Ethnicity and Training Maritaland Family Therapists

MARY SMITH ARNOLD

The author reviews ethnicity in the family therapy training literature. She describesan original exercise that teaches counselors in training the significance of ethnicityto family functioning.

Marital and family counselors have started to illuminate the import­ance of culture and ethnicity to patterns of family functioning (Boyd­Franklin, 1989; David & Erickson, 1990; Falicov, 1983, 1988; Ho,1987; McGoldrick, Pearce, & Giordano, 1982). McGoldrick et al.(1982) described ethnicity as a "sense of commonality transmittedover generations by the family and reinforced by the surroundingcommunity" (p. 3). This sense of commonality or "peoplehood" canbe derived from a common ancestry, religion, or national or geo­graphic origin, yet it may transcend all of these signtfters.

Ethnicity influences our values, life-styles, and behavior. In fact,"Family behavior ... makes sense only in the larger cultural contextin which it is embedded" (McGoldrick et al., 1982, p. 4). This pointwas echoed by Boyd-Franklin (1989) in the assertion that the uniquecultural history of Black families is a pervasive factor in every aspectof family and community life. The relationship between ethnic con­text and family development has been explicated in the work ofCarter and McGoldrick (1989). To better view families in context,marital and family counselors in training must recognize and un­derstand the significance of ethnicity to the human experience.

In an analysis of the training and supervision literature in familytherapy, Liddle (1991) stated, "Clinicians are increasingly consciousof the need to have a cultural and ethnic template in their clinicalwork" (p. 655). Although professionals may be more cognizant ofthe need to consider ethnicity in their work, there is no consensuson how to train students for acceptance and appreciation of ethnic­ity as integral to working with families (Liddle, 1991). In addition,the training and supervision literature in family therapy does' not

Mary Smith Arnold is an assistant professor in the Counseling and Human Develop­ment Services Program at Kent State University in Kent. Ohio. The author is gratejUlJor the comments ofDaoid Brooks. Donald Bubenzer. and John West on an earlier draft.oj this article. A special thank you is extended to Elizabeth Blue Swadener for herinsighiful reading ojpreceding drafts.

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993/ VOL. 33 139

reflect a widespread interest in the inclusion of ethnic awareness asa learning objective or as an essential skill for counselors in trainingto acquire.

The proliferation of marriage and family courses as a specialtywithin counselor education programs is projected to continue in the1990s (Gladding, Burggraf, & Fenell, 1987; Hollis & Wantz, 1990;Peltier & Vale, 1986). In their survey of counselor preparation pro­grams, Hollis and Wantz (1990) indicated that multicultural coun­seling and marriage and family counseling were ranked 1 and 3 ascourses most added by academic units. Increased emphasis oncultural diversity and the recruitment of minority students waslisted by Hardy and Keller (1991) as third among nine emergingtrends in marital and family education.

I review a subset of the family training and supervision literature,studies that focus on ethnicity and training. She poses severalquestions regarding the lack of attention by the training and super­vision literature to this subject. I also share teaching strategies usedwith graduate students enrolled in marital and family counselingcourses to stimulate multiethnic awareness.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Despite the heightened discussion on cultural diversity within thecounseling profession, there is a paucity in the marital and familytraining literature on ethnicity. I found fewer than five articles thatexplicitly addressed ethnicity issues and family therapy training.Most of the theoretical and methodological contributions to multi­ethnic training can be found in a few outstanding volumes (Boyd­Franklin, 1989; Falicov, 1983; Ho, 1987; McGoldrick et al., 1982;Papajohn & Spiegel, 1975). Also, most of this literature has appearedwithin the last 10 years.

A debate has emerged within the literature on how to best trainstudents for a multiethnic awareness IFallcov. 1988; Liddle. 1991).The conflict centers on the efficacy of the universal versus the cul­turally relative approach to enhancing a multiethnic perspective incounselors in training (McGoldrick et al., 1982; McGoldrick, Preto,Hines, & Lee, 1991; Montalvo & Gutierrez, 1983, 1988).

The first approach, "culturally relative," has been advanced byMcGoldrick and colleagues (McGoldrick et al., 1982; McGoldrick etal., 1991). This approach calls for the teaching of specific culturalparadigms.

