Intercultural Parenting in Australia

Abstract

This study employed a qualitative and social constructionist approach to examine cultural differences in intercultural parenting and how parents negotiated cultural differences. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 14 intercultural couples/parents. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data and understand the meanings of participants’ experiences. The findings revealed that while intercultural couples experienced several similar aspects of parenting experienced by monocultural couples, their experiences were exacerbated because of the cultural differences. The most common descriptions of differences and uniqueness in parenting were identified as (a) discipline, (b) sleep patterns, (c) cultural taboos refood and traditional medical practices, (d) children’s socialization process, (e) education, (f) language and communication, (g) role of children, and (h) the role of extended families. Five major conflict resolution strategies were identified: (a) communication, (b) compromise, (c) sphere of rule, (d) asymmetrical decision-making, and (e) individual traits. Practical implications for therapists and counsellors working with intercultural parents/couples are discussed.

Keywords

culture intercultural couples parenting styles challenges negotiation acculturation social constructionism

The growth of immigration and social diversity, and advances in global technology, has contributed to an increase in intercultural marriages and relationships (Owen, 2002) and parenting in Australia. In 2015, 26.5% of the total population of Australia were born overseas (Australian bureau of Statistics, 2015). About 17% of Australian couples were in intermarriage between overseas-born and Australian-born partners. Also, there have been some significant changes in the birth place of overseas-born spouses such as from India, Asia, Africa, Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. Consequently, intercultural parenting experience is emerging as an important issue within the family structure in the Australian society.

Parenting experiences can be both challenging and rewarding for intercultural couples and their children. A review of the literature showed no published studies of intercultural parenting in Australia. Much of the Australian literature has focused on parenting styles among different cultural groups and the experiences of children. More research is needed on the parenting experiences of intercultural couples. Sullivan and Cottone (2006) pointed out that little empirical research has been conducted with intercultural couples to assist with understanding cultural problems and useful interventions.

This article will focus on the negotiation patterns and decision-making processes that intercultural couples employ to resolve their cultural differences in parenting. Intercultural is the interactions between members of different cultures and encompasses the different notions of ethnic, interethnic, racial, interracial, religious, interfaith, and national dynamics (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Intercultural couples are adults from different cultural backgrounds in a relationship. Intercultural parents are two intercultural adults in a relationship who are living and raising children together (Perel, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 1999).

Challenges Impacting on Intercultural Couples

The literature on intercultural relationship points to the fact that parenthood can be the trigger to marital conflict (Bustamante, Nelson, Henriksen, & Monakes, 2011; Romano, 2001) and reignite cultural differences among couples (Romano, 2001). Intercultural couples have the added dilemma of resolving cultural differences compared to monocultural couples such as barriers to language and communication (Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005), conflicts over parenting styles and practices (Romano, 2001), differences in cultural values (Garcia, 2006), and negative family and social attitudes (McFadden & Moore, 2001). According to Perel (2000), another common conflict in intercultural couple arises from viewing one’s view as an objective reality and discarding other’s perspectives. There are several other assumptions regarding intercultural marriages in that they are more stressed because of the cultural differences and are more likely to end up in divorce than those in monocultural ones (Bratter & King, 2008). Generally, society has a greater acceptance of monocultural couples, which lends to a greater focus on how intercultural couples deal with the outside forces (Henderson, 2000).

Conflicts and Challenges Over Child Rearing

Most couples face some form of challenges in their relationship, but intercultural couples face additional challenges as a result of cultural conflicts over parenting (Crippen & Brew, 2007; Keller et al., 2004; Romano, 2001; Singla, 2015). Sources of conflict include the other’s norms, values, religious beliefs, meanings, and rituals (Romano, 2001); cultural and racial identity of children (Bratawidjaja, 2007); naming of children and the language they speak (Karis & Killian, 2009); and educational goals, disciplinary styles, forms of parent–child relationships, conflicting styles of parenting (Berg-Cross, 2001), different gender role expectations and division of household labor (Gupta, 2008), and roles and expectations of the extended family members (Karis & Killian, 2009).

