Moore Manning 2019 What Counts As CIFC-with-cover-page-v2

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
What counts as critical interpersonal

and family communication research?
A review of an emerging field of
inquiry.
Jimmie Manning, Julia M.
Annals of the International Communication Association
Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
Communicat ion Monographs T he promise of cont rapunt al and int ersect ional met hods for ad…
Elizabet h Sut er
Performat ive face t heory: A crit ical perspect ive on int erpersonal ident it y work
Julia M.
Crit ical T heorizing in Family Communicat ion St udies: (Re)Reading Relat ional Dialect ics T heory 2.0
Elizabet h Sut er
ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION
2019, VOL. 43, NO. 1, 40–57
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1570825
What counts as critical interpersonal and family communication

research? A review of an emerging field of inquiry
a
Julia Moore and Jimmie Manningb
a
Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; bDepartment of Communication Studies,
University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A critical turn is currently taking place in interpersonal and family Received 28 September 2018
communication (IFC) studies, thereby reorienting the predominantly Accepted 13 January 2019
post-positivist, rationalist, and individualist sensibilities that have long
KEYWORDS
characterized the sub-field. However, questions remain about what Critical interpersonal and
counts – or not – as critical interpersonal and family communication family communication (CIFC);
(CIFC) inquiry. In this review essay, we first critique historical definitions inclusivity; methodology;
of IFC. Second, we characterize the few recent instances of meta- politics; theory
communication about CIFC as lacking a coherent vision. Third, we
distinguish IFC from CIFC in terms of study topics and metatheoretical
commitments. Fourth, we advocate for a more inclusive yet nuanced
understanding of what counts by delimiting CIFC studies as a
multiplicity of politics. Finally, we offer future recommendations for this
area of inquiry.
A critical turn for interpersonal and family communication (IFC) studies continues to gain traction.
After decades of IFC being dominated by psychology-oriented, primarily post-positive research
approaches (Baxter, 2015; Levine, 2011; Manning & Kunkel, 2014), the last decade has witnessed a
proliferation of critical IFC work that is unprecedented in the field. Articles in prominent communi-
cation journals have established critical agendas for both interpersonal (Moore, 2017b) and family
communication research (Suter, 2016). Additionally, essays have advocated for and advanced femin-
ist (Manning & Denker, 2015), intersectional (Few-Demo, Lloyd, & Allen, 2014), queer (Chevrette, 2013;
Manning, 2009), and/or race-oriented (Davis, 2015) approaches, among others. This work largely pre-
sents broad visions for what studies of critical interpersonal and family communication (CIFC) studies
can be.
Scholars have also recently advocated critical potentials for more-traditional IFC theories and
methods, ranging from critical re-writings of specific theories and methods (Moore, 2017a; Suter,
2018) to critical visions for theory and methodology (Faulkner, 2016; Manning & Kunkel, 2015) to
broader calls for reconsidering how critical traditions can fit into an overall field of interpersonal com-
munication studies (Manning, 2014). This critical turn for IFC studies can also be witnessed in special
journal issues dedicated to the conversation (e.g. Suter & Faulkner, 2016), book chapters that seek to
establish critical interpersonal inquiry (Baxter & Asbury, 2015), and by the ever-increasing number of
panels dedicated to critical IFC found at national and international communication meetings (e.g.
Moore et al., 2015; Suter et al., 2017).
Beyond these explicitly-labeled critical contributions, adjacent conversations have materialized
concurrently via edited book collections that help to establish a more topically-comprehensive IFC
studies (e.g. Baxter, 2015); books that bring social justice perspectives to interpersonal topics and
CONTACT Julia Moore julia.moore@utah.edu 225 South Campus Drive Room 2400, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
© 2019 International Communication Association
ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 41
constructs (e.g. Kelley, 2017; Stewart, 2017); methodological plurality in the sub-discipline that evi-
dence increased acceptance of autoethnography in family studies (Adams & Manning, 2015); the
emergence of arts-based IFC work (Ellingson, 2014; Faulkner, 2016); and the addition of critically-
informed research approaches in IFC-specific methodological primers (e.g. Manning & Kunkel,
2014). Perhaps most importantly, a significant number of IFC studies have incorporated critical per-
spectives, often bringing a much-needed sense of inclusivity. As Foster (2014) notes, IFC research con-
tinue to perpetuate research traditions that primarily focus on White, able-bodied, United States,
middle-class, and heteronormative identities and interactions. The addition of critical perspectives
to IFC has allowed insights regarding issues of race (e.g. Davis, 2015), sexuality (e.g. Adams &
Berry, 2013), social class (e.g. Denker & Dougherty, 2013), nationality (e.g. Thomas, 2018), and
ability (e.g. Ellingson, 2017), among others. Thus, the incorporation of critical perspectives expands
who is focused on and how in a larger field of IFC studies.
As this brief review alone indicates, the past decade has produced a notable groundswell of CIFC
research and theorizing, possibly signifying that IFC studies is one of the last – if not the final – sub-
fields of communication studies to take up critical theories and approaches. Yet despite all the recent
advances for CIFC scholarship, one critical contribution has yet to be made: CIFC scholars lack a foun-
dational theoretical article that articulates a specific trajectory and unique identity for the area. This
absence stands in contrast to other sub-fields such as rhetoric (McKerrow, 1989) and organizational
communication studies (Deetz, 1982) that have produced generative essays that articulate a sense of
purpose for embracing critical perspectives. The authors of those vital essays drew upon specific the-
orists to integrate new insights into their existing sub-fields. As a result, they formed a new ‘hybrid
variety’ (Craig, 1999, p. 148) that served not only to expand the potential for critical discourses
and approaches to be utilized in a particular study, but also to enrich their entire sub-fields with
new practical considerations that could be compared and contrasted for a greater sense of holistic
knowledge. In contrast, CIFC studies – despite its advances – has yet to articulate what it offers to
both the sub-field of IFC or to the entirety of the communication discipline.
Additionally, a sort of ambiguity remains about what might constitute CIFC research. As active
scholars who contribute to both traditional and critical IFC studies, we have witnessed some of
the confusions regarding what might or might not ‘count’ as CIFC work. For example, some
journal reviewers have insisted that particular works are not critical because they do not deal directly
with oppression of historically marginalized groups, even if the research deals with another power-
oriented critical theory such as Butler’s (1990) theory of performativity (e.g. Allen & Moore, 2017).
Does CIFC research have to focus explicitly on oppression? Likewise, when reading and discussing
CIFC with other IFC scholars, we are struck by how ‘critical’ research is sometimes equated with
the study of marginalized identities, assuming the study of oppressed groups in and of itself is critical.
That raises an important question: Are studies of marginalized groups necessarily critical? Is it not
another type of oppression to insist that particular bodies and identities must be thought about
critically?
CIFC studies appears to be evolving into an area that is simultaneously too rigid in its understand-
ings of operations of power, yet too broad in its contextual criteria. Thus, the impetus for writing this
essay emerged from two separate yet interrelated angles. First, we ask the generative question of
what CIFC is and what it could – and, in some cases, should – be in the future. Our intention here
is not to provide a rigid definition of what is or is not critical or whose work is ‘in’ or ‘out’ when it
comes to CIFC research; but instead to set the groundwork for more-inclusive yet precise critical con-
tributions. Second, we raise questions about how CIFC strengthens both the larger sub-field of IFC
studies and the interdisciplinary and increasingly-international field of communication studies. In
answering this inquiry, we hope to clarify micro- and macro- ambiguities about theory, method,
and practical utility as they apply to CIFC studies. Ultimately, after exploring both prompts, we advo-
cate for future CIFC studies to be demarcated through a multiplicity of power and politics, and then
offer recommendations for future research.
42 J. MOORE AND J. MANNING
(Re)defining IFC
To begin this review and analysis, we begin with an important question: What, exactly, does it mean
to call IFC research critical? This question not only points to the importance of understanding what it
means to study something critically, but also points back to long-debated questions about what it
means to study interpersonal or (to a lesser degree) family communication. Interpersonal communi-
cation has long been characterized by its study of close, unique, enduring ties (Miller & Steinberg,
1975; Stewart, 1999), an approach that resulted in a positivity bias in the field (Duck, 2011). In
response, scholars articulated a dark-side perspective that includes interpersonal-oriented issues
such as stalking, verbal abuse, and infidelity (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1994). The introduction of such
topics made for a more well-rounded field, although attitudes about what interpersonal communi-
cation is/was continued to be narrow, yielding research that has not embraced a full range of inter-
personal communication topics or assumptions (Duck, 2011). Interpersonal communication studies
might remain the most paradigmatically and theoretically homogenous area of our discipline, sus-
taining a predominantly post-positivist, rationalist, and individualist sensibility (Lannamann, 1991;
Manning, 2014). Such limitations have led to a number of scholars making impassioned arguments
about who interpersonal communication should be studying and how (Baxter, 2015; Duck, 2011;
Foster, 2014; Manning, 2009).
In response, we note IFC processes are fundamentally and inherently linked with all other areas
represented in our field, especially to groups, organizations, health, media, technology, rhetorics, cul-
tures, ethics, and activism. To deny that any of these areas involve IFC, particularly in the name of
setting up what does and does not count as part of a scholarly sub-discipline, would appear to
provide no practical value and instead plays into academic politics that value a status quo – one
that disallows shifts in power relations. Thus, in a current interpersonal communication climate –
where the value of multiple perspectives has often been minimized (Duck, 2011), the development
of new methods is slow (Manning, 2013), and published scholarship overwhelmingly continues to be
a quantitative and non-critical endeavor (Braithwaite, Schrodt, & Carr, 2015) – critical perspectives are
essential to expand who is studied, how new methodological and theoretical approaches can expand
our knowledge base, and to forge connections to other areas of the larger field of communication
studies.
To this end, we believe interpersonal communication studies would do better to model the path
forged by family communication scholars. Family communication studies branched out from inter-
personal communication studies, and so each share the same roots of psychological inquiry and
assumptions. Unlike interpersonal communication, however, family communication studies have
been more inclusive methodologically (Suter, 2016) as well as theoretically and topically (Baxter,
2014). Perhaps this is best evidenced by reviewing the call for papers listed in the sub-discipline’s
flagship journal, Journal of Family Communication. The journal’s Aims and Scope webpage indicates
that they publish empirical and theoretical manuscripts about ‘communication processes within or
about families’ (n.d., para. 1), thereby encouraging contexts beyond interpersonal communication
within families and examining family communication more holistically. This definition/characteriz-
ation provided by the journal not only mirrors the more expansive frame that family communication
studies have taken when compared to interpersonal communication studies; it also indicates that
family communication does not happen exclusively within families, but about families.
Ultimately, we argue it is important to take an inclusive, rather than exclusive, stance when it
comes to deciding who should be represented in scholarly conversations both about IFC and CIFC.
This stance, in part, emerges from recognizing that a sub-field is shaped by historical and material
legacies of theoretical commitments and gatekeeping that legitimate some perspectives while
forcing others to seek out alternate scholarly communities (Braithwaite, 2014; Ellingson & Sotirin,
2014). Taking all of this into consideration, we argue that what differentiates IFC from other divisions
is not our primary theories or perspectives, but instead our loci of attention. Thus, we define interper-
sonal communication as everyday micropractices, from the most fleeting and mundane to the once-
in-a-lifetime transformative. Attending to small practices moves beyond asking ‘how many people’
and ‘in what relationships and contexts,’ and instead attunes us to the connections across micro-,
meso-, and macro- communication processes, and the ‘relationship between specific communicative
practices on one hand, and structures of power and domination on the other’ (Mumby, 1993, p. 22).
Family communication can likewise refer to micropractices that occur among specific family
members, mesopractices that consider how families (re)organize, macropractices that constitute
larger understandings of ‘family,’ or the relations between. Defining IFC in terms of levels of practice
makes room for critical perspectives to enter the conversation in nuanced and meaningful ways.
These ideas are expanded later in this essay, but first, in order to establish context we review how
recent essays characterize CIFC.
Characterizing CIFC studies in practice

