See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233180063

And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film

Article  in  Journal of Feminist Family Therapy · July 2010

DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2010.499703

CITATIONS READS

10 299

1 author:

Markie L. C. Twist (Blumer)

University of Wisconsin - Stout
67 PUBLICATIONS   393 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Markie L. C. Twist (Blumer) on 04 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries]
On: 27 August 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 792081565]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Feminist Family Therapy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304002

And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film

Markie L. C. Blumera
a
Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada,
USA

Online publication date: 19 August 2010

To cite this Article Blumer, Markie L. C.(2010) 'And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film', Journal of Feminist
Family Therapy, 22: 3, 225 — 235
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2010.499703
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2010.499703

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 22:225–235, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0895-2833 print/1540-4099 online
DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2010.499703

And Action! Teaching and Learning

Through Film

MARKIE L. C. BLUMER
Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

Although previous literature has demonstrated the value of cin-

emography in enhancing student understating of many concepts,
little practical and pedagogical information exists on the actual
instructional delivery of cinemeducation. In consideration of this
gap, the present piece focused on the instructional delivery of cin-
ema viewing and reviewing to ten marriage/couple and family
therapy students with the aim of enhancing their awareness and
understanding of family systems theory and diversity. Information
was gleaned through student and instructor feedback with regard
to the process and outcome of the project and movie reviews, which
were collaboratively co-authored by the students for dissemination
through publication in a scholarly journal.

KEYWORDS authorship, cinemeducation, collaborative writing,

diversity education, instruction of marriage/couple and family
therapy, marriage/couple and family therapy education, movie
review, pedagogy of marriage/couple and family therapy

RATIONALE

One of the co-developers of our field, Marriage/Couple and Family Therapy

(M/CFT), John H. Weakland (1975), was an advocate for the idea that feature
films act as a form of cultural documentation and as such there is value in
observing and analyzing popular films in terms of their cultural content
and meaning. More recently, research on the teaching of diversity in the

Received June 4, 2010, accepted June 4, 2010.

Address correspondence to Markie L. C. Blumer, PhD, Department of Marriage and
Family Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Box 453045, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las
Vegas, NV 89154-3045. E-mail: markie.blumer@unlv.edu

225
 226 M. L. C. Blumer

classroom has demonstrated that film review and analysis continues to be a

rich resource for enhancing student understanding (Champoux, 1999).
Indeed, the use of “cinemography” in the illustration and application of
family systems theory (Hudock & Warden, 2001; Maynard, 1996) and related
concepts has been described as being beneficial to the teaching and learning
of students. Specifically, the benefits of learning through this medium have
been that it: (a) is designed to hold the attention of viewers, (b) is aimed
at eliciting emotional reactions to situations that resemble real life (but for
which the students bear no responsibility), (c) engages the spatial and ratio-
nal parts of the brain, which leads to a longer lasting impression than when
similar information is presented through other methods (i.e., didactically,
lecturing, etc.), (d) is relatively time-efficient and can be done outside of the
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

classroom setting at the convenience of the student, (e) is a social and fun
experience, particularly when done through paired or grouped activity, and
(f) can be an effective means of assisting students in the learning, analy-
sis and application of essential concepts within family systems theory (i.e.,
family genograms, differentiation, homeostasis, overfunctioning and under-
functioning, cross-cultural coupling, initiating and leading family meetings,
etc.) (Alexander & Waxman, 2000). Furthermore, Laszloffy and Hardy (2000)
have reported that when used in conjunction with other appropriate meth-
ods, the instructional strategy of exposing family therapists and those in
training to pertinent movies can be a venue through which one’s cultural
awareness and sensitivity can be raised.
In addition to the value that viewing and reviewing of films has in the
context of the classroom, it would appear that there is great value in such
endeavors outside of this context as well. For instance, of the journals in the
M/CFT field, over half (56%) of the 16 previously identified as predominant
in the field (see Blumer, Green, Knowles, & Williams, 2010; Clark & Serovich,
1997; Tatman & Bischof, 2004) include reviews (i.e., movie, play, and/or
book) in their publication on a consistent basis. Furthermore, researchers
examining the journal-reading habits of practicing M/CFTs reported that
both practitioners and journal editors value literary works that are more
clinician and reader friendly, make use of examples of families/couples,
and are inclusive of writers from a more diverse pool (e.g., graduate stu-
dents, clinical practitioners, etc.; Hertlein, Lambert-Shute, & Piercy, 2009).
Well-written movie reviews, with substance and clinical foci, maybe one
venue for attending to these needs.

INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY

Ten M/CFT Master’s students enrolled in a Commission on Accreditation

for Marriage and Family Therapy Education accredited university-based
“Diversity in Marriage and Family Therapy” course were instructed to
 And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film 227

complete a film review that focused on the analysis of observed families,

couples and individuals through lenses of systems, diversity, multicultural-
ism, social justice, and feminism. The goal of this assignment was to use
popular film to help bridge understanding of both diversity and systems in
individuals, couples, and families.
Students were presented with one of three films (The Joy Luck Club,
Tortilla Soup, and Torch Song Trilogy) for selection. The groups consisted
of two groups of three and one group of four members for co-work on the
review. The students self selected into a group based on his/her interest
and perceived level of knowledge of the area of diversity that was primarily
presented in each of the films. To serve as an example of but one way
to complete a film review, students were provided with two examples (see
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

Barrera, 2008; Twist & Palmanteer, 2004) that had been previously published
in the Journal of Feminist Family Therapy (JFFT ).
Students were also provided general guidelines for assistance in the
co-creation of their reviews. The general guidelines suggested that in their
reviews they provide: (a) about a one page summary of the film; (b) about
three to four pages primarily focused on analysis of the film through the
lenses of systems, culture, diversity, social justice, feminism, and multicultur-
alism; and (c) about one to two pages focused upon therapeutic implications
and application, including attention to emergent experiences with self-of-
the-therapist/student. Students were also instructed to limit their use of
formal academic references (a general guideline of one to three references
was articulated) in their co-writing of the reviews, so that the piece was of
an editorial nature with more of a focus on their professional and personal
understanding in the analysis.

OUTCOME AND DISSEMINATION

To meet the requirements of the course, students were instructed to first

complete their reviews to earn points towards their grade. After a grade
was assigned, students were invited to submit their movie reviews for
dissemination through professional publication. In preparation for submis-
sion, the reviews underwent an editing process by me. In addition, the
co-authors were encouraged to seek out faculty (who had already given
their permission for possible inclusion if requested) within the M/CFT
department, who were perceived as being a “good fit” in terms of the
content, for inclusion as a co-author in the review. Finally, the student
co-authors were encouraged to discuss authorship of the review being
submitted for publication with examples provided of how others have
assigned authorship (e.g., American Association for Marriage and Family
Therapy Code of Ethics, 2001; Blumer, Green, Murphy, & Palmanteer, 2007;
Endersby, 1996; Mullen & Kochan, 2001) acting as tools for assistance
 228 M. L. C. Blumer

in this process. Once all of the reviews were ready to be submitted for
publication, I contacted the Movie Reviews Editor of the “movie reviews”
section of the JFFT . The reviews then went through a second editorial
process.

REFLECTIONS

Upon completion of the process of submitting for publication, feedback

from the co-authors was elicited as to the process and outcome of this
movie review project. Each of the co-authors provided feedback about the
project via written reflections in response to questions generated by me (see
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

Appendix A: Reflection Questions). In their written responses the co-authors

were asked to report whether they were comfortable with me using some
of their de-identified feedback about the process and outcome in a possible
companion piece for the journal. All of the co-authors acknowledged that
such inclusion was acceptable with a few clearly indicated caveats, which
were followed. Several common themes emerged from these reflections,
both across and within groups. These themes included the following: deci-
sions around the writing process, challenges in the style of writing, decisions
with regard to authorship, the benefits of writing a review, and the strengths
and weaknesses of group collaboration.

