abstract analysis of non-deployed military wives’ blogs
TRANSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
FIGHTING FROM THE HOME FRONT: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF NON-DEPLOYED MILITARY
WIVES’ BLOGS
Countless people face the military deployment cycle: service members,
parents, children, and spouses all face different emotions during distinctive phases.
This study investigates the reintegration phase from the standpoint of the non-
deployed wife. Using Weblog entries of four military wives, the tenets of
grounded theory were applied to determine communicative patterns that were
present during the time frame between news of the reunion with the service
member and reintegration back into the family routine.
The findings within this study reveal a complex relationship when a couple
goes from a long-distance relationship to a geographically close relationship with
limited communication, such as a military deployment cycle. The results of this
interpretive study reveal: 1) wives indulge in idealization of their spouses while
geographically separated; 2) when the wives’ (co) constructed reality is juxtaposed
with idealization there is a disruption in the relational culture being evidenced in
relational dialectical tension; and 3) the change that occurred during the
deployment cycle produced relational turning points.
Marcie Lynne Lierly December 2012
FIGHTING FROM THE HOME FRONT: A QUALITATIVE
ANALYSIS OF NON-DEPLOYED MILITARY
WIVES’ BLOGS
by
Marcie Lynne Lierly
A thesis
submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Communication
in the College of Arts and Humanities
California State University, Fresno
December 2012
© 2012 Marcie Lynne Lierly
APPROVED
For the Department of Communication:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree. Marcie Lynne Lierly
Thesis Author
Kathy Adams (Chair) Communication
Marnel Niles Goins Communication
Craig Fowler Communication
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in
its entirety without further authorization from me, on the
condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction
absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of
authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must
be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First I would like to give thanks and praise to my Lord Jesus Christ, for it is
only through Him that anything in my life is accomplished. Before I even knew
the path my life would take, He was there setting up the support network I would
need—starting with my husband, Darin.
Darin, you have supported and believed in me when I had a difficult time
doing it myself. You assured me that the light at the end of the tunnel was not a
train. You have provided a wonderful life full of adventure and laughter. You
inspire me to be my best. I watched the way you mentored and cared for your
Marines, which motivated me to do the same for their families. It is this care and
concern that has spurred my research inquiries.
To my children: John, Luke, and Jacob, I thank you for picking up the slack
at home when I was in the library writing or researching, for NEVER complaining
when you found out cereal was for dinner…again, and for encouraging me
through generous words and warm hugs.
Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing
on the shoulders of giants.” This holds true for me; it is on the shoulders of my
Thesis Committee that I stand. I would like to thank Dr. Kathy Adams, Dr.
Marnel Niles Goins, and Dr. Craig Fowler. It has been through your guidance that
I have fulfilled a dream. I can only hope to inspire others the way in which you
have inspired me. Each of you has imparted something special to me. From the
beginning, Kathy, you motivated me through your exuberance regarding
interpersonal issues and demanding standards of research; Marnel you provided
friendship, practical advice, and tough-love when needed by acting like a loving
parent who wants only the best from her children; and Craig, you provided a safe
vi vi
place to discuss ideas in addition to subtle inquiries into my progress in your
disarming, genteel English way.
To the people that have been in the trenches with me—my graduate school
comrades—I will forever be grateful that we have shared this time together. I
have learned so much about and from you that I can’t help but smile. Yet, one
person I will forever be indebted to is Leticia Williams.
Leticia, you have been a support, a friend, a mentor, and an encourager.
Everyone should be so fortunate as to have a personal cheerleader like yourself. I
consider myself lucky to call you friend.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. x
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 2
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 12
Overview of the Study .................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 15
Military Culture ............................................................................................... 17
Military Deployment and Relationships ......................................................... 27
Literature Summary ........................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ..................................................................................... 33
Grounded Theory ............................................................................................ 33
Blogs .............................................................................................................. 37
Data Collection ................................................................................................ 39
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 42
Methods Summary .......................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ....................................................................................... 45
Super-Categories or Themes ........................................................................... 47
Results Summary ............................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................. 68
Page
viii viii
Discussion of the Findings .............................................................................. 69
Discussion Summary ....................................................................................... 98
Implications for Practice ............................................................................... 100
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................ 102
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 103
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 105
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 107
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 121
APPENDIX A: CODING SHEET ....................................................................... 122
APPENDIX B: TOP BLOGS RECOGNIZED BY MILBLOGGERS.COM ...... 124
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Author Pseudonyms .................................................................................. 41
Table 2 Idealization Results .................................................................................. 48
Table 3 (Re) Constructing Reality Results ............................................................ 59
Table 4 Deployment Residue Results .................................................................... 64
Table 5 U.S. Army ............................................................................................... 125
Table 6 U.S. Air Force ........................................................................................ 125
Table 7 U.S. Military Veteran ............................................................................. 126
Table 8 U.S. Reporter .......................................................................................... 126
Table 9 2012 U.S. Coast Guard .......................................................................... 127
Table 10 2012 U.S. Navy ..................................................................................... 127
Table 11 2012 U.S. Marine Corps ...................................................................... 127
Table 12 2012 U.S. Military Supporter ............................................................... 128
Table 13 2012 U.S. Military Parent .................................................................... 128
Table 14 2012 U.S. Military Spouse .................................................................... 129
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Deployment cycle ................................................................................... 21
Figure 2. Reintegration posts ................................................................................. 41
Figure 3. Coding process ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 4. Reintegration .......................................................................................... 69
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Blog-Weblog
CC-Chambanachik Blog
CCM-Constant Comparative Method
CMC-Computer Mediated Communication
DoD-Department of Defense
FtF-Face-to-Face
GCR-Geographically Close Relationship
HHD-Household 6 Diva Blog
IO-Information Operation
J-The New “Normal” Blogger’s Husband
LDR-Long Distance Relationship
LDRR-Long Distance Romantic Relationship
Liberty-Free Time
NN-The New “Normal” Blog
OPSEC-Operational Security
Post-Blog entry
PTSD-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
RCCU-Relationship Continuity Constructional Units
Theater-War Zone
UCMJ-Uniform Code of Military Justice
WLS-Witty Little Secret Blog
Wounded Warrior-Wounded Military Personnel
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Shocking statistics about the stressful conditions faced by members of the
United States Armed Forces have triggered renewed concern for our military
population. Depression, suicide, divorce, alcoholism, acute stress, and anxiety are
among the top behavioral and health conditions within the military cited by
practitioners and scholars; the prevalence of such conditions doubled from 10.4%
in 2005 to 21.4% in 2009 (Demographics 2010: Profile of the military community,
2010). These statistics can be translated in the following two findings that further
compound the reality that service members will be diagnosed with a behavioral or
health condition. First, symptoms of these stressful conditions significantly
increase during post-deployment (Milliken, Auchterlonie, & Hoge, 2007), not only
affecting returning service members, but also their families. Statistics gathered in
2010 by the Department of Defense (DoD) stated that 69.9% of officers and
53.7% of enlisted personnel are married (Demographics 2010: Profile of the
military community, 2010), which is to say that a substantial number of people are
affected by a deployment cycle. Second, the unprecedented deployment of almost
2.1 million service members to Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002 (Brancu, Straits-
Tröster, & Kudler, 2011) has increased the military population and their families
to exposure of such health-related conditions. Thus, these issues have become a
top concern for the DoD as officials have realized the readiness of our Armed
Forces goes beyond physical training and includes the mental well-being of the
service members and their families.
Despite the DoD’s concern for the mental and physical health of the service
member, military personnel themselves have cited the biggest concern they face is
not suicidal thoughts, acute stress, or alcoholism, but the fear of losing an
2 2
important relationship, such as a marriage, during the deployment cycle. This
concern ranked higher than that of personal death or injury (Gomulka, 2010).
The anxiety faced during the post-deployment phase of a deployment cycle
is marked by a feeling of not being needed, feeling a loss of intimacy, and being
treated with hostility because the spouse is uncertain of new roles within the
relationship (Pincus, House, Christenson, & Adler, 2001). These feelings are
reported by the service members as contributing to marital difficulty after
deployment. Yet, the DoD has suggested that divorce rates have stabilized in the
last few years but admitted to seriously underestimating the extent of marital
problems amongst its personnel in the past. Gomulka (2010) went on to state that
“divorces among enlisted Soldiers and Marines reached a 16-year high in the fiscal
year 2008. There were nearly 1,000 more divorces among enlisted Soldiers in
2008 than in 2007” (p. 111). With this information, the quality and stability of
military family relations have become important concepts for researchers during
the past two decades (Theiss & Knobloch, 2011; Waldron & Kelley, 2005; Wiens
& Boss, 2006). Yet, despite the extensive research on military family relations,
gaps still exist.
Statement of the Problem
Although studies have highlighted the service member’s perceived threat to
an important relationship, researchers are unaware if the same concern occurs with
the spouse. There is a lack of information about marital relationships, which
include reoccurring relational events (role negotiation, change in behavior, cycling
between being geographical distant to proximity) and how the spouse processes
the relational disruptions during the deployment cycle. The research that does
exist concentrates mainly on risk and resilience (Cacioppo, Reis, & Zautra, 2011;
3 3
Cox, 2012; de Burgh, White, Fear, & Iversen, 2011; Elliott, 2011; Palmer, 2008;
Saltzman et al., 2011; Spera, 2009) of the military family in general but neglects to
address particular interactions concerning the deployment cycle phases,
specifically the spousal perspective on post-deployment reintegration of the
service member back into family life.
Operation: Marriage
The seminal scholarship of Boulding (1950) and Hill (1949) conducted
during WWII influenced the study of the familial effects of military deployment
through their family stress research of separation and reunion due to war
deployment. Hill (1949) suggested that “maintaining a cohesive family unit
depended not only on the resources of the family but also on the number of
demands and challenges that the family has to face” (as cited in Karney & Crown,
2007, p. 17). Although Hill’s (1949) work was acknowledged as a way to look at
how external stresses and supports manifest within marriages, it was not until the
late 1980s that researchers started to recognize how spouses’ perception of
stressors in other parts of life had a spillover effect on the marriage (Bolger,
DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989). Scholars have continued to develop this
area of study during subsequent wars and missions such as in the Persian Gulf.
Karney and Crown (2007) stated that current “deployments have been more
widespread, longer, and more frequent, a higher proportion of deployed service
members have been exposed to combat, and casualty rates are higher than at any
other time since Vietnam” (p. xvii) and go on to suggest that because of these facts
“extended deployments leave military marriages vulnerable” (p. xvii). Because of
deployment stress, Henning (1986) wrote of the strain on Army wives that has led
to alcohol abuse, while Nice (1981) conducted a longitudinal analysis of Navy
4 4
family separation citing that a substantial portion of “Navy wives believed the
separation was more difficult than expected in areas such as spousal relations,
parenting, finances, affective problems, and [stress related] health conditions” (p.
12). In addition, a retrospective study of pilots conducted by Raschman,
Patterson, and Schofield (1989) discovered the biggest complaint of marital
discord was communication problems. The work of these researchers spurred an
interest in military family relationships, thus encouraging others to parlay Hill’s
(1949) original work into a line of research focusing on marital relationships and
deployment.
Previous research on marital relationships and deployment have shown an
inverse correlation between separation and satisfaction, citing both physical and
emotional symptoms in the spouse starting with the onset of the deployment cycle
and continuing after the home coming of the service member. These symptoms
include isolation, loneliness, fear, uncertainty, stress symptoms (i.e., sleep
problems, sadness, trouble getting going), worry, eating disorders, menstrual
changes, headaches, and fatigue (Blount, Curry, & Lubin, 1992; Dimiceli,
Steinhardt, & Smith, 2010; Padden, Connors, & Agazio, 2011; Warner,
Appenzeller, Warner, & Grieger, 2009). Enough research has been conducted to
establish a firm foundation in understanding that a military deployment cycle is
stressful and that stress affects the marital relationship. While scholars have been
able to ascertain the artifacts of stress such as physical and emotional health
difficulties, there is limited research on the process of overcoming these
difficulties as the couple reintegrates after a deployment. However, social media
has offered an opportunity for researchers to further study how military couples
manage aspects of the deployment cycle.
5 5
Operation: Blog
After its inception in the mid-1990s, blogging has become a cultural
phenomenon providing an unprecedented medium to share experiences,
knowledge, and opinions. From the technologically savvy to the less
technologically inclined, this form of personal expression has transformed the
traditional mechanics of communication (i.e., journals, diaries, etc.) to an
inherently public forum that serves various interests and needs. Nardi, Schiano,
Grumbecht, and Swartz (2004) identified five distinct reasons that motivate an
individual to blog: to document life, for commentary, as a catharsis, as a muse,
and as a community forum. To fully understand how these motivations impact the
posts of military spouses, the following overview further defines qualities of a
blog and blogging.
Introduction to blogs. The term “blog” is a shortened version of the word
Weblog (Suzuki, 2004). A Weblog is an online diary often used as a collaborative
space that replicates a pulpit for private thoughts. Diaries are a “confessional and
confidential account that chronicle[s] events or private reflection” (Egerod &
Christensen, 2009, p. 269). Web based diaries also offer the opportunity to hear a
voice that otherwise goes unacknowledged. The benefit of using online diaries
allows researchers to hear narratives from many different individuals offering
multiple perspectives of a particular event, such as post-deployment reintegration.
Generally, there are no rules in regards to topics discussed on a blog beyond what
the blog creator determines acceptable. Blog topics are as endless as the way in
which topics are discussed.
There are several benefits to blogs for the novice computer user. First,
most blogs are interactive, providing the opportunity to post comments in an easy-
to-follow format. Because of the ease of use, users are not required to have
6 6
extensive technical knowledge thus offering empowerment to anyone with
computer access (Stefanone & Jang, 2007). Blogs also offer various levels of
privacy spanning from publically listed and accessible sites to password protected
sites (Lenhart & Fox, 2006). Another benefit of participating in the blogging
community includes the participant being one level removed from feedback
associated with face-to-face communication, in addition to a virtual safety net of
anonymity when expressing thoughts because of the medium. Thus, blogs
encourage participation in conversations that would typically go unexpressed.
