Full text of DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00015.x

Basic Research and Implications for Practice in Family Science:
A Content Analysis and Status Report for U.S. Ethnic Groups*
Roy A. Bean,** D. Russell Crane, and Traci L. Lewis
Articles published in prominent family science journals over a 14-year period were analyzed for their attention to U.S. ethnic groups.
Articles were analyzed in terms of their ethnic population of interest, topic of study, type of implication for applied professionals,
funding source, and sample characteristics. A number of findings indicate an increasing sensitivity and dedication to research focusing
on these groups; however, fewer than 16% of the articles were found to focus on U.S. ethnic populations, and only one fourth of these
offered specific recommendations to practicing family science professionals. This analysis of the family science literature provides a
baseline against which future efforts in basic and applied research can be measured.
t is projected that ethnic minorities will outnumber those of
the majority culture in the United States sometime this cen-
tury (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). This expected growth in
Vega, 1990). Recognizing that many of these reviews concen-
trated on a particular ethnic group or on a particular scholarly
journal, this study is distinctive in its investigative focus on the
family science field as a whole. Furthermore, rather than focus-
ing on a particular ethnic group, this study was designed as a
broad content analysis of the family science research literature
relating to U.S. ethnic groups. In documenting the nature of past
research, recent publication trends, and the overall status of the
field, the intent was to establish a baseline against which future
efforts in researching U.S. ethnic groups could be measured.
To organize and present the findings from this content anal-
ysis, the following questions were used to guide the investiga-
tion.
I
the U.S. ethnic population is related to the high rates of immi-
gration from Asia and Latin America, combined with high birth-
rates from these and other ethnic groups (U.S. Census Bureau,
1
998). In response to these demographic and cultural changes,
certain segments of U.S. society are more aware of ethnic di-
versity, including those in family science. For example, the 1999
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) annual confer-
ence was specifically organized around the topic of culturally
diverse individuals and families. Regardless of societal and pro-
fessional responsiveness, however, there is evidence of continued
discrimination, tension, and even conflict in U.S. race and ethnic
relations.
As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, a greater
degree of societal and governmental flexibility will be required
to extend the rights and responsibilities of citizenship to all
Americans. One important ingredient in the development and
maintenance of this type of flexibility is an accurate understand-
ing of U.S. ethnic groups. In a uniquely strategic position, family
science occupies a central location in which professionals from
various specializations can be exposed to accurate information
about the ethnic groups that currently reside in the United States.
In fact, the audience of one of the field’s premier journals is
described as including ‘‘family life educators . . . , researchers
1
. How many studies reported using an ethnically diverse
sample?
2
3
4
5
6
. Which ethnic groups were studied?
. What topics were examined or discussed in the articles?
. What was the nature of the research samples?
. Were within-group differences examined?
. What was the nature of the funding for studies of eth-
nically diverse groups?
. Which types of implications were offered to applied fam-
ily science professionals?
7
Method
.
(
. . , family practitioners . . . , and family policy specialists’’
NCFR, 1999, Family Relations, inside cover).
The Inventory of Marriage and Family Literature (IMFL;
Touliatos, 1994), ‘‘a multidisciplinary and non-evaluative collec-
tion of the published marriage and family literature’’ (p. vii),
was used in the selection of the journals for this study. On an
annual basis, the IMFL catalogs articles published on marriage
and family topics from several hundred professional journals.
Each volume of the IMFL contains a list of those journals that
published 25 or more articles on marriage and family topics dur-
ing the respective year.
Cognizant of its ability to disseminate a great deal of infor-
mation to this broad spectrum of family-focused professionals,
family science has focused research attention on U.S. ethnic
groups at national conferences and in the form of special journal
issues devoted to the topic (e.g., Fine, 1993). In fact, the field
has allowed and encouraged critical analyses of its research at-
tention to U.S. ethnic groups (e.g., Demo, Allen, & Fine, 2000;
Demos, 1990; Dilworth-Anderson, Burton, & Turner, 1993;
To meet the criteria for inclusion in this study, the journals
first had to appear on the aforementioned list in any of three
volumes of the IMFL (Vol. 17, Touliatos & Czaplewski, 1991;
Vol. 18, Touliatos, 1993; Vol. 19, Touliatos, 1994). Second, the
journals had to be clearly identifiable by title, or by journal de-
scription in Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory (1992),
as focusing on marital or family topics. Third, the journal had
to be currently publishing and based in the United States because
our study focused on U.S. ethnic groups. Fourth, the remaining
journals were ranked by circulation rates, and the top four were
selected for inclusion in this review: Family Perspective, Family
Relations, Journal of Family Issues, and Journal of Marriage
and Family.