Only recently have IFC scholars begun to meta-communicate about the critical turn that is currently
taking place. Importantly, critical research can be defined in at least three overarching ways. First, the
critical tradition considers the historical roots which constitute one portion the communication dis-
cipline (Craig, 1999; Manning, 2014; Mumby, 1997) as it specifically relates to doing critical studies.
Second, the critical paradigm, broadly conceived, describes a pattern of research that is invested in
using critical reflection to challenge assumptions with explicit political aims (Droser, 2017;
Manning & Kunkel, 2014). Whereas a tradition is more historical and evolving, a paradigm more
directly identifies a research approach. Third, critical theories acknowledge the complex and
vibrant tensions and disconnects within the critical tradition, yet often refer to continental theory
(Ono, 2012) and usually deal with specific theories/concepts used for interpretation of data/texts. Col-
lectively, critical traditions, paradigms, and theories all interrelate to offer different lenses – based on
specific histories, approaches, and conceptual developments – used to make sense of communi-
cation phenomena in CIFC research.
To date, three essays have explored what it means to do critical interpersonal and/or family com-
munication studies. The first, Leslie A. Baxter and Bryan Asbury’s (2015) ‘Critical Approaches to Inter-
personal Communication,’ seeks not to reflect upon existing theories in IFC, but rather to ‘encourage
the development of additional critical interpersonal communication theories’ by ‘summarizing two
primary strands of the critical project more generally’ (p. 189). Curiously, the authors justify doing
this by noting that there are only three critical interpersonal communication theories: relational dia-
lectics theory (Baxter, 2011), narrative performance theory (Langellier & Peterson, 2004), and ‘the
family of feminist theories’ (p. 189; see Wood, 2015). This assertion, presented factually, begs the
question of what the authors were using as their rules of inclusion and exclusion when making
this assessment. For example, at the time of publication queer theory had already been used fre-
quently in interpersonal contexts (see Adams, 2011, for one especially strong example) and was
advanced in interpersonal contexts in at least four essays (Chevrette, 2013; Elia, 2003; Manning,
2009; Yep, 2003). What about queer theory – a theoretical body that at its heart is interpersonal in
nature – did not allow it to be counted?
Little about this decision is explained in the remainder of the chapter. There, the authors offer
overviews of the critical modern and postmodern traditions. Drawing primarily on scholarship
from the 1980s and 1990s, Baxter and Asbury (2015) speculate about how the two traditions could
apply to future critical interpersonal communication studies, using gender and relational labor as
examples. Although this proposed framework is helpful for delineating major differences between
two traditions, it relies on somewhat dated arguments or perspectives. Specifically, the modern/post-
modern binary they present fails to explain that not all postmodern traditions are critical – although
some have articulated the potential of postmodernism’s ‘critical edge’ (Alvesson & Deetz, 2006,
p. 255). Further, because this bifurcation is based on a broad periodization of time, this distinction
is now dated, with critical/cultural theory moving beyond both of these turns to encompass a
more diverse fragmentation of theoretical commitments, including posthumanisms (e.g. Allen,
2018; Barad, 2003; Cooren, 2010; Latour, 1993; Putnam, 2015). In short, the binary is too simplistic to
account for the divergences, disagreements, and more recent innovations that constitute critical
research. Notably, and perhaps related, the authors do not advocate for CIFC in particular or look
at it as a subset of IFC studies. Rather, they write more generally about the value of critical theorizing
for interpersonal communication studies.
To that point, Elizabeth A. Suter’s (2016) introduction to a special issue of Journal of Family Com-
munication focused on critical theory made a considerable advancement by coining critical family
communication (CFC) studies. In a later essay, ‘Critical Theorizing in Family Communication
Studies: (Re)Reading Relational Dialectics 2.0,’ she and Kristen Norwood (2017) expand this to
include interpersonal communication studies (changing the acronym to CIFC) and provide a paradig-
matic framework for understanding the key considerations of the emerging CIFC field. Acknowled-
ging that ‘critical approaches assume a plurality of perspectives’ (p. 3), Suter and Norwood
articulate their ‘vision for change’ (p. 3), which includes attention to issues of power, specifically
from the perspective of modern and postmodern traditions; resistance, critique, and/or transform-
ation of the status quo; collapse of the public/private binary; and author reflexivity. They note that
this heuristic does not represent what is essential for scholarship to be considered CIFC – and, in
fact, make note that they themselves do not use author reflexivity for their sample study – and
suggest that the heuristic is not final and open to growth and change. The authors also illustrate
how two methods – contrapuntal analysis and intersectionality – can be used in family communi-
cation research, at times using examples from their own studies.
This framework/heuristic provides an excellent starting point for understanding CIFC and serves as
a valuable tool for helping to explain the critical project, both in terms of a specific project and to
others and, importantly, is expansive in its approach. Although its inclusive nature is to be praised,
we offer two cautions. First, we question what critical research might be omitted from a strict appli-
cation of the heuristic. The framework might cast too narrow a net for capturing what is critical by
focusing primarily on marginalized groups or marginalized discourses when it might be beneficial
to examine how power manifests in everyday, mundane interactions. For example, Denker’s (2013)
study of heterosexual couples’ relational maintenance behaviors illuminates how the common strat-
egy of humor may serve as a form of control that constructs inequitable task sharing as justified,
thereby offering critical and dark side insights into banal relational practices. Second, and perhaps
somewhat paradoxically, we worry that the heuristic provided is somewhat too broad and that,
when applied, could possibly include research that is not necessarily critical. Post-positivist intercul-
tural communication research that considers power distance or social influence between individuals
is likely descriptive or predictive, and not critical, in nature – such as in Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, and
Chew-Sanchez’s (2003) research exploring the effect of nationality and power distance on facework
and face concerns in family conflict. Suter (2018) indirectly acknowledges such concerns herself in a
later essay where she calls for a focus on social justice in CIFC studies.
Moving to a third essay, ‘Where is the Critical Empirical Interpersonal Communication Research? A
Roadmap for Future Inquiry into Discourse and Power,’ Julia Moore (2017b) advocates for integrating
critical/cultural theories into data-oriented interpersonal and family communication research, and
provides a roadmap for future research using Foucault’s poststructural theory of power/knowledge
as an overarching example. Importantly, she provides a history of interpersonal communication
studies as it relates to critical theory and then offers four ways to incorporate critical theory into inter-
personal communication studies: by orienting an analysis (e.g. poststructuralism used as a meta-
theoretical orientation for a research project); by drawing critical theories from others disciplines
or communication sub-disciplines (e.g. Phillips’ [2006] rhetorical maneuvers adopted for interperso-
nal contexts); by merging critical theories into existing interpersonal communication theories (e.g.
Moore’s [2017a, 2018a, 2018b] performative face theory); or by developing new CIFC theories
inspired by critical/cultural theories (e.g. Baxter’s [2011] relational dialectics theory that heavily
draws from the theory of Mikhail Bakhtin).
In comparison to the other two essays, Moore (2017b) does not offer a list of existing critical the-
ories, but instead draws theories into conversation as they become examples for her arguments.
Relatedly, she contends that although critical/cultural theories certainly have an important role to
play in CIFC, future research need not begin with a specific or singular existing CIFC theory or tra-
dition. However, like the other essays, she neither thinks beyond the modern/postmodern binary
nor accounts for the full spectrum of critical CIFC research already published, noting that her litera-
ture search only included journal articles explicitly framed as ‘interpersonal communication’ research.
Additionally, notions of power are important to Moore’s concept of critical interpersonal communi-
cation, as she ‘define[s] critical theory broadly as a lens through which to critique and work toward
changing unjust operations of power’ (p. 2). Similar to other CIFC scholars, she highlights power in
her conceptualization of critical work; however, we later argue that the word ‘power’ is not explicitly
necessary in CIFC works.
Although each of the three essays reviewed here provides important contributions to CIFC studies,
none have yet offered a clear delineation between CIFC and IFC, potentially contributing to the lack of
clarity surrounding this emerging area.
Distinguishing CIFC from IFC