Herring, Scheidt, Wright, and Bonus (2005) asserted that blogs form “a de
facto bridge between multimedia HTML documents and text-based computer-
mediated communication, blurring the traditional distinction between these two
dominate internet paradigms, and potentially contributing to its future breakdown”
(p. 143). In other words, blogging has the capability to mix the best of Web pages
in terms of ease of use and also the ability to be conversational as in emails—yet
respond to multiple entities, thus bridging the two forms of communication and
eliminating the need to have both.
According to Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht, and Swartz (2004), blogs
embody the dissemination of information by creating a space for a user-
questioning perspective, dialogue, and equality by not privileging one author’s
view over another, thus decentralizing knowledge. Blogs are also defined as life
journals that reflect and report about one’s everyday life (Kaun, 2010). Blog
writers and followers can be as anonymous as desired, which also protects the
anonymity of others to enter into the conversation without feeling threatened by
personal judgment under the section eliciting comments. Though the issue of
anonymity and self-disclosure on blogs has garnered significant scholarly attention
7 7
(see Qian & Scott, 2007), the maintenance of social relationships through blogs is
of greater concern for the current study.
Habermas and McCarthy (1985) found that communicative action is
essential to everyday social life and that social relationships are sustained by
mutual understanding that is produced through discourse. As a new phenomenon,
scholars have proposed blogging is a channel of communication that promotes the
sharing of information, beliefs, and ideas (Herring et al., 2005; Kaun, 2010;
Lenhart & Fox, 2006; Mortensen & Walker, 2002; Murthy, 2008; Nardi et al.,
2004). In their study of political blogs, Trammell, Williams, Postelnicu and
Landreville (2006) found such blogs are “consider[ed] to be a manifestation of
Habermas’…notion of a public sphere involving convergence of people…from
various walks of life who share in discourse” (p. 23). Asserting that social
relationships are produced through discourse, examining everyday talk gives
researchers a glimpse into public connections within ordinary structures. Kaun
(2010) stated that “talks and discussions with family and friends, and the
reasoning about personal issues are triggered by public discourses” (p. 135). In
other words, once personal issues are publically analyzed against contemporary
views, the topic then exists in the public sphere because the participant invites
speculation and further discourse about the subject. On this conceptual level,
blogs are the modern day “public sphere” (Habermas, 1991).
With blogging seen as a public form of personal expression, researchers
(Mortensen & Walker, 2002; Nardi et al., 2004; Stefanone & Jang, 2007) have
analyzed blogging practices and rationale for blogging. As previously stated, five
major motivations have been cited to explain the act of blogging (Nardi et al.,
2004). First, documentation of life is a way to keep family and friends abreast of
details in one’s life without being too intrusive. Reading is voluntary without the
8 8
pressure for the reader to respond (i.e. email). The writers cited in Nardi et al.’s
(2004) research drew a distinction between other computer-mediated
communication (CMC) such as Web pages and email with blogs, stating that blogs
offer “ rhythm of frequent, usually brief posts, with the immediacy of reverse
chronological order” (p. 43) as opposed to “a static feel to a Web page” (p. 43).
The second motivation to blog is as a commentary. In the same vein Habermas
defined the public sphere, blogs “are often portrayed as a breakthrough form of
democratic self-expression” (Nardi et al., 2004, p. 44) because many bloggers
comment on topics they find important and relevant. Next, others cited blogging
as cathartic, using the virtual space as an outlet for thoughts and feelings. This
type of blogger is noted as having “patently emotional” posts (Nardi et al., 2004,
p. 44). Fourth, blogs are used as a muse, which Mortensen and Walker (2002)
explained as “thinking with computers” (p. 249) in a constructive manner in which
some bloggers make posts. Of those citing the use of blogs as a muse, the
structure of testing ideas by writing them down was appealing, in addition to
having readers move their thoughts along because of an expectation for new posts
(Nardi et al., 2004); this format prevents lingering on one topic for an extended
amount of time. Finally, blogs are used as a community forum. Blogs form a link
to others by the exchange of opinions, collective interests, and social discourse,
which generates a sense of community for participants.
In addition to the motivations for using blogs and its categorization as a
modern public sphere, several institutions have found blogs useful. Teachers have
used blogs to build learning communities among their students by “getting
students in conversation with each other electronically” (Nardi et al., 2004, p. 45).
The students who experienced this type of learning reported they felt closer to
their classmates as a result of blogging instead of conventional face-to-face
9 9
communication (Nardi et al., 2004, p. 45). Besides educational purposes, blogs
have also been used for business development (see Kelleher & Miller, 2006) and
politics (see Lawson-Borders & Kirk, 2005; see Trammell et al., 2006). Although
the motivations cited here are far from exhaustive, they do acknowledge a wide
variety of raison d'être, many of which overlap.
Military 2.0
Current literature that focuses on military blogs concentrates on the reason
that a service member would blog and legal interpretation on the bill of rights
concerning the blogs of military personnel. First, service members cite the reason
they blog is to share experiences with outsiders, give an accurate picture of war-
related events, and to keep an electronic journal of their thoughts (Robbins, 2007).
Yet, the military has sought to control blogging content citing operational security
(OPSEC) as a major concern.
The emergence of blogs occurred simultaneously with what was referred by
many as the “war on terrorism.” While the service members saw blogging as a
way to keep in contact with loved ones, it soon became apparent that instruction
was needed in regard to the global audience. In response, Robbins (2007) wrote
“In Fall 2005, in recognition of the potential effects of blogs on information
operations (IO), the Army began educating deploying units about this aspect of the
evolving information domain” (p. 109). While there were practical advantages of
blogging such as speed, legibility, and dissemination of information, it also
became problematic for the military because sensitive information was being
inadvertently exposed (i.e. location, past military actions, and driving routes). Due
to the concern for the safety and privacy of others, Robbins (2007) wrote of
10 10
regulations that once addressed limitation to freedom of speech were now being
applied to blogs. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) dictates that
Soldiers may share opinions about how to distribute and employ resources
in the defense of our Nation, but their professional ethic demands that they
refrain from partisan banter and public criticism of the chain of command.
Even the most senior officers who are called upon to provide policy advice
to civilian leadership cannot make public political statements. (Robbins,
2007, p. 113)
Conversely, the second stream of research about military blogs examines
service members’ right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment
juxtaposed with the risks of operational security. Cornyn (2008) delineated the
specific operation security threats based on internet use and blogging, which led to
military regulations.
In 2005, in response to the increase of electronic devises among military
personnel, the DoD instituted a blogging policy that required blogs to be registered
with the author’s unit commanders (Cornyn, 2008). Although prior clearance was
not required before posting, the blogs were examined by the command quarterly.
Anyone found in violation of the UCMJ was punished. In 2007, the government
instituted even stronger regulations on public discourse (i.e., letters, email, blogs,
forum postings, and resumes) by requiring the author to receive permission prior
to posting on public forums for the sake of OPSEC; those found in violation of the
new regulations could now be court-martialed (Cornyn, 2008). The result of these
new regulations has created a discourse in relation to freedom of speech. While
the area of freedom of speech within the U.S. Military is being debated, the
military spouse is not bound by the same regulations as the service member.
11 11
Hence, blogging by military spouses has become very popular as a way to build
and sustain a support network.
The popularity of spouse written military blogs has been recognized by the
military community and media, as evidenced in an article published by a
mainstream magazine, Reader’s Digest, entitled “Witty and wise, milblogs are a
voice for military spouses.” In this article, Dreher (2011, December) cited a
military spouse’s post that went viral, entitled “Operation Order to my Deployed
Husband.” In this post the blog author addresses expected behavior and correct
emotional responses required upon the husband’s return from deployment as he
reintegrated into family life.
While deployment topics are prolific, other topics that seem to be popular
with military spouses are craft projects, recipe swaps, discussions of books, and
sharing of parenting woes. In addition, there are several blog sites that host
military related blogs that cover a wide range of topics: armylive.dodlive.mil,
milblogging.com, and military.invesp.com, which appeal to parents, veterans,
reporters, and teens.
However, despite the recognition and popularity of military blogs, there is a
lack of literature using social media, such as blogs, as a research tool. Although
research about technology and its uses is gaining popularity, there is minimal
research on using blogs to gather and analyze data.
Theoretical Framework
This research was designed as a qualitative analysis of blogs. Using a
grounded theory approach to find and guide the analysis of blog discourse written
by non-deployed wives’ about their adjustment to post-deployment reintegration,
this study simultaneously gathered blog entries and analyzed the personal writings
12 12
of the wives on their blogs. By using the tenets of grounded theory created by
Glaser and Strauss (1967), textual data were gathered and analyzed with the
constant comparative method via theoretical coding. Theoretical sampling, which
ensures the systematic gathering of data, was employed. The constant
comparative method, theoretical coding, and theoretical sample worked in
conjunction with each other; theoretical saturation ensured that no new patterns
were overlooked in the analysis process. Last, the researcher utilized theoretical
sensitivity. Theoretical sensitivity allowed the researcher to use past experience
and subjective critique to determine what the data revealed and which data were
relevant to this study. Additional discussion of grounded theory and the process of
data collection will be discussed with more detail in chapter 3.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to us textual data, the blog postings of
military spouses, to discover the major relational challenges faced by the family
after a deployment, specifically the post-deployment reintegration phase as the
service member is reinstated into existing family routines. This study used the
personal writings of military wives to explore the familial challenges of a military
family throughout the reintegration phase of the deployment cycle.
Significance of the Study
Until recently, research using the military population was lacking due to the
relatively closed nature of the community. Yet, since the war on terrorism
commenced, more U.S. military personnel have been deployed than at any other
time and the demands placed on the military family are “higher than they have
been in several decades” (Karney & Crown, 207, p. xvii); thus study of the
American military family is sorely needed. Because of this need, more attention
13 13
has been paid to military families and their circumstances in terms of research
agenda by both contracted military researchers and academic scholars (Gorbaty,
2009; Hinojosa, Hinojosa, & Sberna-Högnäs, 2012; Hogan, 2010).
Though various disciplines (i.e., psychology, counseling, sociology,
medical practice, and child development) have initiated the bulk of this research,
communication scholars have conducted limited research. Of the research
conducted by communication scholars, none has used blogs as a research tool for
data collection. While communication scholars have researched the use of
technology in building social support among Army wives (Talkington, 2011),
Facebook and resiliency in Army spouses (Elliott, 2011), and the impact of
emotions on marital satisfaction and the use of technology as a coping strategy
(Powell, 2011), using technology to research the military community is
nonexistent. Not only is the research on military spouses and technology lacking,
the researcher has asserted the benefit of using technology to reach this relatively
closed culture as an ideal research tool because of the access it affords. This is a
groundbreaking study using blog authors’ personal communication to allow
unprecedented entrance into the reported relational struggles faced by this unique
population of military wives experiencing post-deployment reintegration of their
service member husband.
Overview of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 2 defines the
deployment cycle and inherent stressors, existing research concerning specific
circumstances faced within military marriages, conditions that are similar and
different from other long-distance relationships, and the strategies for relational
maintenance used by long-distance relationship couples. Chapter 3 outlines the
14 14
qualitative methodology of grounded theory used for data collection and analysis.
Chapter 4 presents findings based on this qualitative research design, which are
then discussed in chapter 5. In addition to a discussion of the major findings in
chapter 5, the final chapter also includes limitations, suggestions for future
research, and closing remarks.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Interpersonal relationships are a part of our daily lives. People are defined
by their relationships with names such as friend, sibling, parent, child, or spouse.
Each of these labels comes with cultural, behavioral, and moral expectations as
prescribed by the participants. These expectations are negotiated through
partners’ discourse, which creates and sustains various levels of intimacy (Wood,
2000). Intimate relationships have aspects that are not the same as with strangers
because of such things as role expectations (J. A. Hall, Larson, & Watts, 2011).
Through discourse, participants in intimate relationships create shared
meanings of events and expected behaviors (Duck, 1994), which then lead to
further intimacy and discourse. Intimacy, as defined in this research, is considered
as an emotional closeness due to detailed knowledge of the other which produces a
deep understanding and coordinated meanings of events. Communication
researchers view the process of coordinating meaning as one part of relational
culture called relational cultural norms.
The disruption of relational cultural norms has been the focus of previous
research. This research has shown that relational culture norms are affected or
disrupted by major social changes such as moving, job loss, or changes in a social
support system (Goodwin, 2009; Knobloch & Solomon, 2003; Merolla, 2010a,
2010b; Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Theiss & Knobloch, 2011; Wood, 1982, 1995).
While study of social change has been an area of much research among social
scientists, it also has become problematic due to the scope of research topics that
fall under the umbrella of change (Goodwin, 2009).
A common theme associated with change has concerned stress; however,
how stress and social change affect relational culture with the renegotiation of
norms is of great consequence in American society where change has become
16 16
common practice. One kind of change is physical absence from a relational
partner. Long distance romantic relationships (LDRR) have been a focus of many
recent studies due to situations such as commuter marriages, schooling,
incarceration, migration, and military deployments (Levin, 2004; Merolla, 2010a,
2010b; Sahlstein, 2004; Stafford, 2010). Because of the research conducted
focusing on LDRs, researchers have discovered social media is used as a relational
maintenance conduit (Merolla, 2010a, 2010b; Rabby, 2007) and relationships that
were once thought to suffer during geographical distance are now being
researched with renewed vigor because of the advances in communication
technologies such as Facebook, electronic mail, and blogs.
Social media has been shown to be a relational maintenance tool, and also
provides a way to increase the support system for long distance relationships,
particularly in military communities (Talkington, 2011). Some factors researched
in regards to the military community and social media were resilience and coping
strategies (Elliott, 2011), mediated communication between spouses and the
exhibiting of PTSD symptoms (Carter et al., 2011), and the use of protective
buffering in stressful disclosures to a deployed spouse (Joseph & Afifi, 2010).