*
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1995 annual conference of the
National Council on Family Relations, Portland, Oregon. Special appreciation is expressed
to Quinn Bastian, Martin Erikson, Michael Hinds, Ericka King, John Kirkman, Mike Shoe-
maker, and Jason Whiting for their assistance with the review. Manuscript preparation was
partially supported by a grant from the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
awarded to the first author.
*
*Department of Human Development and Family Science, Ohio State University,
1
35 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 (bean.52@osu.edu).
Key Words: content analysis, ethnicity, family science research, race.
(
Family Relations, 2002, 51, 15–21)
2
002, Vol. 51, No. 1
15

Table 1
Frequency and Percent of Family Science Journal Articles Dealing With Ethnicity or Specific Ethnic Groups, 1984–1997
Type of Focus
Focused
Peripheral
Not Involved
Total
Journal
n
%
n
%
n
%
N
Family Perspective
Family Relations
Journal of Family Issues
Journal of Marriage and Family
45
81
74
13.5
9.7
18.7
19.8
29
102
60
8.7
12.2
15.1
8.1
260
655
263
872
77.8
78.1
66.2
72.1
334
838
397
240
98
1210
Total
440
15.8
289
10.4
2050
73.8
2779
Articles in these journals were analyzed first by a panel of
students, and the resultant findings were then validated twice
more by two separate reviewers. Articles were defined as any
conceptual or empirical work (including research notes), except
for book reviews, feedback pieces, and editor’s notes and intro-
ductions. Three separate and distinct categories were used to
classify the articles: (a) focused—the ethnic group was examined
as a principal part of the study’s design or conceptual discussion,
and the title or abstract indicated an emphasis on ethnicity or a
specific ethnic group; (b) peripheral—the ethnic group was in-
volved in the study, usually as a small part of the research pop-
ulation, but the topic or findings are not discussed in relation to
the ethnic group; and (c) not involved—ethnic groups were not
a part of the research population or any conceptual discussion.
Also, to maintain the focus on ethnic diversity within the United
States, articles examining international populations were not re-
viewed.
In reporting and discussing the findings of this study, mem-
bers of the European American majority culture are referred to
as Anglos when discussed as a group, and references to other
ethnic groups use the common categories of African Americans,
Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. These broad
categories were used to organize and present the findings more
clearly; however, recognizing the diversity found within each
ethnic group, findings were reported relative to specific within-
group distinctions (e.g., Mexican American) whenever possible.
Finally, when references are made to the ethnic groups collec-
tively, the term U.S. ethnic groups or people of color is used
rather than ethnic minority to avoid the connotation that these
groups are somehow less important or valuable.
of ethnic subjects because of a dedicated effort to sample or
oversample U.S. ethnic groups (e.g., McLaughlin & Lichter,
1997; Raley, 1995). Given that the focused articles discussed and
applied their findings to the specific ethnic groups sampled, the
decision was made to limit this content analysis to the focused
articles only.
There is an indication of increased publication of ethnic-
focused articles over the 14-year period. From 1984 through
1
8
2
997, the percentages of focused articles for each year were 11.1,
.2, 12.7, 11.5, 15.6, 12.1, 23.7, 18.1, 11.1, 23.0, 14.1, 22.1,
2.4, and 19.4, respectively. During the 1984–1989 span, the
average percentage of focused articles was 11.9%, and it was
1
1
9.2% for the 1990–1997 period. (Hereafter, the period 1984–
989 will be referred to as the 1980s and the period 1990–1997
as the 1990s.) The majority of the focused articles (366) were
empirical in nature, with the remaining 74 articles focusing on
the respective ethnic group in a discussion-based, conceptual
manner.
Which Ethnic Groups Were Studied?
Among the 440 focused articles, 171 were so classified be-
cause they addressed one or more ethnic groups as the main topic
of a conceptual article or because they made up all or almost all
of the research participants. The other 269 articles discussed spe-
cific ethnic groups with members of the Anglo majority and
examined the application of theory or research findings to all
groups. In terms of the specific populations studied, African
Americans were the population of interest in 225 articles (51.1%
of the focused articles), Asian Americans in 10 (2.3%), Latinos
in 32 (7.3%), and Native Americans in 12 (2.7%); 82 articles
Results
(
18.6%) included both Latinos and African Americans. In ad-
How Many Studies Reported Using an Ethnically
Diverse Sample?