Decisions Around the Writing Process

All of the groups reported making overt decisions around the writing pro-
cess through shared dialogue. The agreed-upon process was similar for two
groups. These two groups decided to divvy up the work by task (i.e., one
person wrote the summary and did the merging and editing of the final doc-
ument, one person wrote through the various lenses, and another person/s
wrote about clinical implications). Within these groups the writing process
reportedly went “smoothly” as roles were clearly defined and there was not
the perceived pressure for group members to come to an agreement on
each part of the project, but rather as to the flow of the piece as a whole. As
was reported by a co-author from one of the groups, “it was an extremely
smooth process and no difficulties emerged.” Co-authors from the other
group reported similar reflections with regard to the writing process, sharing
that it “worked well” for this particular project and it presented almost a
“built-in editing” process, which was “helpful.”
The third group chose not to divvy up the work by task because “the
format of the paper did not present a natural break in sections” and even if it
had, group members felt that “to divide the paper would mean excluding the
input and opinions of those who were not writing that section.” Therefore,
the co-authors in this group decided to each write all of the parts of the
 And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film 229

paper separately and then to consolidate these different ideas into one final
product. It was believed that “this was the best process to include the voices
of all group members,” however, it reportedly also made for difficulty in
terms of the “process of consolidating.”

Challenges in the Style of Writing

Co-authors across all of the groups reported challenges in the writing style
that is used in a piece of a more editorial nature with less academic refer-
encing. For instance, one co-author mentioned that it was difficult to write
a paper where there was not an overt use of the “views and positions of
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

the experts within that given topic area,” but rather through the use of one’s
own voice and opinions. This was stated as being hard, because many of
the group members felt like they were not true “experts” who could write
without referencing other scholars. Writing in this manner made the paper
feel “awkward and clumsy” for some. However, there were a few excep-
tions to this experience. For instance, one person shared that she found the
more editorial writing style to be “very easy and fun” and that “it came natu-
rally to [her].” She went on to further report that it was actually “relieving to
just write what [she] thought without backing everything up with research.”
Another co-author stated that she “did not find this kind of writing to be dif-
ficult.” Both of these co-authors attributed this lack of difficulty and “fun” in
the writing style to previous experience with creative writing. For example,
the later co-author reported that she had “recently completed another review
for a different journal, so [she] had familiarity with what to write about in a
movie review.”
Another challenge in terms of the style of writing a piece of this nature
which was mentioned, but to a lesser extent, was that of the requirement
of brevity in terms of the length. This challenge was identified by different
individuals across groups. One of the co-authors shared that “the task of
preparing such a brief review paper on such a deep and lengthy movie was
challenging in and of itself.”

Decisions With Regard to Authorship

Interestingly, none of the co-authors from any of the groups experienced
great difficulty in terms of assignment of authorship. However, just because
there was not a difficulty in this process did not mean that there was not
a difference in how it was managed. Two of the groups decided upon
equal authorship. A consistent reason provided within these groups for this
decision was that “everyone put in the same amount of work.” Some of the
co-authors in these groups also reported feeling that “equal authorship [was]
fitting for a feminist journal, as an equal balance of power appears to be
one of the primary [tenets] of the feminist movement.”
 230 M. L. C. Blumer

The other writing group decided upon a hierarchical form of authorship,

primarily based on differences in the amount of effort and time individu-
als had invested in the piece. In this group a member self-selected to be
the last author due to both professional and personal demands during the
particular point in time in which the reviews were being written. The remain-
ing co-authors decided on authorship order based upon efforts put forth.
Interestingly, this group discussed whether to include a faculty member to
assist with the final review, and group members were in total agreement to
add a faculty member.
This group reported that they made this unanimous decision for two
reasons. First, the faculty member that was included had a high degree of
knowledge and experience with the people from the cultural group of focus
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

in the film that was reviewed. Second, the student co-authors of this partic-
ular movie review all had a perceived lack of knowledge about people from
the particular cultural background indicated in the film. This later point was
clearly articulated by a group member when she reported, “it struck me as
being rather presumptuous . . . to take it upon myself to offer an intelligent
and culturally sensitive commentary on a film about Chinese Americans”
when she and the other group members did not feel like a professional
or personal “expert” on people coming from this cultural background. The
choice to include the faculty member reportedly “went a long way toward
alleviating this concern” in that he offered helpful suggestions to attend to
group members’ perceived gaps in cultural knowledge. One such sugges-
tion was to “seek out a Chinese American to review [the] semi-final draft and
[provide] feedback.”