Most individuals rear their children as they were reared themselves (Santrock, 2007; Tanaka, Kitamura, Chen, Murakami, & Goto, 2009). As such, their parenting styles may be as a result of their cultural view about children and child-rearing practices (Frame, 2004). Sources of conflict such as different beliefs and values about parenting, socialization process of children, communication style, gender and children’s roles, and parenting styles such as authoritative versus authoritarian can have serious negative implications for both intercultural couples and their children. For example, conflict in intercultural relationship and parenting can lead to marriage distress and dissatisfaction (Bhugra & De Silva, 2000; Hsu, 2001). Regarding children, Bradford, Burns Vaughn, and Barker (2007) suggest that conflict in parental values can lead to emotional disturbance to children and diminished parenting.

Negotiation and Resolution of Intercultural Parenting Conflict

Intercultural parents have the additional task of negotiating parenting styles and practices compared to monocultural couples. Romano (2001) suggested that couples embrace one of four styles of negotiating cultural differences: (1) one partner submits to the norms of the host culture and relinquishes his or her own practices, (2) the couple come to a compromise in which each partner gives up some of their own culture in order to create a balance and reduce conflict, (3) the couple is in complete denial of the differences and forfeits their tradition and values in search for neutral territory, and (4) they seek consensus in which each partner exercises mutuality and flexibility by retaining certain aspects of their culture that they consider to be essential for their well-being.

In their study on parenting mixed race, children, Caballero, Edward, and Puthussery (2008) found that parents dealt with ongoing challenges about their own differences and their children’s sense of identity and belonging by moving away from understanding the problem as cultural differences but rather a viewpoint shaped more by choice than ascription. They identified three approaches in the parents’ description of bringing up their children: (1) an individual approach, where children’s identity is not necessarily related to their particular background; (2) a mix approach, where children’s background is seen as a rooted and factual part of who they are; and (3) a single approach, where one aspect of children’s background is given priority. These studies don’t seem to explain why intercultural couples adopt these problem-solving strategies. There is a need for further studies to understand why intercultural couples select these different problem-solving strategies for conflict resolution over parenting.

Method

The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of intercultural couples raising their mixed children together. To achieve this, the research asked the following questions:
What are the experiences of intercultural couples in parenting their children?

What are the challenges and conflicts of intercultural parenting?

What are the positive experiences of intercultural parenting?

How do intercultural parents negotiate cultural differences?

How can the findings inform intercultural parents and helping professionals?

A qualitative research method was chosen for this study because it provides a “thick” (Geertz, 1973) description of the phenomena and accurately understands and represents the inner experience and meanings individuals gave to events within their social context (Minichiello, Sullivan, Greenwood, & Axford, 2004; Patton, 2002). Also, it coordinated well with the chosen social constructionism epistemology, as the latter describes knowledge as an internally constructed phenomenon that is socially and culturally decided (Gergen, 1985).

Participants

Twenty-eight participants (14 couples) from a range of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds from South East Queensland participated in the study. Participants were recruited through two media interviews with a well-known local radio station and newspaper, an online media release, a list of contacts from community workshops facilitated by the researcher, and snowball sampling whereby selected participants were asked to refer other intercultural couples deemed suitable for the study. A demographic questionnaire completed by the participants provided an overall profile as follows: age range between 28 and 67; married between 4 and 25 years; had between one and four children, aged between 6 months and 18 years old; education ranging from primary to postgraduate level; and self-identified cultural and ethnic backgrounds including Anglo-Australian, African, Asian, Indian, Arabic, Muslim, New Zealander, and Pacific Islanders.

Sampling Strategies

A purposive sampling strategy, including criterion and snowball methods, was used to select participants for this study. The inclusion criteria for the study were (1) one person, male or female, is Anglo-Australian and the other partner is a non-Anglo immigrant; (2) cultural differences in intercultural couples including different country of origin, religion, ethnic heritage, and racial identity; (3) participants were literate and speak good English; (4) heterosexual intercultural couples who were married or in a de facto relationship and living together; (5) raising together children between the ages of 0 and 23 and living at home; and (6) participants who were prepared to be interviewed together.

Limitations

This study did not include intercultural couples/parents from the Australian Indigenous community because the focus was on those with a migrant experience. A separate study on the experiences of intercultural parenting involving Indigenous and White Anglo-Australians and interethnic groups may reveal a different perspective to the result of this current study. This study did not include same-sex couples, separated parents, adoptive parents, single mothers and fathers, and nonresident parents. Further studies into these particular groups of parents are necessary to generate broader knowledge into the experiences of intercultural parents.