During the 14-year span, 2,779 articles were published in
the four journals (see Table 1). The majority of articles (2,050,
dition, 39 focused articles (8.9%) were categorized as ‘‘other,’’
because they involved an ethnic group not mentioned above,
such as Italian Americans or Jewish Americans. The remaining
4
0 articles (9.1%) comprised a ‘‘mixed’’ category of three or
more ethnic groups combined in the same conceptual discussion
or empirical analysis. Except in the case of Native Americans,
more empirical articles were published than conceptual articles
for each ethnic group.
When the focused articles were examined by ethnicity, a
difference was again noted between the 1980s and 1990s: The
average number of articles published per year increased over the
7
3.8%) were categorized as not involved, with another 289 ar-
ticles (10.4%) classified as peripheral. Peripheral generally en-
compassed those studies where U.S. ethnic groups were part of
the research sample, but insufficient numbers prevented exami-
nations of ethnic differences. For the peripheral articles in which
samples sizes were sufficient, preliminary findings often justified
the exclusion of ethnicity as a variable of study.
1
4-year span for every ethnic group except Asian Americans. In
We defined 440 (15.8%) articles as focused. Not surprising-
ly, people of color constituted a much higher average percentage
of the total research sample in the articles from the focused cat-
egory (54%) compared with the peripheral category (20%). In
many cases, these focused articles contained a higher percentage
particular, the increase was noteworthy for articles focusing on
Latinos, for which the yearly publication rate more than doubled
from an average of seven articles per year during the 1980s to
16 articles per year during the 1990s.
1
6
Family Relations

Table 2
Number of Articles by Topic and by Ethnic Group of Interest
a
Ethnicity
AsA
b
Topic
AA
L
NA
Other
Mixed
Total
Gender/sex roles, division of labor
Marital relationship (quality, discord, transition to marriage)
Interracial relationships
22
32
2
28
20
27
25
25
56
7
5
9
0
10
7
14
10
14
16
5
2
11
4
8
4
3
15
7
5
2
12
16
12
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
1
1
5
0
2
0
3
1
1
4
1
2
3
0
2
1
2
7
1
2
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
1
9
3
4
5
2
2
6
4
0
14
6
0
8
10
12
4
4
0
8
0
3
3
1
6
9
8
31
41
13
35
22
38
32
38
70
13
11
38
19
39
10
16
57
24
13
22
37
62
51
21
21
43
Nonmarital couple relationships (mate selection, cohabitation)
Childbearing among nonteenagers, transition to parenthood
Mother–child relationships (quality, discord, child rearing)
Father–child relationships (quality, discord, child rearing)
Parent–adolescent/adult child relationships (quality, discord)
Family structure (single-parent families, stepfamilies)
Family functioning (communication, conflict)
Health problems, physical disabilities
Mental health problems (anxiety, depression)
Externalized or antisocial problems (delinquency, aggression)
Family strengths, coping with stress, support networks
Substance abuse or use
Violence (marital, family, community, abuse)
Sexual behavior and fertility (teenage pregnancy)
Therapeutic or programmatic interventions (government policies)
Immigration, migration, and acculturation
Specific cultural practice or ethnic identity
Work and the family (child care)
6
25
18
28
8
13
37
10
1
5
5
3
7
9
9
7
6
29
48
37
11
13
29
Economics and the family (poverty, welfare)
Divorce and marital instability (separation, child support)
Education and the family (academic grades)
Aging and the role of elderly family members
Miscellaneous (review articles, demographic trends)
6
11
a
AA ϭ African America; L ϭ Latino; AsA ϭ Asian American; NA ϭ Native American; Other ϭ other non-Anglo ethnic group; Mixed ϭ 3 or more ethnic groups.
Totals do not equal cells because a sizable number of articles focused on both African Americans and Latinos and were included for both ethnic groups.
b
as many articles were published during the second half for eight
topics including nonmarital couple relationships, father–child re-
lationships, health problems, externalized problems, work and
What Topics Were Examined or Discussed in the
Articles?
Each of the 440 focused articles were analyzed and classi-
fied according to a main topic. One to three topics, drawn from
the listed key words (where available), were assigned in the case
of each article. The resulting list of topics was compared with
Touliatos (1994) to ensure that they were representative of the
main topic areas for the family-based research literature. As can
be seen in Table 2, these articles were found to address a wide
variety of topics.
