported by the
participation (see Table 5) and the over all problem solving
(see table 4) data.
But the cultural American Indian
perspective is supported by the marital satisfaction data
(see Table 3).
4.4 Quantitative Discussion
The first set of results suggested a need to discuss
the data in terms of intermarriedness and Indianness.
The results of the marital satisfaction and problem
solving equations both supported the negative perspective of
intermarriage which suggested that the endogamous families
would have significantly higher marital satisfaction and
overall family problem solving scores.
This in itself is
important because the fear of intermarriage destroying
Indian culture is one of the few things that the study of
Indian intermarriage has concerned itself with thus far.
No
one has bothered to really consider that there might be
68
other issues involved with this .8-scmenon., Initially, this
supports the perspective that societal pressures and
conflicting cultures associated with intermarriage make for
problematic relationships, although the marital satisfaction
results must be taken with caution due to the fact that no
attempt was made to test Spanier's scale for any degree of
cultural bias.
But this support brings to light other
issues as well.
With the results from Questions la and lb from this
study, African American/ European American (Furlong, 1972)
and American Indian/Non-Indian families have been shown to
exhibit signs of difficulty.
Considering that the studies
featuring a more positive perspective were derived primarily
from Asian American/European American families (Johnson and
Nagoshi, 1986; Chu Ho and Johnson, 1990), perhaps it is just
Asian American/European American combination which is
characterized by less difficulties.
American Indian communities across the country each
have their own unique character.
The Willamette Valley
American Indian community is primarily characterized by
multitribal influences and the consequences and frustration
of termination and restoration of the Confederated Tribes of
Siletz and Grand Ronde among other things (Zucker, Hummel, &
Hogfoss, 1983).
Other areas are characterized by other
events and cultures.
Perhaps it was this particular
community of Ihdians which facilitated the observed results.
69
Most intermarriage studies are done in an urban
context, while some of the families were from suburban
communities like outer Salem and Eugene, none of these
families were from dense urban areas like Portland, San
Francisco, or urban Hawaii.
Perhaps these results were due
to the fact that they were done in the Willamette Valley and
not a dense urban multicultural community with less societal
pressures.
The issue of reservation vs. urban Indian
populations also speaks to the generalizability of this
study.
Most studies that are conducted on American Indian
populations are conducted on reservations, but the majority
of Indian families live off reservation.
Some have called
the tribal housing community within the town of Siletz,
Reservation".
"Our.
If this is true, then the majority of the
participating families were off-reservation, or "urban",
families.
The results of the participation equation support the
American Indian literature which suggests that the influence
of Indian culture causes the intermarried families to have
lower participation scores.
Lower participation, in this
case, indicates a trend toward alternative styles of
parenting characterized more by modelling and the
opportunity for the child to learn independently rather than
direct interaction and instruction
(Kawamoto, 1994).
While
significant differences by ethnicity and gender were not
discovered in Question 2a, I would suggest that this is
mostly due to each parents' respective culture influencing
70
the other and the Indian cultural influence working to bring
down both parents' scores.
But the situation is not so simple as the first set of
results would suggest.
The second set of results which
introduced a small group of endogamous Indian families
supported the influence of intermarriedness on cross group
comparisons of overall problem solving and participation,
and the influence of Indianness on a comparison of marital
satisfaction scores.
This set of results is an indication
of the complexity of the issue and the need for further
research.
Suffice it to say that these results suggest that
both the structural and societal consequences of
intermarriage and the traditions and customs of Indian
culture were important elements of these families daily
lives.
4.5 Limitations
This study helped to bring more to the understanding of
American Indian families.
But there were many key elements
of American Indian family life that this study was not able
to address.
Many indigenous families are more consanguineal
than the at-one-time, officially endorsed conjugal
structures of many Euro-Americans (Atleo, 1990; Goodluck,
1980; Cross, 1986).
As recently as 1980, government
officials called Indian reverence for and reliance upon
their elders and other kin as problematic, a kind of 'family
71
stubbornness' (Red Horse, 1980, 490), and grounds for
termination of parental rights.
