Introduction
The present paper critiques an article by Rojas, Grzywacz, Zapata Roblyer, Crain, and Cervantes (2016), which was published in a peer-reviewed journal “Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology” in July 2016. The article considers an issue related to multiculturalism: it reviews the stressors experienced by immigrant Hispanic populations in the US from the perspective of familismo (the concept of family in Hispanic culture). The present paper will review and analyze the key aspects of the study, including its methodology, and make suggestions pertinent to the future exploration of the topic. Despite having some limitations, the article illustrates a very meticulous approach to developing research.
Statement of the Research Problem
According to Rojas et al. (2016), the cultural meaning (interpretation) of the stressors that are experienced by Hispanic immigrant families is understudied, and their article aims to contribute some data on the topic. In particular, the authors consider the way the concept of familismo can be employed to frame and understand the stressors experienced by the Hispanic population. Rojas et al. (2016) indicate that the problem is significant since the Hispanic population faces multiple stressors, and their understanding is essential for their management.
Summary of the Theoretical Concepts Used
The authors discuss the conceptual background of their work at length, focusing on the meaning of familismo and identifying it as a cultural value that refers to the centrality of the concepts of family, kinship, and collectivism. The authors’ definition appears to be correct as can be seen in the descriptions provided by other authors (Corona et al., 2016; Rising, Hassouneh, Lutz, Lee, & Berry, 2017). Familismo is evidenced to have both positive and negative impacts on the lives of Hispanic individuals, including the beneficial effects of support and the adverse consequences of high emotional costs. In their study, Rojas et al. (2016) focus on stressors, but they still demonstrate the fact that familismo can have dual effects.
The article does not contest the concepts that it uses, but it works to provide additional evidence that would assist in their understanding. Rojas et al. (2016) also apparently propose the idea of viewing familismo as a framework within which stressors could be understood. However, the research is based on the data that was gathered for another qualitative study, and the idea of reviewing stressors from cultural perspectives is not new (Corona et al., 2016). In summary, the study exists within the discussion on the topic and uses previous research to make some original contributions.
Methods Used
Although it proposes the perspective on familismo as a framework for interpreting and understanding the stressors experienced by the Hispanic immigrants in the US, the study is exploratory as evidenced by its aim. Indeed, the article does not state a direct hypothesis; rather, intends to improve the “understanding of the interpretation of stressors experienced by Hispanic adults from immigrant families” (p. 408). This aim was accomplished by recruiting 93 Hispanic adults from immigrant families with roughly the same number of males and females (48% women). Rojas et al. (2016) recruited their participants only from California and Massachusetts, which is a limitation. However, they visited a large variety of settings, and their final sample was relatively diverse from the perspective of the country of origin and age. The participants were contacted with the help of Hispanic community-based organizations.
Given the fact that the study is a qualitative one, the sample of 93 people appears to be sufficiently large. Indeed, it is typical for qualitative studies to have small numbers of participants because qualitative research is not focused on generalizability; also, the analysis of qualitative data is particularly resource-consuming (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017). However, Rojas et al. (2016) do not explicitly state that they have achieved data saturation, which is the primary method of determining the size of samples in qualitative research (Fusch & Ness, 2015). This issue may be viewed as a flaw, and it can also be connected to the fact that the sample was not chosen specifically for the study.
The participants were arranged into sixteen focus groups that employed open-ended questions to foster communication. Rojas et al. (2016) explain that the method is appropriate for their aim since it promotes the discussion of common experiences within groups, fostering reflection and self-exploration. This statement can be confirmed by Cohen et al. (2017) who demonstrate that focus groups are appropriate for gathering collective opinions, including those related to values. In summary, the methodology employed by Rojas et al. (2016) seems to be appropriate and fits their aim.