The three topics that received the most research attention
were family structure (e.g., single-parent families, stepfamilies,
extended families), sexual behavior and fertility (e.g., teenage
pregnancy, child rearing by teenage mothers), and economics
and the family (e.g., poverty, welfare). These same three topics
most often included African Americans and Latinos. In fact, ev-
ery topic was examined or discussed for African Americans and
all but one for Latinos (i.e., interracial relationships). Relatively
few articles were published for the other ethnic groups, so a fair
determination of the most popular topics could not be made for
Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other U.S. ethnic
groups. The topics that received the least amount of research
attention were substance abuse and use and health problems and
disabilities; it can be reasoned that these topics are likely to be
addressed in other specialized journals. In contrast, two other
family, economics and family, education and family, and aging/
role of the elderly. The topic of economics and family experi-
enced the largest change, with the total increasing from 19 ar-
ticles published during the first half to 43 articles published dur-
ing the second half.
It should be noted that the increase in research attention to
many of these areas demonstrates the field’s interest in studying
other types of family diversity as well. For example, fathering,
cohabiting couples, families with disabled children, working
mothers, and the important role of older family members are all
topics that have received increased attention in the family science
literature. It could be argued that the new focus on these topics
is market driven, as family science responds to the societal and
demographic changes occurring in the United States. It also sug-
gests, however, that family science journals offer a forum of
topics and populations that were marginalized in the past.
Although no overt examples of discriminatory research were
found, some concern may be warranted given the number of
articles related to societal ‘‘problems’’ (e.g., single-parent fami-
lies, teenage pregnancy, poverty) among U.S. ethnic groups. It
is possible that these topical areas were emphasized over others
because of researcher bias; however, overall family science lit-
erature emphasizes these same topics (Touliatos, 1994). This
suggests a more general topical bias toward societal problems in
the field’s examination of all U.S. families rather than any par-
ticular ethnic prejudice.
‘
‘underresearched’’ topics (i.e., family communication and fam-
ily conflict) are certainly within the domain of family science
and unlikely to be published in non–family science journals,
which makes their absence particularly noteworthy.
What Was the Nature of the Research Samples?
In analyzing the nature of the research populations used to
study U.S. ethnic groups, considerable variety was found in
Several topics experienced a marked increase in research
attention over time. For example, compared with the number of
articles published in the first half of the period analyzed, twice
2
002, Vol. 51, No. 1
17

Table 3
Number of Family Science Journal Articles by Use of National Data Sets and the Ethnic Group of Interest
a
Ethnicity
Data Set
Total
AA
L
AsA
NA
Other
Mixed
High School and Beyond
General Social Surveys
5
8
5
7
2
0
1
1
4
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
7
Panel Study of Income Dynamics
National longitudinal surveys (other)
Current Population Surveys
National Survey of Family Growth
National Survey of Black Americans
U.S. Census data
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
National Survey of Families and Households
Other national dataset
10
11
12
13
13
20
26
40
51
10
11
11
13
13
15
25
36
35
16
16
15
b
Total
209
181
62
2
0
11
11
a
AA ϭ African America; L ϭ Latino; AsA ϭ Asian American; NA ϭ Native American; Other ϭ other non-Anglo ethnic group; Mixed ϭ 3 or more ethnic groups.
Totals do not equal cells because a sizable number of articles focused on both African Americans and Latinos and were included for both ethnic groups.
b
terms of the type of research sample and its ethnic representa-
tion. Fifty-seven percent of the empirical articles used a national
data set, and the remaining articles used research samples col-
lected locally. As can be seen in Table 3, the National Survey
of Families and Households (NSFH; Sweet, Bumpass, & Call,
the most common educational level for participants. Several top-
ic areas were dominant in their use of low-education samples;
however, this bias was found to be age-appropriate (e.g., studies
of teenage pregnancy) or topic-appropriate (e.g., studies of fam-
ily economic hardship).
Regarding within-group differences in national origin, the
articles focusing on Native Americans did not emphasize any
particular tribal nation over another, and all but one of the Af-
rican American–focused studies used U.S.-born populations. The
majority of the Latino studies used Mexican American samples,
although some did address other Latino groups, such as Puerto
Ricans (e.g., Rogler & Procidano, 1989). In the case of the stud-
ies that used Asian American samples, the majority used a Jap-
anese American or Chinese American sample. Overall, articles
were more likely to report and discuss differences in national
origin for their Latino or Asian American samples if they were
drawn from a local data set.
There is a longstanding admonition to consider level of ac-
culturation when studying immigrant ethnic groups in the United
States, such as Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and
Mexican Americans (Berry & Annis, 1974; Rogler, Cortes, &
Malgady, 1991). Nevertheless, only 14 articles considered ac-
culturation an important variable, and only seven discussed their
findings in terms of the acculturation level of their sample. It is
also noteworthy that none of the articles using a national data
set included a measure of acculturation. The majority of studies
that considered differences in acculturation level when inter-
preting their findings used a data set consisting of a local (not
national) Latino sample.
