RESEARCH STUDIES IN THE EXPERIENCES AND CHALLENGES OF THE FILIPINO FAMILYPresented by Dr. Madelene Sta. MariaDe La Salle UniversityAt the ACUP National Conference 2018Holy Angel University, Angeles City, Pampanga

Role of the Filipino Family

Serves as the source of emotional and material support for the Filipino child

Changes in the Filipino Family

• High levels of labor migration and the fast pace of technology development led to the emergence of the transnational family structure and skip generational families (Cabalquinto, 2018; Cruz, 2014; Asis, Huang & Yeoh, 2004).

What is a transnational family?

• The transnational family structure characterizes the family formed when Filipino parents goes to work abroad, i.e. as overseas Filipino worker.

• Transnational families are formed when members “live some or most of the time separated from each other, yet hold to together and create something that can be seen as a feeling of collective welfare and unity, namely ‘familyhood’ , even across national borders”

(Bryceson and Vuorela, 2002, p.3 as cited in Mazzucato, Schans, Caarls and Beauchemin, 2015).

Transnational families in the Philippines• There were a total of ca. 1.8M OFWs in 2015

• There are slightly more females than males, and the male OFWs are comparatively older than their female counterpart.

• At least ca. 44% of the OFWs come from three Philippine regions: Region IV-A/Calabarzon(17.9%), Region III/Central Luzon (15.5%), and NCR (10.5%).

• The largest number of OFWs work in the Middle East (913,958) and in Asia (399,361).

(Gavilan, 19 December 2016)

Challenges resulting from the changesfrom intact to non-intact families?

• Living in non-intact families : Growing up in single parent families put children at greater developmental risk (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006)

• Stability of the family is threatened by children growing up without the presence of their mothers or fathers or both parents (Asis, 1994)

• The stress of migration on the marital relations of parents (Asis, 1994)

Challenges

• Feminization of female migration in the early 1990s -- who will assume the reproductive tasks traditionally performed by women (Asis, 1994)

• The migrant mother is seen to be neglecting her role as a nurturer and caretaker of children in the family (Review by Alampay, 2014)

• Challenges related to notions and ideals of “being family”.(Asis, Huang & Yeoh, 2004)

Impact of Changes• Structural

• The creation of Shadow households -- to refer to the continuing ties among family or household members distributed in space. Family members left behind reciprocate by parenting the children of migrants. (Asis, 1994)

• Increase in the number of single-parent families (Gata, 2016)• "transnational corporation of kin” when considering the family

beyond the usual husband-wife or parent-child dyads, migration expands rather than constricts family membership. Migration creates "borderless families" which can be relied on to promote family interests (Asis, 1994)

• Expansion of the family into global spaces as families acquire more knowledge about migration processes and destinations, other working age family members can also be drawn into taking a chance in the global labour market (Asis, 2006)

Impact• Impact on family relations

• Lessened frequency of face-to-face interactions with the family because of social media usage (dela Vega, Flores & Magusib, 2017).

• Limited interactions with parents and least happy than with avenues other than face-to-face interactions (Review by Alampay, 2014)

• Resentments children might have with their father’s migration and the migration of both parents (Christ, 2017)

• Decline in family authority in terms of its influence over individual members (Gata, 2016)

• Continued negotiation of family roles and individual interests (Fresnoza-Flot, 2014).

• Destabilizes family’s ability to maintain close relations (Garabiles et al., 2017)

Impact• Positive research findings

• Children see parental separation due to labor migration as sacrifices of parents to improve their financial conditions. They see positive consequences. They have learned to be independent. (Asis, 1994)

• Research findings, in general, suggest that children of migrants are coping with the absence of their parents (Asis, 2006)

• Studies do not show the children of migrants to be more delinquent or problematic than those raised by their own parents (Asis, 1994)

Impact of transnational family structures on Filipino children left behind

• Filipino children left behind have varied reactions depending on their age and cognitive development• Younger children view parents’ migration as abandonment• Older children are either receptive or resentful

• Children had more emotional insecurities when mother is away, while they develop emotional gaps with parents when father is away.

(Parrenas, 2001; Parrenas, 2008)

Impact on Filipino children

• Inconsistent with observed trends in other countries, Filipino children of migrants performed well academically.

• They also are socially well-adjusted because of strong family support buffering the effects of parental migration.

(Graham & Jordan, 2011; Arguillas & Williams, 2010; Reyes, 2007)

Responding to the Challenges: Family Resilience (Garabiles, Ofreneo & Hall, 2017)

• Communicate using technology to bridge relational distance

• Restructure through role sharing and validating efforts in assuming family roles

• Build ties through temporary family reunifications• Prioritizing addressing difficulties

IMPT: Sharing roles: sharing in breadwinning and caretaking roles which serve to relieve pressures and foster a greater sense of family involvement (Garabiles et al., 2017)

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM OUR STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF TRANSNATIONAL FAMILY STRUCTURE ON THE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND

• Family Structure: Intact Family, OFW Family/Mother Away, OFW Family/Father Away, OFW Family/Both Parents Away

• Family system variables: Parental monitoring, parental attachment, sibling attachment, parental communication, family mattering, parental support

Relations with Father is affected with the transnational family structure

Family Context Variable P value

Parental Attachment to Father 0.0132Parental Communication with Father

0.0058

Differences across Family Structures

• There were no significant differences in terms of:• Parental attachment, family mattering, parental monitoring, parental

support, sibling attachment, parental communication, family violence, family resilience

• Peer attachment, peer support, engagement in deviant peer activities, peer mattering

• School connectedness, teacher support, academic motivation, extracurricular participation, school stress

• Competence, relatedness and autonomy• Subjective well being, life satisfaction, self esteem, active coping

strategy, help-seeking intentions, spirituality

Risk behaviors across Family Structures

Variable P value

Problematic Internet Use

0.0298

Safety 0.0006Violence 0.002Suicide Behaviors 0.0067

Sexual Behaviors 0.0259

Post hoc test. Problematic Internet Use

Children with fathers away and with both mothers and fathers away are likely to exhibit higher levels of internet addiction than those in other family structures (p = .01)

Family Structure N MeanINTACT FAMILY 711 2.2335OFW MOTHER 47 2.3136OFW FATHER 72 2.3725OFW PARENTS 5 3.2228

Post hoc test. Safety

• Children with both parents away report higher levels of behaviors detrimental to their safety (p < .000).