While we are well aware of the problems of stereotyping and generalizing aboutgroups in ways that may lead to prejudice and in no way mean to contribute tothis tendency in our culture. we have taken the risk of characterizing differencesamong groups to sensitize clinicians to the range of values held by differentpeople. Of, course, each family must be dealt with as unique, and the charac-

140 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993 / VOL. 33

teIizations ... are meant to broaden the therapist's framework. not constrict it.(McGoldrick et al .. 1991. p. 547)

This position has been called "particular" by Falicov (1988) or"culturally relative" by Maranhao (1984). In contrast, proponents ofthe second approach, "universalism," are concerned about misap­plication of cultural identity concepts. Montalvo and Gutierrez(1983) cautioned practitioners to avoid cultural masks and ethnicstereotyping by "searching for what is basic to families rather thanidiosyncratic cultural dimensions" (p. 17). Montalvo and Gutierrez(1988) suggested that the focus on cultural knowledge might leadto a failure to view family dynamics in the context of socioeconomiccircumstances. They urged clinicians to take into account the in­fluence of conflicting policies and procedures of institutions, espe­cially on poor families such as "the court, the hospital. the school,and the mental health clinic" (Montalvo & Gutierrez, 1988, p. 205).In addition, they encouraged clinicians to avoid being assimilatedinto families.

Since families can use their cultural repertoire and uniqueness to hide theirbasic patterns of functioning. a focus on interinstitutional dilemmas seemsmore useful for family therapists than a focus on cultural uniqueness ... toappreciate this core of uniqueness does not require specialized training in thegroup's cultural and social traditions. (p. 31)

This point of view asserts that all families are more alike thandissimilar (Falicov, 1988).

Falicov (1988) took the middle ground between these seeminglypolar positions. Using an ecological approach, Falicov (1988) broad­ened the definition of culture to include "simultaneous membershipin a variety of contexts" (p. 336), such as, sex, social class, andgeographical setting. In answering her own question, "How shouldcultural issues be taught?" she pointed out that students often havedifficulty applying material taught in a separate course in clinicalsettings. Falicov concluded that didactic and experiential exercisesintegrated with the basic tenets of family theory is effective in helpingstudents master cultural thinking.

Falicov represents the exception; most advocates for the inclusionof ethnocultural concepts in family therapy training subscribe touniversalism (Lappin, 1983: Montalvo & Gutierrez, 1988; Ross &Phipps, 1986) or the culturally relative position (Boyd-Franklin,1989: McGill, 1983: McGoldrick et al., 1991). Within these twoorientations, however, authors have differed in their emphases.Some have stressed an ecological perspective (Lappin, 1983: Ross& Phipps, 1986) and the therapist's ethnic self-awareness (David &Erickson, 1990); still others have emphasized the saliency ofcultural

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993 / VOL. 33 141

values, especially those mediated by oppression (Boyd-Franklin,1989; Ho, 1987).

Although there are few sources on marriage and family trainingand multiethnic issues, many articles have been written to addressthe specific needs of families from traditionally oppressed groupsand immigrant families in therapy. For example, models have beendeveloped for working with Mexican American and Appalachianfamilies (Boynton, 1987) and African American families (Willis, 1988).Bemak (1989) outlined a three-phase model offamily acculturationfor Southeast Asian immigrant families. Similarly, Laureano andPoliandro (1991) presented a culturally sensitive model for workingwith Latino immigrants. Others have applied an ethnocultural ap­proach to the treatment of client subpopulations, such as raciallyand culturally mixed stepfamilies (Baptiste. 1984) and families withan alcohol-involved adolescent member (Kaufman & Borders. 1984).Hightower. Rodriguez. and Adams (1983) described the contributionsof an ethnically mixed co-therapy team to the process of counselingfamilies. Many of these models seem to have been written for expe­rienced clinicians, and the clinicians assume competencies beyond thelevel of the average counselor in training.

Empirical studies of ethnicity and training in family therapy arevirtually nonexistent. There are studies. however, where authorsexamined ethnocultural factors that might have implications fordeveloping a multiethnic perspective in training. McGoldrick andRohrbaugh (1987) surveyed practitioners to see if they differed "intheir values, beliefs, and rules of family functioning" (p. 96) basedon their ethnic background. They found differences along lines ofethnic origin and concluded that the ethnicity of the therapist, whendifferent from the family, does have implications for the therapeuticprocess.

Another important study was conducted by Fisek (1991) with 24Turkish families in Istanbul. Fisek examined the family structuredimensions of proximity and generational hierarchy. The resultsindicated that hierarchy is not a valid dimension in Turkish familiesbecause cultural norms suppress variation in hierarchical relation­ships. On the other hand. proximity seemed to be a valid structuraldimension that was influenced less by cultural norms. This studyis significant because it challenges and extends the universal posi­tion that basic family theories are applicable to all families.

