Where Does Culture Fit in? A Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Couples’ Talk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of intercultural couples in Canada has been on the rise in the last few decades, making it increasingly likely that family counsellors will work with such clients. There is extensive research outlining the challenges that intercultural couples face due to their cultural differences. This study adopts a strengths-focused approach to study intercultural couples, by recruiting self-defined healthy intercultural couples. In this research I studied the way that couples conversationally construct their experiences of being in an intercultural relationship. Seven intercultural couples were interviewed as to the role that culture plays in their relationship. I approached this research from a social constructionist paradigm, and used Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) method of discourse analysis. Couples spoke from three interpretative repertoires when they constructed the role of culture in their relationship: (a) culture isn’t defining, (b) culture plays a part sometimes, and (c) cultural differences add to the relationship. The results indicate that healthy intercultural couples acknowledge cultural differences but they do not make them central to their relationship. The results are discussed in the context of the available literature, and they are used to make recommendations for practice and further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".