Until this point in the essay, much of our focus has been on inclusivity and considering what has and
has not been counted as CIFC. Although it may be tempting to consider research as categorical – i.e.
assessing that a specific project is or is not critical – the relationships between different research com-
munities are messy, and researchers may productively draw from multiple, seemingly contradictory
perspectives (Deetz, 2001; Droser, 2017). Given this assertion, one effective way of thinking through
CIFC could be juxtaposing it to the philosophical underpinnings of traditional IFC studies. This, on
some level, evades the ‘what’s in/what’s out’ dichotomy of inclusion for CIFC and instead focuses
on how critical leanings can influence the larger sub-discipline of IFC studies more generally. Necess-
arily, this means that CIFC advances who/what we look at, as an IFC sub-discipline, and how. To that
end, we next consider two elements of doing research as they might fall on a critical-traditional IFC
continuum: study topics and metatheoretical commitments.
Study topics
As critical ethnographer Thomas (1993) notes, any topic has the potential to be critical. ‘It is not so
much what we choose to study,’ he writes, ‘but how we zoom in on aspects of the topic that dis-
tinguishes critical from noncritical work’ (p. 36, emphasis in original). Undoubtedly, particular
topics are more likely to lend themselves to critical interrogations than others, such as the experi-
ences of marginalized identities where privilege and oppression are easily forefronted. However,
CIFC research need not focus exclusively on marginalized identities, relationships, or family for-
mations, just as traditional IFC research may take up these topics. Insisting that marginalized identi-
ties or relationships be studied exclusively from critical vantage points, as some have done in the
past, could be oppressive and antithetical to the intents of critical scholars in that it forces particular
identities or relationships to be studied or theorized in a particular fashion. Similarly, it might be that
some identities that are not instantly marked as suited for critical exploration – such as straight, white
men – could be the prime candidates for analysis when it comes to critical theories or concepts such
as heteronormativity (Foster, 2008) and whiteness (Pied, 2017).
One consideration CIFC scholars might make is when topics that could lend themselves to critical
inquiry have gone undisrupted from critical interrogation. As an example, one hot area in IFC studies
is military families (e.g. Jennings-Kelsall & Solomon, 2014). To date, this work has largely been post-
positivist or interpretive in nature, and has often neglected the raced, classed, and gendered dimen-
sions of military service. But what might happen if critical perspectives were brought into the mix?
How might explorations of classism, racism, capitalism, and/or sexism be beneficial to fully
understanding interpersonal communication and families in this context? As a second point, it is