Data Collection and Analysis

Prior to collecting data, the research proposal was submitted to the University of Queensland and Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee for approval. Data were collected through semistructured in-depth interviews. Participants were given the convenience of choosing the place, time, and day of the interview. Fourteen semistructured conjoint interviews were carried out with 14 couples (28 participants). An interview guide was developed based on literature reviews and the research question regarding culture and parenting. Following informed consent, the interviews were audio-taped and conducted face-to-face, lasting between 60 and 90 min per participant. The interviews were then transcribed verbatim concurrently. Consistent with qualitative research, data analysis for this study was conducted immediately after the first couple of interviews were completed. The general data analysis strategy outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) was used to code and understand meaning in complex data on the experiences of the intercultural parents.

Rigor and Trustworthiness

Methodological rigor refers to good practice in the conduct of the research (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002). This requires the researcher to critically reflect on the quality of the research. In the constructionist paradigm, findings are substantiated by replacing the notion of internal or external validity, reliability, and objectivity by credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 296). These four criteria were used to confirm the methodological rigor and trustworthiness of this study.

Results

This study revealed several cultural differences and conflict resolution and survival strategies for successful intercultural parenting. Cultural differences included discipline, sleep patterns, cultural taboos refood and traditional medical practices, children’s socialization process, education, language and communication, role of children, and the role of extended families. Most immigrant parents described that they were very serious about discipline, a characteristic modeled from the way they were parented. The immigrant parents did not agree with the way children are disciplined in the host society and believed that parents need to be stricter on the children: “when the kid damaged something they say, ‘Oh sweetie, don’t do that. Can’t you hear me?’ And for me I don’t agree with that because we warned them already.”

