This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 16 December 2014, At: 09:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Family PsychotherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjfp20

Cross-National Research in FamilyTherapy: One Encouraging CollaborativeApproachFred P. Piercy a , Wei-Ning Chang a , Manjushree Palit a , Ana L.Jaramillo-Sierra a , Ruoxi Chen a , Hassan Karimi a , CatherineMartosudarmo b & Angelito Antonio ca Department of Human Development , Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University , Blacksburg , Virginia , USAb Department of Psychology , Atma Jaya Catholic University ,Jakarta , Indonesiac School of Education and Human Development, University of Asiaand the Pacific , Pasig City , PhilippinesPublished online: 20 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Fred P. Piercy , Wei-Ning Chang , Manjushree Palit , Ana L. Jaramillo-Sierra , Ruoxi Chen , Hassan Karimi , Catherine Martosudarmo & Angelito Antonio (2013) Cross-National Research in Family Therapy: One Encouraging Collaborative Approach, Journal of FamilyPsychotherapy, 24:4, 296-305, DOI: 10.1080/08975353.2013.849559

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2013.849559

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 24:296–305, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0897-5353 print/1540-4080 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08975353.2013.849559

FAMILY THERAPY AROUND THE WORLD

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy:One Encouraging Collaborative Approach

FRED P. PIERCY, WEI-NING CHANG, MANJUSHREE PALIT,ANA L. JARAMILLO-SIERRA, RUOXI CHEN, and HASSAN KARIMIDepartment of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

CATHERINE MARTOSUDARMODepartment of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University, Jakarta, Indonesia

ANGELITO ANTONIOSchool of Education and Human Development, University of Asia and the Pacific,

Pasig City, Philippines

In this article we share the structure and process of an ongo-ing cross-national family therapy research study that involvessamples from 7 countries (Colombia, India, Iran, Indonesia, thePhilippines, the United States, and 2 regions of China, mainlandChina and Taiwan). Various features of the study may serve asuseful templates for others interested in collaborative cross-nationalresearch. Each of the 6 authors of this article at Virginia Tech havecontributed 10 questions related to an area of their own particularfamily therapy research interest, and they will be the first authorson any brief research reports written on the topics of those 10 ques-tions. Because all 6 Virginia Tech researchers have been part ofthe conceptualization, planning, and implementation of this study,all 6 also will be co-authors on each other’s research reports. The

We use the terms multinational and cross-national instead of cross-cultural becausesome differences we find may be because of factors other than culture, such as socioeconomicstatus or religion (see Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).

Address correspondence to Fred P. Piercy, Department of Human Development, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, 366 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA.E-mail: piercy@vt.edu

296

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy 297

authors include Filipino and Indonesian collaborators in the pub-lication process, as well. This article reports on the structure andprocess of ongoing research and the lessons learned thus far.

KEYWORDS collaborative research, cross-national research,family therapy, family therapy research

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, family therapy is being practiced around the world (e.g., Chao,2011; Kameguchi & Murphy-Shigematsu, 2001; Kaslow, 2000; McDowell,Brown, Kabura, Parker, & Alotaiby, 2011; Ng, 2003; Platt, 2012; Sim & Hu,2009; Tse, Ng, Tonsing, & Ran, 2012). However, few studies have exam-ined family therapy across countries and cultures (e.g., Keeling & Piercy,2007). We recently undertook a cross-national study that has certain fea-tures that encourage both student-faculty and cross-national collaborations.We will discuss these features in this article as possible templates that otherresearchers may use in future cross-national research.

THE INCEPTION AND INCUBATION OF THIS APPROACH

Fred P. Piercy has been involved in sustained training and research in sev-eral Asian countries (e.g., Charles & Piercy, 2004; Moelino, Anggal, & Piercy,1998; Natakusumah et al., 1992; Piercy, 1998), and from time to time hasbeen invited to develop cross-national research projects with collaboratorsfrom these countries. He also has been involved in several productive, col-laborative faculty-student research teams at Virginia Tech (Keeling & Piercy,2007; Piercy et al., 2013; Piercy et al., 2005).

In the Fall of 2011, with our department’s yearly call to develop researchteams, Fred P. Piercy decided to develop a collaborative research project thatincluded former colleagues from Indonesia and the Philippines and five inter-national doctoral students (from China—mainland and Taiwan—Colombia,Iran, and India) currently studying family therapy at Virginia Tech. The fiveinternational doctoral students met with Fred P. Piercy and discussed thefeasibility of what has developed into the structure of an ongoing study tounderstand several family therapy topics within the home countries of thecollaborators.