crucial to consider relationships and family as key words or concepts when thinking about a topic
from a critical vantage point. Which relationships and families are considered legitimate, and
which are not? To this end, sub-disciplinary categorizations also require reconsideration. For
example, work-life balance research is often considered to be organizational or professional in
nature, but crucial critical insights about relationships and family can also be gained, as the scholar-
ship of Denker (2013) illustrates.
Metatheoretical commitments
Epistemology and axiology are often closely related in CIFC studies. As Miller (2005) notes, empirical
communication studies are often divided into more-subjective and more-objective in terms of their
stances. Objectivist stances are characterized by seeking explanation of social phenomena, separ-
ation of participant and researcher via scientific method, and by testing theory as a means of knowl-
edge development. Subjectivist stances involve understanding social phenomena using situated
knowledge, exploration or inquiry that sometimes involves interpretation, and localized, often emer-
gent understandings. Based on description alone, it would appear that subjectivist approaches lend
themselves more to the goals of critical inquiry, although more-objectivist approaches could be criti-
cal in nature based on axiological considerations. As one example, Davis theorized (2015) and then
tested (2016) Strong Black Women Collective theory using quantitative methods and an objectivist
stance. Yet her motives for the research, as explained in the articulation of the theory and is
evident from the research questions being asked to test it, indicate critical values. Davis’s work
stands as a stellar example of how critical and traditional IFC perspectives can be blended to
create new understandings.
More likely, however, critical studies will be grounded in qualitative research methods. Beyond tra-
ditional approaches such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, CIFC studies, to date, have
been marked by a methodological playfulness that has allowed new ways of knowing, most notably
using autoethnography (e.g. Tillmann, 2009) to convey personal experiences, and arts-based research
methods that involve performance (e.g. Fox, 2010), poetry (e.g. Faulkner, 2007), and other unique
means of knowledge production. In one interesting example, Faulkner and Ruby (2015) used data
in the form of romantic-relationship e-mails to make poetry that is brought into conversation with
relational dialectics theory. Although critical scholarship does not necessarily involve creative
method – and, indeed, most of it likely will not – this sense of methodological play should be wel-
comed as a way of expanding knowing and presentation.
As another possible avenue of exploration, other scholars (Manning & Denker, 2015; Meyer, 2003)
have advocated expanding CIFC studies to include forms of criticism akin to that which characterizes
rhetorical or cultural studies. In her examination of discourses about coming out in families, Meyer
(2003) used relational dialectics theory as a critical tool to do media analysis of a series of television
episodes of the program Dawson’s Creek and brought it into conversation with other studies invol-
ving interpersonal notions of coming out. Allen and Moore (2017) engaged in a criticism of pro-
fessional and scholarly discourses of estrangement in order to juxtapose taken-for-granted
assumptions about family functionality with opposing perspectives of functionally estranged individ-
uals. Such work not only provides new insights about the objects and concepts being studied, but
also connects IFC studies to larger conversations both in and out of the field.
The methods of CIFC studies raise important questions about how concepts are viewed/under-
stood and for whom. As a key example, the term relationship itself – often a centerpiece of interper-
sonal and family communication studies – is fraught with potential implications for how it is being
constituted and by whom. Who sees the interaction as a relationship? The participants? The
researcher? Both? Neither? Such questions bring the importance of the self-reflexivity advocated
by Suter and Norwood (2017) into perspective. Moreover, who decides the motivations for the
relationship? The authenticity of the interaction in that relationship? Or how a relationship is
labeled? Labels and actions also intersect to create important implications for both empirical
meaning and relational constitution and ethics. Who determines if extramarital sexual relations con-
stitute infidelity? Or if the relationship that they happen in is non-monogamous and/or ‘broken’? As
these questions indicate, the politics of who has a right to label relationships and their components is
heightened in CIFC studies.
As this example suggests, epistemology is almost inextricably linked with ontology. Specifically,
how IFC concepts or topics are viewed determines, ultimately, the constitution of those topics
(Manning, in press). Such an approach opens non-critical aspects of IFC studies to expansion or recon-
sideration based on knowledge learned from critical approaches. Case in point: a concept such as love
has many meanings. Love, as characterized by Dragon and Duck (2005), is ‘an elusive concept that
one cannot really study soundly,’ and is ‘a complex set of feelings, behaviors, attitudes, emotions,
and attachments’ (p. 37). In contrast, some scholars have examined love as a behavior (e.g.
Luhmann, 2010), suggesting that love is the things people do for each other. Given this understand-
ing of love, how might a critical family communication scholar examine an idea such as spanking,
which parents often say they do out of love, as it comes into larger discursive and material practices
that characterize domestic violence? Or how might the why of spanking – that is, what behaviors or
even identities are being punished – come into a deeper understanding? Such critical unpackings of
love or other relational concepts would also bring IFC studies into larger scholarly discussions. Scho-
lars in other disciplines have already started to look at critical explorations of love. For example, hooks
(2000) has offered a critical theorization of love where respect, commitment, trust, care, affection, rec-
ognition, and – notable for IFC studies – open and honest communication are at the core. She con-
trasts those ideas with domination, ego, control, aggression, and gender stereotypes to envision the
potential of what love can and should be. How might such theorizing shape what we know about
love in CIFC studies?
In summary, metatheoretical commitments offer a clear way in which to conceptualize the conti-
nuities and distinctions between traditional IFC and CIFC studies. Reorganizing CIFC studies into a
continuum juxtaposed against traditional IFC studies helps to diminish the notion of what ‘counts’
as critical scholarship and instead brings into focus on how critical sensibilities can bring productive
change to the larger sub-discipline of IFC studies. However, this continuum does not fully account for
the nuances within CIFC research.
Delimiting CIFC as a multiplicity of politics