Benefits of Writing a Review

A benefit that was mentioned by all of the co-authors was that the writing
of each of their respective reviews was a “fun” and “enjoyable” process.
Another commonality expressed by many was that it “was the[ir] first expe-
rience with publishing” and in many ways it served to remove some of the
“fear of the unknown that may prevent some . . . from pursuing publica-
tion opportunities.” Furthermore, many of the co-authors were very excited
about the possibility of publishing in a “nationally recognized medium.”
Some of the co-authors also reported that part of the value in the assign-
ment extended “beyond the letter grade” because “more than an audience
of one” would potentially be reading these papers, which was “inspir-
ing.” This also evoked a feeling that the assignment was “useful” outside
of mere “academic studies” in that it was being applied “to ‘real world’
situations.”
Perhaps the greatest benefit expressed by the majority of co-authors
both within and across groups was that of the process of watching a film and
 And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film 231

writing a review through various lenses and for practice with clinical appli-
cation. Group members shared that this was valuable in terms of expression
and practice of their understanding of multiculturalism. As one co-author
remarked, “I think it is valuable to study and analyze families presented in
film, generalizing some of their characteristics to facilitate a better under-
standing of the population being presented.” A similar statement was made
when a co-author shared that this assignment “helped with seeing family
from a particular cultural group through the realm of clinical work.” Another
stated that “working on [this] paper in this class helped me work on my skill
of seeing a client in their context from a feminist and cultural lens.” Other co-
authors shared similar reflections stating that it “was a great opportunity . . .
to expand [one’s] horizon and learn to apply a feminist lens” to a relatively
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

realistic, yet hypothetical family. Co-authors also reported that they were
cognizant and aware that clinicians had to use caution when watching films
and analyzing the families within them for cultural consideration, because
“films like these . . . reflect the current perception by dominant society of
the minority groups portrayed” and thus “cultural dynamics may sometimes
be exaggerated or distorted.”

Strengths and Weaknesses of Group Collaboration

The majority of the co-authors across all of the groups reported that a
strength to working collaboratively was the enjoyment they experienced
in “the collaboration and camaraderie” of working with each other and that
there was a belief that on the whole “everyone made great contributions”
to the project. Some of the student co-authors reported that a strength in
working collaboratively was for pragmatic reasons—saying things like it was
easier “not having to write [an] entire assignment by [one]self.” Others shared
that a benefit in the collaborative nature of the project was that it provided
“a richer learning experience due to the variance in perspective” that offered
the possibility of having multiple people see the same film through multiple
points of view. Through such a myriad of viewpoints, interpretation of the
film was “broadened” and “important details” were prevented “from being
missed.”
Although the perceived strengths of participating in writing a review
were so great that all of the co-authors reported that they would “gladly”
participate in another, only one half of the co-authors expressed a desire
to engage in another collaborative movie review. The most common reason
for this expressed viewpoint was because it was a “difficult task [to] make
[multiple] voices sound as one cohesive voice.” In other words, “flow” within
the content and writing styles across the multiple pieces that were merged
to create one finished product was identified as a weakness by many of the
co-authors. Though less common, another perceived weakness in the col-
laborative writing process involved issues around practicality. As was aptly
 232 M. L. C. Blumer

stated in one reflection by a co-author, “there was difficulty in navigating . . .

different schedules, points of view, etc.”