The cultural value that a
child does not only belong to its parents, but also belongs
to the extended kin-network, or community, is sometimes
linked to the American Indian idea that the land is not
owned by one person, but by the entire community (Goodluck
and Short, 1980).
And many American Indian families today
have only one parent present.
Also, homosexuals have a very
honored and respected place in some American Indian
traditions.
So the structural constraints put on this
study's definition of family requiring a man and a woman and
not allowing for the other expanded family members did not
take into account the above discussion of the expanded
American Indian family.
Perhaps the most significant limitation of this study
was the statistical weakness of the small sample size,
particularly in regards to the six member endogamous
American Indian group.
The statistical results may well
have been influenced by the sample size.
And while
mother/father differences were explored, there were not
enough cases for this study to take the sex of the child
into account.
There are two responses to this concern.
First, the field of Family Studies has long had a tradition
of walking the line between individualized psychological and
macro sociological perspectives.
As such, this field is
more tolerant of studies which feature smaller sample sizes.
More importantly, the field of American Indian studies, like
72
other fields which feature relatively small and reclusive
groups such as homosexual studies, has an entirely different
standard for sample size significance.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this study is the
limitation of "bias".
From the quantitative perspective,
there are those who would dismiss the results because they
were derived from measures created by and for European
Americans and coded by European Americans.
Knight et al.
But then again,
(1992) used several family-oriented measures
and found them all to have equivalent validity across a
sample of Latino- and Euro-American families.
And on the
qualitative side, there are those who would dismiss the
results because they are tainted by anti-Non-Indian
subconscious attitudes inherent in the comments of the
American Indian discussants.
This study was an attempt to
utilize the best of both perspectives.
73
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Preservation of culture by itself is so important a
concern that urban Indian leaders included it in a recent
visit to the White House (News From Indian Country, 1994).
But there is more, both the qualitative and quantitative
components of this study indicate that intermarriedness and
Indian cultural traditions related to family, both impact
the everyday functionality of American Indian intermarried
families.
The exact influences of intermarriage on American
Indian family functions such as problem solving and
childrearing are at this point conflicting and warrant
further study from a professional multicultural perspective.
The relationship of the local American Indian culture(s) and
the societal impact of intermarriage must also be considered
when addi.essing Indian intermarriage.
The data from this
study shows a very complex picture of Indian intermarriage,
ultimately therapists and researchers should endeavor to
recognize the salience of both intermarriage and American
Indian culture in everyday family life rather than discard
them as issues-to be-taken up by cultural preservationists.
Future studies of American Indian families should take
into account an expanded structural definition of the
family, explore other cultural perspectives on problem
solving and overall child care quality, investigate
74
different parenting behaviors in relation to the sex and age
of the child, explore the validity of established
instruments,
and utilize a greater sample size.
An ideal
study would have instruments creeated and coders trained
from a multicultural perspective.
This study would feature
large samples of Indian and Non-Indian endogamous and
intermarried families from rural and urban settings.
These
and other precautions would help to determine the
relationship between intermarriage, Indian culture, and
family functioning.
A concern that many American Indian communities have is
that sometimes researchers come in, get their data, and
leave without ever letting the community know what was
learned from the data (Ryan, 1980).
An important part of
the Oregon Family Study is the Family Problem Solving
Workshop that is offered to all participating families.
Copies of all materials derived from this group of American
Indian families will be provided to the appropriate Siletz
officials, and every attempt will be made to share what is
learned from the data with the American Indian Behavioral
research community and the larger national family research
community.
75
REFERENCES
Adams, Romanzo C. (1937). Interracial marriaae in Hawaii: A
Btudy of the mutually conditioned Processes of
acculturation and amalaamation. The Macmillan Company,
New York.
Alba, Richard D. and Reid M. Golden. (1986). Patterns of
Ethnic Marriage in the United States. Social Forces 65:
202-223.
Atleo, M. (1990). Studying Canadian Indigenous Families: A
special
case of ethnicity in a multicultural nation.
Western Region Home Management Family Economics
Educators. 5, 35-43.
Barron, Milton L. (1972)a Intergroup Aspects of Choosing a
Mate. In The Blendina American: Patterns of
Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron. pp 36- 48.
Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
Barron, Milton L. (1972)b An Appraisal of Research Until
Midcentury In The
Blendina American: Patterns of
Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron. pp 99- 110.
Quadrangle Books,
Chicago.
Basso, K. (1970). "To Give up on Words": Silence in Western
Apache Culture.
Southwestern Journal of Anthr000loay.
26. 1-18.
Berry, B. (1963). Almost White. The Macmillan Company, New
York.
Besanceney, Paul H. (1972). On Reporting Rates of
Intermarriage. In The Blendina American: Patterns of
Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron. pp 91-98.
Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
Bradshaw, A. & Mitchell, N. (1991). SAS System for
Rearession. Lopes, J; Shelton, P. Whatley J.; (Eds.)
SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Braud, K. E. (1993) peerskins and Duffels: Creek Indian
Trade with Analo-America. 1685-1815. U. of Nebraska
Press.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. (1987) American Indians Today,
Answers to Your Ouestions.
76
Burma, J. H. (1972) Interethnic Marriage in Los Angeles,
1948-1959. In The Blendina American: Patterns of
Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron. pp 129-146.
Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
Carter and Glick (1970). Marriaae and Divorce: A Social and
economic Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Chu Ho, Fung and Ronald C. Johnson. (1990) Intra-ethnic
and Inter-ethnic Marriage and Divorce in Hawaii. Social
Biology 37: 44-51.
Cohen, F.
(1982) Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of federal Indian
law.
Coker, W. S. and Watson T. D. (1986) Indian Traders of the
Southeastern Spanish Borderlands: Panton, Leslie &
Company & John Forbes & Company, 1783-1847. U. Press
of Florida.
Collier, M. (1993). Cultural Identity ad Intercultural
Communication Competence. L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.)
Intercultural Communications A Reader. 7th edition.
Coser, L. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. The Free
Press, New York.
Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J.M. & Henderson, V. K.
(1989). Marriage, adult adjustment, and early
parenting. Child Development. 60: 1015-1024.
Cross, T. (1986). Drawing on Cultural Tradition in Indian
Welfare Practice, Social Casework, 67, 238-239.
Dennard, A.
(1994) Mixed Bloods. Natchat post.
Downey, T.; Rilatos, D.; Sondenaa, A. & Zybach, B. (1993).
The Siletz Eels: Oral history interviews with Siletz
tribal elders and neiahborina residents reaardina the
decline in Siletz River Lamprey Populations. Native
Americans in Marine Science Program. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Fay, G. (1967-1981). Charters, constitutions, and by -laws of
the Indian tribes of North America. Museum of
Anthropology, Colorado State College.
Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. (1972) Intermarriage of Puerto Ricans
in New York City.
In
The Blendina American:
Patterns of Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron.
pp 147-164. Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
77
Franke, K.A. & Bates, J. E. (1990). Mother-toddler problem
solving: Antecedents in attachment, home behavior, and
temperament. Child Development. 61: 810-819.
Furlong, William B. (197)2 Interracial Marriage is a
Sometime Thing. In The Blendina American: Patterns of
Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron. pp 114-128.
Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
Goodluck, C. (1980). Strength and Caring.
61, 519-521.
Social Casework,
Goodluck, C. & Short, D.(1980) Working with American Indian
Parents: A Cultural Approach. Social Casework, 61, 472­
475.
Gordon, Albert I. (1963). Intermarriaae: Interfaith,
Interracial. Interethnic. Beacon Press, Boston.
Gordon, Albert I. (1972) Intermarriage: What it is. In The
Blendina American: Patterns of Intermarriaae. Edited
by Milton L. Barron. pp 6-11. Quadrangle Books,
Chicago.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The
relationship between marital Processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gross, J. and Ronald Smothers. (1994).
Buried tensions over
race erupt in Wedowee. New York Times News Service.
August, 17.
Hall, R. (1985). The 1985 Socio-Economic and Health Survey
of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz.
OSU Department
of Anthropology.
Heavey, C.L. Layne, C. & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and
conflict structure in marital interaction: A
replication and extension. Journal of Consultina and
Clinical Psvcholoav, 61, 16-27.