There are multiple benefits of developing the critical side of IFC studies. First, the history of critical/
cultural studies is lengthy and rich, dating back more than a century and continuing the evolution of
social and political thought today. This wealth of insights offered by this tradition, as well as the
closely related field of cultural studies, has remained largely untapped in CIFC studies. Second,
CIFC scholarship risks isolation from the rest of the communication discipline if not in conversation
with others who are also doing critical research. As discussed earlier in this essay, IFC scholarship is
already detached from much of the rest of the communication field – although not from interdisci-
plinary fields like relationships and family studies – and this continued separation between CIFC
research and critical communication conversations places IFC in danger of obsolescence (Moore,
2017b).
Drawing from the broader histories of critical/cultural studies, we contend that CIFC, at its core,
must stand at the nexus of progressive politics and theorizing power given the personal nature of
almost any political cause. These notions of politics, power, and the (inter)personal should be produc-
tively extended in order to diversify the possibilities for future CIFC research. Because critical research
is always future-oriented, constantly-evolving, and never-ending (Splichal, 2008; Striphas, 2013),
research practices will continue to transform as new ideas and experiences challenge scholars to
reflect upon and revise their commitments. Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider the political
possibilities of past and future CIFC research, because it is the politics imbued in scholarship that con-
stitute it as more or less critical.
Politics, in this sense, are concerned with advancing beliefs, principles, and practices related to
progressive social justice goals to (generally) strive toward a telos of equality. We point to six politics
as approaches used for evading what some have called the ‘agnostic’ expectations of research (Kvale,
2006, p. 480) – the notion that science is objective and value-free, yielding findings that are equally
valid to all. On the contrary, we believe that when critical politics such as those offered here are
infused into research practices, the knowledges developed will be ethical and better-defined. In
line with that notion, the heuristic provided here serves as an invitation for scholars to develop
more precision in regards to what CIFC scholarship could entail as it adopts one or more of these
politics.
Identity politics
First, the influence of identity politics on the budding CIFC field cannot be understated. Identity poli-
tics, sometimes also termed politics of visibility or politics of location, are principally concerned with
gaining recognition for a specific subjugated group, including ‘calling attention to, if not performa-
tively creating, the putative specificity of some group, and then of affirming the value of that specifi-
city’ (Fraser, 1995, p. 74). Indeed, social identities are political because they are contingent on power
and ideology (Yep, 2016). Identity politics have been essential to civil rights and women’s movements
and continue to play a key role in in efforts for social change – seen in current movements such as
Black Lives Matter or Global Action for Trans* Equality. Such politics provide individuals with ‘a source
of strength, community, and intellectual development,’ while simultaneously risking neglecting
differences within groups and similarities across groups (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1242).
Thus far, CIFC has attended primarily to identity politics by drawing attention to marginalized
identity groups, especially in terms of gender, race, and sexuality. For example, drawing on stand-
point theory, Davis (2015) articulated the Strong Black Woman Collective theoretical framework to
understand how black women communicate and reinforce each other’s strength, and how this
strength impedes vulnerability and emotionality within the collective. As another example, Suter,
Seurer, Webb, Grewe, and Koenig Kellas (2015) used relational dialectics theory to analyze the inter-
play of essentialist and queer discourses of motherhood in lesbian mothers’ talk, with the latter
offering resistance to monomaternalism and hetero-patriarchy. In another study related to sexuality,
Adams (2011) examined interactions about (not) coming out of the closet, noting that the process is
ongoing and characterized by paradox, where coming out too soon or too late creates contradictions
and conflicts. Each of these studies calls attention toward the specificity of historically marginalized
groups in order to legitimate, and ultimately improve, their lived experiences.
Simultaneously, CIFC scholars (e.g. Abetz & Moore, 2018b; Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi, 2018) have
recently – and rightly, in our estimation – called for greater attention to intersectionality in IFC studies,
which offers a more complex understanding of how identities are constituted and intertwined with
institutions and cultures. Combining a modernist concern for institutional subordination with a post-
modern denaturalization of identity categories (Crenshaw, 1991), intracategorical complexity con-
siders marginalization at a specific intersection of identity categories while intercategrocial
complexity attends differences between categories (McCall, 2005). To date, multiple autoethno-
graphic analyses have examined the intracategorical complexities of particular social locations of/
within families (e.g. Abdi, 2014; LeMaster, 2014) and arguments have been articulated about the
importance of intersectionality in future CIFC research (Few-Demo et al., 2018; Suter & Norwood,
2017).
However, the potential of a critical intersectional politic has not been fully realized in CIFC studies.
Future works must preserve the political potential of intersectionality in an era where the concept has
been neutralized by the checklist approach (Yep, 2016) as well as whitewashing of its history and
ignoring empirical groundings in favor of metatheoretical musings (Bilge, 2013). Thus, future CIFC
works that adopt an intersectional politic should critically analyze the systems of privilege and mar-
ginalization that intersect across differing social categories (Yep, 2016). Additionally, given the histori-
cal relationship between the larger field of IFC studies and sociology and psychology, those seeking
to do intersectional IFC research should examine the methods and theorizing offered by McCall
(2005) and Else-Quest and Hyde (2016a, 2016b) and the various responses to their ideas (e.g.
Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Marecek, 2016; Warner, Settles, & Shields, 2016) to consider how intersection-
ality may be used with quantitative methods.
Deconstructive politics
Alternately, a deconstructive politic involves the radical rejection of the naturalized (if only strategi-
cally) identity categories upon which identity politics are built. Aligned with anticategorical intersec-
tional complexity (McCall, 2005), this politic problematizes the notion of a singular telos of social
justice, and instead works to make visible, reverse, and/or ultimately undo binary categories that
are taken-for-granted as real and natural. Multiple postmodern – or, more specifically, poststructural
– philosophers have viewed academic writing as a way to question binary relations (e.g. Butler, 1990;
Foucault, 1978). Derrida (1967), in particular, advocated for deconstruction, which he insists is neither
a method nor a form of criticism, but a way of questioning logocentrism, or sets of stable meanings.
Deconstruction topples hierarchies to question, rather than reformulate, truths. This ethos of decon-
struction has often been taken up by critical disability (Vehmas, 2015) and queer scholars (Yep, 2003).
Some CIFC studies have also endorsed a deconstructive politic. Moore (2017a, 2018a, 2018b)
placed Butler’s theory of performativity in conversation with Goffman’s face theory to articulate per-
formative face theory. Through interviews with mothers who once told others they never wanted to
have children, she employed this framework to critique how everyday conversations about childbear-
ing choice reify and sometimes subvert the never mother/(future) mother binary. As another
example, Manning (2015b) examined purity pledges in families, arguing that purity rings queer het-
erosexuality both by marking it – thus making the invisible nature of heterosexuality visible – while
also deconstructing a monolithic notion of heterosexuality by distinguishing between a pure hetero-
sexuality and a tarnished/non-moral version. These studies question simple binary oppositions that
tend to structure individual identities, relationships, and families, and interrogating such taken-for-
grantedness is imperative to many critical projects. To that end, considering deconstructive politics
also allows promising futures for theoretical concepts such as Manning’s (in press) communication as
constitutive of relationships perspective, which necessarily involves how relationships involve
complex structures of support and/or recognition.
Economic politics
Economic politics pursue more equitable redistribution of resources, including income, division of
labor, democratic investment, or changing basic economic structures (Fraser, 1995). Although econ-
omic politics are often associated with Marxism, and therefore modernism (Mumby, 1997), this politic
gains a renewed sense of vibrancy in the present era of intense fiscal inequalities across national and
global levels. No longer primarily referring to class struggles between proletariat and bourgeoisie,
economic inequalities are complicated by income stratification, wage stagnation, welfare and entitle-
ment reduction, and automation. Neoliberalism provides an especially useful sensitizing concept for
future CIFC research. As the newest incarnation of laissez-faire economic liberalism, neoliberalism
promises that individualism, privatization, and government deregulation will benefit individuals
and society. Economic conditions driven by neoliberal ideology and policy directly affect relation-
ships between workers and the public, workers and their organizations, and workers and their per-
sonal and familial networks. CIFC scholars have recently begun to deal with neoliberalism,
including Abetz and Moore’s (2018a) research about the mommy wars and ideology of combative
mothering which undergirds it. Additionally, a few studies have demonstrated how managerial
discourses have colonized family and romantic relationships (Denker & Dougherty, 2013; Sotirin, Buz-
zanell, & Turner, 2007), thereby beginning to critique relationships between work and home. Econ-
omic politics provides a particularly timely orientation for future CIFC studies as modes of
production, consumption, and labor shift, which can intersect with, or remain distinct from, identity
politics.
Technological politics
Technological politics question the function of digital networks in human connections and problema-
tize the modernist/postmodernist bifurcation by enveloping more-than-human and more-than-dis-
cursive agencies. Critical approaches to communication technologies have considered digital
labor, big data, platforms, and algorithms (Bakardjieva & Gehl, 2017), which are increasingly relevant
to CIFC studies. Manning (2015a) and Manning and Stern (2018) theorized localized forms of surveil-
lance through interpersonal panopticism, where they combined affect theory, queer theory, and
ideas about surveillance to question the fear of being watched in a relationship; and the power of
relational partners to take relational artifacts and use them as a form of control both in/during
and after a particular relationship. Work from a number of other scholars who have interrogated sur-
veillance and relationships as they relate to a variety of topics including media (Andrejevic, 2004),
professional settings (Brivot & Gendron, 2011), biometrics (Gates, 2011), and the classroom (Stern,
2011) will certainly be of value to CIFC inquiries of technological politics. Two theoretical strands
from the posthuman turn are especially suited to study technological politics in future CIFC research:
affect and new materialisms, with each encompassing a wide range of perspectives and sensitizing
concepts.
Politics of affect
Politics of affect centralize the often ineffable, seemingly intangible feelings, desires, and understand-
ings that bodies come to know. The theorizing of Manning and Stern (2018) in the previous section
was also heavily influenced by Sara Ahmed, a prominent affect theorist. Ahmed (2010) has examined
who is allowed to be happy in a culture and why, pointing to how cultural discourses position
migrants as always, already melancholic. As the common cultural narrative goes, how could migrants
be fully happy if they have always left something – in this case, their homelands – behind? In a family
communication study, Manning (2017) drew from another affect theorist, Lauren Berlant (2006), to
examine how purity rings exemplify her concept of cruel optimism, where the pursuit of a goal
that is supposed to bring happiness is in and of itself what causes misery. That is, purity rings
were supposed to provide a sense of comfort to mothers and daughters – and, unfortunately, the
participants in Manning’s study instead often found performative burdens associated with the
pledge and the daughters’ wearing of the rings.
Notably, several scholars who use affect theory are not housed in the communication discipline
nor do they explicitly claim to be doing IFC scholarship; yet, their studies often explore aspects of
relationships and family as they relate to communication, such as Gregg’s (2010) study of after-
work drinking or Stewart’s (2010) analysis of her stepson becoming homeless. These studies and
others adopt a politic of affect that examines, as Seigworth and Gregg (2010) characterize,
those intensities that pass body to body (human, nonhuman, part-body, and otherwise), in those resonances that
circulate about, between, and sometimes stick to bodies and words, and in the very passages or variations
between those these intensities and resonances themselves. (p. 1, emphasis in original)
As this articulation of affect indicates, a politic of affect is different from simply accounting for
emotion or feelings in research – something that IFC studies tends to do quite well – but instead
examines forces ‘other than conscious knowing, vital forces insisting beyond emotion’ (Seigworth
& Gregg, 2010, p. 1). Notably, this strand of affect theory, which largely examines who is allowed
to feel and how, is markedly different from psychological studies of affect theory that often involve
the cataloguing of emotions (e.g. Tomkins, 1962).
Material politics
Often used in conjunction with affect, material politics help to determine ‘how matter comes to
matter’ (Barad, 2003, p. 801). A posthumanist way of thinking, material politics call into question
just how much agency should be afforded humans in scientific and social scientific studies. Although
this approach is largely untapped in IFC studies, Allen (2018) has started rich theorizing about how
objects can inform IFC studies by drawing from Latour’s (1993) work to consider how both material
and discursive conditions shape identities and relationships. She notes non-human objects and enti-
ties have agency in interpersonal and family relationships, specifically that each act on the other in a
complex network of dynamic associations. Related, she points to the need for IFC studies to focus on
texts and objects as active participants in a constitution of relationships and realities. To be clear,
Allen is not arguing for discourse to be re-centered in analysis as it relates to other objects (including
bodies); instead, she contends that IFC scholars should consider discourse as one potential actant
among others. This idea mirrors similar concepts put forth by Cooren (2010) or Putnam (2015) in
organizational communication studies, where turning attention toward individual actants among a
number of agencies that includes ‘people, texts, architecture, artifacts, and nature [that] interact in
networks of situated and coordinated actions’ (Putnam, 2015, p. 711).
Further, scholars in a number of disciplines have started to examine this notion of a ‘discursive-
material knot’ (Carpentier, 2017, p. 14) that necessarily involves considering agency, material, struc-
ture, and discourse. Many have turned to Karen Barad’s work, particularly her ethico-onto-epistem-
ology of agential realism that argues that feminist, queer, anti-racist, Marxist, and post-structuralist
studies, among others, be taken more seriously in the development of scientific insights (Barad,
2003). Barad (2007) conceptualizes agency not as an individual attribute or possession, but as an
enactment of intra-actions of which delimit differences, thereby reversing ontological assumptions
to begin with entanglements rather than individual entities. She further argues that ethical issues
are inherently a part of scientific work – not as guidelines, but in the very constitution of science
itself – even when scientists strive to use the most objective of methods. To better understand
these ethical implications, she calls for researchers to envision themselves as part of the scientific
apparatus and open themselves to outside critiques, even those that undermine scientific credibility.
By doing so, she believes stronger and more credible scientific knowledge will be developed.
Likewise, IFC studies must continue to consider how objects and other non-human actants are
constitutive of relationships and families. Similar calls have been made in the past (Allen, 2018;
Manning, 2015b, 2016), but research about IFC as it relates to or is constituted by objects is rare.
Notable exceptions include Leeds-Hurwitz’s (2006) study that, in part, used photo albums to help
establish weddings as texts; McAlister’s (2011) case study of how the figuration of American family
homes comes into play with heteronomative relationships; or Jackson and Mazzei’s (2012) analysis
of how the intra-action of a suit with professional discourses and self-beliefs influenced interpersonal
interactions. Affect and new materialist politics will undoubtedly offer future CIFC research new
language, ontologies, and ethics for understanding relationalities between humans and non-
humans in everyday micropractices.
Recommendations for future CIFC research