LESSONS LEARNED

From the overall experience of this project and in consideration of the feed-
back from all of the co-authors, as well as my own summative thoughts,
this has been an invaluable and exciting project to be a part of and there
have been some significant lessons learned that can be shared with others
choosing to work on collaborative writing projects and/or film reviews in
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

the future. One such lesson has been that when collaboratively writing it
appears that the most pragmatic tack in terms of sharing responsibility of
tasks over a project is to break down the paper into parts with clear assign-
ment of each to individual members within the group. Before overseeing
this project I was not overtly aware that this was more often than not the
tact that I have taken myself when working with co-authors on a project
and that in my own experience this has seemed to make for the “smoothest”
collaborative writing experiences.
It is also important to note the relative non-issue around assignment of
authorship that occurred across groups. In reflection, individuals attributed
this lack of difficulty to a number of reasons like “dynamics of personality,”
a lack of differences in hierarchy because those involved were “students,”
and honest discussion of authorship assignments, as well as one’s ability to
invest “time and effort” to the project. From this feedback, a lesson learned
is to have overt, informed, and thoughtful conversations around authorship
before engaging in active writing. An additional lesson seems to be that it is
important to be selective with regard to decisions around whom to include
as a co-author/s.
Another lesson has been that as a faculty member, who inherently holds
a degree of power due to the nature of one’s position over students, it
appears to be incredibly important to empower student co-authors, partic-
ularly females, in their writing experiences. This became evident in that
several of the student co-authors felt like the writing of a publishable piece
with the focus being on their “opinion” and not that of the expertise of other
scholarly writers was something that was “awkward and uncomfortable”
and in a way invoked a “fear” of “messing up.” In my previous experience
mentoring and co-authoring with others, particularly with women and stu-
dents, this has not been an uncommon remark made early on in our work
together. In light of this I believe it is essential to make use of feminist based
mentoring techniques (Blumer, Green, Compton, & Barrera, 2010) when
working with student co-authors to help invoke a co-authoring relationship
that is empowering to the student co-author, so she (or he) may be freed
up to engage in the writing process in a manner that is more authentic,
 And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film 233

active, and assertive. As was previously mentioned, if professionals do truly

want to read published works from a more diverse writing pool (Hertlein
et al., 2009), one that is inclusive of an increased number of students, then
it appears critical that we help make such writers feel more at home in the
writing and subsequent dissemination process.
The benefits shared by group members in the writing of each of their
respective film reviews were similar to those described previously by others
(Alexander & Waxman, 2000; Hudock & Warden, 2001; Laszloffy & Hardy,
2000; Maynard, 1996) in that the students reported that the process was rel-
atively time efficient, fun, and helpful in terms of enhancing one’s learning
and analysis of essential concepts in the fields of cultural diversity and fam-
ily systems theory. However, there was an aspect of the current use of the
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

activity of student film reviewing that was different than those experiences
previously reported, and this was the addition of inviting student co-authors
to have an opportunity to revise their film reviews for possible publica-
tion. As such, there were additional benefits to this activity. These benefits
included a sense of being generative towards members of the field who
might read the reviews, a feeling that the assignment was useful outside of
the classroom setting, an increased sense of excitement about the project in
relation to the possibility of publication, and to some extent, a diminishment
of fears around the publication process in general.
For me, the possibility of having such wonderfully bright, talented, and
relatively new to the field M/CFTs publish a project of this nature was so
exciting that I barely had the patience to wait for it to happen. In many
ways my feelings were parallel to those I had experienced when previously
co-authoring manuscripts with students since entering into the role of fac-
ulty member, but this experience was also unique. Upon further reflection,
I think what made this experience different was that I was not included
in the writing process or authorship on any of the actual reviews. In other
words, this was the first time in my career that I had helped to co-create
the availability of a writing opportunity for students and did not go into
the task with the agreement that I would be co-authoring nor did I end
up being invited to co-author by the student/s. This made for an experi-
ence with what I see as “pure mentoring” in that I was really there as a
guide or coach in the process and not as an actual co-collaborator or true
participant.
Such a feeling of pureness in mentoring I have only had one other time
in my life and this was in the context of shifting from collegiate/professional
level cheerleader to collegiate level cheerleading coach. In my time as an
individual cheerleader and squad member I experienced great recognition
and success (i.e., one of the top 25 individual cheerleaders in the country,
second place victory in a national competition with teammates on a colle-
giate level co-ed team, etc.), however these experiences paled in comparison
to that of coaching an all girl collegiate squad to a first place win at a
 234 M. L. C. Blumer