SUMMARY

The literature on training for a multiethnic perspective in maritaland family therapy is limited. conflicting, and not empirically based.Despite these limitations, the literature provides a basis for formu­lating tentative gutdeltnes for multiethnic training. Dominant

142 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993 / VOL. 33

themes emerging from the literature that might contribute to effec­tive training are as follows: (a) using an ecological perspective withthe use of didactic and experiential exercises in combination withbasic family theory (Falicov, 1988: McGoldrick et al., 1991); (b)encouraging ethnic selfawareness in the counselor in training (David& Erickson, 1990): and (c) understanding of the saliency of oppres­sion in the lives of particular ethnic and racial groups (Boyd-Franklin,1989; Ho, 1987). Training practices that incorporate these factorsprovide students with the widest possible lens for viewing families.

TRAINING STRATEGY

Following is a description of a training strategy used with graduatestudents in marital and family courses. The students were enrolledin the counselor education program at a large midwestern univer­sity. More than 90% of the students in the program were White;African American and international students constituted the balanceof the population. The approximate average age of students in theprogram was 36 years. A large portion of the students lived withina 100-mile radius of the university with little contact with diversecommunities, even though the area is rich with ethnic and culturaldiversity.

The activity brought together elements of the dominant themesfound in the literature on training for multiethnic consciousness.The exercise (a) encouraged viewing families in their ecological con­text, (b) promoted ethnic self-awareness, and (c) highlighted thedifferences between groups resulting from oppression and White­skin privilege (Mclntosh, 1989). Many students started the exercisewith skepticism and were surprised at the findings about themselvesand their families. This exercise was a nonthreatening way to illustrateto students that ethnicity is an embedded context in their lives.

The students were formed into small groups of four to six personsbased on the ethnic composition of participants in the class, andthey were given six questions about their family of origin (the familyof their childhood) to respond to (given the constraints of time,number, and size of groups). The questions were as follows:

1. How were children treated or viewed in your family?2. What foods were important, and what attitudes existed in your

family about food?3. How were people treated who were not members of the family?

What were you told about nonfamily members?4. How were emotions handled in the family? How were feelings

communicated between family members?5. What rituals did your family adhere to in day to day life?

During holidays? Which holidays were most important?

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993/ VOL. 33 143

6. How was education viewed?

Students were asked in class to name their ethnicity. Predictably,class members had difficulty with this request. "Sally's" case istypical. Sally (a pseudonym) could not name her ethnicity saying,"My family is everything- French, German, Irish, Polish- we've gotLebanese in my family. I am just a mutt- a good old American."When asked where her mother's family immigrated from, her responsewas, "Germany, but it was so long ago." She joined a small groupof students who identified themselves as having German ancestry.When the small groups reported, Sally spoke for her group. Sheexpressed amazement at how similar the families in her group wereand how other groups (i.e., Irish, English, Polish, Hungarian, Italian,Greeks, African) really were different. She reported that her grouphad similar attitudes and ways of disciplining children, communicat­ing' and observing holiday rituals. She stated, "I didn't think theway my family acted had anything to do with being German! Ithought my family was like every other American family." Manycommon themes emerged within each group. For example, AfricanAmerican students talked about the strong and loving discipline ofchildren in their families and the reliance on faith.

The activity was followed by a discussion of the influence of ethnic­ity on family structure, rules, communication patterns, rituals, anddevelopmental and interactional processes. Sex, socioeconomicclass, and sexual orientation were discussed as cultural contextsthat are filtered byethnicity, to varying degree, by different groups.For example, to be gay is a cultural context; however, to be a gayAfrican American man is a different context than is to be a gay WhiteAnglo-Saxon man.

Students gained an immediate understanding of the variationsamong families based on ethnic differences. They noticed the intri­cate ways in which family structure and process are affected byethnicity. It became clear how structural dimensions such as hier­archy, proximity, and boundary penneability differed for specificethnic groups. Process dimensions such as communication pat­terns, role expectations, and family themes were also compared andcontrasted.

A consistent outcome of this exercise was the recognition, on thepart of students, that they were culturally different. Students hadan opportunity to notice and appreciate their own strangeness.Much of the literature on ethnicity has focused on minorities as the"other." McGoldrick et al. (1991) indicated the danger of such a focusis that it allows White clinicians to view their values as the normand other groups as deviant.