Clearly, the future of CIFC is bright, but questions remain about how to write and evaluate this emer-
ging research. Much room for growth remains, and thus we offer a few recommendations to guide
this conversation into the future. First, scholars should be clear about their political commitments, not
simply in terms of paradigmatic orientation or general categories of critical traditions (i.e. modern,
postmodern, posthuman), but also in terms of specific political goals and critical perspectives that
inform their analyses. Making political commitments explicit through engaging directly with theorists
will help bring specificity to the expansive view of CIFC articulated above. This will help CIFC develop
into a theoretically rich area that is in conversation with other sub-fields of communication and criti-
cal social sciences and humanities at large to reach beyond the U.S. communication audience.
We also encourage CIFC scholars to read widely to expand their critical theoretical repertoires and
creatively integrate critical theories into empirical IFC research, including critical research in other
communication sub-disciplines (e.g. rhetorical, organizational, intercultural, health communication
and media/technology studies) and critical research beyond the field (e.g. critical discourse analysis,
qualitative inquiry, gender and sexuality studies). For example, critical discourse analysts from across
the globe have for decades studied interaction as it constitutes, expresses, and enables social inequal-
ities (Fairclough, 2012). These studies relate to many relationship- and family-oriented topics includ-
ing racist social media interaction (Farkas, Schou, & Neumayer, 2018), how morality-oriented talk at
family dinner tables help to construct a sense of the other (Galatolo & Caronia, 2018), and language
used in new media to discuss families with adopted children (Myers, 2014). Embracing critical dis-
course analysis literatures both expands knowledge in CIFC studies and broadens the field. The
strength of critical research is in its theoretical diversity, and CIFC should enrich their own work by
considering and incorporating the critical paths that others have forged.
Given the richness of critical theoretical traditions and paradigms, authors and reviewers must
appreciate that analyses of politics and power do not necessitate the explicit foregrounding of the
word ‘power’ in CIFC works. For example, analyses of ‘ideologies,’ ‘subjectivities,’ or ‘assemblages’
point to critical historical legacies, even if the word ‘power’ is not given prominence. Similarly,
CIFC research need not centralize identity politics, or the power relation of privilege/oppression of
historically marginalized social identity groups. Theories of power conceptualize inequalities in
differing and nuanced ways – as the six politics illustrated in this paper detail – and this heterogeneity
must be embraced to broaden who and what are worthy of critical inquiry. Likewise, CIFC scholars
have the opportunity to be leaders in ongoing and emerging conversations about materiality and
affect, especially by building upon IFC’s historically robust considerations of non-verbal communi-
cation and emotion. Indeed, the communication field and social sciences and humanities at large
are in the midst of a posthuman turn, where humans and discourse no longer hold the privileged
position as the primary constitutive force (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2015; Harris, 2015). For CIFC to
make meaningful contributions beyond the borders of the sub-field, it is imperative that we incorpor-
ate these new ways of thinking, theorizing, and researching.
CIFC scholars and reviewers must also welcome alternative modes of research and representation.
Although interpersonal and family communication are firmly rooted in the social sciences, recent
editors of the Journal of Family Communication have called for more rhetorical and cultural criticisms
to be included in its pages. IFC scholars may experiment with genres of criticism (Manning & Denker,
2015) and critical-qualitative inquiry (Moore, 2017b), and critical scholars from other sub-fields should
be welcomed into IFC conference divisions and journals. In the current post-qualitative turn, where
strict step-by-step methods are eschewed in favor of concept-driven reorientations of thought
(St. Pierre & Jackson, 2014), the lines between genres of representation blur, and CIFC must value
non-deductive representational forms, including narrative, autoethnographic, performative, and
arts-based approaches (Ellingson, 2009, 2014; Manning & Kunkel, 2014). Limiting CIFC research to
a deductive writing logic (Tracy, 2012) constrains representations of transparency, self-reflexivity,
and theory building. Indeed, CIFC has much to learn from ongoing dialogues in critical/cultural
studies, rhetorical studies, organizational communication, intercultural communication, health com-
munication, performance studies, and qualitative inquiry, among others. To that end, we especially
note that CIFC studies – and the larger IFC field as a whole – would do better to internationalize
its scholarship, reaching beyond its largely U.S.-centric scholar and reader base, and to be open to
methods and theorizing that allow for the decolonization of knowledge (see Chawla, 2014) about
micropractices, relationships, and families.
Finally, CIFC researchers must be in clear conversation with one another, building bridges across
the emerging body of literature that justifies, theorizes, and analyzes IFC practices. One of our
strengths, at this point, is the variety of thought that permeates conversations about CIFC scholarship.
Only by talking with rather than past one another will we be able to develop a coherent, inclusive,
precise, and meaningful sub-field. Multiple researchers have been, by all measures, doing CIFC
research but have purposefully eschewed the ‘interpersonal’ label because of historical hostility
toward critical work in the interpersonal communication sub-field (Braithwaite, 2014). CIFC scholars
must claim this marker for themselves through framing their research as such. One small but signifi-
cant step to take includes selecting ‘critical interpersonal and family communication’ or a variant as a
keyword when publishing manuscripts.
Conclusions
CIFC has materialized from multiple strands of thought, and although it may appear on the surface
that CIFC research lacks cohesion, perhaps this dearth of a singular critical perspective creates an
ideal situation as critical theories and theorizing remain open, ready, and waiting to be used to
make sense of everyday micropractices. Although the attempt to define what counts as CIFC research
may appear pedantic – after all, organizing boundaries of intelligibility is itself an operation of power
– because power is productive, there is something to be gained from these articulations, even as they
are partial, exclusionary, and in some ways problematic. The ideas offered here about what counts as
CIFC afford opportunities to look back upon, and forward to, creative and valuable research. Thus, we
advocate that CIFC move toward a more expansive, messy, and generous understanding of what
counts as critical research by attending to the intersections of politics and power while simul-
taneously acknowledging that what counts is open to interpretation and may change over time.
Making sense of ourselves and our work is a necessary activity that not only allows critical reflec-
tion on what has been done, but also invigorates imagination about what could be. Although their
borders will continue to fluctuate and fold upon one another, paradigmatic and sub-disciplinary
enunciations will continue to enable and constrain what research matters, what research counts,
and what research does not. It is time that IFC scholars create their own hybrid varieties (Craig,
1999) by drawing upon, and contributing to, critical/cultural conversations in more wide-ranging
ways to better theorize, analyze, and ultimately change the politics of everyday micropractices.
The area will no doubt experience growing pains, as scholars continue to think through what CIFC
should become and do within the communication field, academy, and world at large.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Julia Moore http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8503-4880
References
Abdi, S. (2014). Staying I(ra)n: Narrating queer identity from within the Persian closet. Liminalities: A Journal of Performance
Studies, 10(2), 1–19.
Abetz, J. S., & Moore, J. (2018a). “Welcome to the mommy wars, ladies”: Making sense of the ideology of combative
mothering in mommy blogs. Communication, Culture & Critique, 11(2), 265–281.
Abetz, J. S., & Moore, J. (2018b). Visualizing intersectionality through a fractal metaphor: Recursive, non-linear, and
changeable. In J. C. Dunn, & J. Manning (Eds.), Transgressing feminist theory and discourse: Advancing conversations
across disciplines (pp. 31–43). New York, NY: Routledge.
Adams, T. E. (2011). Narrating the closet: An autoethnography of same-sex attraction. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.
Adams, T. E., & Berry, K. (2013). Size matters: Performing (il)logical male bodies on FatClub.com. Text and Performance
Quarterly, 33(4), 308–325.
Adams, T. E., & Manning, J. (2015). Autoethnography and family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7(4), 350–366.
Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Allen, J. (2018). What’s the big “D”? Contemporary approaches to discourse in interpersonal and family communication
scholarship. Communication Theory. Advance online publication.
Allen, J., & Moore, J. (2017). Troubling the functional/dysfunctional family binary through the articulation of functional
family estrangement. Western Journal of Communication, 81(3), 281–299.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. A. (2006). Critical theory and postmodern approaches to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational studies (pp. 255–283). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Andrejevic, M. (2004). Reality TV: The work of being watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bakardjieva, M., & Gehl, R. W. (2017). Critical approaches to communication technology – The past five years. Annals of the