Across time, there was a negligible increase in the number
of articles that examined within-group differences according to
national origin and acculturation. In contrast, when comparing
the 1990s to the 1980s, the number of articles more than doubled
examining within-group differences in educational level (from
45 to 129) and SES (from 30 to 128). This indicates a growing
sensitivity to the heterogeneity found within ethnic groups and
presents a more valid ecological view of U.S. ethnic families
(Falicov, 1988).
1
988) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (Baker &
Mott, 1989) were the national data sets most frequently used in
family science literature when researching U.S. ethnic groups.
In many instances, the national data sets purposefully ov-
ersampled African Americans and Latinos (e.g., NSFH), allow-
ing for the sample sizes necessary to examine these groups. The
other ethnic groups were not strongly represented in the studies
that used the national data sets, primarily because Native Amer-
ican tribes and many Asian American groups are located in spe-
cific geographic locations and are not found in sufficient num-
bers nationally. It is also important to consider that the Latinos
in these data sets are likely to be moderately or highly accultur-
ated, because there was no report of bilingual questionnaires or
interviews used in data collection, suggesting that participants
were surveyed in English.
Were Within-Group Differences Examined?
Sensitive to group heterogeneity, the focused articles were
further analyzed to examine their attention to within-group dif-
ferences (e.g., socioeconomic status, education level, national or-
igin, and acculturation). Also, the research topics were reexam-
ined in the context of these within-group demographic variables
to determine if there was a pattern of investigative bias when
selecting the population for study. This portion of the content
analysis was limited to the 366 empirical focused articles, be-
cause only one conceptual article discussed within-group differ-
ences.
Of the empirical articles, 146 did not describe their research
sample in terms of its socioeconomic status (SES). Of the re-
maining 221 articles, 55 (24.9%) used a primarily lower income
sample, 27 (7.4%) used a middle-income sample, and 139
(
62.9%) used a mixed sample of various income levels. No in-
vestigative biases were noted in terms of sample selection be-
cause every topic was studied without an ‘‘overreliance’’ on sub-
jects from any one SES group.
What Was the Nature of the Funding for Studies of
Ethnically Diverse Groups?
The majority of the empirical articles (277, 75.5%) reported
the educational level of the participants. Most of these studies
used samples of mixed educational levels (148, 53.4%), but a
high school degree or general education diploma equivalent was
Information regarding funding was taken from the authors’
footnotes to the article. Of the 440 focused articles, 245 articles
1
8
Family Relations

Table 4
(55.7%) were funded by one or more of the following funding
Number of Family Science Journal Articles by Focus of Implication Section and
the Ethnic Group of Interest
sources: federal, state, private, university, or a combination of
these. Funding sources were diverse, but the majority of studies
were federally funded (144, 58.8%); the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development was designated as the
funding source for 68 studies (37.8%), followed by the National
Institute of Mental Health for 37 studies (20.6%). Other sources
of funding were state (9, 3.7%), private (24, 9.8%), university
a
Ethnicity
Focus of
Implications
AA
L
AsA
NA
Other
Mixed
Policy
Education
Therapy
45
11
20
15
6
5
0
1
3
0
1
0
2
1
2
9
3
2
Total
76
26
4
1
5
14
(
1
35, 14.3%), or a combination of all funding sources (31,
2.7%). Comparing the 1990s to the 1980s, there was a slight
a
AA ϭ African America; L ϭ Latino; AsA ϭ Asian American; NA ϭ Native
American; Other ϭ other non-Anglo ethnic group; Mixed ϭ 3 or more ethnic
groups.
increase in all of the funding sources. University funding was
the sole source of funds for the studies on Native Americans,
and, with the exception of three federally funded studies, this
source was also the only one to fund studies (in the articles
examined here) that focused on Asian Americans. Consistent
with their position as the nation’s largest ethnic group, almost
majority of the research studies with implications used African
American samples, with the next largest ethnic group being La-
tinos. In fact, only 10 articles discussed the application of their
findings to an ethnic sample that did not include either African
Americans or Latinos. Second, 68 research articles (62.4%) were
based on funded projects, with the majority of these being fund-
ed wholly or in part by federal grants (38, 56%). On the other
hand, state research funds were noted in only six studies, indi-
cating that state funding was the least available or least pursued
funding source for these types of research studies.
5
7% of these funded articles focused on African Americans.