In addition to academic research, the U.S. military has recognized the need
for further inquiry in regard to the military family, recognizing that the well-being
of service members is directly affected by the well-being of their families (Burrell,
2006). As a result of new insights into the military family and the stress they
endure during the deployment cycle, programs sponsored by different branches of
the military have been instituted. While each branch has specific programs aimed
to meet the particular needs of that branch, the information is all compiled on one
Web site called Military One Source that is sponsored by the DoD. These
programs include the following retreats: Strong Bonds, Singles and Married
17 17
Personal Growth, Marriage Enrichment Seminar, Teen Retreat, and Women’s
Retreat. Support groups have also been constructed to assist with adjustment:
Grief and Loss Support Group, Warrior Transition, and Post-Deployment Stress
Support Group. Online informational programs, in addition to retreats and support
groups, have also been created by Military One Source
(www.militaryonesource.mil), Military.com (www.military.com), and Operation
Home Front (www.operationhomefront.net), where information about a plethora
of military related topics is disseminated.
It is evident that the military acknowledges a need to focus on relationships
within the family. In addition, because of the unprecedented number of those who
have faced and will face deployment, it is an ideal time for communication
researchers to partner with military researchers in order to discover where gaps in
research exist. The following review of literature presents an overview of military
culture, defines the deployment cycle, and presents the major tenets of long-
distance relationships and relationship maintenance that impact military
relationships.
Military Culture
For those serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, military culture becomes a
variable in relational maintenance due to opportunities and constraints not faced
by civilians. In recent years the military family has come to the forefront of public
discussion. This attention has revealed a unique environment faced solely by
military families such as, but not limited to extended deployments, a lifestyle of
mobility, and uncertainty of the service member’s location and well-being (Allen,
2010; Bowen, 2002; Burrell, 2006; Drummet, Coleman, & Cable, 2004;
Gambardella, 2008; Merolla, 2010b; Spera, 2009). Because the military is not just
18 18
a job but a way of life, a culture has developed that is “uniquely different from the
civilian world” (L. K. Hall, 2011, pp. 4-5). Therefore, it is reasonable to address
the importance of acknowledging the military as being a distinctive culture.
Reger, Etherage, Reger, and Gahm (2008) stated that “a culture includes a
language, a code of manners, and norms of behavior, belief systems, dress, and
rituals” (p. 22). The evidence of these artifacts can be found in excess when
visiting any military instillation. The words and acronyms used are unlike
anything the civilian world is accustomed to: OPSEC means operational security,
theater refers to a war zone, and liberty is free time. Another example of the
difference between military and civilian culture is a hierarchal system that is
denoted with symbols worn on uniforms. These symbols signify service branch,
rank, job community and awards earned. Based upon what is on the uniform,
particular manners and salutations are expected. Because of the traditions of the
U.S. armed forces, military culture is easily documented and acknowledged as
different from civilian culture, thereby constituting an acknowledgment as a
specific culture and one worthy of research inquiry.
Relational Culture
Relationships (i.e., marriage, parent-child, dating) that exist with military
personnel face circumstances, such as deployment, that are unique to this culture
and become part of the intimate relationship. Just as any relationship has its own
unique culture that both sustains and creates the relationship, the military culture
becomes part of a couple’s relational culture when one or both participants are in
the armed forces.
Through the process of creating a relational culture, partners express,
develop, and sustain identities which bind intimates together (Wood, 2000).
19 19
Relational culture includes all that surrounds an intimate relationship. It includes
partners having a shared understanding of their own identity, the identity of the
other, and identity of the relationship. Through communication, relational values,
rules, and beliefs are created and addressed. The process of communication and
negotiation allows the partners to create a shared meaning, which then become the
relational culture and is reified during private interactions. Wood (2000) posited
that “relational culture [is] the subjective reality of a relationship that friends and
romantic partners create” (p. 77). Relational culture is subjective and created; in
other words, it is negotiated between the partners. Negotiation happens through
communication.
Although relationship culture is unique to each relationship because it is
created by the particularities of those involved in the relationship, Wood (2000)
discovered five features of relational culture that are intrinsic to the creation of
every relational culture. First, each relationship culture is unique. Because no two
people are exactly alike, the meanings assigned to the behavior and the
communication is inherently different. Each participant enters into the
relationship with anticipation and experiences that mold their expectations of
personal relationships. Second, when expectations are expressed and negotiated
the outcome is a shared meaning. But relational cultures are not created in a
vacuum. Each interaction is part of a larger process that becomes a system. This
is evidenced when any alteration is made to one aspect of the relationship its effect
is seen throughout the entire relationship or system. Relational culture is a system
in which “a relationship’s structure, communication practices, decision-making
styles, and modes of conflict work together as a whole” (Wood, 2000, p. 79).
Third, relational culture changes over time because relational cultures are a part of
20 20
other systems such as the military, which tend to influence expectations within
relationships.
The fourth feature of relational culture is reciprocal influence. Reciprocal
influence recognizes the ability of partners to regulate behavior beyond their
individual desires within the relationship because it is created by the partners and
“created of partners and the relationship” (Wood, 2000, p. 80, emphasis added).
For example, if honesty is a negotiated part of one’s relational culture than a
partner would find it difficult to lie even if lying is his or her first inclination
because reciprocal influence has made honesty within the relationship more
important than an individual’s desire to lie as part of the relational culture. Thus,
as part of a system, one’s personal desire takes second place to the maintenance of
the relational culture. This would not preclude lying from occurring, but it would
disrupt and violate the established relational culture.
With this in mind, the fifth and final feature of relational culture is the
ability of the culture to be both physically and emotionally beneficial. Although
not all relational cultures are beneficial to both participants, there is evidence that
supports claims of reduced stress (Floyd et al., 2009; Markey, Markey, & Gray,
2007) and other health benefits due to healthy romantic relationships. On the
other hand, researchers have also found that some relational cultures perpetuate
unsatisfying or dangerous relational aspects (Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010)
such as abuse. These relationships continue because the relational culture takes
precedence over perceived individual needs; thus violence can be minimized by
the participants as normal (Montero et al., 2011). A good relational culture,
beyond what is addressed here, can only be determined by those involved in the
relationship and is based on satisfaction. In other words, the state of health in any
relational culture is not stagnant but instead goes through periods of
21 21
dis/satisfaction based upon relational influences or disruptions to the relational
culture. The awareness of relational culture norms, therefore, becomes important
to acknowledge as an overarching structure in which an intimate relationship
exists.
Deployment Cycle
As stated earlier, relational cultures do not exist in a vacuum; consequently,
when there is a change in the military culture (i.e., deployment, war, change of
duty station, special schools, or unaccompanied tour of duty), there is a
simultaneous effect that influences the relational culture. One change that affects
countless military relationships is the deployment cycle, which has a major impact
on the couple’s relationship.
An oft-cited deployment cycle has been broken into five distinct phases:
pre-deployment, deployment, sustainment, redeployment, and post-deployment
(Pincus et al., 2001; see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Deployment cycle
22 22
Pre-deployment typically starts when the service member is notified of
impending deployment. For a 12-month deployment, it is estimated that the pre-
deployment phase occurs typically 3-6 months before movement. During the pre-
deployment phase the service member will train at an increased tempo for their
assigned duty and extra duties that include health evaluations and additional
family related paperwork, such as wills and power of attorney statements. For the
family, this is characterized as a stressful time (Padden et al., 2011). While the
service member is performing additional duties such as health screening, training,
and deployment paperwork, the family spends less time together and when
together physically; they are dealing with emotional preparation for the upcoming
absence (Faber, Willerton, Clymer, MacDermid, & Weiss, 2008).
Once the physical movement of the unit has started, the deployment phase
has begun. This deployment stage occurs during the first month of physical
separation. This phase is also known to be stressful for both the family and the
service member. While the service member is often excited to deploy after intense
training there is also apprehension in leaving loved ones; the spouse can feel
abandoned, jealous, and/or worried in addition to experiencing physical difficulty
like disruptions of sleeping patterns (Padden et al., 2011). There are initial
adjustments for both, such as establishing new communication patterns, altering
routines, and integrating additional responsibilities. For example, additional duties
for the non-deployed family member might include parental obligations of both
mother and father, having sole responsibility of household duties, and /or being the
contact person between the service member and relatives. Moreover, Eaton et al.
(2008) found further evidence of stress when wives of the deployed reported
experiencing emotional, alcohol, and family problems in addition to an increase in
major depression and anxiety disorders during the deployment phase.
23 23
Furthermore, families are informed during pre-deployment briefs to
disclose a limited amount of detail concerning stressful conditions being faced at
home to the service members during deployment. Citing details might distract the
service member from duties related to their military job, thus increasing the
service member’s chance of injury by dwelling on home front issues instead of
military duties. Moreover, the additional stress is not limited to the spouse but is
also evident in the deployed. For the service member, typical stresses such as
those related to leaving their family for an unknown amount of time and
uncertainty as to the future can be aggravated by heightened stress caused by war-
related trauma and lack of control over communication and timing (Peebles-
Kleiger & Kleiger, 1994; Pincus et al., 2001; Pittman, Kerpelman, & McFadyen,
2004; SteelFisher, Zaslavsky, & Blendon, 2008). Communication is regulated due
to Operational Security (OpSec); thus service members are unable to discuss
stressful events because this information might inadvertently contain clues as to
their location, thus further endangering others.
The next phase is sustainment, the time frame of when both the service
member and spouse settle into newly established routines. This phase is the
longest lasting according to Pincus et al. (2001) because sustainment starts
approximately 1 month after the physical movement of the military unit and lasts
until there is word of impending return. This time is characterized as a time when
a new routine is set and the participants function in such a way that reflects the
placement of this routine. Many non-deployed spouses will reference this time as
one of empowerment (Pincus et al., 2001; Sahlstein, Maguire, & Timmerman,
2009).
The sustainment phase lasts until there is information about the return home
or re-deployment. Sheppard, Malatras, and Israel (2010) define re-deployment as
24 24
the month preceding the homecoming that is filled with preparation both on the
home front and in theater. This phase is associated with excitement for
reunification with loved ones and apprehension due to the uncertainty being faced
with the reintegration of the deployed service member. Reintegration is a term
used to describe a process of incorporating the service member back into the
family system after an absence.
The time frame in which the service member returns is called post-
deployment. During this time the family is reunited. The service member starts
with debriefs, medical evaluations, and informal counseling to assist in the
reintegration process. The family members also go through post-deployment
training sessions that address possible physical and emotional phases both they
and their service member might experience as a result of the deployment. The
post-deployment phase for the service member is administrative, while the post-
deployment phase for the family is more about the reintegration of the deployed
back into family roles and routines. For this reason, the post-deployment phase
for the service member and reintegration for the spouse are considered as one
phase.
For this research, post-deployment will be referred as reintegration from
this time forward. For the service member, both post-deployment and
reintegration happens simultaneously with one branch of the post-deployment
phase relating to their military job and the other (reintegration) to the home front.
The post-deployment phase is cited to last approximately 3-6 months (Pincus et
al., 2001; Sheppard et al., 2010)
25 25
Deployment Relational Stressors
Researchers have noted that each phase comes with unique challenges that
range in severity moderated by the resilience of the family (Palmer, 2008; Wiens
& Boss, 2006). Pre-deployment has been associated with emotional detachment,
family stress, and marital disagreements, while deployment is noted with sadness,
depression, and sleep disturbances. Sustainment seems to be the phase where the
least amount of issues is found in regard to adjustment; the participants find a
routine and establish new patterns that work for this time frame. Redeployment is
filled with anticipation and preparation for reunion, yet apprehension is also
reported with uncertainty over physical changes and change in the family routine
being most cited (Palmer, 2008; Pincus et al., 2001; Wiens & Boss, 2006). Post-
deployment starts with what the military calls “honeymoon period” where the
family is overly polite with each other and frames self and others in purely
positive ways (Le et al., 2008; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996b; Schulman,
1974; Sprecher & Metts, 1999), yet as time progresses, evidence of hard feelings
and difficulty in reintegration to the family surfaces.
Reintegration into the family requires a renegotiation of roles (Allen, 2010;
Basham, 2008; Bowling & Sherman, 2008; de Burgh et al., 2011; Doyle &
Peterson, 2005; Gorbaty, 2009; Mateczun & Holmes, 1996). Change is inevitable
considering the experiences of each partner during the time apart. Family systems
have been developed to counter the absence of one partner, roles have been
redefined, and the emotional toll of deployment can be evidenced. SteelFisher et
al. (2008) noted that feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression were
widespread in spouses even after the redeployment phase ended. Research has
also noted that deployment length is a factor in experiencing these emotions. As
26 26
deployment time increases, so does the emotional turmoil during reintegration
(Mansfield et al., 2010; SteelFisher et al., 2008).
In sum, the deployment cycle is multifaceted in regards to physical, mental,
and relational aspects. Of particular interest for this research is the last phase of
the deployment cycle—post-deployment, with an emphasis on reintegration.
While there are studies of the communication during this aspect of the cycle, the
majority of them have been in the field of psychology. Yet some communication
researchers have recently ventured into the culture of military studies by
concentrating on topic avoidance (Frisby, Byrnes, Mannson, Booth-Butterfield, &
Birmingham, 2011), communicating support (Talkington, 2011), resilience (Cox,
2012; Elliott, 2011; Palmer, 2008; Wiens & Boss, 2006), stressful disclosures
(Joseph & Afifi, 2010), helping children reconnect after deployment (Wilson et
al., 2011), wives’ perspectives on deployment (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012;
Merolla, 2010b; Sahlstein et al., 2009), and relational maintenance during
deployment (Merolla, 2010b). The focus of each of these studies was either the
non-deployed spouse or children of the deployed, but not the particular relational
dynamics of reintegration. Research on spouses during the post-deployment phase,
particularly the reintegration of the service member back into family life, is scarce
even in the field of psychology. Reintegration is a complex situation beyond any
extenuating circumstances (i.e., PTSD, wounded warrior, or pre-deployment
marital discord). As de Burgh et al. (2011) stated, “research on…the interaction
between deployment, combat exposure, and homecoming and marital health is
complex” (p. 193), so it stands to reason the first step to clarifying these issues is
to define reoccurring communicative patterns of the non-deployed spouse during
the post-deployment phase when families are reintegrating. As stated before, the
research regarding spouses’ communicative patterns during post-deployment
27 27
reintegration is scarce but the area of research most closely associated with
military relationships during reintegration is long-distance relationships that
experience periods of co-presence.