International Communication Association, 41(3-4), 213–219.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham,
NC: Duke University.
Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A. (2014). Introduction to the volume. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 3–16).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Baxter, L. A. (2015). Growing interpersonal communication theory. In D. O. Braithwaite, & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging the-
ories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. ix–xiii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Asbury, B. (2015). Critical approaches to interpersonal communication: 235 Charting a future. In D. O.
Braithwaite, & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp.
185–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berlant, L. (2006). Cruel optimism. In M. Gregg, & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 93–117). Durham, NC:
Duke University.
Bilge, S. (2013). Intersectionality undone: Saving intersectionality from feminist intersectional studies. Du Bois Review:
Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 405–424.
Bowleg, L., & Bauer, G. (2016). Invited reflection: Quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337–
341.
Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). “Opening the door”: The history and future of qualitative scholarship in interpersonal communi-
cation. Communication Studies, 65(4), 441–445.
Braithwaite, D. O., Schrodt, P., & Carr, K. (2015). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in interpersonal communication
research. In D. O. Braithwaite, & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspec-
tives (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brivot, M., & Gendron, Y. (2011). Beyond panopticism: On the ramifications of surveillance in a contemporary professional
setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(3), 135–155.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carpentier, N. (2017). The discursive-material knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Chawla, D. (2014). Remaking Hindu arranged marriages in the narrative performances of urban Indian women. In L. A.
Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 103–118). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Chevrette, R. (2013). Outing heteronormativity in interpersonal and family communication: Feminist applications of
queer theory “beyond the sexy streets”. Communication Theory, 23(2), 170–190.
Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.
Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark side of interpersonal communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, S. M. (2015). The “strong Black Woman Collective”: A developing theoretical framework for understanding collec-
tive communication practices of Black women. Women’s Studies in Communication, 38(1), 20–35.
Davis, S. M. (2016). A partial test of the Strong Black Woman Collective Theory: Using structural equation modeling to under-
stand the collective communication practices among Black women groups (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Deetz, S. A. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. Western Journal of Communication, 46
(2), 131–149.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin, & L. L. Putman (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational com-
munication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denker, K. J. (2013). Maintaining gender during work-life negotiations: Relational maintenance and the dark side of indi-
vidual marginalization. Women & Language, 36(2), 11–34.
Denker, K. J., & Dougherty, D. (2013). Corporate colonization of couples’ work-life negotiations: Rationalization, emotion
management and silencing conflict. Journal of Family Communication, 13(3), 242–262.
Derrida, J. (1967). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dragon, W., & Duck, S. (eds.). (2005). Understanding research in personal relationships: A text with readings. London: Sage.
Droser, V. A. (2017). (Re)conceptualizing family communication: Applying Deetz’s conceptual frameworks within the field
of family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 17(2), 89–104.
Duck, S. (2011). Rethinking relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elia, J. P. (2003). Queering relationships: Toward a paradigmatic shift. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2-4), 61–86.
Ellingson, L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellingson, L. L. (2014). “The truth must dazzle gradually”: Enriching relationship research using a crystallization framework.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 442–450.
Ellingson, L. L. (2017). Realistically ever after: Disrupting dominant narratives of long-term cancer survivorship.
Management Communication Quarterly, 31(2), 321–327.
Ellingson, L. L., & Sotirin, P. (2014). Reflecting on the study. In J. Manning, & A. Kunkel (Eds.), Researching interpersonal
relationships: Qualitative studies, methods, and analysis (pp. 68–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016a). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: I. Theoretical and epis-
temological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 155–170.
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016b). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and tech-
niques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 319–336.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology, 7, 452–487.
Farkas, J., Schou, J., & Neumayer, C. (2018). Platformed antagonism: Racist discourses on fake Muslim Facebook pages.
Critical Discourse Studies, 15(5), 463–480.
Faulkner, S. L. (2007). Concern with craft: Using ars poetica as criteria for reading research poetry. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2),
218–234.
Faulkner, S. L. (2016). TEN (The promise of arts-based, ethnographic, and narrative research in critical family communi-
cation research and praxis). Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 9–15.
Faulkner, S. L., & Ruby, P. D. (2015). Feminist identity in romantic relationships: A relational dialectics analysis of e-mail
discourse as collaborative found poetry. Women’s Studies in Communication, 38(2), 206–226.
Few-Demo, A. L., Lloyd, S. A., & Allen, K. R. (2014). It’s all about power: Integrating feminist family studies and family com-
munication. Journal of Family Communication, 14(2), 85–94.
Few-Demo, A. L., Moore, J., & Abdi, S. (2018). Intersectionality: (Re)considering family communication from within the
margins. In D. O. Braithwaite, E. A. Suter, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspec-
tives (2nd ed, pp. 175–186). New York, NY: Routledge.
Foster, E. (2008). Commitment, communication, and contending with heteronormativity: An invitation to greater reflex-
ivity in interpersonal research. Southern Communication Journal, 73(1), 84–101.
Foster, E. (2014). Communicating beyond the discipline: Autoethnography and the “N of 1.”. Communication Studies, 65
(4), 446–450.
Foucault, M. (1978). A history of sexuality: An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Fox, R. (2010). Tales of a fighting bobcat: An “auto-archaeology” of gay identity formation and maintenance. Text and
Performance Quarterly, 30(2), 122–142.
Fraser, N. (1995). Recognition or redistribution? A critical reading of Iris Young’s justice and the politics of difference. Journal
of Political Philosophy, 3(2), 166–180.
Galatolo, R., & Caronia, L. (2018). Morality at dinnertime: The sense of the other as a practical accomplishment in family
interaction. Discourse & Society, 29(1), 43–62.
Gates, K. A. (2011). Our biometric future: Facial recognition technology and the culture of surveillance. New York, NY:
New York University.
Gregg, M. (2010). On Friday night drinks: Workplace affects in the age of the cubicle. In M. Gregg, & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.),
The affect theory reader (pp. 250–268). Durham, NC: Duke University.
Harris, K. L. (2015). Feminist dilemmatic theorizing: New materialism in communication studies. Communication Theory,
26(2), 150–170.
Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jennings-Kelsall, V., & Solomon, D. H. (2014). The online discourse of wounded warrior wives: A study of online discourses
using thematic analysis. In J. Manning, & A. Kunkel (Eds.), Researching interpersonal communication: Qualitative
methods, studies, and analysis (pp. 161–167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Journal of Family Communication. (n.d.). Aims and scope. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/action/
journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=hjfc20.
Kelley, D. L. (2017). Just relationships: A social justice approach to interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 480–500.
Langellier, K. M., & Peterson, E. E. (2004). Storytelling in daily life: Performing narrative. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Lannamann, J. W. (1991). Interpersonal communication research as ideological practice. Communication Theory, 1(3),
179–203.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2006). Social theories: Social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. In D. O. Braithwaite, & L. A.
Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 229–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LeMaster, B. (2014). Relationally out: A case for and against the closet. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 1(1), 188–192.
Levine, T. R. (2011). Quantitative social science methods of inquiry. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 679–714). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Luhmann, N. (2010). Love: A sketch. Malden, MA: Polity.
Manning, J. (2009). Because the personal is the political: Politics and unpacking the rhetoric of (queer) relationships. In K.
German, & B. Dreshel (Eds.), Queer identities/political realities (pp. 1–12). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge.
Manning, J. (2013). Interpretive theorizing in the seductive world of sexuality and interpersonal communication: Getting