Family Structure N Mean

INTACT FAMILY 650 1.79

OFW PARENTS 4 2.44

OFW FATHER 62 2.07

OFW MOTHER 43 2.11

Post hoc test. Violent Behaviors

• Children in families with both mothers and fathers away report that they experience significantly more violence than their counterparts in other family structures (p<.000)

Family Structure N Mean

OFW PARENTS 5 1.9333

OFW FATHER 64 1.5362

OFW MOTHER 42 1.5357

INTACT FAMILY 638 1.4353

Post hoc test. Suicide Behaviors

• Children in families with both fathers and mothers are away report more incidents of suicide behaviors (i.e. suicide ideation and suicide attempts) (p = 0.0067).

Family StructureN Mean

OFW PARENTS 5 2.03333

OFW MOTHER 43 1.69574OFW FATHER 65 1.69103INTACT FAMILY 633 1.64758

Post hoc test. Sexual Behaviors

• Children with both mothers and fathers away report to engage in sexual behaviors with greater frequency and also are more likely to engage in risky unprotected sex than children belonging to the other family structures (p=.026).

FAMSTR N MeanOFW PARENTS 5 2.4978OFW MOTHER 42 1.9348OFW FATHER 64 1.6495INTACT FAMILY 609 1.604

Preliminary findings• The Filipino transnational family structure places the

development of children at risk, especially if both parents are away.

• The attachment and communication with the father is important to buffer the risks of being in non-intact family households.

• Generally, parental relationships may not be affected when family is changed to assume a transnational structure.

Preliminary conclusions• Some risk behaviors related to the self, to peer relationships

and to internet use, especially when both parents are absent.

• Members of a transnational Filipino is resilient by maintaining stability in family relationships and family joint activities.

• “… we emphasize that the relationships and activities in which parent and child are involved can override the influence of purely demographic factors such as mother’s age and family structure.” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 1015).

Thank You!

References• Alampay, L. P. (2014). Parenting in the Philippines. In Parenting Across Cultures (pp. 105-121). Springer Netherlands.• Arguillas, M. J. B., & Williams, L. (2010). The impact of parents’ overseas employment on educational outcomes of Filipino

children. International Migration Review, 44(2), 300-319.• Asis, M. M. (1994). Family ties in a world without borders. Philippine Sociological Review, 42(1/4), 16-26.• Asis, M. M. B., Huang, S., & Yeoh, B. S. (2004). When the light of the home is abroad: Unskilled female migration and the Filipino

family. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(2), 198-215.• Asis, M. (2006). Living with migration. Asian Population Studies, 2 (1), 45-67.• Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecolog ical model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.) Handbook of child

development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley• Cabalquinto, E. C. B. (2018). “We’re not only here but we’re there in spirit”: Asymmetrical mobile intimacy and the transnational Filipino

family. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(1), 37-52.• Christ, S. (2017). ‘You are supposed to treat them like your mum and dad’: narratives about transnational family lives by middle-class Filipino

children. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(6), 902-918.• Cruz, G. (2014). The Filipino family and youth in transition: policy and program directions. Paper presented in the PCPD Partners’

Conference AIM Conference Center October 23, 2014. https://www.pcpd.ph/uploads/Filipino_Families_and_Youth_in_Transition.pdf• Dela Vega, M. G. A., Flores, R. B., & Magusib, A. J. M. (2017). ‘Connected ka pa ba?’: A study on how social media usage affects face-to-

face interactions within the home. Asian Journal of Media and Communication (AJMC), 1(1), 83-92.• Fresnoza-Flot, A. (2014). Negotiating Interests and Identities in Transnational Family: Migrant Filipinas in France and Their Families in the

Philippines. In Migration, Familie und Gesellschaft (pp. 239-255). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.• Garabiles, M. R., Ofreneo, M. A. P., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Towards a model of resilience for transnational families of Filipina domestic

workers. PloS one, 12(8), e0183703.• Gata, L. 2016. Philippines, Families in. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies. 1–5.• Gavilan, J. (19 December 2016). What you need to know about overseas Filipino workers. Rappler IQ. Available at

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/114549-overseas-filipino-workers-facts-figures• Graham, E., & Jordan, L. P. (2011).Migrant Parents and the Psychological Well-Being of Left-Behind Children in Southeast Asia.Journal of

Marriage and Family, 73(4), 763-787.• Mazzucato, V., Schans, D., Caarls, K., & Beauchemin, C. (2015). Transnational families between Africa and Europe. International Migration

Review, 49(1), 142-172.• Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational

families. Feminist studies, 27(2), 361-390.• Parreñas, R. (2008). Transnational fathering: Gendered conflicts, distant disciplining and emotional gaps. Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 34(7), 1057-1072.• Reyes M.M. 2007. Filipino children left behind: A literature review. UNICEF