Intercultural couples described sleep patterns of children as an area of strong cultural differences. Two participants were more inclined to have the baby in bed with them or at least in the same room. Their Australian partners were more concerned about “sleep training” by having the child in another room and letting the child cry. They also did not want to be disturbed in the bed and their sleep:
When she was little she didn’t fall asleep by herself in the night. He was like, ‘Just let her cry’, and I just couldn’t endure the crying. So I always said that is it too early for her to start sleep training or should we wait until she’s ready for that.
Breastfeeding was another point of tension among intercultural couples and at the extended family level. One participant described that in his culture, mothers always breastfeed their children. He expected the same for his children and was very upset when his wife started to bottle feed their son when she went back to work:
There was an issue there with breastfeeding because I went back to work and he didn’t want to feed anymore, and my milk dried up. He wasn’t very happy about that and his mom wasn’t very happy either.
Other points of cultural differences regarded traditional medicine, umbilical cord, and wearing nappies. One participant and his mother were not happy about his wife’s lack of understanding of his cultural practices:
This baby is supposed to be washed in a certain herbal medicine which I brought from home…but my wife doesn’t understand and she’s asking me, “Why is he showering in this thing?” But that is what is important in my culture that is supposed to be done. Then there is another thing of keeping the umbilical cord. If you don’t keep the umbilical cord from my culture, the kids will just loiter around they don’t become anything, so yeah.
The socialization process of children was a significant area of contention. Three participants did not agree with their children going out with friends or sleeping over, arguing that they care more about what is best for the children as opposed to their Australian partners who believed in trusting and giving responsibilities to the children. One participant was very protective of his children as opposed to his wife’s concept of building trust in the children:
With his friends, I want to go to the beach with my friends, I just want to catch the bus, I want to watch a movie. Of course it is not in my culture…I will not let him go. It is not something that children do outside that we do not know. I did not grow up like that
Values regarding sex before marriage was another point of difference among two couples. They described that their values were strongly associated with their religious values and beliefs, complementary to the family and social values:
When they were in high school I know that in the western world, girls specially will have sexual relationship at an early age. I have emphasized to them about that, to treat your body as a temple, to respect your body. Apart from the mind belief is my religious belief of being pure before marriage and all that.
All the parents in this study described that they were keen on their children’s education, but ethnic parents seemed to put more emphasis on education for the children in order to boost the children’s job opportunities, future well-being, and better lifestyle:
That is one thing I notice in the western world they live the kids at year level 11 and let them do what they want and follow the dream. I really don’t approve of that and I tried to tell my workmates that.
Three participants explained that they did not want their children to be doing what they were doing because of the lack of or missed educational opportunities:
I’m pushing her to become a doctor because there are certain things I’ve failed myself…So I’m trying to push her to see that she can do better than me. In the African culture, study is so important. Here you’re not really looking to the future…for us here it’s not pushed so much.
Challenges regarding language and patterns of communication among intercultural parents were apparent in this study. Five participants described that although their immigrant partners spoke English, the style of communication was sometimes different thus causing misunderstandings and conflicts for the couples:
Mandarin is a very abrupt language. So when it’s dinner time it’s “chīfàn” which means eat food. That’s the sentence…if you use the wrong tone when you’re saying stuff, people understand that quite differently and certainly that’s what happened between us…I felt that she was being really short and rude with me and very abrupt, and I thought that was her fault…that was the challenge. That was where I would get frustrated.
Another couple experienced communication challenges regarding silence:
Yes if something is too much for me, I just keep quiet…it’s a cultural thing.
Slow decision-making process was another area of cultural difference between intercultural couples:
I take long to make a decision and this is because I’m from another culture and then coming to a different culture. So I’m thinking back home I would be doing this like this, how do I do it here. I’m confused because I don’t know what the Australian culture is…so it’s a cultural thing for me.
Some of the differences related to the mode of communication with the children. For example, one participant did not agree with the way her husband ordered the children around the house:
He will go out and say get dressed and [son] will say I’m watching this, and he will say I said now, do it now and I say why don’t you just say how long has that show got okay in five minutes we are going to switch that off and he will be like because I’m the father and I’m trying to do it now and, because I’m a teacher probably as well, I know you have got to sometimes give kids a bit of time.
Children’s role, specifically gender role relating to household chores, and children’s rights and responsibilities in the family context were common concerns for intercultural couples. Most ethnic parents still believed in and ascribed to gender-related roles. As one participant said:
Funny I’ve heard myself say to my son, you know you’re outside, you mow the lawn, it’s a man’s job. My daughter inside, now she’s washing the dishes and cooking. Come and watch cooking, I don’t want my son to cook.
All the ethnic parents in this study believed that children should be taught hard work and responsibilities alongside rights:
I would be teaching them hard work and that is what is important raising the children here…with Australia I think the culture here is to bring up rebels. Children are too much opinionated…it gives children rights and then it gives them the right to stand up to their parents. They don’t have any respect. They end up running out of the house when they are 14 or 13 and being in the streets which is not good.
One participant described how children are not praised for being good or successful in Japanese culture.
Japanese parents never say their children are the best…or beautiful or anything like that, but Australian people they admire their children.
Intercultural couples in this study emphasized the importance of the extended family in their lives and described same as the strength of the collective society. Intercultural couples described getting financial, moral, and physical support from their extended families. The data showed a significant and consistent disparity about the level of involvement and support intercultural couples received from their ethnic extended families compared to their Anglo-Australian counterparts. As one participant described:
It is different compared to here. Because there you have a lot of relatives, everybody is around you, like you’ve got your grandmother, your grandfather, and all other relatives…my mother never felt like she had a kid because of all the help all the time.
The disparity in the level of support and involvement from Anglo-Australian extended families is expressed in this participant’s statement:
I guess it’s not so close knit. My parents actually moved away from where all the extended families are, my Nana, my aunts…mum says to get away. But I don’t remember ever being, I was never left in the care of my aunt or others.
Although intercultural couples enjoyed an abundance of positive extended family influences, extended family members can also have negative influences regarding discipline.
I’m glad that we’re actually away from my family because then I can keep control over my kids. If I was in New Zealand or Tonga, my kids would not listen to me. I had that experience of my sister coming to live with us for a year, my son was so different. He wouldn’t listen to me…because my sister was here and every time I tried to discipline him my sister would take him away.