guerilla with studies of sexting and purity rings. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2507–2520.
Manning, J. (2014). A constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies. Communication Studies, 65(4), 432–
440.
Manning, J. (2015a). Ipsedixitism, ipseity, and ipsilateral identity: The fear of finding ourselves in the fissures between
phishing and Catfish. In A. Herbig, A. Herrmann, & A. Tyma (Eds.), Beyond new media: Discourse and critique in a poly-
mediated age (pp. 83–107). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Manning, J. (2015b). Paradoxes of (im)purity: Affirming heteronormativity and queering heterosexuality in family dis-
courses of purity pledges. Women’s Studies in Communication, 38(1), 99–117.
Manning, J. (2016). Rethinking studies of relationships and popular culture: Notes on approach, method, and (meta)the-
ory. In A. Herrmann, & A. Herbig (Eds.), Communication perspectives on popular culture (pp. 153–165). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Manning, J. (2017). Examining health and relationship beliefs in family discourses about purity pledges: Gender, faith
values, and the communicative constitution of reality. Western Journal of Communication, 81(1), 87–104.
Manning, J. (in press). Communication is constitutive of relationships. In A. W. Tyma, & A. Edwards (Eds.), Communication
is … . San Diego, CA: Cognella.
Manning, J., & Denker, K. (2015). Doing feminist interpersonal communication research: A call to action, two methodo-
logical approaches, and theoretical potentials. Women & Language, 38(1), 133–142.
Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014). Researching interpersonal relationships: Qualitative methods, studies, and analysis. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2015). Qualitative approaches to dyadic analyses in family communication research: An invited
essay. Journal of Family Communication, 15(3), 185–192.
Manning, J., & Stern, D. S. (2018). Heteronormative bodies, queer futures: Toward a theory of interpersonal panopticism.
Information, Communication, & Society, 21(2), 208–223.
Marecek, J. (2016). Invited reflection: Intersectionality theory and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40
(2), 177–181.
McAlister, J. F. (2011). Figural materialism: Renovating marriage through the American family home. Southern
Communication Journal, 76(4), 279–304.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexities of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56(2), 91–111.
Meyer, M. D. (2003). It’s me. I’m it.”: Defining adolescent sexual identity through relational dialectics in Dawson’s creek.
Communication Quarterly, 51(3), 262–276.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Science
Research Associates.
Moore, J. (2017a). Performative face theory: A critical perspective on interpersonal identity work. Communication
Monographs, 84(2), 258–276.
Moore, J. (2017b). Where is the critical empirical interpersonal communication research? A roadmap for future inquiry
into discourse and power. Communication Theory, 27(1), 1–20.
Moore, J. (2018a). From “I’m never having children” to motherhood: A critical analysis of silence and voice in negotiations
of childbearing face. Women’s Studies in Communication, 41(1), 1–21.
Moore, J. (2018b). Performative and subversive negotiations of face in parent-child communication about childbearing
choice across generations. Journal of Family Communication, 18(2), 124–137.
Moore, J., Allen, J., Spitzack Daruna, C., Adams, T. E., Faulkner, S., Lannamann, J., & Suter, E. A. (2015, November). Power,
ideology, discourse, and materiality: Embracing opportunities to integrate critical perspectives into interpersonal com-
munication research. Panel presented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention, Las Vegas, NV.
Mumby, D. K. (1993). Critical organizational communication studies: The next 10 years. Communication Monographs, 60,
18–25.
Mumby, D. K. (1997). Modernism, postmodernism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate.
Communication Theory, 7(1), 1–28.
Myers, K. W. (2014). ‘REAL’ FAMILIES: The violence of love in new media adoption discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 11
(2), 175–193.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chew-Sanchez, M. I. (2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A cross-
cultural comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans. Journal of Family Communication, 3, 67–93.
Ono, K. A. (2012). Critical: A finer edge. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8(1), 93–96.
Phillips, K. R. (2006). Rhetorical maneuvers: Subjectivity, power, and resistance. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 39(4), 310–332.
Pied, C. M. (2017). The problem people and the hard workers: Whiteness and small town response to economic decline.
Identities. Advance online publication.
Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse–materiality relationship. Journal of
Management Studies, 52(5), 706–716.
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2015). Revisiting “organizations as discursive constructions”: 10 years later.
Communication Theory, 25(4), 375–392.
Seigworth, G. J., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In M. Gregg, & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory
reader (pp. 1–25). Durham, NC: Duke University.
Sotirin, P., Buzzanell, P. M., & Turner, L. H. (2007). Colonizing family: A feminist critique of family management texts.
Journal of Family Communication, 7(4), 245–263.
Splichal, S. (2008). Why be critical? Communication, Culture & Critique, 1(1), 20–30.
Stern, D. M. (2011). You had me at Foucault: Living pedagogically in the digital age. Text and Performance Quarterly, 31(3),
249–266.
Stewart, J. (1999). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stewart, J. (2017). Personal communicating and racial equity: A humane technology for developing anti-stereotyping
relationships with people who are different from you. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Stewart, K. (2010). Afterword: Worlding refrains. In M. Gregg, & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 339–
353). Durham, NC: Duke University.
St. Pierre, E. A., & Jackson, A. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719.
Striphas, T. (2013). Keyword: Critical. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2-3), 324–328.
Suter, E. A. (2016). Introduction: Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique, and
praxis. Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 1–8.
Suter, E. A. (2018). The promise of contrapuntal and intersectional methods for advancing critical interpersonal and family
communication research. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 123–139.
Suter, E. A., Davis, S. M., Striley, K. M., Seurer, L., Faulkner, S. L., & Manning, J. (2017, November). Advancing the practical
legacy of interpersonal: Envisioning the methodological realization of critical interpersonal communication. Panel pre-
sented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention, Dallas, TX.
Suter, E. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (eds.). (2016). Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique,
and praxis [Special issue]. Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 1–93.
Suter, E. A., & Norwood, K. M. (2017). Critical theorizing in family communication studies: (Re)reading relational dialectics
theory 2.0. Communication Theory, 27(3), 290–308.
Suter, E. A., Seurer, L. M., Webb, S., Grewe, B., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2015). Motherhood as contested ideological terrain:
Essentialist and queer discourses of motherhood at play in female–female co-mothers’ talk. Communication
Monographs, 82(4), 458–483.
Thomas, C. S. (2018). The mothers of East Los Angeles: (Other)mothering for environmental justice. Southern
Communication Journal. Advance online publication.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Tillmann, L. M. (2009). Body and bulimia revisited: Reflections on “A Secret Life.”. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 37(1), 98–112.
Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect imagery consciousness: Volume I: The positive affects. New York, NY: Springer.
Tracy, S. J. (2012). The toxic and mythical combination of a deductive writing logic for inductive qualitative research.
Qualitative Communication Research, 1(1), 109–141.
Vehmas, S. (2015). The sociological straitjacket and the ethics of exclusion. In P. Jones, & S. Danforth (Eds.), Foundations of
inclusive education research (pp. 223–241). UK: Emerald: Bingley.
Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2016). Invited reflection: Intersectionality as an epistemological challenge to
psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 171–176.
Wood, J. T. (2015). Critical feminist theories: Giving voice and visibility to women’s experiences in interpersonal relations.
In D. O. Braithwaite, & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd
ed., pp. 203–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yep, G. A. (2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2-4), 11–59.
Yep, G. A. (2016). Toward thick(er) intersectionalities: Theorizing, researching, and activating the complexities of com-
munication and identities. In K. Sorrells, & S. Sekimoto (Eds.), Globalizing intercultural communication: A reader (pp.
86–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moore Manning 2019 What Counts As CIFC-with-cover-page-v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moore Manning 2019 What Counts As CIFC-with-cover-page-v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

What counts as critical interpersonal

Annals of the International Communication Association

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

What counts as critical interpersonal and family communication

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Characterizing CIFC studies in practice

Distinguishing CIFC from IFC

understanding interpersonal communication and families in this context? As a second point, it is

Delimiting CIFC as a multiplicity of politics

Recommendations for future CIFC research

You might also like