Military Deployment and Relationships
Long-distance Relationships
Long-distance relationships (LDR) are becoming a more frequent
phenomenon considering the ease of modern travel and technology such as
Facebook, email, blogs, and Skype. Where distance was once a deterrent in
establishing and continuing a relationship, technical advances have made
geographical distance merely a circumstance in the relationship.
Long-distance relationships can be a function of migration, incarceration,
schooling, or military lifestyle. With LDRs face-to-face (FtF) communication is
less regular than in traditional geographically close relationships (GCR). Less FtF
communication challenges Western ideals which posit that FtF communication
and shared activities are central to relationship satisfaction and duration (Stafford,
2005). Yet research on LDRs reveal some partners report equal or higher levels of
satisfaction with greater stability and trust than GCR partners (Dainton & Aylor,
2002; Stafford, 2010; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). This research seems to
challenge Golish’s (2000) findings that closeness, in regard to emotional intimacy,
is affected by physical distance and proximity.
Yet, Stafford (2010) attributed the higher relational satisfaction and
stability to interdependence theory stating that partners transform situational
constraints (i.e., distance) to “foster favorable outcomes” (p. 292) in the
relationship. The use of interdependence theory seeks to explain “social behavior
based on individuals’ evaluation and reaction to their relational situations”
28 28
(Stafford, 2010, p. 276), such as geographical distance, by transforming how an
individual will manage the circumstances of the relationship. Maintenance might
include reframing how the geographical distance restraint affects the relationship.
Sigman (1991) posited that relationships are maintained in a variety of
ways and circumstances despite the absence of face-to-face events. Up until
Sigman’s (1991) research, communication scholars tended to research relationship
development and dissolution in terms of “talk,” choosing to see the relational
interaction as means to define relationships. Although the benefit of researching
conversations “demystifies relationships, preferring to see them as social forms
that require negotiation, construction, and/or accomplishment” (Sigman, 1991, p.
108), there is also a danger of limiting the relationship to interactions because of
the linear quality of only researching interactions. Baxter and Montgomery (1996)
also observed the dynamic process of relationships outside of the presence of
interaction and labeled those “tensions.” A tension is two “salient yet
contradictory characterization[s] of relating” (Sahlstein, 2004, p. 690) such as the
desire for both autonomy from the partner and connection to the partner
(connection/autonomy), a desire for certainty and the desire to be surprised
(predictability/novelty), and the desire to be open yet also wanting privacy
(openness/closeness). The tensions themselves are not to be resolved but instead a
constant presence that is negotiated within the relationship. Using Sigman’s
(1991) notion of relationship continuity constructional units (RCCU) and Baxter
and Montgomery’s (1996) relational dialectics perspective, relationships can be
seen as continuous and cyclical despite the circumstance of non-copresence. Yet
how relationship maintenance is enacted has been compartmentalized with
research focusing on long-distance relationship maintenance and geographically
29 29
close relationship maintenance but never with military relationships that cycle
through long periods of copresence and long periods of non-copresence.
Relational Maintenance
The term relational maintenance refers to “efforts that keep a relationship
in a specific state or condition” (Dainton & Aylor, 2001, p. 176). In some
research, partners have reported higher levels of relational satisfaction along with
more satisfying maintenance strategies of LDRs than GCRs (Dainton & Aylor,
2002).
Although each relationship culture is different, some unifying themes have
surfaced through research. The most frequently cited typologies of relational
maintenance techniques have come from Stafford and Canary (1991) as cited in
Dainton and Aylor (2001), Merolla (2010b), and Rabby (2007). These techniques
include positivity (exhibiting a cheerful demeanor), openness (engaging in self-
disclosure and honest relationship talk), assurances (using messages that stress
commitment to relationship and partner), social networks (investing in
relationships that are known to be in common), and sharing tasks (assuming
equality in completing tasks that confront the couple) (Stafford & Canary, 1991).
While these techniques look at relational maintenance strategies, Rabby (2007)
questioned whether these typologies place too much emphasis on the special
behaviors but ignore the routine activities that might factor into daily maintenance
or what Duck (1994) called mundane interactions. Dainton and Aylor (2001) also
suggested a further delineation with maintenance behaviors between LDRs and
GCRs that depend upon the amount of periodic FtF contact versus no FtF contact.
Whether considering Stafford and Canary’s (1991) five-point typology or a
more elaborate research schema, maintenance research attempts to reveal how
30 30
behavior at “different relational stages, serve[s] to repair, sustain and/or enhance
partner’s relational satisfaction, commitment, and stability” (Merolla, 2010b). For
instance, a couple experiencing geographical distance because of school
attendance yet has reliable technology will experience and engage in relational
maintenance techniques differently than a couple experiencing a military
deployment where unreliable communication channels exist. Satisfactory
communication is determined by the immediate needs of the partners within the
relationship; therefore the partners decide the effectiveness of a certain
maintenance strategy.
Maintenance strategies can be observed in LDRs but the way in which they
are enacted are unlike those of GCRs. For example, because of limited FtF time,
couples might find sharing tasks difficult so the strategy is adjusted (Merolla,
2010b) to put more emphasis on an attainable goal such as positivity concerning
how a task is accomplished. Le and Agnew (2001) also suggest long-distance
partners see moments of togetherness in less stringent terms than with a GCR. For
example, positive emotion becomes about “relational events such as talking on the
phone, writing and receiving letters, making plans, and thinking about the partner”
(Le & Agnew, 2001, p. 436) rather than sharing the same physical space.
Along with readjusting how maintenance is conceptualized, LDRs can also
be prone to romantic idealization (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Le et al., 2008;
Stafford, 2010; Stafford & Merolla, 2007), which is defined as “the tendency to
see the relationship [and one’s partner] in unrealistically positive terms” (Fowers,
Montel, & Olson, 1996, p. 108). Romantic idealization is attributed to missing a
romantic partner (Le et al., 2008). Yet, missing is not the problem because the
“experience of missing likely serves as a way of maintaining cognitive proximity”
(Le et al., 2008, p. 512), thus possibly “serving to enhance the relationship during
31 31
times of separation” (p. 528). However, while missing does not necessarily lead to
idealization, if idealization occurs, it becomes problematic during copresence.
Copresence would occur for the military couple in the post-deployment phase.
Therefore, another reason for a reportedly higher relationship satisfaction
and stability could be a result of romantic idealization (Stafford, 2010). Military
couples may be more prone to idealization than other LDRs due to military culture
of frequent deployments, stilted communication, and limited openness about
occupational duties. Idealization develops through three paths. The first is
cognitive idealization and comes from a psychological model that addresses
uncertainty through “positive illusions” (Murray et al., 1996b) or thoughts of
positive attributes. The second—behavioral idealization—comes from stilted
communication whereby partners have limited contact so they engage in
idealization of characteristics present in the early stages of romance (Miller,
Caughlin, & Huston, 2003; Schulman, 1974). The third route for idealization is
“selective self-presentation” (Stafford & Merolla, 2007), which posits individuals
will present themselves in a favorable manner while minimizing negative
characteristics. Rabby (2007) posited that self-presentation occurs more
frequently when interacting through computer-mediated channels unlike FtF
interactions. Considering the communication restraints associated with military
deployments, the possibility of romantic idealization in military couples reuniting
after deployment could pose a threat to a smooth reintegration process.
Literature Summary
The literature review presented has shown that U.S. military culture is
unlike anything the general public encounters in regards to a relational culture.
The five phases of the deployment cycle create an atmosphere where unique
32 32
stressors such as limited communication, compounding responsibilities, and
uncertainty affected both the physical and mental health of the military family.
The closest circumstance that can be related to a military deployment is long-
distance relationships.
Although long-distance relationships have been studied using different
parameters such as a comparison of geographically close relationships versus
long-distance dating relationships (Dainton & Aylor, 2001), long-distance dating
and courtship (Stafford, 2010), and relational maintenance in long-distance
relationships (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Emmers & Canary, 1996; Merolla 2010b;
Rabby, 2007; Stafford & Merolla, 2007), a gap exists in research in regards to the
transition timeframe of going from a long-distance relationship to copresence in
the case of military relationships. Even more specifically, what behaviors exist
during the reintegration timeframe that help or hinder the reintegration process? Is
there evidence of idealization of the service member from the non-deployed
spouse? Is there evidence of hindered communication due to going from long-
distance to copresence? This research seeks to clarify these issues. The next
chapter outlines the methodology for this study.
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
The primary goal of this study was to explore the expressed relational
challenges that occurred during the military post-deployment cycle, particularly
reintegration. This research was designed as a qualitative analysis of blogs using a
grounded theory approach to direct the analysis of emergent relational themes of
non-deployed military wives’ adjustment to post-deployment reintegration.
Although the initial plan was to collect data from non-deployed spouses,
representing both sexes became difficult due to the incongruity of married wives
compared with married husbands within the U.S. military. Wives’ blogs were
chosen because there are more of them within the military population due to the
U.S. military being made up of 90% males (Demographics 2010: Profile of the
military community, 2010). The following methodological strategies of grounded
theory were used for data collection and analysis.
Grounded Theory
In their seminal text The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss
(1967) introduced a theoretical framework to conceptualize phenomenon and
provide insight to such occurrences that require deeper theoretical meaning. This
framework was coined “grounded theory” because “the analyst becomes more and
more ‘grounded’ in the data and develops increasingly richer concepts and models
of how the phenomenon being studied really works” (Ryan & Bernard, 2000, p.
783).
Grounded theory has five fundamental tenets: the constant comparative
method, theoretical coding, theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, and
theoretical sensitivity (O’Reilly, Paper, & Marx, 2012). Constant comparative
method (CCM) involves coding and analyzing data concurrently. Boeije (2002)
34 34
specified that the simultaneity of CCM is “necessary to develop a theory more or
less inductively, namely categorizing, coding, delineating categories and
connecting them” (p. 393). By using CCM, collected data were compared with
new data, allowing a cycle of comparison to further develop any theoretical
prospect. The procedure of simultaneously coding and analyzing enabled the
researcher to compare “incident to incident and then incident to concept for the
purpose of generating categories and saturating their properties” (Glaser, 2001, p.
185). CCM was used as a tool to extrapolate data from blog posts while categories
were recorded on a coding sheet (see Appendix A). Following this, the researcher
went back to the data several times and compared data within a category to find
sub-categories. By being entrenched in the data, the researcher was able to
recognize archetypical patterns used for more intensive examination when
theoretically coding.
Theoretical coding was used to make sense of the data through categorizing
and grouping similar data. Through the coding process, data were coded into as
many sub-categories as possible so that each piece of data is fleshed out until a
“core category” was discovered (Charmaz, 2000). The core category was built on
a foundation of sub-categories that included specific behaviors or illustrations
(O’Reilly et. al., 2012). Theoretical coding was used to ascertain boundaries and
dimensions within an initial category by naming and comparing an event within
the data so that similarities and differences were restructured into sub-categories
as needed (Locke, 2002). Data collected in this study were broken into categories
such as Idealization, (Re) constructing Reality, and Deployment Residue. Upon
further review, sub-categories were created within these super-categories. For
example, the category of Idealization had sub-categories of idealizing roles,
35 35
idealizing behavior, idealizing the past, and idealizing the future. Yet, the process
of theoretical coding was not complete without the use of the next tenet.
In addition to CCM and theoretical coding, theoretical sampling was
important to the guiding process of grounded theory in this study. Theoretical
sampling consisted of gathering data in a logical manner, which relied on
analytical thinking by the researcher. Samples of data guided further sampling as
to provide a cyclical process to refine the data analysis. Glaser (1998) posited that
Theoretical sampling is the prime mover of coding, collecting, and
analyzing data. It is both directed by the emerging theory and it directs its
further emergence. It is the ‘where next’ in collecting data, the ‘for what’
according to the codes, and the ‘why’ from the analysis in memos. (p. 157)
This process of theoretical sampling allowed the data collection to be guided by
emerging categories instead of the researcher’s epistemology (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Theoretical sampling was applied in this research to set up the criterion
used to find the blogs with the richest amount of possible data and also cull out
those blogs that did not hold promise for depth in this study. For example, the
blogs that were used had a minimum of 20% of posts referring to some part of the
deployment cycle in the time frame highlighted. Theoretical sampling was a
technique used to separate the researcher’s tendencies of seeking the familiar to
letting the data unfold into natural categories. The natural categories that
emerged, such as Deployment Residue, were unexpected because previous
research had not indicated this might become a category.
Just as the first three tenets worked simultaneously to generate theory, data
collection saturation was vital to maintain integrity within grounded theory
framework. From a theoretical standpoint, saturation means that no new themes
are revealed through additional data collection. Theoretical saturation occurred
36 36
when the categories and sub-categories from CCM produced no new data.
Although each blogger had her own unique story, no new themes were addressed
that constituted further categories. To assure theoretical saturation occurred in this
study, the researcher combed the data a final time after using CCM to assure each
theme was fleshed out to its full extent. Upon finding no new categories,
theoretical saturation was reached to the satisfaction of the researcher.
The last tenet of grounded theory was theoretical sensitivity. This tenet
allowed the researcher the freedom to draw upon her own ability to give meaning
to the data in addition to recognizing which data had pertinent meaning to the
budding theory. In turn, theoretical sensitivity also permitted the researcher to
determine which data did not show potential for theory development.
In order for the researcher to capitalize on this freedom, data must be
approached with as few preconceived ideas about logical deductions as possible.