Data Analysis
The audio-recorded data from the focus group interviews was transcribed by bilingual people, which limits the possibility of translation mistakes. The analysis procedures consisted of coding. In the process, the research team searched for family-related information, which resulted in a coding dictionary. The latter was employed to code all the transcripts; computer software (NVivo 7 and 10) facilitated the process. The authors found no meaningful differences between the groups, which is why they presented consolidated results. In the article, the findings are discussed with the help of summaries and key quotes, which is typical for qualitative research.
Coding is a well-established method of working with qualitative data (Cohen et al., 2017), which justifies its use. In order to limit bias, Rojas et al. (2016) used triangulation: three independent coders were asked to review the codes, and the results were considered by the research team as a whole. In general, the authors describe the data analysis procedures in great detail, which improves the quality of the work, making it replicable (Patton, 2014). As a qualitative investigation, the study did not include variables. However, the fact that the authors did not specifically aim to review the differences between the subgroups of their sample (for example, between men and women) is a limitation of the research. Still, the data analysis methods can be described as appropriate for the chosen methodology (suitable for working with qualitative data), and the authors demonstrated notable rigor in the process.
Discussion and Conclusions
The investigation by Rojas et al. (2016) is concluded with the discussion of the four major themes. They are predominantly connected to changes and the way the latter affect families, resulting in stressors related to familismo. The authors do not make conclusive statements about general concepts; rather, they present and summarize the results, indicating the way familismo can indeed be used to frame the concerns voiced by the participants. Thus, the discussion follows logically from the research and does not attempt to make conclusions that cannot be supported by the data.
Rojas et al. (2016) discuss the limitations of their study at length. They point out the fact that the data was not explicitly collected with the aim of reviewing familismo as a stressor-interpreting framework. Also, they consider the restrictions of the sample (only adults from California and Massachusetts) and methods (focus groups can be influenced by settings, are not representative of the whole population, and might silence some views). Moreover, Rojas et al. (2016) comment on the fact that the subgroups of the participants were not explored (for example, the differences between genders, various levels of education, and so on). All the mentioned points are valid and should be taken into account when reviewing the findings of the article.
Finally, the fact that the qualitative approach is limited in its generalizability is mentioned by the authors. However, the latter issue cannot be rectified: it can be assumed that a qualitative methodology is required for the investigation of the interpretations of stressors from the perspective of groups with different cultural backgrounds (Barker, 2016). Consequently, the chosen approaches seem justified, and the exhaustive discussion of the limitations is commendable because it indicates that Rojas et al. (2016) acknowledge the fact that their findings are not conclusive.
Recommendations
Rojas et al. (2016) suggest that their methodology could be expanded by the use of interviews, which would help to avoid the issue of silencing opinions that can occur within focus groups. They also propose subgroup-specific explorations for future studies. Indeed, it appears that further investigation can rectify some of the limitations of the article by Rojas et al. (2016). However, the restrictions of qualitative research cannot be avoided since the topic of the culturally-framed interpretation of stressors can only be studied qualitatively. Consequently, if I were to do a follow-up investigation, I would employ qualitative methodology and attempt to explore a topic that Rojas et al. (2016) did not cover. I would probably consider gender-related differences, and I would use both focus groups and interviews to combine the advantages of the two approaches and compensate for their limitations. In general, Rojas et al. (2016) have thoroughly developed their study, which they demonstrate in their article through the description of relevant methodology aspects. As a result, a few limitations need correction.
References
Barker, C. (2016). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Corona, R., Rodríguez, V., McDonald, S., Velazquez, E., Rodríguez, A., & Fuentes, V. (2016). Associations between cultural stressors, cultural values, and Latina/o college students’ mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(1), 63-77. Web.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. Web.
Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rising, M., Hassouneh, D., Lutz, K., Lee, C., & Berry, P. (2017). Integrative review of the literature on Hispanics and hospice. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 35(3), 542-554. Web.
Rojas, S., Grzywacz, J., Zapata Roblyer, M., Crain, R., & Cervantes, R. (2016). Stressors among Hispanic adults from immigrant families in the United States: Familismo as a context for ambivalence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 408-416. Web.