Hutter, Mark (1990) Introduction. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies 21:143-150.
Johnson, Ronald C. and Craig T. Nagoshi. (1986) The
Adjustment of Offspring of Within-Group and
Interracial/Intercultural Marriages: A Comparison of
Personality Factor Scores. Journal of Marriaae and
the Family 48: 279-284.
Kawamoto, W. T. (1994)a American Indian Intermarriage: A
Focus Group Study. Soc 518. Oregon State University.
78
Kawamoto, W. T. (1994)b Gender and Ethnic Issues in
Parentina: A Study of Some Determinants of Parentina
in American Indian and Non-Indian Families. Masters
Thesis. Oregon State University.
Kazdin, A.E., Siegal, T.C. & Bass, D. (1992). Cognitive
problem solving skills training and parent management
training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in
children.
Journal of Consultina and Clinical
Psvcholoav 11: 65-79.
Kersey, H. A. Jr. (1975) Pelts, Plumes and Hides: White
Traders amona the Seminole Indians. 1870-1930. U. Press
of Florida.
Knight, G., Tein, J., Shell, R., and Roosa, M. (1992). The
Cross-Ethnic Equivalence of Parenting and Family
Interaction Measures among Hispanic and Anglo-
American Families. Child Development,
63, 1392-1403.
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict Resolution Styles in Gay,
Lesbian, Heterosexual Nonparent, and Heterosexual
Parent Couples. Journal of Marriaae and the Family 56:
705-722.
Lee, Sharon M. and Keiko Yamanaka. (1990) Patterns of Asian
American Intermarriage and Marital Assimilation.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies 21: 287-305.
Lewis, J.H., Beavers, W.R., Gosset, J.T. & Phillips, V.A.
(1976). No sinale thread: PsYcholoaica2 health in
family systems. Brunner/Mazel. New York.
Lueras, Leonard (editor) (1988) Hawaii. 8th ed.
Publications (HK) Ltd.
Singapore.
Madanes, Cloe. (1981). Strateaic Family Therapy.
Bass Inc.
APA
Josey-
Mann, B.J., Borduin, C.M., Henggeler, S.W. & Biaske, D.M.
(1990). An investigation of systemic conceptualizations
of parent-child coalitions and symptom change. Journal
of Consultina and Clinical Psvcholoav, 58, 336-344.
Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S. M. &
Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress
through communication and conflict management training:
A 4- and 5-year follow up. Journal of Consultina and
Clinical Psvcholoav, 61, 70-77.
Mcnitt, F.
(1989) The Indian Traders. U. of Oklahoma Press.
Merton, Robert K. (1972) Intermarriage and the Social
Structure: Fact and Theory. In The Blendina American:
79
Patterns of Intermarriaae. Edited by Milton L. Barron.
pp 12-35. Quadrangle Books, Chicago.
Morgan, David L. (1988). Focus Groups as Oualitative
Research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Nelson, K.
(1992).
Family Functioning of Nealectful
Families: Preliminary Findinas. The National Resource
Center on Family Based Services.
News From Indian Country (1994). Urban Indian community
leaders meet with White House. Paul Demain ed. News
From Indian Country. Late Oct.
Reddy, Marlitz A. (1993). ed. Statistical Record of Native
North Americans. Gale Research Inc. Detroit.
Red Horse, J. (1980). Family Structure and Value
Orientation in American Indians.
Social Casework, 61,
462-467.
Reske, Henry J. (1993) Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional?
ABA Journal 79: 28.
Romano, Dugan (1988). Inter-cultural Marriaae: Promises &
Pitfalls. Intercultural Press, Inc. Yarmouth, Maine.
Rosenberg, Roy A., Peter Meehan, and John Payne. (1988).
Happily Intermarried: Authoritative Advice for a
Joyous Jewish-Christian Marriaae. Macmillan Publishing
Company. New York.
Ryan, R. (1980). A Community Perspective for Mental Health
Research. Social Casework, 61. 507-511.
Sandefur, Gary D. and Trudy McKinnell. (1986) American
Indian Intermarriage. Social Science Research 15:
347-371.
Siegel, B. (1987) Fur Trappers & Traders: the Indians, the
Pilgrims & the Beaver. Walker & Co.