When examining patterns of funding across topics, a number
of important findings and trends were noted. First, every funding
source was designated in at least one article on the topics of
mother–child relationships and sexual behavior and fertility. Sec-
ond, the topics where funding was most often designated were
nonmarital couple relationships, family structure, and sexual be-
havior and fertility. Third, the least funded topics were interracial
relationships, family functioning, health problems, externalized
problems, and specific cultural practices. Fourth, federal monies
funded studies in 23 of the 24 topic areas, followed by university
funding 17 topic areas, and private foundations funding studies
in 12 topic areas. Fifth, a consistent pattern of funding (at least
one per year) was found for studies dealing with the following
four topics: family structure, family strengths/coping, sexual be-
havior and fertility, and divorce/marital instability. Sixth, signif-
icantly more funded articles were published in the 1990s than in
the 1980s for the topics of nonmarital relationships (1990s: M
ϭ 2.63, SD ϭ 1.60; 1980s: M ϭ .50, SD ϭ .84; t ϭ 2.95, p Ͻ
Third, the 109 articles were found to include studies of all
6 topics; however, the majority of the articles included the fol-
2
lowing topics: economics and the family, family structure, family
strengths and coping, mother–child relationships, father–child re-
lationships, work and family, and sexual behavior and fertility.
Within each these areas, there were similar numbers of articles
providing implications and recommendations for each of the
main types of family science–affiliated professionals (policy
makers, educators, therapists). Not unexpectedly given their sta-
tus as the largest ethnic group in the United States, the majority
of these studies used an African American sample.
.
.
05), parent–adolescent relationships (1990s: M ϭ 2.25, SD ϭ
89; 1980s: M ϭ .67, SD ϭ .52; t ϭ 3.89, p Ͻ .05), family
Discussion and Implications
structure (1990s: M ϭ 3.75, SD ϭ 1.49; 1980s: M ϭ 1.83, SD
ϭ 1.47; t ϭ 2.39, p Ͻ .05), sexual behavior and fertility (1990s:
M ϭ 3.38, SD ϭ 2.56; 1980s: M ϭ 1.00, SD ϭ .63; t ϭ 2.20,
p Ͻ .05), work and family (1990s: M ϭ 2.50, SD ϭ 1.77; 1980s:
M ϭ .50, SD ϭ .55; t ϭ 2.65, p Ͻ .05), and economics and
family (1990s: M ϭ 3.75, SD ϭ 2.25; 1980s: M ϭ .83, SD ϭ
Our findings indicate an increasing sensitivity and dedica-
tion to ethnic diversity in family science research literature. The
percentage of focused articles published per year increased in
the 1990s, there was greater attention to within-group differences
in education level and SES during this same period, and the
majority of the focused articles were derived from studies des-
ignated as funded. Although more time is needed to determine
whether this trend represents a short- or long-term commitment,
there is reason to believe that family science has made a con-
centrated effort to better understand the lives of some U.S. ethnic
families.
.
75; t ϭ 3.02, p Ͻ .05).
Which Types of Implications Are Offered to Applied
Family Science Professionals?
All but 39 of the 440 focused articles contained recommen-
dations or implications for family science professionals (e.g., re-
searchers, therapists, policy makers); in many instances, how-
ever, this implication section consisted of a single sentence. In
fact, only 109 articles discussed specific implications in a sub-
stantive fashion (n ϭ 50 one paragraph only, n ϭ 59 more than
one paragraph), applying their empirical findings to therapists
The findings reported here indicate continued progress in
researching African American families and increased efforts in
terms of researching Latino families. Other ethnic groups, how-
ever, are not well researched and may be at a much higher risk
of being underserved by the available family resources. Addi-
tional concern regarding inadequate service is made clear by two
other factors. First, there were relatively few articles that offered
specific instructions to applied family science professionals in
relation to U.S. ethnic families (109 out of 2,779 total articles,
3.92%). Second, in the vast majority of these 109 articles, im-
plications of the findings were directed to policy makers only
and not to those who interact with families on a daily basis (i.e.,
family life educators, therapists, program evaluators and devel-
opers). Although it is important to direct research findings at
(29 articles), educators (20), or policy-making professionals (60).
Not surprisingly, given its mission statement, Family Relations
had the largest number of articles (46) relating research findings
to the needs of these applied professionals.
Guided by these findings, the 109 articles were further an-
alyzed according to the ethnicity of the sample, designation of
funding source, and topic. First, as can be seen in Table 4, the
2
002, Vol. 51, No. 1
19

large-scale societal or institutional change, there are certain
drawbacks to this dominant focus on policy implications. Spe-
cifically, this approach does little to close the gap between re-
search and practice because it does not require researchers to
refine their operationalization of theory or the theory itself. It is
important that researchers address the implications of their find-
ings to the professionals who interact with the U.S. ethnic fam-
ilies being researched because the majority of the body of knowl-
edge in family science is based on research and experiences with
Anglo majority-culture families.
