Indigenous families: who do you call family? - Study Notes

Overview

  • Study title: Indigenous families: who do you call family?
  • Authors: Benita Y. Tam, Leanne C. Findlay, & Dafna E. Kohen
  • Journal: Journal of Family Studies (2017)
  • Context: Western nuclear family is often seen as the default; this may not reflect Indigenous family concepts in Canada. The study investigates how Indigenous families are conceptualized and the implications of using non-Indigenous institutional definitions.
  • Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 15 participants (Indigenous and non-Indigenous content experts and stakeholders) who work with Indigenous families.
  • Approach: Grounded theory with iterative data collection and thematic analysis; conducted in English or French; data collected via field notes (no audio recordings). Ethical approval obtained.
  • Key finding: Indigenous family conceptions comprise two broad perspectives – personal (culture-driven) and institutional (demographic/legal) – which can diverge and produce boundary ambiguity in what counts as a family.

Key Concepts

  • Indigenous families in Canada: First Nation, Métis, Inuit; experiences shaped by history of colonization, cultural identity, mobility, language, and kinship systems.
  • Family definitions vary by purpose: personal/social identity vs. policy/legal/economic purposes.
  • Family boundary ambiguity: concept from general systems theory describing blurred boundaries between individuals in the family system; relevant to Indigenous contexts due to mobility, multiple caregivers, and non-nuclear structures.
    • Core idea: open, semi-permeable family boundaries can create discordance in who is considered part of the family.
  • Cultural kinship and language: Indigenous kinship terms and concepts can differ from bilateral Western norms; some languages may not have a single word for “family” but express relatedness through social roles and relationships.
  • Mobility and complex households: Indigenous populations often show high mobility and multi-generational, non-nuclear caregiving arrangements that do not map neatly onto census/economic household definitions.
  • Customary adoption: Inuit and some Indigenous groups practice customary adoption, where a relative may raise a child without statutory adoption; legal recognition and social roles can diverge.
  • Institutional definitions (for policy/legal purposes): often rely on census terms (e.g., census family, economic family), which emphasize household residence and economic/administrative criteria.
  • Relevant models discussed: nodal network concept as an alternative to rigid household-based definitions to reflect social ties and kinship networks (cf. Morphy, 2007).

Definitions and Key Formulations (in-context)

  • Census family (Statistics Canada): a household-level unit that may include a couple (married or common-law) with or without children, or a single parent with at least one child; excludes children with their own spouse/child in the same household. Grandparents living with grandchild(ren) without parents are included.
  • Economic family (Statistics Canada): may include a census family, plus two or more persons living together with blood or legal (marriage, common-law, or adoption) relations; can include siblings living together, foster children, or two related co-resident census families.
  • Formulations used in the paper (conceptual):
    ext{CensusFamily} = igrace ext{Couple (married or common-law)} igrace ext{with/without children} igrace ig
    igrace ext{OneParent with at least one child} igrace igrace
    ext{EconomicFamily}
    i ext{CensusFamily} ext{ or } ig ext{two or more people with blood or legal relations}ig
  • Personal vs. institutional lenses reflect different priorities: cultural/social lived reality vs. administrative/functional needs (e.g., eligibility, taxation, health care).

Methodology

  • Design: Grounded theory to iteratively build understanding of Indigenous family conceptions.
  • Participants: 15 content experts and stakeholders with work related to Indigenous families; recruitment via purposive sampling, then snowball sampling to diversify perspectives (Indigenous and non-Indigenous, government and non-government sectors).
  • Inclusion criteria: roles addressing definitions of family in policy, research, or services; involvement in family-related work in the prior three years.
  • Data collection: in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted in English or French; 11 in-person, 4 via teleconference; field notes used as data; saturation reached (no new information emerged).
  • Data analysis: hand-coded thematic analysis; descriptive codes → broader themes; iterative clustering and bridging of themes; development of a concept map; quotes linked to themes.
  • Ethical considerations: participant anonymity; consent; ethics approval from University of Ottawa; data triangulation through diverse participants.

Findings

  • Two major overarching themes emerged:
    • Personal perspective of Indigenous families (culture-driven)
    • Institutional perspective of Indigenous families (demographic/legal focus)
  • Across both perspectives, location/residence (household versus social environment) repeatedly surfaced as a common anchor, though with different emphases.

3.1 Personal perspective: conceptualizing family for Indigenous people

  • Nature of Indigenous family is complex, fluid, and transient (dynamic construct).
    • 60% of participants described the Indigenous family as fluid/transient.
    • 67% indicated ambiguity in defining an Indigenous family.
    • Example quotes:
    • "Lines of the immediate family are blurred in the Aboriginal context" (Participant #4).
    • "The transient nature of Aboriginal people, specifically for education, broadens family connections" (Participant #5).
    • "People that do not have a lot of family will make family connections" (Participant #11).
  • Cultural influences on family definitions:
    • Culture plays a central role in defining family for all participants.
    • 47% directly linked Indigenous identity to Indigenous family and its understanding.
    • 33% highlighted negative effects of colonization on Indigenous families, values, and identity.
    • 53% noted differences among the three Indigenous groups (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) and differences from non-Indigenous family norms; some participants noted non-Indigenous nuclear family norms as a perceived standard.
  • Language and linguistic terms:
    • 27% noted differences in naming conventions for kinship and family between Indigenous and non-Indigenous languages.
    • Some communities may have no single word for “family”; relationships are described via social roles or kinship terms.
    • Example: Inuit community where the term for “uncle” is used broadly for many, reflecting broader social ties.
    • 1 quote: "We don’t have a word for family. Words are much more based on relationships" (Participant #11).
  • Childrearing practices:
    • 40% indicated children are raised by multiple caregivers across generations; extended family involvement is common.
    • Inuit customary adoption is prominent; a first-born child may be raised by a grandparent or another relative; the adopted relationship is described using social-role terms rather than formal adoption terminology in some cases.
    • Adoption terminology varies by language; some languages lack a direct term for adoption and describe it via social roles.
  • Location and mobility:
    • Location of residence shapes Indigenous family perception; households may not fully reflect family structure.
    • 47% believed a household does not accurately portray Indigenous family; family is a social environment, not just a physical one.
    • Mobility is a major influence: 67% indicated mobility affects family perception; reasons include education, traditional activities, and geographic differences (urban vs rural).
    • 27% identified high mobility and migration as influential; 20% stated that being together for traditional activities strengthens ties; 27% noted geography (urban/rural) affects family concepts.