Making Intercultural Parenting Work

Intercultural couples faced unique challenges as a result of their cultural differences in parenting styles, beliefs, values, and traditions. This study revealed that the participants were very keen to make their parenting journey a positive experience. Thereupon, they developed several conflict resolution and survival strategies, which according to their narratives reduced conflict about cultural differences in parenting. They described the strategies as (a) communication, (b) compromise, (c) sphere of rule, (d) asymmetric decisions, and (e) individual traits. Elements of the survival strategies can sometimes overlap each other, given the close nature of the resolution pattern of issues.

Communication: “Sit down and talk”

All the intercultural couples stated that they tried to resolve their cultural and personal differences in parenting by actively communicating with each other. The data revealed that most parents communicated their differences when they had children:
I voice what I think and he does the same. If there is an issue, we discuss it…there was an issue with breast feeding because I went back to work. He was not happy about it. It took me a while to explain to him and for him to understand. We had to talk about it
It is recommended that intercultural couples communicate and learn about each other’s culture before getting married. Two couples communicated about their parental responsibility and cultural preferences before they get married to prevent any disharmony:
I have a lot of friends in intercultural marriages and they have big problems, I think, because they were never on the same page…that’s where we were like from the beginning very clear about these are my standards, this is the way…so that we wouldn’t find out five years later that it’s not what we are after.
One couple discussed the importance of discrete communication regarding parenting differences, such as disciplinary practices. They emphasized on being united as parents and the use of a cultural language so that the children are not exposed to the discussion:
We try not to be seen as different in front of the kids…we just had a dialogue in Tongan, to try and not expose the kids too much to what we were talking about.
Another couple described how their communication style about family and personal issues was more effective during their evening walk together:
One of the things we do, we always in the evenings go for a walk…after dinner. So if there are any issues like that, what needs to be done, we tend to sort it out pretty quickly.

Compromise: “Work toward what’s best for the children”

Most participants stated that they were willing to compromise on certain cultural and personal values to enrich their children’s lives. One couple put aside their personal values and focused on their common religious values as the medium to reach a fair compromise:
We have problems on some things where she might disagree on and we’ll try to come to a median for the kid’s sake…we have a common ground here which would be our religious value…and we negotiate and compromise that way.
Differences in parenting style were also resolved by way of compromise. One participant thought that her husband was too hard on their son regarding teenage activities and that he needed to be more positive and allow some grounds for autonomy:
Sometimes [husband] was a bit over the top with what he thought with our sons…like how long you let them out for, where you let them go. I sort of emphasized how we need to be positive and we need to encourage our son to talk…together we have had to sort of meet in the middle…okay, he can do this but he needs to get home at this time or whatever.
Another participant described that as a woman, she has her opinion which should be considered in decision-making processes for a balanced outcome and a happy relationship:
I always say what I think I don’t hold back, obviously with respect in mind. So sometimes it can cause issues. Therefore, I think we need to discuss things and then come to a medium where both parties are happy. Otherwise what sort of relationship or marriage would that be if one is always unhappy all the time and having to give in to everything.

Asymmetric decision-making

The data analysis revealed that some participants abandoned their cultural values in favor of their partner’s values to prevent conflict. The asymmetric pattern was manifested mainly in relationships where one partner exercised more power in the relationship due to income, personality, and gender differences:
I know what’s in the bank and she doesn’t. She doesn’t know how to do banking…I’m not going to pay the money for things I don’t want to, like I won’t repeat a trip in Canberra which she wants with the kids…so she grudgingly will accept it.
Gender was identified as a power dynamic that impacted on the decision of some female participants to abandon their cultural parenting practices in favor of their husband’s parenting practices. One male participant was very adamant about their daughter sleeping in her own bedroom and being persistent with the sleep-cry training:
That’s where they need to be guided. I think that’s a male, female thing. Mom, “oh she’s crying, I can’t let my little angel cry”…her strategy was to get up and my strategy was to stop her. I had the same experience with my first wife who was Australian.

Sphere of influence

Some participants resolved conflicts by understanding, acknowledging, and encouraging the experience and skills of their partners in certain domains of parenting. One participant admitted outright that his wife’s style of parenting was the best and therefore encouraged his wife do the parenting role while he focused on the external and manual jobs:
In my culture mothers have the responsibility to raise their kids in the right way, religion, beliefs and values, and education. I believe that is the mother’s responsibility. And [husband] gave me the full control on that aspect.