Appreciative of the recent improvement in the number of
research articles focusing on ethnic groups, there remains a
shortage of information about these groups in the family science
professional literature. Although the percentage of U.S. ethnic
groups is estimated to be more than 25% of the total population
tural groups outside the majority culture, Smith and Ingoldsby
suggested using a variety of creative techniques, such as film
and other multimedia, journals, case studies, and guest speakers
to enrich such educational experiences. In combination with per-
sonal experiences with (other) people of color, these resources
can help educators compensate for the underdeveloped state of
comparative and educational materials.
Therapists and other practitioners with ethnically diverse cli-
entele can assist in the challenge of researching U.S. ethnic
groups by making their practices available for research. This is
especially relevant to the clinicians who have regular working
contact with ethnic populations or with topic areas that were
found to be underresearched (see Table 2 for underresearched
topics and populations such as interracial couples, violence in
Asian American or Latino families, or the relationships between
home and school for Native Americans). When working with
clients of a different ethnic group, practitioners also should con-
sider using ethnic consultants to help them understand any cul-
tural differences that may complicate the therapeutic relation-
ship. This is particularly important, as noted previously, for the
ethnic groups that are severely underrepresented in the profes-
sional literature (i.e., the various Native American tribes and
Asian nationalities). Along with all professionals, therapists and
practitioners should understand that the literature on U.S. ethnic
groups is limited and that caution must be used when making
generalizations to clients and program participants (Bean, Perry,
(
U.S. Census Bureau, 1998), fewer than 16% of the articles pub-
lished in the field’s top four journals focus on these groups. This
gap may be even more dramatic given the contention of many
that ethnic populations are underestimated in U.S. census data
(
Ponterotto & Casas, 1991). This shortfall is particularly distress-
ing in relation to Asian Americans (10 articles) and Native
Americans (12 articles) because of the variability in family life
found among the many nationalities and unique tribal cultures
grouped together in these ethnic categories.
Although the majority of the articles (84%, 2,339) do not
focus on U.S. ethnic groups, it is unfair and unreasonable to
believe that they lack, at least, partial application to these groups.
For instance, regardless of ethnicity, all families have structure,
traditions, rules, and roles. Unfortunately, the problem lies in
determining what portion of the articles’ findings and arguments
relates to a particular ethnic group, and more important, what
information can be used in applied work with said group. For
this reason, it is crucial that the various family science profes-
sionals (policy makers, educators, practitioners, and researchers)
consider the challenges they need to address in the face of a
continued shortage of information regarding people of color in
the United States.
&
Bedell, 2001). Where information is found to be lacking, pro-
fessional responsibility suggests that greater knowledge of a par-
ticular U.S. ethnic group should be gained through personal ex-
perience.
Finally, for researchers, few topics can be described as ‘‘well
researched’’ even for the often-studied African American ethnic
group. Consequently, the careful study of most of the family
science topics within any ethnic population can be seen as sig-
nificant contribution to the field’s knowledge, especially when
focused on one of the many Native American tribes or Asian
American subgroups. Of course, as a complicating factor, inter-
ested researchers will struggle with the fact that research funding
For example, developing policy based on the limited knowl-
edge could lead to erroneous and ineffective decisions, especially
when attempts are made to fit people of color into a majority-
culture situation or solution (Dilworth-Anderson & McAdoo,
(particularly federal) seems to be concentrated on studies of Af-
rican Americans and Latinos. Based on our findings, we rec-
ommend that researchers look for possible intersections between
their interests and the topics that have received the most funding
in the past (i.e., cohabiting relationships, single-parent families,
teenage pregnancy) and the other topics for which funding has
recently increased (i.e., work and family, parent–adolescent re-
lationships, economics and the family).
The need for more culturally sensitive practitioner and re-
searcher training will become increasingly important as U.S. eth-
nic populations continue to grow, and these findings demonstrate
that more must be done to examine ethnic populations and the
topics that apply to them. Although this study serves as a base-
line report against which the next 10 to 15 years of family sci-
ence research can be compared, we note that the ultimate stan-
dard for success is whether popular myths and unsubstantiated
theories about U.S. ethnic groups can be replaced with empirical
data and expert opinion. To accomplish this goal and more ef-
fectively serve a multiethnic population, family science needs to
take advantage of its unique situation and produce studies that
are both informative of family life in U.S. ethnic families and
that can be applicable and useful to the various family science
specializations: clinician, policy maker, educator, and researcher.