For the sake of integrity for this study, it is appropriate to disclose any prior
experience the researcher encountered in the area of military reintegration. It is
with this sensitivity the researcher discloses personal knowledge of the
deployment cycle due to being a military wife for 15 years. During the time of her
husband’s active duty service, two deployment cycles were experienced and an
additional deployment cycle was experienced during time as a reservist. Because
of the researcher’s experience with deployment reintegration, the data collected
were analyzed with extreme caution as to not project epistemological assumptions
onto others. Hence, the epistemological assumptions of the researcher were
acknowledged and addressed before data were analyzed, as Glaser (1998)
recommended:
The first step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research
setting with as few predetermined ideas as possible—especially logically
37 37
deducted a priori hypotheses. In this posture, the analyst is able to remain
sensitive to the data by being able to record event and detect happenings
without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-existing
hypotheses and bias. His [Her] mandate is to remain open to what is
actually happening. (p. 2)
However, Goulding (2002) countered the idea of theoretical sensitivity with the
practical, suggesting that a theoretical understanding of the phenomena is essential
to foster new theory development. By combining the two contrasting views of
theoretical sensitivity, the researcher would approach data with an open mind
towards discovering pertinent data while using personal knowledge and insight to
recognize when such might occur. By using the personal knowledge of the
researcher Fendt and Sachs (2008) suggested personal knowledge becomes an
asset as opposed to a liability.
Coupling the viewpoints of Goulding (2002) and Fendt and Sachs (2008)
with Glaser (1998) allowed the researcher’s personal experiences, in regard to the
military deployment cycle, to serve as an asset by first directing the researcher to
the topic of reintegration and two, by recognizing themes while also approaching
the data with the full acknowledgment that the data needed to lead the research
and not vice-versa.
Blogs
The target population for this study was blogs written by the spouse of a
service member who had completed the five phases of the deployment cycle: pre-
deployment, deployment, sustainment, re-deployment, and reintegration.
Although each phase is essential to the deployment cycle, the current study
38 38
focused on blog entries that referenced the end of deployment and thus, the
beginning of reintegration for the deployment cycle.
For appropriate blogs, convenience sampling was used based on a
combination of factors. These factors included the availability of blogs during the
time of data collection in addition to the ease of accessing these blogs. The
researcher’s personal knowledge of the U.S. Military deployment cycle assisted in
choosing the criteria for the blogs used in data collection. Although Lunenburg
and Irby (2008) cautioned that generalizations based on findings from convenience
sampling must be made judiciously because the sampling lacks breadth, the
sampling was deemed appropriate because the tenets of grounded theory first seek
depth of research. Therefore, this type of sampling was determined to be most
practical in combination with grounded theory for the purpose of building a
foundation in which other studies might replicate this research using a more
substantial number of blogs.
The original criteria used for sampling consisted of the following
parameters: (1) being a military spouse; (2) experienced a deployment cycle
ending that was documented thus marking the beginning of reintegration; and (3)
authored a blog. These criteria produced 770 blogs. To narrow the research field
to a manageable size, an additional set of criteria was added. The second set of
criteria asserted that the blogs would have a faithful following evidenced by
becoming a finalist for a blogging award from milblogging.com site administrators
for the present year, and directly referenced key words such as reintegration,
reunion, or homecoming in a minimum of 20% of the posts from the return date up
until the maximum of 1 year after return from deployment.
39 39
Data Collection
Grounded theory tenets allowed the researcher to approach this study with a
starting query: What is occurring in the blog discourse during the reintegration
phase for military spouses? Using this elementary inquiry, the researcher started a
primary search of blogs authored by those associated with the military to
determine if there were data that could be extracted. The researcher sought to
collect data from both male and female authors, but based on the abundance of
female authored blogs a decision was made to concentrate on wives’ written
experiences during the post-deployment reintegration phase. This initial search
was conducted between May 2012 and August 2012.
During the search, it was discovered that the largest Web site hosting
military blogs was www.milbloggers.com with 3,357 blogs as of May 9, 2012. At
that stage of the initial research, there was 1,374 blogs authored by spouses of a
military member who was in the midst of a deployment cycle. At this time the
researcher narrowed the number of blogs by using reintegration, homecoming, or
reunion as key words in the search engine of milbloggers.com, which produced
770 blogs, as stated earlier.
Because of the number of qualifying blogs, additional criteria were added.
The researcher thought it prudent that qualifying blogs would have posts about
topics that resonate among readers, thus have large followings. To further narrow
the number of blogs that fit the original criteria within spouse-authored blogs, the
researcher used a top 10 list created by the Web site for the purpose of bestowing
an award for the top military blogs. The award nomination was based on reader
reviews and followers.
Although there were a variety of categories such as veteran authored, U.S.
reporter authored, military supporter authored, military parent authored, and
40 40
military spouse authored, the researcher only used the spouse authored category
for data collection due to the nature of the inquiry relating to reintegration (for a
complete list of finalists in each category see Appendix B).
The category of top spouse blogs had 10 Websites listed and of the 10 blogs
selected as finalist for the spouses’ top blog award, four fulfilled the criterion of
exploring reintegration in depth by directly referencing deployment in relation to
reintegration a minimum of 20% in the timeframe of up to 1 year after the return
of their service member. The four blogs had a total of 310 posts being coded with
the initial post starting the month of the service member’s return and not extending
beyond 1 year. Two blogs were still within the first year, one blog was at 12
months, and the last blog experienced the deployment cycle in 2009. Three blogs
were written by Army wives: one-active duty and two-Army National Guard. The
fourth blog was written by a wife of a Navy reservist activated for the war in Iraq.
Three bloggers referenced children in blog posts while one was without children
during the deployment cycle. Registered followers for each blog ranged from 175
to 1,941 people. The highest percentage of posts relating to reintegration was 47%
with the lowest being 20% (see Figure 2).
The blogs were titled Witty Little Secret (WLS), The New “Normal” (NN),
Household 6 Diva (HHD), and Chambanachik (CC). The authors of the blogs
took great pains to protect the anonymity of themselves and family members. The
remaining references to the blogs will use the pseudonyms listed in Table 1.
Since the sample was relatively small, these criteria for this qualitative
research aided the researcher with the pursuit to acquire an in-depth understanding
of the selected participants from their perspective (Lunenburg & Irby, 2008) of
reintegration after a military deployment.
41 41
Figure 2. Reintegration posts
Table 1
Author Pseudonyms
Blog Title Pseudonym for Author
Witty Little Secret Jane
The New “Normal” Sue
Household 6 Diva Mary
Chambanachik Ann
0 50 100 150
Chambanachik
Household 6 Diva
The New Normal
Witty Little Secret
Time Followed in Months
Percentage of ReintegrationRelated Posts
Number of ReintegrationRelated Posts
Total Posts
42 42
Data Analysis
Based on grounded theory tenets of data analysis, CCM was used to code
data for similarities and differences. CCM has three components to coding: open
coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The three steps of coding were
documented on one instrument created by the researcher (see Appendix A).
The first step, open coding, requires the researcher to go line-by-line
through the data. This process serves two functions: 1) open coding keeps the
researcher immersed in the data, thus “we are deterred by line-by-line coding from
imposing extant theories or our own beliefs on the data” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 515);
and 2) this process helps the researcher to remain “attuned to our subjects’ views
of their realities” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 515). Open coding allows blog post
categories to be formed by grouping ideas together.
Open coding was used in this study during the original readings of each
blog entry. The first reading entailed locating a concept, the second reading
delineated categories, and the third readings’ goal was to create sub-categories.
For example, the blogger, Sue, spoke of feeling in a “funk” after the return of her
husband:
The other thing that has been driving me nuts over the past few weeks has
been a lack of organization in our finances. I was so regimented in keeping
track of our finances during the deployment, but I really have slipped with
keeping up on this now that J is home.
Based on the first reading, the researcher placed this post in a category labeled
clutter with a sub-category of finances. Finances were an area that the author
thought was unorganized since she referenced the word “regimented,” which
means complete control. Due to the nature of coding, these categories morphed
43 43
into others categories with different labels. The final category names and
definitions will be discussed in the next chapter.
Axial coding is defined as making connections between a category and any
sub-categories by including conditions that “give rise to the category, its context,
the social interactions through which it is handled, and its consequences”
(Charmaz, 2000, p. 516). Axial coding was used to ascertain the core concept;
that is, the driving force of axial coding is to find the core concept of the data. The
above post from Sue was initially compared with itself and then compared to the
other blogs for the purpose of assessing whether data saturation had been reached.
The researcher went back into the data to determine if other blog posts from Sue
spoke of other contexts when the author was feeling a lack of control. Thus, the
axial code assigned was (Re) constructing Reality. In locating the core concept,
the categories and sub-categories are linked with a common thread.
The final step of CCM is selective coding. Selective coding is defined as
directed and conceptual, thus accounting for the majority of data categorized the
most precisely. It is considered the tool used to integrate the categories discovered
in open coding to the core concept discovered by axial coding. For example,
based on the open and axial code of Sue’s post, a selective code was adjusting to
change. Change was the theoretical concept that united both the feeling of being
“driven nuts” and the behavior that rectified the situation. Selective coding acts as
the conduit used to build a theoretical bridge. Open, axial, and selective coding is
the focus of Figure 3.
44 44
Figure 3. Coding process
Methods Summary
This chapter has covered the tenets of grounded theory, and how this theory
was used to cull information from blogs. By using a military blogging Web site,
spouse authored blogs were identified through key words and chosen for this study
based on their prominence highlighted by the administrators of the Website. The
accumulated data were inserted into a graph, which illustrates the number of
posts—within a predetermined time frame—and the percentage of those posts that
were reintegration related. Next, the three-prong system of coding was defined
with some examples from the actual data. The results of this analysis will be
presented in the next chapter.
Selective Coding
Integrate, Theoretical Framework
Axial Coding
Concepts, Uncovering Relationships
Open Coding
Categories, Sub-categories, Label Raw Data
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
As stated in the previous chapters, the deployment cycle for the U.S.
military is difficult. Although each phase has its unique challenges, this study
focuses on military wives’ adjustment to post-deployment reintegration by
concentrating on the written experiences of the non-deployed wife. While
different variables concerning deployment cycle phases have been researched, a
study that addresses the specific event of reintegration from the non-deployed
wife’s viewpoint using a blog as instrumentation is unique.
The blogs used for this study were found using a blogging Website
www.milblogging.com. After using criteria to narrow the parameters for valid
blogs, four blogs were chosen: Witty Little Secret, The New “Normal,” Household
6 Diva, and Chambanachik. These four blogs cultivated 310 posts over a
combined total of 43 months detailing mundane interactions (Duck, 1994), which
refers to everyday activities, and special events that took place 8-12 months after
the homecoming, including the month of the homecoming. This includes 30, 60,
and 90-day homecoming celebrations, birthdays, and anniversaries.
This research used a qualitative design with the guiding methodology of
grounded research. Utilizing the grounded theory tenet of constant comparative
method (CCM) to code data allowed the research units to be interpreted and
placed into categories that served as markers during this study. By using the first
step of CCM, open coding, the researcher discovered both major categories and
sub-categories that emerged through the data collection. Some examples of these
categories were Idealization, (Re) constructing Reality, and Deployment Residue.
Each of the major categories and the corresponding sub-categories will be
discussed in detail, defined, and clarified with examples from the data.
46 46
The process of coding the data collected was 1) read through the first blog
in its entirety, 2) break discourse into units, 3) compare the discourse units to
similar discourse units within that same blog, and 4)compare the discourse units
from one blog to the others. There were a total of 679 discourse units discovered
using open coding techniques for data collection. For this research, a discourse
unit contained a complete thought process or event, such as when Sue discovered
her husband is back on American soil but not yet in her physical presence. She
wrote, “…our Soldier is back ‘home’ safe. A few more weeks and he will be ours
again.” At the time of this writing, the Soldier was officially in the post-
deployment phase but Sue was in between stages because her husband was out of
the war zone but they were not reunited.
Due to the nature of blogging, complete thoughts and events may extend to
more than one blog post. This happens as an author would give a glimpse toward
a future post by including a brief preview one day and a full explanation at another
time or breaking one event up into segments of retelling. One example is when
Jane told of her husband’s homecoming over three different posts titled
“Anticipation, Exhilaration, and Inauguration.” The telling of their story of
homecoming was told over the span of 10 days.
The elementary inquiries of “What common relational themes are present
during the reintegration process?” and “What hinders or helps with
communication during reintegration?” were the driving force behind the categories
formed. However, during the course of data coding the researcher found these
questions to be ineffective to guide the research inquiry so new research questions
were created. The new research questions follow: What is occurring
communicatively during the reintegration phase for the military wife? How is the
transition from non-copresence to copresence managed by the military wife?
47 47
The following will provide examples of major categories and the sub-
categories that surfaced throughout the data. The inception and use of these
categories are presented in this chapter.
Super-Categories or Themes
Idealization
Idealization (Stafford & Merolla, 2007) is punctuated by unrealistic
expectations of interactions both in behavior and relational discourse. The
distinction in this theme is imagined events such as interactions and self-
presentation, reactions to homecoming preparations, and behaviors expected upon
the service members return. An example of idealization is the desire to present
self in the best possible terms such as when Jane wrote of her desire to appear
physically flawless during a Skype conversation and suggested that certain facial
expressions will cover uneven skin: “Smiles cover blemishes.”
In addition, another feature of this theme includes the authors’ reported
perceptions of what reintegration will be like. The perception of reintegration
includes references to previously written blog posts about what the wives
remember thinking or feeling during the homecoming, reunion, and reintegration.
In other words, it represents a recall of previous posts of the events surrounding
physical proximity. The sub-categories for this major theme are idealizing marital
roles, idealizing behavior, idealizing past and idealizing future. Definitions and
examples for each sub-category are provided in Table 2.
48 48
Table 2
Idealization Results
Blogger Roles Behaviors Past Future Total Posts:
Idealization
Jane 18 19 16 21 74
Ann 21 16 18 26 81
Mary 16 11 13 3 43
Sue 14 13 7 15 49
Total 69 59 54 65 247
Idealizing marital roles. This sub-category refers to who the wives believe
their husbands to be and ideals about themselves. They report choosing to
acknowledge one characteristic while ignoring another equally apparent
characteristic, such as talking about cropping a picture of a husband in uniform
because the wife does not want to think about the “military” aspect. Another
example was when one wife wrote about picturing her husband in his naval
uniform when he was really wearing an Army uniform because of his current
mission. Idealizing marital roles also address the subject of self-presentation
where a wife wrote of desiring to offer an overly positive picture of herself to her
spouse after reading a blog post that gave tips on how to look good on Skype using
different lighting and angles. The blog post suggests that a person place herself
below the camera so that she is looking upward, which serves to minimize the
effects of gravity and to use a bright light to backlight the Skyper so that the
camera in the computer focuses on objects that have more resolution.