Individual traits

The success of intercultural relationships and parenting was also dependent on the participant’s individual traits and behavior within the cultural context. The overwhelming individual traits were identified as respect, flexibility, tolerance, and immersion. All the participants agreed that while there were cultural differences in their parenting style and practices, they respected each other as another person and the qualities they bring into the relationship. Their cultural differences become secondary to respect:
It’s not being conscious of their culture first and foremost. It’s being respectful of the other person and the culture becomes secondary to the respect in the relationship, and of the family. We are both quite liberal and well educated, and intelligent people. And whatever cultural expectations may have been relevant in the past, we don’t see as relevant now.
Another participant described how he grew up in a traditional African way, but having immersed in the Australian culture and society, he has changed his attitude toward women and respects his wife equally:
I grew up in a very traditional way, but I’ve come very far, as well. I respect, I believe in equality between man and a woman. I’m not a misogynist.
All the participants explained that there are certain issues that can never be resolved, and the best strategy to survive them is flexibility and tolerance. Tolerance for ambiguity and curiosity helped participants to acknowledge cultural differences and become flexible in their roles as parents:
You have to be flexible and give up on something. Overall it’s learning.
Finally, differences were also described as part of the natural fabric of intercultural relationships and parenting and might not need a resolution:
Even if there were differences, sometimes differences just are and might not need resolution. That is why we are two different people working together to raise a family.

Discussion

The current study highlighted the fact that many of the experiences intercultural parents encountered were quite common to those of monocultural couples. However, their experiences were exacerbated by unique cultural dynamics including discipline, traditional practices, sleep patterns, food, children’s socialization process, education, language and communication, gender, the role of children, and extended family dynamics. In order to minimize challenges and conflicts in their parental role, intercultural parents developed expertise in cultural negotiations, thus characterizing the intercultural parents from a strength-based perspective rather than stereotyped deficit assumptions.

Communication was described as the central factor for successfully managing intercultural parenting differences. Couples who communicated about each other’s parenting culture and negotiated parenting roles and tasks facilitated relational adjustments. Most couples stated that their willingness to compromise on certain cultural and personal values, such as religion, was to enrich their children’s lives. Other couples engaged into a process of mutual acculturation, wherein they exposed their children to both of their heritage and national cultures. This process benefitted both the children and the parents as they inherited what they called “the richness of two worlds.”

Most participants managed cultural differences by encouraging the sphere of influence rule, wherein participants recognized their partner’s areas of cultural expertise and knowledge. Other participants described individual traits such as tolerance, curiosity, respect, flexibility, and immersion as key to successful intercultural parenting. Although there were cultural differences in their parenting styles and practices, the couples respected each other as another person and the qualities they bring into the parenting domain.

All the participants explained that there are certain issues that can never be resolved and the best strategy to survive them is flexibility and tolerance. Tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity, and immersion into the host country’s culture helped participants to acknowledge and explore cultural differences and become flexible in their roles as parents. Differences were also interpreted as part of the natural fabric of intercultural relationships and might not need a resolution.

Implications for Theory and Practice

This study provided much needed research regarding the experiences of intercultural parenting in Australia. Although the findings in the Australian context cannot be generalized due to the sample size of the study, it has the potential of transferability to the experiences of other intercultural parents, given the thick description of participants’ experiences (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

In view of managing cultural differences, this study revealed several conflict resolution and survival strategies developed by intercultural couples which may influence current family theories, counseling practices, and future research. This study revealed that intercultural parenting was influenced by internal and external contexts. Internal context related to the perceptions of one’s identity from an individual, couple, parent, child, family, and religious perspective. External context related to outside factors that impacted on the relationship and parenting such as attitude of society, friends and extended family members toward their relationship, children and family, and racism and exclusion toward their children at school. It is therefore important for the practitioners to understand how couples construct their cultural differences.

This study revealed that the internal and external domains of family dynamics were often sources of stressors that impact negatively on the couples and their parenting experiences. Some of the significant stressors related to (1) cultural differences among couples such as language barriers, communication styles, parenting beliefs, values, and practices, customs and traditions, and socialization processes; (2) societal attitudes such as racism and disapproval; (3) power relations regarding language, gender, insider/outsider status; and (4) contextual influences such as extended families and the environment. It is therefore crucial for counselors/therapist to explore and identify those stressors and guide their clients how to resolve those differences.