Siletz Newsletter. (1993) A Brief History of the
Confederated Tribes of Siletz. Nelson Witt ed. in
Siletz Newsletter, 10, 13.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the Web of Group-
Affiliations. The Free Press. New York.
Simons, R.; Whitbeck, L.; Conger, R.; Melby, J. (1990).
Husband and Wife Differences in Determinants of
Parenting: A Social Learning and Exchange Model of
Parental Behavior. Journal of Marriaae and the Family.
52, 375-392.
80
Spickard, Paul R.,(1989) Mixed Blood: Intermarriaae and
Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America. The
University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin.
Stephan, Cookie W. and Walter G. Stephan. (1989) After
Intermarriage: Ethnic Identity among Mixed- Heritage
Japanese-Americans and Hispanics. Journal of Marriaae
and the Family 51: 507-519.
United States Reports (1980). Cases Adiudaed in the Supreme
Court at October Term, 1977. Vol 436.
U.S. Government Printing Office. (1990). Title 25 of the
Code of Federal Reaulations (CFR). Indians.,
Washington D.C.
Vuchinich, S., Vuchinich, R. & Wood, B. (1993). The
interpersonal relationship and family problem solving
with preadolescent males. Child Development. 64: 1389­
1400.
Vuchinich, S., Vuchinich, R. & Wood, B. (1994). Coalitions
and Family Problem Solving with Preadolescents in
Referred, At-Risk, and Comparison Families. Family
Process. 33: 1-16.
Wagner, Jean K. (1976) The Role of Intermarriage in the
Acculturation of Selected Urban American Indian Women.
Anthropoliaica 18: 215-229.
Waldrop, J. (1993) Hawaii Counts Annual Alohas. American
Demoaraphics 15: 25-26.
Waltman, K. and Hodgdon, J. (1977). Race and Ethnic
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting. Statistical Reporter.
Will, R.
(1988). The Leaal Status of the Indian. AMS Press.
Wood, B. (1992). Intro to Oreaon Family Study Lab. Oregon
Family Study, OSU, Winter.
Wright, L. (1994). One Drop of Blood. New Yorker, July 24:
46-55.
Zucker, J.; Hummel, K.; Hogfoss, B.
Western Imprints.
(1983).
Oreaon Indians.
81
APPENDIX
82
1. The Oregon Family Study: Siletz Sample and this Project
In April of 1992 a National Institute of Mental Health
Supplemental Grant for Underrepresented Minorities was
awarded to the Oregon Family Study Lab.
This grant was for
an underrepresented minority graduate student to supplement
the data being collected by the Oregon Family Study Lab with
a sample of underrepresented minority families.
A large
variety of data was obtained for the Oregon Family Study:
Siletz Sample, and it would be a impossible to summarize
them all in one report.
83
2. Other research done with the participation of the people
of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz:
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz has been involved in
other studies besides the Oregon Family Study.
The 1985
Socio-Economic and Health Survey of the Confederated Tribes
of Siletz
conducted by Roberta L. Hall of the Oregon State
University Anthropology Department for the Tribe provided
much needed information about the status and needs of Siletz
Indians (Hal1,1985).
The Family Functioning of Neglectful
Families Study conducted by Kristine Nelson and other
members of the Northwest Indian Child Welfare Association
Inc. for The National Resource Center on Family Based
Services compared various characteristics of neglecting and
non-neglecting, native and non-native families from Tama
County, Iowa (The Sac & Fox and Mesquite tribes) and the
eleven Oregon counties the Siletz identify as their service
area (Nelson,1992).
Nelson reports a sample of 57 native
and 83 non-native families, but does not identify which
families were from Iowa or Oregon.
This suggests that the
families from Iowa and Oregon, native and non-native, were
decided to be more similar than different, making it
acceptable to not separate them into separate groups by
state and/or tribe. Demographic data from both studies will
be compared to data from the Oregon Family Study Siletz
sample.
Another recent study done with the participation of the
people of Siletz was, "The Siletz Eels:" (1993) by Downey,
84
Rilatos, Sondenaa, and Zybach.