Some wives hoped to share tips in a humorous manner, while another
shared a serious suggestion to aid in keeping the service member focused on the
job at hand. Mary’s number 1 rule was to maintain “HomeSec” or Home Security,
49 49
which is a play on the military acronym of OPSEC, or operational security.
HomeSec refers to Mary’s rules: 1) to not cry while on Skype, and 2) be “aware of
what you tell your husband downrange because telling him about how frustrated
you are about something he can’t fix will only make him frustrated.” This shows
Mary sought to both preserve her integrity of being able to handle the home front
while her husband was deployed and also posited that her husband might not be
able to process home front issues without losing focus of his job. This exchange
illustrates role expectations both for and about this wife.
Idealizing behaviors. The idealizing behavior sub-category was defined by
the wives’ desires to have a certain kind of interaction. Many of the discursive
units placed in this sub-category were in reference to relational actions that require
being enacted by both relational partners such as discarding electronics once the
deployment is over as Ann stated because “we won’t have to use those to talk,” or
imagining what having two parents in the house will feel like. Sue stated, “I will
get to come home to peaceful, sweet kids and dinner made” and another wrote, “I
will have time to play instead of being in ‘deployment mode’ all the time.” Ideal
behaviors also referenced a return to “normal” which was surmised as reference to
life before the deployment, like being able to have time to engage in activities that
do not require coordinating care of the children with others. For example, Sue
stated a desire to “just to catch up with friends and read other blogs” once her
husband was home.
Idealizing the past. The definition of idealizing the past consisted of
positive memories or euphoric recall, which is a habit of only remembering the
good times and minimizing any negative interactions. Idealizing the past occurred
when a wife would ruminate about when she last saw her husband, when a wife
50 50
spoke of a particularly wonderful event in the past like a wedding, anniversary
celebration, or a wife writing of times when a husband was being a tolerant father
to the children such as when Mary wrote, “the kids climb all over him when he
comes home but it doesn’t bother him.”
Blog posts about a special past relational event are another way wives
idealized the past. One wife wrote of how her husband used to fix her coffee
every morning before he left for deployment but when he left she stated, “I look at
the coffee maker like I don’t know what to do to make coffee,” and another wrote
of how her husband would have fixed pancakes for the children while letting her
sleep in on the mornings she was really tired stating “how I would love to sleep in
but I have to get up and fix the kiddos breakfast.”
Idealizing the past is distinctive from idealizing behavior because it is not
imagined; the event once was, and is now being crystallized by selective memory.
The discourse units placed under idealizing the past were similar to rituals (see
(Re) constructing Reality) in that these events are special in regard to the couples’
relational culture but different because these acts were not acknowledged as
“special” until the absence of the behavior. In other words, ruminations of the past
become idealized through recalling the event as special only after a period of non-
copresence and without a tempering of both the positive and the negative within
the relational culture.
Idealizing the future. Twenty-one of the discursive units specifically
addressed the reunion, that is, the physical proximity of the post-deployment
phase. The extent in which the wives took time to write of this event warranted a
sub-category of its own. Some of the topics placed in this sub-category were
desiring to look a certain way for the first interaction with their husband, what
51 51
they or the children would wear to the home coming, expectations as to the
husbands’ reaction to preparations for homecoming (i.e., cookies, flag placement,
bathroom remodel, growth of the kids, change of weight, reaction to facial
wrinkles), and imagining how they would greet each other. For example, Ann
wrote “I will, walk, or dance, or run to him.” Another example was when Jane
wrote of her husband telling her that he did not want his homecoming to be a “big
deal” so Jane projected what her husband might consider “a big deal” so that she
could avoid irritating him. In this example, while Jane was writing about what she
was going to do suggested that she was expecting a certain attitude from her
husband if his wishes were disregarded.
Within this sub-category of idealized future events, reunion expectations
could have been further sub-categorized based on the different aspects of the
reunion such as: the first sighting of the loved one, the first words spoken to each
other, or first time in the home after the deployment. The researcher chose to
make these expectations one category because the sample size of four blogs did
not cull enough information from these posts to represent these events with justice.
Therefore, one category relating to idealizing future events was created which
included all aspects of reunion expectations.
The number of discursive units attributed to each blog author under each
sub-category is indicated in Table 2 (p. 47).
In sum, the theme of Idealization was defined and broken into sub-
categories. The category had four sub-categories that were associated with this
super-category: roles, behaviors, past, and future. Actual data were used as
illustrations for each sub-category. The category of Idealization had the second
most units associated with it when compared with the other categories.
52 52
While compiling the data for Idealization, the research revealed the highest
number of discursive units was assigned to Ann. Interestingly, Ann’s relationship
was the newest and she was the youngest among the wives and the only one
without children. The wife with the least discursive units was Mary. At the time
this study was conducted, Mary had experienced four deployment cycles with her
husband, was the only active duty wife, and had the most children. Many of the
blog posts for those with children, noted activities done for the children and
energy spent on the children. While the wives with children would mention
activities such as baking or school work, Jane was the only one to use her
interaction with her children as a muse for writing about her imagined interactions
with her husband. An example would include projecting an expectation she has
for her husband on behalf of her children like discussing her son experiencing
“hero worship” for his dad even though he never alluded to that; instead it was
how she felt about her own father coming home from deployment.
Each wife had a support system they reference but of the four wives, Ann
was the only one not associated with a spouses’ club or other military sponsored
group, leaving the researcher to surmise that her support system might be
unfamiliar with the deployment cycle therefore might account for particular
idealizations she engaged in. According to the blog posts of the other wives, each
made reference to some sort of support network of military origin except Ann.
The lack of information about a support network could indicate the lack of support
regarding military deployment issues such as role expectations therefore enabling
Ann to create more units of idealization about her service member. In the absence
of information, research indicates the wives filled in the open space with
imaginings.
53 53
Other observations derived from the raw data include the confirmation that
idealization is a part of the wives relational maintenance techniques during non-
copresence. The assumption that idealization becomes a problem for a long-
distance couple during copresence will be discussed in the next chapter along with
further discussion on these findings.
(Re) constructing Reality
The term (Re) constructing Reality comes from the idea of constitutive
rules. Relational cultures are created and sustained subjectively and through
communication (Wood, 2000). A facet of these cultures are constitutive rules
which emerge from a couple’s reciprocal influence and they serve to define and
regulate new forms of behavior by indicating what particular behavior “counts as”
(Hindriks, 2009). (Re) constructing Reality defines actual behavior wives report
using as ways to define the relationship itself or characteristics of the relationship.
For example, loading the dishes in the dishwasher was seen by one wife as an
example of a loving gesture thereby symbolizing an act of caretaking yet another
wife felt displaced because she had associated loading the dishwasher as her
domain leading her to question her identity by writing, “who am I?” referring to
her role in the relationship now that her husband was home. In other words, the
participants assign the meaning of any act. Examples of sub-categories that were
placed under this theme are listed and explained in the subsequent section. Each
section is defined and illustrated with samples collected from the data.
Rituals. The sub-category of rituals refers to communicative acts that help
establish or show what counts as a unique relational culture (Bruess & Pearson,
1997, 2002). The defining aspect in this sub-category were behaviors that were
jointly constructed and enacted in order to build or sustain a relational culture
54 54
between the two relational partners. For this research, only reoccurring
communicative acts were considered rituals. Rituals were identified “as a
sequence of symbolic, communicative acts that pay homage to an object that is
sacred, such as a relationship, a person” (Bruess & Pearson, 2002, p. 315). Rituals
are acknowledged to create and perpetuate interpersonal relationships by
providing a shared history (Bruess & Pearson, 2002). An example of a ritual for
these data is when a husband would make and serve coffee to the wife in bed each
morning, she would bat her eyelashes and the couple would engage in a brief
conversation that was repeated each morning. She would say, “Thanks for making
my coffee” and he would reply with “It’s my job.”
Each wife identified communicative exchanges like the one above, yet
some were much more subtle, such as when a wife talked about finding notes from
her husband after he deployed. The notes being left in unexpected places started
during their first deployment. This served as a reminder of the husband while they
were physically separated. The act of leaving notes spanned time and distance for
this couple because it was unique to their relational culture. The ritual in the first
example takes place during copresence yet the second example happens during
non-copresence indicating rituals can be enacted at any time as long as they have
symbolic meaning assigned to them by the partners.
Another example of a relational ritual was the act of cleaning the house
together after a deployment. The wife stated when the husband returns from
training, one of the first things he does is clean the house. At first she felt hurt, as
if she were an inadequate housekeeper. However, her husband told her that
cleaning was a way he found to help her and alleviate some of his guilt about
being away. The wife writes, “He knows I am busy with the kids while he is
gone.” This qualifies as a ritual because it involves both the communicative act of
55 55
cleaning and a verbal exchange as to the reasoning behind the act. The action of
cleaning was symbolically relevant because (1) this behavior at first produced hurt
feeling but was rectified through discourse, (2) it was done together, (3) it
meaning assigned to the cleaning was an act of caretaking, and (4) it symbolized a
return after a time of non-copresence.
New behaviors. New behaviors that were not present at the beginning of the
deployment cycle but became present after deployment were placed in this sub-
category. This sub-category indicated behaviors that were previously unfamiliar
to the wife, such as “date night.” One wife spoke of her husband bringing the idea
of “getting out together without kids” as something they have started doing since
his return. Another wife wrote about her desire to have the laundry done before
the weekend so the family would have more “downtime” together.
Some new behaviors represented change that was seen positively by the
wife and other behaviors challenged pre-deployment relational rules. An example
of this would be when one wife discovered her husband started to smoke a hookah
while overseas and wanted her to participate. At first this behavior was unfamiliar
to the wife and placed her in a difficult moral position based on what she
conjectured would be other’s perception of the behavior; yet in a much later blog
post the wife credits the action of smoking the hookah together as helping with the
reintegration process.
Behaviors the wife considered as honeymoon behavior were also placed in
this category. This encompassed behaviors that might be exhibited when one is
trying to impress or avoid anything that might ruin a good mood such as a
disagreement. For example, one wife wrote that she is perfectly happy because
her family is not experiencing any “road bumps and the reintegration has been
56 56
seamless,” yet in the next sentence she acknowledges that “this is probably the
‘honeymoon’ phase they talk about in the brief but I don’t care, it feels perfect
now.”
While new behaviors can be positive for the couple, there are also ones that
have a negative effect on the relational culture. For example one wife contrasted
pre-deployment behavior with post-deployment behavior writing, “I used to cook
and my husband would clean but now he just sits and waits for the dishes to pile
up.” This would be an example of assigning meaning to the new action of the
husband, thus serving to reconstruct the relational culture.
While this behavior indicates a negative response from the writer, the
majority of the discursive units were value neutral; simply meaning the wife noted
a change. For example, a value neutral communicative act was when a returning
husband got into the passenger side of the car while the wife was holding the car
keys. The wife simple noted the behavior as something new but did not attribute a
positive or negative sentiment to the behavior; she just noted the change as a
before and after deployment behavior. This behavior was not placed under rituals
because the behavior was new and had not been assigned a meaning, nor was the
behavior repetitive.
Reverting to old routines. This sub-category of (Re) constructing Reality
had behaviors that were present before the deployment cycle yet seemed to
disappear during the beginning of the post-deployment phase only to resurface
again at a later time. In each of these units the wife gave a precise indication that
a behavior exhibited by a husband was familiar, such as referring to the time
where the behavior has seemingly disappeared: “the ‘honeymoon [phase]’ is over”
Referring to the time where overly polite behavior was being used. Another
57 57
blogger wrote, “Seeing his socks lay beside the hamper made me smile when he
first came home,” indicating that behavior was no longer smile inducing but
familiar.
Yet, not all discursive units were negative in nature. Some indicated that a
feeling of “normal” was returning with the old routines being enacted again. One
wife stated that she had a feeling of peace “to see her husband mowing the lawn”
and another commented that she knew her husband was home because “there are
batteries of every size in the house.” This same wife said that, “she remembered
that his job was to ‘fix’ things, he is a problem solver.” In addition to behaviors,
feelings that had been dormant during the deployment resurfaced. Examples of
this was a wife writing, “I sleep relaxed knowing he [her husband] is home,” while
another wrote of “parenting with a partner,” and yet another wrote of “the comfort
of routine.”
Meta-talk of reintegration. Meta-talk of reintegration served to report on the
sub-categories of ritual, new behaviors, and reverting to old routines by
specifically addressed the reintegration phase of post-deployment. Each wife
referred to reintegration as something necessary to go through as a military wife,
similar to a gauntlet. Reintegration was never referred to with positive sentiment
or eager anticipation. There were no value neutral units. Instead, each time a wife
wrote of anything having to do with reintegration, it was negative. When a wife
referred to the post-deployment phase as a positive or value neutral statement, the
process or phase was called homecoming or reunion. One wife wrote of the
reintegration as an analogy, stating that she felt she was in “fish-infested waters,”
not knowing if the fish was a shark or something less dangerous but feeling uneasy
either way. This same wife asked a rhetorical question, “Why is reintegration so
58 58
hard?” Another wife wrote of “feeling out of control” because the established
routine was being adjusted thus writing “change is not easy.”
Yet another wife wrote of the same issue of change, titling a blog post
“post-deployment…the real picture,” and went on to state feeling “out of control”
referencing the changes in the family system. At first she was fine with the
newness of behaviors but now desired to have a system in place that was familiar.
This same wife wrote the initial homecoming behavior was a “fairy-tale” but now
“reality has set in” asserting “we get into fights over inconsequential things”
further stating that “they had a groove when he was away” but now “it isn’t the
same, easy relationship”. The presence of this unit suggests feeling “out of
control” is not only a function of her husband returning, but also a function of him
returning differently than she had anticipated. The “inconsequential”
disagreements are an aftereffect of renegotiating the household system.