Below, we describe the basic structure of our study, and then exam-ine more closely the aspects of this study that might inform other scholarswishing to do cross-national family therapy research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

298 F. P. Piercy et al.

OUR STUDY

We decided to conduct a multi-country study that includes family therapyprofessionals from seven countries (Colombia, India, Iran, Indonesia, thePhilippines, the United States, and two regions of China, mainland Chinaand Taiwan). The focus of the research includes family therapy topics ofparticular interest to each of us (e.g., the state of family therapy training ineach country; infidelity treatment practices; common factors in family ther-apy; women, depression, and therapy; and extent of involvement of familytherapists in medical settings). Essentially, we wanted to see how familytherapists in our selected countries differed in regard to these issues.

This cross-national family therapy research project includes severalunique features. The research team, as stated, is made up of researchersfrom each of the included countries.1 Each of the six research team mem-bers here at Virginia Tech are presently recruiting 45 mental health workersfrom each of our respective countries, including the United States. To beincluded, participants must have conducted therapy with children or familiesfor at least 2 years. The 45 professionals are asked to take an online surveyin their own language dealing with important issues related to family ther-apy. Likewise, our Filipino and Indonesian colleagues are doing the same.(Our power analysis indicates that these multiple samples of 45 will yieldsufficient power to allow us to conduct the cross-national analyses we havein mind.) We are using back-translation procedures with independent nativespeakers to be sure that all questions in all versions of our instrument conveythe meaning intended (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006). To increase participation,we have made sure that our survey instrument is relatively short.

The universe of mental health workers working with couples and fami-lies for at least 2 years (note our loose definition of family therapist becausethat term is not used in some countries) is not large in some of the targetcountries. Therefore we are liberal in what we consider “family therapy,”which will likely differ considerably from country to country. This is less aweakness than it is the accurate state of family therapy practice across coun-tries. We are making use of existing lists and listserves of various mentalhealth professions and knowledgeable contacts to generate potential respon-dents. While this is an ambitious project, we are striving for methodologicalsimplicity to achieve our goals (Nasif, Al-Daeaj, Ebrahimi, & Thibodeaux,1991).

1 United States (Fred P. Piercy), Colombia (Ana L. Jaramillo-Sierra), India (Manjushree Palit), Iran(Hassan Karimi), and China (one from mainland China [Ruoxi Chen] and the other from Taiwan [Wei-Ning Chang]), plus overseas collaborators from Indonesia (Catherine Martosudarmo) and the Philippines(Angelito Antonio).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy 299

Instrument Development

Each of us developed 10 questions related to our own areas of professionalinterest. The topics we address have not been addressed previously throughmultinational research. The topics are as follows:

● Training of family therapists.● Attitudes and treatment practices around infidelity.● Common factors in family therapy (factors that cut across theoretical

orientations).● Collaboration between family therapists and physicians.● Women, depression, and therapy.● The perceived reasons clients drop out of or comply with therapy.

Over a 3-month period, we each brought our draft 10 questions toour group meetings and received frequent feedback regarding their intent,readability, content validity with the constructs we wanted to address, andwhether they would provide useful data from our multinational sample.In some cases, research group members suggested different questions thatthe group similarly critiqued. Fred P. Piercy also generated a number ofdemographic questions which were revised and added to in the process ofthese meetings. We had six or seven meetings before we agreed on and feltcomfortable with the content and form of our questions.

We then constructed our survey using Qualtrics, survey software thatVirginia Tech has a contract to use (see Qualtrics.com.). Qualtrics providesspecific features useful to our particular needs (e.g., ability to use Chinesecharacters; ability to skip certain fields; attractive formatting).

Translation Protocol

Once we decided on our questions, we needed to have them translatedinto the languages of our target groups. To do this, we used the followingprotocol, which we adapted from that of Herrera, DelCampo, and Arnes(1993). The translation process involved the following steps:

1. We had two fluent translators experienced with the target population pro-duce individual translations for each of the target countries (except inthose countries where a sufficient number of professionals were fluent inEnglish (i.e., United States, the Philippines, and India).

2. The translators reviewed and merged the translated versions to arrive ata product that they believed would be most appropriate and reliable forour target sample.

3. We also employed a protocol analysis to assess whether we wereachieving conceptual equivalence (Hines, 1993). In protocol analysis a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

300 F. P. Piercy et al.

respondent talks about his or her thinking process and records what heor she says while taking a preliminary version of the survey. The record-ing is then used to identify problematic wording that is not conceptuallyequivalent with the English version.