This study, featuring a
qualitative report of interviews with Siletz elders talking
about Siletz River Lamprey fishing customs was especially
exciting because the principal investigators were Siletz
Tribal members.
85
3. More about the Confederated Tribes of Silitz
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz includes the Alsea,
Chastacosta, Chetco, Chinook, Kusa, Siuslaw, Shasta, Umpqua,
Maconotin, Joshua, Coquille, Tutuni, Molalla, Tillamook,
Rogue River, Dekubetde, Kwatami (Sixes), Galice Creek,
Salmon River, Kalapuya, Naltnatunne, Yaquina, Yuki, and
Klickatat (Siletz Newsletter, 1993).
Most of the people who
would later make up the Siletz were isolated in the Siletz
reservation area by the mid-1800's. In 1855 the Siletz ceded
nearly 11 million acres of their land in a treaty which they
adhered to, but the United States government never totally
observed because the treaty was never ratified in Congress
(Zucker et. al., 1983).
Although the Siletz had already
endured many hardships and great loss of land, further
disruptions came in 1892 and 1901 when the allotment policy
of the U.S. government caused surplus lands not allotted to
individual Siletz members to go to the United States.
In
1954 the government's termination policy ended all ties
between the U.S. government and the people of Siletz
et. al., 1983).
(Zucker
The reservation, which at one time exceeded
1,3000,000 acres in size, no longer existed (Siletz
Newsletter, 1993).
This official loss of identity and legal
claim to much of anything (e.g., land, fishing and hunting
rights, and sacred artifacts) caused many to move from the
Siletz reservation area to more urban areas.
Through
decades of work, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz was
restored to full recognition in 1977 (Zucker et. al., 1983).
86
Today the Confederated Tribes serves members in eleven
Oregon counties and is in the midst of attaining full
control of their economic and political destiny through
economic developments such as a salmon smokehouse and a
gaming center and political changes such as a reworking of
their relationship with the federal government as one of
twenty-three tribes in the United States to be a part of the
Self-Governance Demonstration Project (Siletz Newsletter,
1993)
.
87
4. The process behind this study's definition of an
"American Indian family"
One of the biggest issues facing this project was the
criteria item, "Siletz American Indian family".
families need to be Siletz Indian families?
Do all the
Although the
National Institute of Mental Health did know of the
project's intention to work with the Confederated Tribes of
Siletz, funding for this project did not specify that the
subjects needed to be only Siletz families.
Consisting of
many tribes and coming from very different areas already,
the people of Siletz have become a very diverse Indian
community. Very few of the Siletz surveyed in the Hall
survey were full blood Native Americans, most did not know
how much they had or had 1/2 or less Indian blood (Hall,
1985).
There is also precedent for combining Siletz
subjects with seemingly dissimilar Indian subjects (Nelson,
1992).
So it was decided that, although most of the
families would be tribal members or non-Siletz Indian
families from the town of Siletz, it would be acceptable for
Indian families from other tribes to be a part of the study
in order to achieve the desired sample size of twenty-five.
What is an "American Indian family"?
This question
goes back to one of the most divisive controversies in the
American Indian community today, "What/who is an Indian?".
There seem to be as many definitions as there are tribes.
(Fay, 1981).
The government has its share of bureaucratic
answers to the question of Indian identity. Most of their
88
answers say that if you are recognized by some entity,
either a tribe or some other kind of community Indian
organization, then you are an Indian (United States Reports,
1980; Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1987; U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1990).
And numerous people have written on
the subject (Cohen, 1982; Will, 1988; Wallman & Hodgdon,
1977).
So until some kind of consensus is attained, it
would seem prudent for research to stay out of this debate
and look to a theory and research based definition rather
than a governmental or a tribal definition (see Subjects
section).
89
5. Official Descriptions of Key Global Codes
13-14 Participation (Wood, 1992)
Overall how active was...
13. the mother in the interaction?
14. the father in the interaction?
1- virtually not at all
e.g,
withdrawn, uninterested
2- some, not much
3- not very active
4- moderately active
generally involved in interaction without much
initiation of own (follows other's leads).