national competition. The thrill of mentoring a team of unique and tal-

ented individuals in a way that they were able to function collaboratively
to attain such a high degree of success, and the accompanying looks on
each of their faces after their win, brought about a feeling of triumph in
a way that my own never could. This was a feeling I did not anticipate
having again. I was wrong. I experienced that same feeling in the sense of
accomplishment that I have for the student co-authors on these film reviews.
Ultimately, what I am feeling is a combination of gratitude, pride, and humil-
ity for the individuals who worked in concert to create their own little
mistresspieces.
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

FINAL THOUGHTS

With such positive and balanced feedback received, I and the majority of the
participating co-authors would recommend this project to others. The overall
positive experience was well summarized by one of the student co-author’s
in her written reflection—“I fe[lt] honored to be part of a group process
whose mission [wa]s to offer commentary on a film that might well be the
only exposure that many people have to a [certain] culture” and “For that
reason, what we chose to say about the film bec[ame] culturally important.”
The co-authors also recognized that while the completion of this project was
“a big responsibility,” they “trusted themselves” and the faculty involved, to
ensure that their reviews were written in a manner that was consistent with
systemically based practices and was reflective of cultural awareness and
sensitivity.

REFERENCES

Alexander, M., & Waxman, D. (2000). Cinemeducation: Teaching family systems

through the movies. Families, Systems & Health, 18, 455–466.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (2001). AAMFT code of
ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barrera, A. M. (2008). Babel [movie review]. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy,
19(4), 75–82.
Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Compton, D., & Barrera, A. M. (2010). Reflections
on becoming feminist therapists: Honoring our feminist mentors. Journal of
Feminist Family Therapy, 22, 57–87.
Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Knowles, S. J., & Williams, A. (2010, in review).
Shedding light on thirteen years of darkness: Content analysis of articles per-
taining to transgender issues in Marriage/Couple and Family Therapy Journals.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.
 And Action! Teaching and Learning Through Film 235

Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Murphy, M. J., & Palmanteer, D. (2007). Creating
a collaborative research team: Feminist reflections. Journal of Feminist Family
Therapy, 19, 41–55.
Champoux, J. E. (1999). Seeing and valuing diversity through film. Educational
Media International, 36, 310–316.
Clark, W. M., & Serovich, J. M. (1997). Twenty years and still in the dark? Content
analysis of articles pertaining to gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in Marriage
and Family Therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23,
239–253.
Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple
authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375–392.
Hertlein, K. M., Lambert-Shute, J., & Piercy, F. P. (2009). The journal reading habits
Downloaded By: [University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libraries] At: 19:03 27 August 2010

of practicing MFTs. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 20, 28–45.

Hudock, A. M., & Warden, S. A. G. (2001). Using movies to teach family systems con-
cepts. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
9, 116–121.
Laszloffy, T. A., & Hardy, K. V. (2000). Uncommon strategies for a common problem:
Addressing racism in family therapy. Family Process, 39(1), 35–50.
Maynard, P. E. (1996). Teaching family therapy theory: Doing something different.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 195–205.
Mullen, C. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2001). Issues of collaborative authorship in higher
education. The Educational Forum, 65, 128–135.
Tatman, A. W., & Bischof, G. H. (2004). Contribution patterns in major U.S.
Marital and Family Therapy journals: 1992 through 2002. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 26(1), 83–95.
Twist, M., & Palmanteer, D. (2004). Big fish [movie review]. Journal of Feminist
Family Therapy, 16(2), 79–82.
Weakland, J. H. (1975). Feature films as cultural documents. In P. Hockings (Ed.),
Principles of visual anthropology (2nd ed., pp. 45–68). Berlin, Germany: Walter
de Gruyter & Company.

APPENDIX A
Reflection Questions
1. How was it to work with coauthors?
2. How did you decide authorship?
3. What was hard about this kind of writing versus others?
4. What was refreshing about this process?
5. Would you work as a team to write again?
6. Would you write another review?
7. What was the value in this assignment?

View publication stats