The field of acculturation psychology has been the focus of recent critique, calling into question current conceptualizations of acculturation experiences among families in cultural transition. This paper will consider how these critiques can inform theory and research that aims to clarify the link between the process of acculturation and the quality of parent–child relationships among families in cultural transition. For example, while the concepts of process and change are central to psychological approaches to understanding acculturation, this has not always been successfully reflected in choice of research methodology. Further, some theorists highlight the problem of conflating culture and national identity and of homogenizing culture into a few essentialize traits, psychological characteristics or sets of discourses. This paper will outline how a focus on the dynamic and complex process of acculturation opposes ideas of acculturative experiences as acontextual, ahistorical, and independent with some teleological endpoint. It is suggested that acculturation experiences should be reconceptualized as a dialogic, relationally constituted, and continually negotiated (unfinalizable) process. Finally, it is suggested that narrative and qualitative methodologies represent an especially useful way to highlight the fluctuations in acculturative experiences within a family context, and might offer greater promise in clarifying the link between acculturation experiences and the quality of parent–child relationships among families in cultural transition.
The field of acculturation psychology is characterized by a large body of studies devoted to documenting the impact of changes in cultural context on parental socialization practices and parent–child relationships (Bornstein and Cote, 2006a and Bornstein and Cote, 2006b; Chun & Akutsu, 2003; Santisteban & Mitrani, 2003). The goal of understanding acculturation within a family context offers a uniquely rich opportunity to elucidate the dynamic and multidimensional nature of the acculturation construct and its intricate connection to the quality of family relationships (Bornstein and Cote, 2006a and Bornstein and Cote, 2006b; Chia & Costigan, 2006; Chun & Akutsu, 2003; Costigan & Su, 2004). The goal of this paper is to highlight recent critical analyses of acculturation psychology (Bhatia, 2002; Bhatia & Ram, 2001; Bhatia & Stam, 2005; Chirkov, 2009, Gjerde, 2004 and Hermans, 2001; Hermans & Kempen, 1998; Rudmin, 2003a and Rudmin, 2003b; Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2001) and to suggest that a close examination of these critiques can help to clarify the link between acculturation experiences and the quality of parent–child relationships among families in cultural transition. Toward this goal, the paper will begin by providing an overview of current research findings on acculturation and family relationships. Next, some key arguments in critical analyses of acculturation theory and research will be presented. These latter critiques may not only be useful to the field of acculturation psychology more generally, but may offer new conceptual and methodological insights to more effectively guide research striving to clarify the link between the process of acculturation and the quality of relationships among families in cultural transition. In conclusion, it is suggested that a reconceptualization of acculturation as a dialogic, relationally constituted and continually negotiated (unfinalizable) process – one that is best captured using narrative and qualitative methodologies – is key to understanding the impact of family members’ acculturative experiences on the quality of relationships.
Contemporary critiques of acculturation psychology do not necessarily suggest abandonment of acculturation research, rather, they allow for continued attention to the dynamic, complex and dialogical nature of culture and acculturation. As noted by Wertsch (1991), a critique should not necessarily lead to the substitution of one method or discipline for another but should prompt us to integrate different approaches whenever possible. A major objective of this paper was to draw on the contemporary discourse in critical acculturation psychology to highlight an alternative model of acculturation – one in which acculturation experiences are viewed as dialogic, interpersonally and continually constituted, and socioculturally, historically and developmentally situated (Bakhtin, 1986, Bhabha, 2006, Briskin, 2004, Bruner, 1990 and Said, 1978). It was suggested that this alternative model of acculturation – along with the use of narrative and qualitative approaches – might allow for greater focus on the concepts of process and change, and offer greater promise in clarifying the link between acculturation experiences and the quality of relationships among families in cultural transition.
Finally, critiques of acculturation psychology involve a critical examination of the conceptual frameworks and methodologies that researchers bring to bear on their work (McLoyd, 2004 and Rudmin, 2006). As noted by Delgado and Stefancic (2001), “[C]ategories and subgroups, then, are not just matters of theoretical interest. How we frame them determines who has power, voice, and representation and who does not” (p. 55). That culture often is conflated with nation should alert us as acculturation researchers to reflect on systems of power with the larger domains of our disciplines, within our choice of methodologies, our assumptions about other cultures, and how our own sites of privilege (e.g., race, class, gender) impact research endeavors. There is “no politically neutral” (Gjerde, 2004, p. 139) or “innocent” (Burman, 2008, p. 164) place, position, or theoretical domain to study culture and acculturative processes. In this regard, a critical examination of positions of power, privilege and the assumptions that are brought to bear on acculturation research might go a long way toward shifting the field of acculturation research in a new and meaningful direction.