4. We used back-translation procedures with independent native speakers tobe sure that all questions in all versions of our instrument conveyed themeaning intended (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).

Publication and Presentation Agreement

We developed and signed a publication and presentation agreementintended to (a) protect the publishing interests of all investigators, (b)increase the quality and number of multiple-author publications, (c) max-imize the cooperation and collaboration of investigators, and (d) provideclarity so that we can avoid misunderstandings as we proceed with thisresearch project. Basically, we wanted a document that we could refer backto that would clarify issues around publication and presentation credit thatwould prevent misunderstandings in the future. This was particularly impor-tant because all of the international graduate students would be moving farand wide within the next 1 or 2 years. The following words are taken directlyfrom our presentation/publication agreement:

. . . each of the six of us here at Virginia Tech will contribute ten ques-tions related to an area of our own particular research interest (total =60 questions), and will be the first author on a brief research report onthe topic of our ten questions. Since all six of us have been part of theconceptualization, planning and implementation of this study, all six ofus will be co-authors on each of the six brief research reports. The firstauthor of each brief report, the person whose 10 questions are the basisof the brief research report, will choose the order of the other authors’names, based on the degree of involvement he/she believes each had inwriting that particular research report.

Since our Indonesian and Filipino collaborators (Catherine Martosudarmoand Angelito Antonio, respectively) have not been as central in theplanning of this research, but will be crucial in the translation process(in Indonesia) in the recruitment of professionals in Indonesia and thePhilippines, and in the interpretation of the results, they will be co-authors on the first author’s brief research report, along with all fiveof the VT collaborators.

We also envision writing a paper about the process of conducting thistype of multiple-country project. (This is that paper!) Dr. Piercy will bethe senior author on this paper and will assign the authorship order of theother co-authors based on his perception of their degree of involvement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy 301

in co-authoring this paper. Catherine Martosudarmo and Angelito Antoniowill be invited to be co-authors of this paper, and to provide substantivecontributions to it.

If any of the co-researchers would like to write an additional paper orpapers based on our data (say, for a journal in their home country), theyare free to do so. They would be first author, but will include the rest ofthe VT researchers as co-authors and inform us of its publication. Theyalso agree to inform the rest of us of any such publication, and provideus with a proper citation.

Presentations of our Research

We are all free to make presentations on any findings that come out of ourresearch. We agree to acknowledge the names of each of the co-authorsand our Indonesian and Filipino collaborators in any such presentation.

In the Event That Any Co-Researcher is Unable to Recruit 45 RespondentsFrom His or Her Home Country

In the event that a co-researcher is unable to recruit 45 respondentsfrom his or her home country, he or she can still be senior author onthe article that comes out of his or her 10 questions and the overviewmethods article related to “lessons learned” during this research but willnot be listed as a co-author on the other brief research articles.

Anticipated Outcomes of the Research

The cooperative process we undertook is one that others interested in cross-national research might consider. Our primary goal in this research is toshed light on important questions related to how family therapists practice inselected countries. We also undertook this enterprise with the hope that wecould generate multiple publications that would both move the field forwardand also support our own professional careers. We envisioned at least onebrief research report being written on each of the topics we are investigating.We also envisioned writing a article (this one) about the process and structureof conducting this type of multiple-country project since we believe that weare engaging in a unique collaborative undertaking that could be replicatedelsewhere.

Challenges and Lessons Learned to Date

One of the main challenges (and learning opportunities) in developing oursurvey questions involved the multiple meanings that emanated from ourvarious cultures of origin and in our training in different fields and coun-tries of origin. For example, we soon realized that certain concepts seemed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

302 F. P. Piercy et al.

to be specific to the American context (e.g., managed care facility) or sim-ply didn’t translate well from English into other languages (e.g., relationalconceptualizations). In one question, we ask about therapists’ clinical orien-tation. Terms such as “metaframeworks,” “collaborative language systems,”and “contextual therapy” may not be particularly meaningful to some thera-pists trained in some countries, as few therapists, the team contended, wereintroduced to certain approaches to therapy in their training.

We also found it a challenge to find translators that were both knowl-edgeable of the language and the culture, and could make sense of certainterms and issues within the fields of mental health and family therapy. Forexample, the questions related to medical family therapy were particularlydifficult for some translators to translate, considering that medical familytherapy is not well developed in some countries (e.g., Colombia).