An archetypical quote for this category starts with an expectation of what a
wife thought would be a wonderful event (her husband’s return) yet ends as
something very different as evidenced when she wrote, “homecoming isn’t the pill
that cures deployment” indicating that because copresence was achieved, it does
not indicate the deployment cycle is over. Another example that alluded to the
same thought process was when this same author wrote, “be careful what you wish
for.” The context of these statements was not to indicate regret of the
homecoming or reunion; instead she felt as if she had set herself up for
disappointment by expecting one thing and getting another.
The number of units attributed to each blog author under each sub-category
is indicated in Table 3.
59 59
Table 3
(Re) Constructing Reality Results
Blogger
Rituals
New Communicative
Acts
Reverting
to Old
Routines
Meta-talk of
Reintegration
Total Posts: (Re)
Constructing
Reality
Jane 18 22 33 29 102
Ann 2 14 10 10 36
Mary 19 6 12 15 52
Sue 9 20 35 26 90
Total 48 62 90 80 280
In sum, the theme (Re) constructing Reality had four sub-categories: rituals,
new behaviors, reverting to old routines, and meta-talk of reintegration. Each sub-
category, after being defined, was elaborated upon through examples from the
data. Ritual, new behaviors, and reverting to old routines reported on the
(re)construction of the relational culture after a period of non-copresence while the
sub-category of meta-talk of reintegration served to report on the sub-categories
themselves.
The data revealed some interesting patterns. Ann, who had the newest
relationship, had the least amount of (Re) constructing Reality units assigned to
her. This might be a function of not having time in the relationship to (re)establish
rituals or being able to identify reverting to old routines. Ann’s pattern shows the
most units that were assigned to her were in the sub-category of new
communicative acts. A reason this pattern might have emerged is due to the lack
of knowledge of old routines based on the newness of the relationship, thus
indicated the highest number being in new communicative acts.
In the sub-category of rituals, the two wives that had the highest number
had both experienced a deployment cycle before this current one. As a result of
60 60
experiencing a deployment cycle these wives may be more sensitive to acts of
caretaking that had previously been assigned meaning. The relational culture had
allowed for the development and nurturing of rituals. It is interesting to note that
the wife who experienced three previous deployment cycles recognized and noted
rituals that occur during non-copresence while the other wife sought to recognize
rituals that indicated a relational culture of copresence.
The highest amount of units fell within the sub-category of reverting to old
routines. Based on this high number, in comparison to the other sub-categories,
reverting to old routines might indicate these acts were noted because they were
familiar to the relational culture and therefore indicated recognition of a history.
The post-deployment phase has been indicated, by the military, as disruptive; this
might explain the amount of comments about feeling out of control. Yet, it is
noteworthy to acknowledge feelings of being out of control made discovering the
familiar seem important to the wives. There was tension created when the
Idealizing units were juxtaposed with (Re) constructing Reality units that
produced a noteworthy communicative event indicating the start of renegotiation
of the relational culture and particularly the place of identity within the relational
culture. Relational tension was reported on by talk of the disruption in the
relational culture and also in the relief exhibited when recognition of the familiar
occurred.
The report on, or meta-talk of, the event of reintegration produced the
second highest number of units assigned for (Re) constructing Reality. The results
in this category could be skewed because of the criteria used in this study. The
qualifying blogs had a minimum of 20% of the posts referencing reintegration,
reunion, or homecoming. The sampling technique used to locate these blogs made
evidence of talking about reintegration a priority therefore nullifying the number
61 61
of discourse units as a reliable indication of the difficulty of reintegration; yet the
presence of the units justifies the need for further inquiry.
This theme contained the greatest number of discursive units among the
three super-categories presented in this chapter. Further discussion on these
finding will be presented in the next chapter.
Deployment Residue
Residue refers to that which is left behind after an event or interaction
(Stafford & Merolla, 2007); for this study the event was the deployment cycle.
Therefore, this super-category was labeled Deployment Residue. Deployment
Residue indicated units that were both emotional and reactive. An example of
some reactive behaviors were writing that indicated a response, such as “feeling
like it is hard to breathe” when faced with other times of non-copresence or a
reaction of labeling deployment as “The ‘D’ word.” In relation to emotions, the
deployment cycle leaves an impression; both positive and negative, but there were
no blog posts that suggested the household routines or people ever stayed the same
or unaffected. There were three sub-categories under Deployment Residue:
identity transition, deployment memories, and benefit/ detriment.
Identity transition. This sub-category represents a change of identity after
experiencing a deployment cycle. Sue, having finished the first four phases of the
deployment cycle, referred to herself as a “deployment veteran” which signaled a
change in how she saw herself, thus affecting her identity. Another wife talked
about her ability to carry on through the deployment cycle when she wrote “we
made it” referring to what the researcher assumed she considering the hardest part
of the deployment cycle—the physical separation. Another wrote of subsisting
while her husband was gone but clearly felt relief when he returned home when
62 62
she wrote “we survived.” An additional discovery was an acknowledgement of
having endured a deployment cycle placed the non-deployed spouse into a
particular sub-set of military wives of those who have and have not experienced
deployment. Mary’s identity was associated with the amount of deployment
cycles she has been through alluding to the responsibility to aid others through the
process based on her experience, a subtle hierarchy that is unwritten but
acknowledged.
Deployment memories. Comments that were placed in this category were
ruminations of past deployment experiences. Two of the four wives had
experienced other deployments; both relied on their deployment memories to
frame their current circumstances. A wife that had experience deployment cycles
as a child used memories to inform readers about her experiences from a child’s
mind. Statements included, “local business marquees welcomed home the unit,”
and “I remember how I felt when the days trickled down to my father’s arrival”
and then used those memories to give a different perspective with her current
situation as a spouse. She stated ideas that did not cross her mind as a child but
were present as an adult like “in true military form; we don’t have a return date.”
This wife’s ability to bridge her feelings about deployments from a child’s view to
her adult view served as deployment memories that left an impression, thus
constituting Deployment Residue.
Benefits/detriment. The first part of this sub-category—benefits—was
discourse that contained clues to being in a better place after the deployment cycle
than before the deployment cycle. Statements such as, “this is the best Christmas
I’ve had because we are together,” showed an appreciation for togetherness
because the wife had experienced being alone but could now appreciate
63 63
copresence better than before the deployment. Initially this wife had anticipated
spending the holiday season without her husband but when his unit returned home
early she was able to see a contrast with being together as opposed to what she
thought her holiday would entail, being alone. The idiom of “you don’t know
what you’ve got until it’s gone” would fit within this category relating to the
physical presence of her husband in contrast to his absence. Other benefits were
evident that dealt with the practical aspect of deployment.
One practical aspect of the deployment cycle is financial. Deployment
offers the opportunity to make extra wages due to dangerous conditions; called
combat duty pay. While this is a pay increase for even active duty military
personnel, it becomes an even bigger benefit for those that are in the reserves.
Those that are reservist only rate the military pay while performing military duties,
otherwise they are paid by their civilian job. For one wife, her husband had a job
in the construction industry so the pay came when work was available. For this
family, the deployment cycle offered an opportunity to get ahead with the bills
was evident when she wrote, “This deployment brought financial security.”
Other benefits of the deployment cycle were noted by blog authors that
suggested communication changes benefited the relationship such: “we learned
how to communicate on a different level.” That wife went on to acknowledge the
difficulty of the deployment cycle but countered it with, “I wouldn’t have wanted
this life to be any other way,” because she recognized the benefits that this
circumstance presented by using the time to engage in activities like running, and
traveling with the kids. During the deployment cycle she noted that she gained a
sense of independence. Yet whenever a benefit to the deployment was expressed
many times it was connected with a negative qualify usually about the
deployment. These were labeled a detriment.
64 64
The blog discourse that suggested a negative effect from the deployment
was counted as a detriment. Written posts that alluded to negative aspects such as
anxiety were common. Statements of “I don’t want him to be away from us,”
“this is the hardest part of this life, their dad missing big nights,” or when a mother
wrote about comforting her children when they realize dad might leave again.
One writer referred to deployment as “The ‘D’ Word,” which reflects the powerful
negative feeling that was left after experiencing her first deployment cycle.
As stated earlier, the tension between the deployment benefits and the
negative comments about the deployment came in secession to each other. If a
negative aspect of the deployment cycle was referred to many times it was framed
by also stating a positive. The units were so closely related in numbers that the
researcher was lead to view them in relation to one another. While the units were
separated for Table 4, they will be discussed in the next chapter as one sub-
category.
Table 4
Deployment Residue Results
Blogger
Identity
Transition
Deployment
Memories
Benefits
Detriment
Total:
Deployment
Residue
Jane 3 9 11 19 42
Ann 1 0 3 11 15
Mary 3 16 19 15 53
Sue 8 0 18 16 42
Total 15 25 51 61 152
65 65
In sum, each wife wrote of aspects of the deployment cycle in both positive
and negative terms. The theme of deployment residue had three sub-categories:
identity transition, deployment memories, and benefits/detriment.
The sub-category of identity transition had the least amount of units
assigned but even those wives that had experienced a previous deployment cycle
note the change of status after a deployment cycle. The two wives that had never
experienced a deployment cycle noted a change in identity because they had
finished what they thought would be the hardest part—the separation. The two
wives that had intimate knowledge of the deployment cycle commented on the
phases they had experienced and those that were to come.
It came as no surprise that deployment memories were only experienced by
the two wives that had experienced a previous deployment cycle but that both of
these wives referenced their past experiences were noteworthy. The deployment
veterans generally wrote about their experiences as an encouragement to help
others experiencing the deployment cycle.
Ann was the only wife who had a single digit amount of units assigned to
benefits. The results in this sub-category might be a consequence of lacking a
military support system, as stated earlier. Ann also had a brother deployed at the
same time as her husband so she experienced the deployment on two different
levels: 1) as a spouse, and 2) an older sister.
The most telling of the sub-categories was detriment. The discursive units
placed under this part of the sub-category of benefits/detriment were the most in
the theme of Deployment Residue. This is an indication that deployment is
generally not looked upon as pleasant or easy. While the second highest
discursive units were benefits, the nature of the blog posts lead the researcher to
believe listing benefits was a way to counteract the detriments of the deployment
66 66
cycle. For an example, when a deployment benefit was mentioned it was in
correlation with a detriment. Benefits were never just stated and left to stand-
alone yet detriment discourse units were not subject to a connecting benefits
discursive unit. The data produced in both benefits and detriments lead the
researcher to believe that the deployment cycle is a turning point in the couples’
relational culture. As evidence of a relational turning point each wife noted
changes in the relationship from before and after the deployment cycle. The wives
that were new to the deployment cycle noted more explicitly how reintegration
had affected and was affecting them while the deployment cycle veterans subtly
noted differences, Mary especially seemed to expect change whereas the other
wives seems surprised by the changes in the relational culture.
The discourse units in the Deployment Residue category were the least
represented out of the main themes. Elaboration of these data will be discussed in
the next chapter.
Results Summary
This chapter contained the process and reasoning behind the researcher’s
open coding procedure, the sub-category names from axial coding, and the major
themes that tied the sub-categories together, or the selective coding process.
Categories and the related sub-categories were defined and data retrieved from the
actual blogs was presented in order to illustrate the semantic nuances of each sub-
category and the differences between the super-categories.
The first super-category or theme was Idealization with sub-categories of:
idealizing marital roles, idealizing behaviors, idealizing the past, and idealizing the
future. The second super-category or theme was (Re) constructing Reality with the
sub-categories of: rituals, new behaviors, reverting to old routines, and meta-talk
67 67
of reintegration. The final theme was Deployment Residue with the sub-
categories of: identity transition, deployment memories, and benefits/detriment.
Each section contained a table that listed the sub-categories and the number of
discourse units assigned to each blog author for each sub-category.
The next chapter includes a discussion about the data collected, in addition
to concepts and relationships discovered between the categories, and the
implications for these findings. In addition to the findings within these data, the
limitations of the current study and recommendations for further research are
presented in the following chapter.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In the introduction to this study, I relayed information about the major
concerns service members express during deployment especially their fear of
losing an important relationship during deployment. I showed that certain
information on the experiences of military spouses during deployment was
unaddressed, in spite of the fact that the wives do reveal a shift in the relational
culture post-deployment when their military member returns home from
deployment. Based on this information the original research questions were
changed to: “What is occurring communicatively during the reintegration phase
for these military wives?” and “How is the transition from non-copresence
(deployment) to copresence (reintegration) managed by these military wives?”
Blogs written by military spouses offered an underutilized research tool in
gathering data to ascertain communicative patterns during a specific timeframe—
reintegration. Research in communication has only touched on couple
communication during the deployment phase, spousal support systems during
deployment, and communicative practices that help children during reintegration
leaving non-deployed spousal relational events during reintegration unexplored.
This study sought to rectify this situation by examining military spouses’ writing
from their personal Weblogs about the reintegration phase during post-
deployment.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the major findings based on data
collection of four military wives’ blog entries. Second, practical application for
military literature is addressed in addition to the limitations of this study. Lastly,
suggestions for future research are discussed and final comments are offered.
69 69
Discussion of the Findings
Results were based on the categorizing of blog entries into super-categories
or themes, categories, and sub-categories addressing the relational event of
reintegration; when a couple goes from non-copresence (i.e., deployment) to
copresence (i.e., reintegration). The complexity of transitioning from a long-
distance relationship to copresence is evident in the writings of the military wives’
blogs. While the U.S. Military has placed a label of “reintegration” on the last
phase of the deployment cycle, research in communication and the findings of this
study would suggest this process is more multifaceted and complex than the one
word of “reintegration” acknowledges. The diagram below includes the interplay
between the three major themes: Idealization, (Re) constructing Reality, and
Deployment Residue that constitutes reintegration based on the findings of this
study (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Reintegration
Idealization
(Re) constructing
Reality
Deployment Residue
70 70
Idealization: “Smiles Cover Blemishes”
The theme of Idealization captured the wives’ unrealistic expectation of
interactions with their husbands. The events covered within this theme are the
work of imagination. I will discuss the implications of the results for this theme
by discussing ways in which the wives engaged in idealization and the effect
idealization had on their intimate relationship. Idealization captured examples of
idealizations used by the wife during times of non-copresence.
While being geographically separated from their service member, the wives
invoked idealization as a relational maintenance strategy. I will discuss the
implications of my results in this area by further discussing the three paths used
for idealization and how idealization served as a relational maintenance strategy.