1
988). However, given our findings, it would be difficult to ap-
proach the task of influencing public and governmental policy
without using the majority Anglo culture or African Americans
as a reference point because more is known about these groups.
Given the lack of information noted for Asian American and
Native American families, and for Latinos of low acculturation
levels, policy makers must weigh the available research data with
expert opinion from ‘‘ethnic consultants.’’ They also should as-
sist, where possible, in the allocation of funds for culturally rel-
evant research as a means of increasing available knowledge.
This would seem to be particularly important at the state and
local levels because state agencies or departments only funded
3
.7% of all the funded articles.
Policy makers are not the only family science professionals
affected by the lack of research regarding U.S. ethnic popula-
tions. Educators report having a difficult time choosing culturally
sensitive and accurate materials for their classrooms or programs,
often making lessons on U.S. ethnic groups general and vague
(
1
Myers-Walls, 2000; Smith & Ingoldsby, 1992; Thompson,
995). Given that one of the responsibilities of educators is to
broaden students’ experience and awareness of ethnic and cul-
2
0
Family Relations

Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority
counseling research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
References
Raley, R. K. (1995). Black and White differences in kin contact and exchange
among never married adults. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 77–103.
Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental
health status among Hispanics. American Psychologist, 46, 585–597.
Rogler, L. H., & Procidano, M. E. (1989). Marital heterogamy and marital quality
in Puerto Rican families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 363–372.
Smith, S., & Ingoldsby, B. (1992). Multicultural family studies: Educating stu-
dents for diversity. Family Relations, 41, 25–30.
Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L., & Call, V. (1989). The design and content of the
national survey of families and households (NSFH-1). Madison, WI: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin–Madison, Center for Demography and Ecology.
Thompson, L. (1995). Teaching about ethnic minority families using a pedagogy
of care. Family Relations, 44, 129–135.
Touliatos, J. (Ed.). (1993). Inventory of marriage and family literature, 18. Min-
neapolis, MN: DataTRAQ International [on behalf of the National Council on
Family Relations].
Touliatos, J. (Ed.). (1994). Inventory of marriage and family literature, 19. Min-
neapolis, MN: DataTRAQ International [on behalf of the National Council on
Family Relations].
Baker, P., & Mott, F. (1989). NLSY child handbook—1989. Columbus, OH: Cen-
ter for Human Resources Research, Ohio State University.
Bean, R. A., Perry, B. J., & Bedell, T. M. (2001). Developing culturally com-
petent marriage and family therapists: Guidelines for working with Hispanic
families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 43–54.
Berry, J. W., & Annis, R. C. (1974). Acculturative stress: The role of ecology,
culture and differentiation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 382–406.
Demo, D. H., Allen, K. R., & Fine, M. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of family
diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Demos, V. (1990). Black family studies in the Journal of Marriage and the
Family and the issue of distortion: A trend analysis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 52, 603–612.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Burton, L. M., & Turner, W. L. (1993). The importance
of values in the study of culturally diverse families. Family Relations, 42,
2
38–242.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., & McAdoo, H. P. (1988). The study of ethnic minority
families: Implications for practitioners and policy makers. Family Relations,
3
7, 265–267.
Touliatos, J., & Czaplewski, M. (Eds.). (1991). Inventory of marriage and family
literature, 17. Minneapolis, MN: DataTRAQ International [on behalf of the
National Council on Family Relations].
Ulrich’s international periodicals directory, 1–3. (1992). New Providence, NJ:
R. R. Bowker.
Falicov, C. J. (1988). Learning to think culturally. In H. A. Liddle, D. C. Breun-
lin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy training and su-
pervision (pp. 335–357). New York: Guilford Press.
Fine, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to understanding family diversity: An
overview of the special issue. Family Relations, 42, 235–237.
McLaughlin, D. K., & Lichter, D. (1997). Poverty and the marital behavior of
young women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 582–594.
Myers-Walls, J. A. (2000). Family diversity and family life education. In D. H.
Demo, K R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp.
United States Census Bureau. (1998). Statistical abstract of the United States:
1
998 (118th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Projections of the resident population by race, His-
panic origin, and nativity: Middle Series, 2050 to 2070. Population Projec-
tions, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/
projections/nation/summary/np-t5-g.txt
3
59–379). New York: Oxford University.
National Council on Family Relations (1999). Borders, boundaries, and bea-
cons: Diverse families in dynamic societies. Irvine, CA: Author.
Vega, W. A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980‘s: A decade of research.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1015–1024.
2
002, Vol. 51, No. 1
21