There are several important learning benefits derived from this

144 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993 / VOL. 33

activity. Students gained an understanding of how embeddedethnictty is to patterns of family functioning. Counselors in trainingexamined their values and beliefs with those who have a commonethnic origin and saw similarities. In the larger group, students wereable to contrast their ethnocultural values in the light of other grouppresentations and to notice differences. The exercise also providedstudents with a means to question their own biases and prejudices(McIntosh, 1989).

Also, the total activity provided a means for students to applyfamily theory and cultural concepts to the family with which theyare most familiar- their own. Their family became their personallearning laboratory in the application of cultural concepts. In addi­tion, the exercise became an entry point for continued discussionof the ethnicity of students enrolled in the course. The classroombecame an multiethnic learning laboratory, where students gaveand received authentic information about a variety of ethnic groupsand learned appropriate ways to discuss ethnic and racial issues.

This exercise can be implemented early in the training process andrepeated often. The questions can be changed, and additional com­plexity can be obtained by viewing responses in relation to variousmodels of family therapy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ethnicity is an important context for understanding families. Therise in clients from diverse cultural backgrounds necessitates greaterattention to ethnicity in training. Family therapy counselors in trainingneed to apply an ethnoculturallens to understand family function­ing fully. Given the lack of family therapy training and supervisionliterature on multiethnic issues and the isomorphic nature of train­ing and counseling (Haley, 1988; Liddle, 1991), are cultural differ­ences being addressed in training when they make a difference? Itcould be speculated that the protracted debate over the best ap­proach to training for a multiethnic perspective has caused thedevelopment of effective training strategies to take a detour. Basedon the literature and my experiences as a counselor educator, I makethe following recommendations to strengthen the training of maritaland family therapists in the area of multiethnic awareness.

First, the conflict over universalism versus culturally relative ap­proaches should be seen from a developmental perspective. Counsel­ors in training and novice counselors are most likely to need culturalparadigms to understand the relativity of values and patterns offamily functioning. On the other hand, many experienced practi­tioners can be selective in using such information and apply theirknowledge of family systems to the uniqueness of individual fami-

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993/ VOL. 33 145

lies. As with the use of any skill. ability in this area becomes moreprudent and flexible in its application with experience.

Likewise. counselor educators need to apply the guidelines gatheredfrom the literature on training for multiethnic awareness in stu­dents. These guidelines are as follows: (a) use an ecological perspec­tive and integrate cultural concepts with family theory. using didacticand experiential strategies to teach counselors in training, (b) promoteethnic self-awareness, and (c) recognize the saliency of oppressionin the lives of specific ethnic and racial groups.

Counselor educators should develop strategies to reduce studentresistance to learning about cultural differences. It should be ac­knowledged that the norms and values of students, as well as ourown, are limited by our cultural context (McGoldrick, Pearce, &Giordano, 1984). Such an acknowledgement would further the ap­plication of appropriate correctives, such as the inclusion of accu­rate information about racial and ethnic groups in all courses andthe creation of experiential activities to confront biases and preju­dices in students and in ourselves.

The final recommendation is that a research agenda be developedthat focuses on the significance of ethnicity as a training dimension.Others have commented on the general lack of research in the areaof training and supervision in family therapy (Kniskern & Gurnmancited in Liddle, 1991). No doubt, the field will improve in this areain the future. Studies that examine the effectiveness of trainingapproaches might also include the influence of ethnicity of bothcounselors in training and the clients as a dependent variable.

The "ubiquitous and penetrating effect of cultural value orienta­tions on every aspect of human behavior" (Papajohn & Spiegel,1975, p. 3) should be an explicit and central concern in familytherapy training. Even partially implementing the aforementionedrecommendations would lead counselors in training to a deeperappreciation of ethnic variations in family functioning. Trainingshapes practice. Ifwe are to serve an increasingly diverse populationin the future, we must incorporate ethnicity into our training practices.

REFERENCESBaptiste. D. A.. Jr. (1984). Marital and family therapy with racially/culturally

intermarried stepfamilies: Issues and guidelines. Family Relations. 33. 373-380.Bernak, F. (1989). Cross-cultural family therapy with Southeast Asian refugees.

Journal ojStrategic and Systemic Therapies. 8. 22-27.Boyd-Franklin. N. (1989). Black families in therapy. New York: Guilford.Boynton. G. (1987). Cross-cultural family therapy: The escape model. The American

Journal ojFamily Therapy. 15(2), 123-129.Carter. E. A.. & McGoldrick. M. (1989). Thejamily life cycle. New York: Gardner Press.David. A. B.. & Erickson. C. A.(1990). Ethnicity and the therapist's use of self. Family

Therapy. 27(3). 211-216.Falicov, C. J. (Ed.). (1983). Cultural perspectives injamily therapy. Rockville, MD:

Aspen Publications.