Practitioners need to be aware that some of the concerns by intercultural couples and parents are common to those of nonintercultural couples and parents, such as safety, health, education, and socialization processes. Therefore, the provision of services and interventions need to be balanced between cultural needs versus individual contextual needs as opposed to the “intercultural” aspect only.

The literature review and findings of this current study showed that intercultural couples/parents/children enjoyed many benefits and opportunities other than challenges in the intercultural parenting experience. Of special interest is the fact that intercultural couples and parents can manage and seek help with the challenges as opposed to the benefits and opportunities that are self-acquired, complementary, and enriching. Counselors and therapists can rely on these aspects of benefits and opportunities as sources of strengths in the relationships to encourage and empower their clients.

Counselors and therapists would also enrich and enhance their therapeutic approaches and provide more effective services to their clients by exercising reflexivity, that is, setting aside their own bias and prior assumptions about intercultural relationship and mixed families; promoting notions of adaptability, flexibility, tolerance, appreciation, acceptance, and open-mindedness toward partners in the relationship by respecting and learning about each other’s culture; encouraging cultural literacy for both parents and children in the form of psychosocial education; and emphasizing on the positives, benefits, and strengths of “interculturalness.”

Some of the popular therapeutic approaches that can be used in intercultural and mixed families’ domains are:
narrative therapy (Molina, Estrada, & Burnett, 2004),

cognitive–behavioral therapy (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979),

solution-focused therapy (De Shazer & Berg, 1986), and

strengths-based therapy (Bustamante et al., 2011).

According to Molina, Estrada, and Burnett (2004), narrative therapy is conducive to the needs of intercultural clients. When using the narrative approach, counselors/therapists help clients to tell a story of their experience in order to have an understanding of the deeper meaning of their intercultural experiences and also to make new meaning of the experiences (Molina et al., 2004). When using the cognitive–behavioral therapy approach, counselors/therapists can help clients to identify unrealistic beliefs and expectations, negative perceptions, and subconscious negative thoughts about themselves and others in their environment (Beck et al., 1979). Therapists and counsellors can use this approach to guide intercultural couples/parents to build positive attributes about their intercultural perceptions and experiences.

The solution-focused therapy is an effective tool that counselors/therapists can use to empower intercultural clients. This approach assumes that clients usually have some knowledge of what would make their life better, although they may need some help describing the details of their better life and that everyone who seeks help already possesses at least the minimal skills necessary to create solutions (De Shazer & Berg, 1986). This current study revealed that intercultural couples/parents enjoyed many benefits and opportunities in their intercultural parenting experience such as richness and best of both world for couples, parents, and children; cultural competency and holistic family life; other models of parenting; job opportunities for children; extended family supports; adaptability, tolerance/acceptance, and open-mindedness; and rich food culture, traditions, and customs. As such, counselors and therapists can rely on these aspects of benefits and opportunities as sources of strengths in the relationships to encourage and empower their clients and help them to change any negative thoughts about their experience (Bustamante et al., 2011).

Finally, therapists using the strengths-based approach can guide and encourage their clients to reflect on successful coping strategies they have used that helped their differences, thus offering them a sense of hope that their problems can be resolved. This current research showed that intercultural couples/parents used several approaches to cope with their relationship and parenting differences, such as communication, flexibility, and openness to their partner’s culture, respect, and support for each other, and sometimes cultural deference where one partner defers to the other partner’s culture. The strengths-based approach can be used to help intercultural couples/parents deal with challenges in a positive way. The findings in this current study can be utilized as a useful platform by counselors and therapists to increase their understanding of intercultural relationship/parenting and a helpful resource to their therapeutic approaches.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Census of population and housing. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Beck

A. T.

Rush

A. J.

Shaw

B. F.

Emery

(1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Berg-Cross

(2001). Couples therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Hawthorne.

Bhugra

De Silva

(2000). Couple therapy across culture. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 184–192.

Bradford

Burns Vaughn

Barber

B. K.

(2007). When there is conflict: Inter parental conflict, parental- child conflict, and youth problem behaviours. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 780–805.

