“The troublesome other and I”: Parallel stories of separated parents in prolonged conflicts
Open accessAbstract
This qualitative study aims to explore how noncohabiting parenting couples in prolonged conflict construct the other parent and themselves. Ten parents from five parent couples were interviewed. A dyadic analytical design was used, where parent's stories of conflict were analyzed in parallel with their co‐parent. Drawing on positioning theory, self‐identity as parents emerged as implicit counter positions in storylines, which construct the co‐parent as “the troublesome other.” Two typologies of conflicted storylines were prominent in the findings:storylines of violations of trust, positioning the co‐parents in relation to traumatic events in the past and,storylines of who is bad, positioning the co‐parent as either a disloyal co‐parent or a dysfunctional parent. The findings indicate that prolonged conflicts made it impossible to find available positions for cooperation. We argue that family therapists should aid each household toward promoting child and family resilience rather than continued efforts to solve chronic conflicts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In multidimensional systemic research, there is a need for self-reflexivity, meaning the researcher must be critically conscious of their own positioning and prejudices and of how these may influence the phenomenon being studied.
“Hence, in multidimensional systemic research, there is a need for selfreflexivity, meaning that the researcher must be critically conscious of their own positioning and prejudices and of how these may influence the phenomenon being studied (Davies & Harré, 1990;Stokkebekk, 2022;Stokkebekk et al., 2021).”
From Researching what we practice—The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2 (2023) · cites this paper as Stokkebekk et al., 2021
Cites
Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 · Cited by 9,184 · see citing works
Dallos, R., & Vetere, A. (2012) · Journal of Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00554.x · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Researching what we practice—The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2
Whittaker, K., Stokkebekk, J., Lorås, L., & Tilden, T. (2023) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/famp.12921 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Stokkebekk, J., Iversen, A., Hollekim, R., & Ness, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Bergen (NO)
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Stokkebekk, Jan
- Venue
- Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52-68
- ISSN
- 0194-472X (ISSN-L)
- 1752-0606
- OpenAlex
- W3120550146
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 5.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- separated parents, co-parenting, positioning theory, breach of trust, family resilience, family therapy
- MeSH terms
- Divorce, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Parenting, Qualitative Research, Family Conflict
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review