Our discussions also raised a variety of fascinating cultural issues. Forexample, some of our group believed that Catholic and Protestant should bewithin the same group, while others did not. (In Colombia, a predominantCatholic country, Catholics differentiate themselves from other Christiansand, for the most part, would not label themselves as Christians.) We alsodebated the wording in the section on infidelity because what profession-als in Iran, for example, might consider infidelity would not be consideredproblematic in some other countries, such as Colombia.

We also encountered challenges in determining the participant inclusioncriteria. Marriage and family therapy, for example, is more widely prac-ticed in America than in, for instance, China. As such, we feared that ifwe implemented stricter inclusion criteria for participants’ experience withpracticing couple and/or family therapy we would likely significantly limitour participant pool in certain countries.

One of our conversations centered around whether we should addadditional gender demographic options beyond “male” and “female.” Forexample, we considered “other,” “transgender,” and “intersex.” Althoughthese options are biologically accurate and used increasingly in studies inthe United States, some team members believed that these additions wouldeither not be understood or might seem strange or off-putting to participantsfrom some countries. Does being biologically inclusive trump participants’comfort or understanding? On this issue, the majority decided that we shoulduse “male” and “female” only.

We also discussed what might seem like small issues, but were issuesthat could affect our survey considerably. For example, how many of our10 questions could be open-ended? This was important because we did notwant to increase the length of the survey so much that it would limit par-ticipation. (We decided that each of us could make one of our 10 questionsopen-ended. For example, “What techniques, interventions, or strategies doyou find helpful to encourage clients to stay in treatment?”) We tried to makeour questions as simple and straightforward as possible. We sometimes came

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy 303

to a consensus in our discussions, but sometimes, we simply voted andagreed to disagree.

As the only professor among the core researchers, and one of only twomales, and someone considerably older than the others, Fred P. Piercy hadmore formal authority than the other Virginia Tech researchers. To encouragecollaboration and multiple opinions, he usually held back his own opinionsuntil the end of each discussion, asked for the opinions of those who weremore quiet than others, and generally tried to support a sense of “team” inboth the small and large decisions we faced. On some issues (e.g., random-ization of the presentation of 10-question sections) he was outvoted. Sinceeach person was the most knowledgeable person in the room when it cameto his or her own culture, we tended to defer to one another on issues relatedto a person’s culture, but most deferred to Fred P. Piercy on issues of writingsince he was considered the most knowledgeable person on English usage.

One of the challenges that we were less likely to help one another onwas finding networks of counselors/therapists in each respective country.(Fred P. Piercy did share a number of resources, but not equally for eachcountry.) Thus, each international graduate student, and our two interna-tional collaborators from Indonesia and the Philippines, were faced withfinding their own potential participants. This is not always easy when oneis not living in his or her country of origin and not yet considered a sea-soned professional in that country (which was the case for most of thegraduate student researchers). In Colombia, for example, we found thatrecruitment efforts through lists, listservers, and higher-education programswas highly unsuccessful. This is probably related to personalismo, connect-ing through warmth and responsiveness, a characteristic predominant toLatin American cultures in which one-to-one contact is essential to business,research and other like relationships. Our efforts in Colombia improved con-siderably when our Colombian researcher (Ana L. Jaramillo-Sierra) was ableto make direct contact with potential participants through individual e-mailsand phone messages.

We acknowledge that we could have done better in developing referrallists and procedures. We recommend that others interested in cross-nationalresearch spend sufficient time identifying networks of international profes-sionals that will assure the recruitment of family professionals from theircountries of interest. In the case of Indonesia and the Philippines, weincluded in-country international collaborators to help us recruit and makesense of our findings, and included publication and presentation incentivesin our publication/presentation agreement to support their participation,practices that we believe could be useful in other international studies.