Bratawidjaja

(2007). The experience of being parents of mixed-heritage children: Phenomenological analysis. Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan (UMI No. 3291371).

Bratter

J. L.

King

R. B.

(2008). “But will it last?” Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Qualitative research in psychology: Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Bustamante

R. M.

Nelson

J. A.

Henriksen

R. C.

Jr Monakes

(2011). Intercultural couples: Coping with culture-related stressors. The Family Journal, 19, 154–164. doi:10.1177/1066480711399723

10.

Caballero

Edwards

Puthussery

(2008). Parenting ‘mixed’ children: Negotiating difference and belonging in mixed race, ethnicity and faith families. York, England: Joseph Roundtree Foundation. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/ebooks/parentngmixedchildren.pdf

11.

Crippen

Brew

(2007). Intercultural parenting and transcultural family: A literature review. The Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 107–115. doi:10.1177/1066480706297783Document

12.

De Shazer

Berg

I. S.

(1986). A “techniques of solution, A”. 5th International Congress of Family Therapy, Jerusalem, Israel.

13.

Fossey

Harvey

McDermott

Davidson

(2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732. doi:10.1046/j.1440-2002.01100.x

14.

Frame

M. W.

(2004). The challenges of intercultural marriage: Strategies for pastoral care. Pastoral Psychology, 52, 219–232.

15.

Garcia

D. R.

(2006). Mixed marriages and transnational families in the intercultural context: A case study of African-Spanish couples in Catalonia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 403–433. doi:10.1080/13691830600555186

16.

Geertz

(1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz

(Ed.), The interpretation of culture (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

17.

Gergen

K. J.

(1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.

18.

Gupta

(2008). A comparison of parenting behaviour between European American and Asian Indian parents (Dissertation, University of Arkansas). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. (UMI no. 1456092)

19.

Henderson

(2000). Racial/ethnic intermarried couples and marital interaction: Marital issues and problem solving. Sociological Focus, 33, 421–438.

20.

Hsu

(2001). Marital therapy for intercultural couples. In Tseng

W. S.

Streltzer

(Eds.), Culture and psychology: A guide to clinical practice (Vol . 99, pp. 225–242). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric.

21.

Karis

T. A.

Killian

(2009). Intercultural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Keller

Lohaus

Kuensemueller

Abels

Yosvi

Voelker

… Mohite

(2004). The bio-culture of parenting: Evidence from five cultural communities. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 25–50.

23.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

24.

McFadden

Moore

J. L.

(2001). Intercultural marriage and intimacy: Beyond the continental divide. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 23, 261–268. doi:10.1023/A: 1014420107362

25.

Minichiello

Sullivan

Greenwood

Axford

(Eds.). (2004). Research methods for nursing and health sciences (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education.

26.

Molina

Estrada

Burnett

J. A.

(2004). Cultural communities: Challenges and opportunities in the creation of “Happily Ever After” stories of intercultural couplehood. The Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12, 139–147.

27.

Owen

J. D.

(2002). Mixed matches: Interracial marriage in Australia. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.

28.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Perel

(2000). A tourist’s view of marriage: Cross-cultural couples-challenges, choices, and implications for therapy. In Papp

(Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New directions for therapists (pp. 178–204). New York, NY: Guildford.

30.

Romano

(2001). Intercultural marriage: Promises and pitfalls (3nd ed.). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.

31.

Santrock

J. W.

(2007). A topical approach to life-span development (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Singla

(2015). Intermarriage and mixed parenting, promoting mental health and wellbeing: Crossover love. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

33.

Sullivan

Cottone

R. R.

(2006). Culture based couple therapy and intercultural relationships: A review of the literature. The Family Journal, 14, 221–225.

34.

Tanaka

Kitamura

Chen

Murakami

Goto

(2009). Do parents rear their children as they were reared themselves? Intergenerational transmission of parental styles (warmth and Control) and possible mediation of personality traits. The Open Family Studies Journal, 2, 82–90.

35.

Ting-Toomey

(1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford.

36.

Waldman

Rubalcava

(2005). Psychotherapy with intercultural couples: A contemporary psychodynamic approach. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59, 227–245.