146 COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION I DECEMBER 1993 I VOL. 33

Faltcov, C. J. (1988) Learning to think culturally in family therapy training. In H. A.Liddle. D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.). HandbookojjamUy therapy andtraining and supervision (pp. 335-357). New York: Guiljord.

Ftsek, G. O. (1991). A cross-cultural examination of proximity and hierarchy asdimensions offamily structural. Family Process. 30. 121-133.

Gladding. S. T.. Burggraf. M.. & Fenell, D. L. (1987). Marriage and family counselingin counselor education: National trends and implications. Journal ojCounselingand Development. 66. 90-92.

Haley. J. (1988). Reflections on supervision. In H. A. Liddle. D. C. Breunlin & R. C.Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy training and supervision (pp.358-367). New York: Guilford.

Hardy. K. V.. & Keller. J. F. (1991). Marriage and family therapy education: Emergingtrends and issues. Contemporary Family Therapy. 13(4). 303-314.

Hightower. N. A.. Rodriguez. S .. & Adams. J. (1983). Ethnically mixed co-therapywith families. Family Therapy. 10(2). 105-110.

Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.Hollis. J. W.. & Wantz. R. A. (1990). Counselor preparation 1990-92: Programs.

personnel. trends (7th ed). Muncie. IN: Accelerated Development.Kaufman. E .. & Borders. L. (1984). Ethnic family differences in adolescent substance

use. Journal ojChemical Dependency Treatment. 1(2).99-121.Lappin. J. (1983). On becoming a culturally conscious family therapist. In C. J. Falicov

(Ed.). Cultural perspectives injamily therapy. Rockville. MD: Aspen Publication.Laureano. M.. & Poltandro. E. (1991). Understanding cultural values of Latino male

alcoholics and their families: A culture sensitive model. Journal of ChemicalDependency Treatment. 4(1). 137-155.

Liddle. H. A. (1991). Training and supervision in family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P.Kniskern (Ed.]. Handbook ojjamily therapy (pp. 638--697). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Maranhao. T. (1984). Family therapy and anthropology. Culture. Medicine andPsychiatry. 8(3). 255-279.

McGill. D. (1983). Cultural concepts for family therapy. In C. J. Falicov (Ed.). Culturalperspectives injamily therapy. Rockville. MD: Aspen Publication.

McGoldrick. M.. Pearce. J. K.. & Giordano. J. (1982). Ethnicity andjamily therapy.New York: Guilford.

McGoldrick. M.. Pearce. J. K.. & Giordano. J. (1984). Family therapy and anthropol­ogy: Response. Culture. Medicine. and Psychiatry. 8(3). 281.

McGoldrick. M.. Preto, N. G.. Hines. P. M.. & Lee. E. (1991). Ethnicity and familytherapy. InA. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.). Handbookojjamily therapy.New York: Brunnel/Mazel.

McGoldrick. M.. & Rohrbaugh. M. (1987). Research ethnic stereotypes. FamUyProcess. 26. 89-99.

Mclntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account ojcoming toseecorrespondences through work and women's studies (Working Paper No. 189 [Mono­graph]. pp. 1-19). Wellesley. MA: Wellesley College Centerfor Research on Women.

Montalvo. Boo & Gutierrez. M. (1983). A perspective for the use of the culturaldimension in family therapy. In C. J. Falicov (Ed.). Cultural perspectives injamilytherapy. Rockville. MD: Aspen Publication.

Montalvo. B.. & Gutierrez. M. (1988). The emphasis on cultural identity: A develop­mental-ecological constraint. In C. J. Falicov [Ed.], Family transactions. NewYork: The Guilford Press.

Papajohn, J .. & Spiegel. J. (1975). Transactions injamilies. San Francisco: .Jossey-Bass.Peltier. S. W.. & Vale. S. O. (1986). A national survey of counselor education

departments: Course offerings on marriage and family. Counselor Education andSupervision. 29. 313-319.

Ross. J. L.. & Phipps. E. J. (1986). Understanding the family in multiple culturalcontexts: Avoiding therapeutic traps. Contemporary Family 'Therapy. 8(4}. 255-263.

Willis. J. T. (1988). An effective counseling model for treating the Black family. Familytherapy. 15(2). 185-194.

COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION / DECEMBER 1993 / VOL. 33 147