3.2 Institutional perspective: defining a family

  • Definitions are goal-oriented and used to serve specific purposes (policy, legal, statistical).
  • Subthemes under the institutional lens:
    • 3.2.1 Enumeration by household units:
    • 47% indicated families are classified by household units for demographics and statistics; references to Census Family and Economic Family definitions.
    • 13% noted that consistent definitions across households enable temporal comparisons and projections.
    • 3.2.2 Legal boundaries to defining a family:
    • 73% acknowledged the need for family definitions for legal purposes (tax, health insurance, inheritance, asset ownership).
    • 60% noted that programs and services depend on family definitions; 33% identified restrictions where programs favor nuclear family structures, limiting access for multi-generational or multi-caregiver arrangements.
    • 3.2.3 The influence of time on institutional definitions:
    • 67% recognized that societal views on family have broadened over time; trend toward individualism noted by some participants.
    • Changes include marriage legislation (e.g., same-sex marriage), living arrangements (e.g., LAT), and changing family roles.
    • Some participants noted a lag between institutional changes and public perception (20% agreement).

Discussion

  • Core takeaway: Personal and institutional perspectives shape Indigenous family conceptualizations differently; culture, social ties, language, mobility, and geography shape the personal view, while demographic/legal needs shape the institutional view.
  • Boundary ambiguity is more pronounced at the personal level, due to mobility, multiple caregivers, and customary adoptions; institutional definitions aim for clarity and consistency but may not reflect Indigenous realities.
  • Location (household vs. social environment) was the only theme appearing across both levels, highlighting a potential bridge or gap between how families are lived versus how they are counted.
  • The authors discuss the application of a nodal network approach (as proposed by Morphy, 2007) for understanding Indigenous families, emphasizing social ties and kinship networks over rigid household units.
  • Customary adoption and language differences complicate cross-cultural application of Western family terms; legal recognition may lag behind social reality, affecting rights and access to resources.
  • Policy implications: Researchers and policymakers should consider culturally grounded, purpose-specific definitions; a single universal definition may be inappropriate or exclusionary for Indigenous families.
  • The paper argues for a culturally informed lens in Indigenous well-being research and policy design; the use of standard institutional definitions should be weighed against the risk of misrepresenting or excluding Indigenous family realities.

Limitations and Conclusions

  • Limitations:
    • Study relies on a small, targeted sample of key stakeholders and experts, which may not capture all Indigenous experiences or regional variations.
    • Potential bias due to researchers’ cultural lenses and the necessity to interpret data through Western academic frameworks.
    • Data were collected via field notes rather than audio recordings, which may influence recall and interpretation.
  • Conclusions:
    • The concept of family is complex and context-dependent; personal definitions are culturally rooted and fluid, while institutional definitions are practical tools with specific aims.
    • Western non-Indigenous definitions may misrepresent Indigenous families; however, institutional definitions serve particular purposes (legal, programmatic, statistical).
    • A cultural lens is essential to truly understand Indigenous well-being; definitions should be selected or adapted with explicit recognition of purpose, cultural context, and geographical considerations.
    • The study highlights the need for flexible, context-sensitive models (e.g., nodal networks) to map Indigenous family relationships beyond traditional household-based metrics.

Implications for Practice and Research

  • For policy and program design: consider multiple definitions of family and allow for multi-generational and non-traditional caregiving structures to determine eligibility and access to services.
  • For data collection: employ nodal or network-based frameworks to better capture social ties, kinship, and mobility; supplement household-based measures with social-network indicators.
  • For research: investigate customary adoption more deeply; explore differences among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities; assess the impact of language and kinship terminology on family delineation and access to resources.
  • For ethics and interpretation: acknowledge the potential cultural biases in research and the need to avoid imposing Western frameworks when analyzing Indigenous family structures.

References to Core Concepts (selected examples)

  • Boundary ambiguity theory: Boss, P. (1977); Boss, P., & Greenberg, J. (1984).
  • Grounded theory methodology: Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967); Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2002).
  • Kinship and Indigenous family research across cultures: Morphy (2006, 2007); Schwede (2003, 2004, 2008).
  • Nodality and network approaches to Indigenous families: Morphy (2007).
  • Policy and statistics framing of families in Canada: Statistics Canada references (2011, 2002, 2008, 2013).

Example quotes from findings

  • "Lines of the immediate family are blurred in the Aboriginal context" (Participant #4).
  • "The transient nature of Aboriginal people, specifically for education, broadens family connections" (Participant #5).
  • "Family is the social environment while the household is the physical environment" (Participant #3).

Notable numerical references (illustrative)

  • Personal perspective ambiguity: 67%67\% indicated the Indigenous family is ambiguous; 60%60\% described it as fluid/transient.
  • Language and kinship differences: 27%27\% noted differences in terminology; 33%33\% discussed colonization effects on family values/identity.
  • Institutional perspectives: 47%47\% mentioned enumeration by household units; 73%73\% acknowledged legal purposes for family definitions; 67%67\% recognized temporal changes in societal views on family.