At this writing, we are in the middle of our data collection phase. It isclear that it is easier for us to get the requisite number of participants insome countries than others. However, we have developed back-up plans ifwe do not meet our goal of 45 participants per country. For example, wecould combine our mainland China and Taiwan groups into one “China”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

304 F. P. Piercy et al.

category. Or, we could collapse the data at least from our Asian countriesinto one “Asian” category, and only do parametric statistics when our numberof subjects reach the level specified by our power analysis—that is, we canstill reflect meaningful trends and catagories through charts and qualitativeanalyses in cases where we can not use parametric statistics. Finally, evenif we need to drop several countries from our overall findings, we shouldstill have a robust cross-national study of four or five countries, somethingnever done before in our field. As of the present, it looks like half of ourcollaborators will be able to secure the minimum number of participants toconduct parametric comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, the last chapter in this research is yet to be written, and there will nodoubt continue to be surprises along the way. Regardless, we believe thatsome of the process and structural features of this project are both creativeand provide incentives that support committed and sustained participation(e.g., a publication agreement assuring each researcher first authorship ofpublications coming out of the 10 questions related to his or her area ofscholarly interest, as well as co-authorship on the brief reports of others).Beyond external motivations, we found the process of working togetherwith colleagues of vastly different cultures than our own to be invigorating,enlightening, and inspiring. It was also fun. Each of us learned about thecultures of our collaborators and our own, how to work together across ourdifferences, and how to maintain our mutual respect at the same time. So,even before fully collecting and analysing our data, we have already learnedmore than we ever expected. We recommend this kind of collaborativeresearch experience to you, as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge support for this project from the Niles Small Grant Programfrom the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech.

REFERENCES

Chao, W. (2011). Review and reflections on 40 years of family therapy develop-ment in Taiwan. Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 415–428. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00550.x

Charles, L., & Piercy, F. (2004). Reflections on teaching family therapy in severalnon-Western countries. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 22(4), 15–28.

Herrera, R., DelCampo, R., & Ames, M. (1993). A serial approach for translatingfamily science instrumentation. Family Relations, 42, 357–360.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Cross-National Research in Family Therapy 305

Hines, A. (1993). Linking qualitative and quantitative methods in cross-culturalsurvey research: Techniques from cognitive science. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 21, 729–746.

Kameguchi, K., & Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2001). Family psychology and familytherapy in Japan. American Psychologist, 56 , 65–70.

Kaslow, F. (2000). History of family therapy: Evolution outside of the USA. Journalof Family Psychotherapy, 11(4), 1–35.

Keeling, M. L., & Piercy, F. (2007). A careful balance: International perspectives onculture, gender, and power in marriage and family therapy practice. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 33, 443–463.

Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-culturalresearch [Monograph]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 234–250.

McDowell, T., Brown, A. L, Kabura, P., Parker, E., & Alotaiby, A. (2011).Working with families in Uganda and the United States: Lessons in cross-cultural professional training. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 30(2), 65–80.doi:10.1521/jsyt.2011.30.2.65.

Moelino, L., Anggal, W., & Piercy, F. P. (1998). HIV/AIDS-risk for underservedIndonesian youth: A multi-phase participatory action–reflection–action study.Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention & Education for Adolescents & Children, 2(3/4),41–61.

Nasif, E., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., & Thibodeaux, M. (1991). Methodological prob-lems in cross-cultural research: An updated review. Management InternationalReview, 31(1), 79–91.

Natakusumah, A., Irwanto, A. K., Piercy, F. P., Lewis, R., Trepper, T., & Sprenkle,D. (1992). Cohesion and adaptability in families of adolescent drug abusers inthe United States and Indonesia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 23,389–411.

Ng, K. (2002). Global perspectives in family therapy: Development, practice, trends.New York, NY: Brunner/Routledge.

Piercy, F. P. (1998). An American family therapist teaches in Indonesia: A collage.Journal of Systemic Therapies, 17(1), 69–81.

Piercy, F. P., Glass, V., Johnson, J., Bigby, B., Bao, A., & Austin, J. (2013). What familytherapists can learn from stand-up comics and those that heckle them. Journalof Family Psychotherapy, 24, 110–128.

Piercy, F. P., McWey, L., Tice, S., James, E., Morris, M., & Arthur, K. (2005). It was thebest of times, It was the worst of times: Doctoral students’ experiences of fam-ily therapy research training through alternative forms of data representation.Family Process, 44, 363–378.

Platt, J. (2012). A Mexico City-based immersion education program: training mentalhealth clinicians for practice with Latino communities. Journal of Marital andFamily Therapy, 38, 352–364. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00208.x

Sim, T., & Hu, C. (2009). Family therapy in the Forbidden City: A review of Chinesejournals from 1978 to 2006. Family Process, 48, 559–583. doi:10.1111/j/1545-5300.2009.01302.x

Tse, S., Ng, R. M. K., Tonsing, K. N., & Ran, M. (2012). Families and fam-ily therapy in Hong Kong. International Review of Psychiatry, 24, 115–120.doi:10.3109/09540261.2012.656304

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:33

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14