5- very active with some initiation
6- highly active
7- extremely active
participates and initiates throughout the interaction
(often the director of conversation)
In general the higher the participation throughout the
interaction and the higher the initiation, the higher you
would rate on this scale. The low end of the scale may
represent solely responsive behavior or low frequency.
For example, you can give a 6 or 7 to participants who are
actively engaged throughout the interaction (initiating and
responding to the others).
Use a 7 for the participants who are obviously more active
(such as in taking the lead, responding to everything that
is said) and a 6 for participants who although active
throughout do take turns with others, etc. (Exception is
when you have 2, or in very rare cases 3, people totally
active throughout--talking over one another, etc.)
90
19 Coalition (Wood. 1992)
Overall, how much were...
19. mother and father in a coalition against the child?
1-not at all
2-occasionally
3-sometimes
4-regularly
5-more often than not
6-usually
7-almost always
Coalition behaviors include: siding with one against the
other, supporting one member, agreeing with one member but
not the other. The high end of the scale represents
examples of coalition behaviors .against the other.
The low
end of the scale may reflect some siding-with behaviors more
than overt siding against behaviors.
Ratings may take into
account the frequency or intensity of coalition behaviors.
Look for behavioral evidence of a coalition, body placement,
body language, physical affection. Consider two primary
components of a coalition score, togetherness and
againstness.
However the final rating includes your overall
impression of the strength of a coalition between tow
participants against a third. Oppositional behavior against
the third party may involve disagreement or more subtle
behaviors. Active exclusion of the third party from the
interaction may involve ignoring their comments,
interrupting them, or other subtle tactics.
For example:
a 1: indicates no evidence of a coalition between these two
participants.
a 2: indicates that the parties did occasionally agree with
each other or were "in synch" for a substantial amount
of time.
a 3: a. the two parties sometimes side with each other
against the third, or,
b. the two parties each oppose the third person, but
don't necessarily agree with each other overtly.
a 4: a. two parties regularly siding with each other against
the third person, or,
91
b. two parties siding with each other while actively
excluding the third person, or,
c. two parties use different angles for the same
subject or are against the third party, or,
d. one party of a coalition is more outspoken than the
other in opposition to the third, but the quieter
member of the coalition is still supportive of the
outspoken member.
a 5: frequent agreement between two parties which sometimes
opposes the third person. Not real strong agreement
between two parties. They are saying some of the same
things to the third party. The two in coalition expand
on each other's ideas somewhat. The third person may
still be somewhat or even moderately active.
a 6: consistent agreement between two parties which often
opposes the third person. The two parties in coalition
are both together and against, however, there are
things that you can think of that would make the
coalition stronger. .Perhaps they didn't always finish
each other's sentences, or took the third person's side
for a brief time.
The two parties are still
individuals
not totally united in their opposition of
the third person.
,
a 7: very consistent agreement between two parties which
almost always opposes the third person. The
interaction is very against the third person and the
two in coalition are very together. They finish
sentences for each other, pick up where the other left
off, and support each other, especially in opposition
of the other.
The togetherness is so strong that it
may appear that there is only one voice opposing the
third.
The third person may be inactive during the
interaction.
92
23-25 Problem Solvina (Wood, 1992)
23. Extent of resolution:
1. No resolution, total disagreement.
2. No resolution, little or no attempt to solve
problem.
3. No resolution; tried, but poor skills.
4. No resolution, not enough time (did work towards
solution).
5. Somewhat resolved; valid solution(s) proposed.
6. Fairly well resolved.
7. Agreed; problem solved.
24. Quality of proposed solution(s):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
No solution(s) proposed. <solution vs. resolution>
Very poor solution(s) proposed.
Poor solution(s) proposed.
Fair solution(s) proposed.
Good solution(s) proposed.
Very good solution(s) proposed.
Excellent solution(s) proposed.
25. Quality of the overall problem solving process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
extremely poor
very poor
poor
moderate
good
very good
extremely good
Overall, how well did the participants
solution? Did they define the problem
time on the problem? Did they discuss
the problem? Was everyone involved in
they participants receptive to other's
so forth?
work towards a
and spend most of the
possible solutions to
the process? Were
views, feelings, and