Idealization paths. Although Duck (1994) argues that every day talk “is
the essence of relationships” (p. 11), there is a contradiction with this assertion in
regard to relationships that experience non-copresence and when every day, face-
to-face (FtF) talk is difficult. Long-distance relational (LDR) partners conduct the
majority of interactions via computer mediated communication (CMC) which
enables partners to engage in idealized impression management (Dainton & Aylor,
2002). Sahlstein (2004) asserted that LDR partners reported less conflict and
higher quality interactions when experiencing brief periods of copresence and
stated that this is due to idealization during non-copresence. Stafford and Merolla
(2007) contended that “idealization stems from FtF interaction deficits” (p. 38)
and it is “plausible that the avoidance of conflict perpetuates idealization” (p. 40).
Interaction deficits are seen when the relational partners have gaps in their
knowledge of behavior based on limited contact. Because of limited contact an
interpretation of how a situation might be handled is more readily created. Many
71 71
times a past reaction serves to inform a current situation. Research reveals that the
past reaction drawn upon involves being conflict-free, such as in the beginning of
a relationship when the partners are seeking to present themselves in a good light.
During non-copresence idealization occurs via three paths: selective self-
presentation, cognitive idealization, and behavioral idealization. Evidence of the
three routes of idealizations was present in this study.
The first route of idealization is “selective self-presentation.” Goffman
(2012) asserted people will attempt to present themselves in the best possible
manner and Rabby (2007) stated that selective self-presentation is more likely to
occur with CMC than with other types of communication such as letters or phone
calls. This would suggest that because of the frequent non-copresence, CMC
occurs more frequently than other types of communication with military couples,
thus providing ample opportunity to engage in selective self-presentation. Positive
management for traditional relationships might include addressing personal
hygiene but for couples that do not share the same physical space, management
includes the impression left for the other relational partner, such as when Jane and
Mary sought to manage an encounter with their husbands by using selective self-
presentation.
While engaging in a video call, Jane notices the picture of her in the corner
of the computer and laments in her blog post that her husband never calls when
she is dressed nice for work or about to go out to a dinner party but consistently
calls when she feels she looks her worst. As a response to feeling unattractive
Jane writes about managing her appearance during Skype calls with seeking to
minimize lines, wrinkles, and blemishes. While Jane sought a personal physical
impression management, Mary placed the computer in a space where the rules for
Skype conversations are seen by only her and not her husband. These rules
72 72
include how to discuss the events of the day, making sure to frame communication
in positive terms, and a reminder to not bring up situations that cannot be solved
by the service member. These Skype rules are in place to manage self-
presentation in terms of circumstantial capabilities.
The second route to idealization is “cognitive idealization.” An aspect of
cognitive idealization is reminiscent thinking; many times one partner perceives
agreement about the relationship that is reflective of “heightened romanticism”
(Stafford & Merolla, 2007, p. 39). The field of psychology refers to this as
“positive illusions” (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a) and posited this as a
strategy to counteract uncertainty in romantic relationships. Many of Ann’s
writings had a romanticized feel to them. Every blog post started with a literary
quote or a song verse about relationships. The style in which Ann wrote was
reminiscent of prose, seeing both herself and her husband as fulfilling a role.
Once such literary quote that started a blog post was by Emily Bronte stating,
“Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.” Also during an
earlier post Ann speaks of “love at first sight” and how this was the way she felt
about her husband, characterizing him as moving like “a dancer in a 1930s movie
musical.”
The final path to idealization is “behavioral idealization.” When partners
are prohibited from having access to “each other’s complete behavioral repertoire”
(Miller et al., 2003) they may idealize behaviors from the early stages of their
relationship (Stafford & Merolla, 2007, p. 40). Sue, for example, wrote a blog
post discussing idealized behavior that would take place once her husband was
home, stating her desire to come home after work “to peaceful, sweet kids and
dinner made.” This idealized behavior is projected on both the children, being
“peaceful” and “sweet,” and to her husband having “dinner made.” The behavior
73 73
of having dinner made was reminiscent of behavior that took place before J’s unit
was called to deploy. Sue’s husband J worked construction at a family business
before he was deployed so based on the construction industry, often he would have
dinner ready when Sue came home from her job. Sue engaged in idealization
based on “what was” instead of “what is.”
The Idealization theme covered idealization of roles, behaviors, the past,
and the future and the theme that ties each of the sub-categories together entail an
aspect of imaginings. The imagining could inform the wives of the future while
ruminating on the past or cognitively solidifying roles through past behaviors
reminiscent of the beginning of the romantic relationship. For example, Sue seeks
to share in parenting duties, Ann imagines the appearance of her husband, Mary
want her husband to see she can handle the challenges of single parenting, and
Jane wants to appear physically beautiful invoking youthful images for her
husband.
These military wives engaged in idealization while experiencing physical
separation or non-copresence. A motivation for idealization is said to be blocked
communication (Stafford & Reske, 1990). Blocked communication occurs when a
partner is restricted from full access to the relational partner and are called
“interaction deficits” (Stafford & Merolla, 2007) in the relationship. Interaction
deficits are filled with imagined interactions which are often derived from
idealization. Stafford and Reske (1990) stated that idealization occurs more
frequently during the beginning phases of a romantic relationship and decreases
through increased contact. Taking the position that infrequent contact in the
beginning phase of a romantic relationship increases the chances of idealizing the
other, Stafford and Reske posited that long-distance pre-marital couples would
engage in “maintenance of idealization” (p.274) while apart.
74 74
Idealization as relational maintenance. While relational maintenance has
been the subject of many communication studies, Tong and Walther (2011)
suggested that relational maintenance and CMC should be reexamined in
conjunction with Stafford and Canary’s (1991) typology. Research performed by
Tong and Walther (2011) suggested that the behaviors of positivity, openness,
assurances, sharing tasks, and networks are complicated by CMC. As an example,
Tong and Walther (2011) found openness “to be negatively associated with
relational characteristics” (p. 19) but with CMC, openness was performed most
frequently followed by positivity. Creating a relational maintenance typology that
includes unique cultural aspects such as a long-distance relationship would present
idealization as a maintenance strategy during non-co-presence. Idealization has
shown to help maintain positivity while being non-copresent and with limited FtF
time such as with Skype. The function idealization serves as a relational
maintenance strategy is presented using the wives situations that were referenced
previously.
Although Jane desired to look her best during a Skype session as a self-
presentation strategy and communication research presents self-presentation as a
behavior that promotes “self” not dyadic relations (Dainton & Aylor, 2001, 2002)
in LDRs, self-presentation, and by extension idealization, is a relational
maintenance action. According to researchers, putting the best self forward during
times of non-copresence is a maintenance strategy (Merolla, 2010a; Stafford &
Merolla, 2007). Mary used self-presentation of having control over household
issues to assure her husband that he need not concentrate on home front issues but
instead concentrate on his military job.
Ann sought to maintain the relationship through romantic ruminations. The
choice to think of her husband in positive terms while experiencing non-
75 75
copresence assisted Ann in attributing positive features to the relationship despite
the distance and lack of communication. Murray et al. (1996a) stated “seeing
relationships in the best possible light…is a critical feature of satisfying, stable
relationships” (p. 600).
Sue used past memories to inform future interactions as a way to maintain
her relationship through idealization. Stafford and Reske (1990) posited that
idealization “may be necessary [as] an important positive element” (p. 279) for
certain aspects of a relationship. Sue ruminated about the day when her husband
would be home to help her with parental and house hold duties. These thoughts
helped Sue remain steadfast throughout the deployment. This idealization served
to sustain the idea of a relational partner, thus serving as relational maintenance.
Idealization has been shown to occur via three paths: selective self-
presentation, cognitive idealization, and behavioral idealization. Within this study
there is evidence that each of these paths to idealization were incorporated into the
lives of the non-deployed military wife. In addition to engaging in idealization, it
is posited that idealization was beneficial and served as a relational maintenance
strategy while being geographically separated.
Idealization was addressed first in this discussion in order to render a
picture of what has occurred before the reintegration phase of post deployment.
The events for (Re) constructing Reality occurred after the husband returned
home.
(Re)constructing Reality: “Who am I?”
The theme of (Re) constructing Reality captured the wives’ impressions of
actual events. The events discussed within this theme were assigned meaning by
the wives as a way to describe both the changes and sameness within the
76 76
relationship after deployment. Each wife struggled to make sense of the
reintegration process by documenting both changes and sameness within the
relationship. I will discuss the implications of the results for this theme by
discussing relational rituals, symbolic activities, meta-talk, and dialectics.
(Re)constructing Reality captured the process of negotiating structure, practices,
and dynamics in the relational culture that have changed based on experiencing
non-copresence for a substantial amount of time. In addition, I will discuss how
Idealization juxtaposed with (Re) constructing Reality reveals a dialectical tension
as a dynamic within the relational culture.
Relational rituals. The first sub-category, rituals, and contained events
instituted before the deployment cycle began, worked to create a relational
environment that both partners recognized as special. Bruess and Pearson (2002)
wrote that rituals are important to relational culture by “giving members both a
shared history and a foundation for the future” (p. 315). Rituals serve a function
in the development and maintenance of the couple relationship (Bruess & Pearson,
1997, 2002).
Bruess and Pearson (2002) research on marriage and friendship rituals
revealed that rituals functioned differently in marriages than in friendships. While
rituals were seen to contribute to relational maintenance “by serving to make
marriages and friendships happier…and for simply providing activities which
make relationships last longer” (p. 323) there are small differences between
friendship and marriage rituals. The main difference occurs in the reasoning
behind engaging in the ritual itself; friendship rituals serve to sustain the
individual within the friendship and rituals in marriage are seen as building and
sustaining the connection of the couple. While making coffee for Jane was
77 77
acknowledged as a pre-deployment ritual, the return of that ritual took on special
meaning because it served to reunify the couple after a deployment and took on a
special meaning for Jane by serving as relational masonry that Jane recognized as
special to her and her husband’s relational culture despite the time they spent
apart. The rituals reenacted after a period of deployment is special because they
mark time away from the partner; a time of discontinuity between the partners.
Leaving notes are a ritual for Mary’s husband as a way to support her while
he is physically absent by reminding her that he is still mentally present if not
physically present. The notes serve as a reminder that she is not alone in the
deployment journey and serves as a ritual that is meant to sustain the relationship
during times of non-copresence. In regard to Bruess and Pearson’s (1997, 2002)
ritual delineation between friendship and marriage relationships, military culture is
unique and this research posits rituals in military marriages span both
preconceived categories of friendship and marriage rituals based on the cyclical
effect of copresence and non-copresence of the military deployment cycle. Rituals
for military couples show both the sustainment of the individual and the
maintenance of the couple.
The recognition of rituals and the subsequent writing of them are a function
of recognizing the importance of these behaviors due to a relational culture that is
embedded in a larger military culture. Both of these women had experienced
deployments before, yet this was Jane’s first deployment cycle with kids. Having
experienced deployment, even without children, gave Jane and Mary an advantage
when reintegration was occurring because of the institution of pre-deployment
rituals and past deployment rituals. Rituals suggest intimacy (Bruess & Pearson,
1997, 2002), which is the nucleus of relational culture (Wood, 1982, 2000).
Through the process of creating a relational culture with intimates, partners
78 78
express, develop, and sustain identities which bind them together in unique ways
(Baxter, 1987; Duck, 2010; Wood, 2000). Intimate relationships-as-cultures
include partners having a shared understanding of their own identity, the identity
of the other, and identity of the relationship (Sahlstein, 2004; Toller, 2008).
Relational communication functions to create and express these cultures
that are filled with relational values, rules, and beliefs. The process of
communication and negotiation, such as the coffee ritual and leaving notes, allows
the partners to create their shared meaning (Duck, 1994) which then becomes part
of the relational culture and is reified during future private interactions. Wood
(2000) posited “relational culture [is] the subjected reality of a relationship that…
partners create” (p. 77) and “relational culture arises in communication because it
is through communication that partners designate meanings for experiences,
values, expectations, and rules which constitute the relational culture” (1982, pp.
76-77). One process of relational culture that is of special significance to this
research is the symbolic practices that characterize any culture.
Symbolic activities. Symbolic practices have a two-prong effect on
relational culture by serving as a performance of expression and by creating and
affirming meanings within the relationship (Wood, 2000). A relationship culture
has symbolic practices that include daily rituals, special routines, placemaking,
and expressions of memory (Wood, 2000). “Daily rituals” include interactions
that happen on a daily basis and are generally unremarkable except for the
meaning associated with the ritual that serves to connect the partners. An example
using data from this study would include the coffee ritual between Jane and her
husband. This was a daily occurrence that might seem unremarkable for others
observing the relationship but it was clearly recognized as special when Jane wrote
79 79
of its return after deployment. “Special routines” would be rituals that are enacted
during special occasions with the partners deciding what constitutes a special
occasion. During this study, evidence of special routines was noted when Mary’s
husband left notes for her in unexpected places such as the tea container. The
process of leaving notes only occurred during deployment, which would place it in
the special occasion category since this was not a daily occurrence while not
deployed.
“Placemaking” is in reference to the physical space created by the partners,
and zones that encourage or discourage contact. Yet for couples experiencing
non-copresence, placemaking takes on a new form. The importance of
placemaking is the deliberate choice of where communication takes place.
Military couples experiencing a deployment cycle are unable to share a physical
space yet instead create virtual spaces like Skype. An adjustment to the relational
culture and what that new “space” means to the couple become their attempt at
placemaking. Sigman (1991) posited that “telecommunications media may not
simply be devises that bridge physical absence…but they may actually permit
moments of relationship co-presence” (p. 112) if the participant deems it as
copresence.
Lastly, “expression of memory” is a symbolic practice that “keeps us
connected with who we have been, who we have known, what we have done and
thought and felt” (Wood, 2000, p. 98). For example, Jane placed the computer in
her bedroom when she has a video called from her husband. This is a special
place they have shared, while Ann places the computer on the floor so her children
can sit around the computer and talk with their father. Sigman (1991) suggested
the importance of memories “confirm the participants as members of some
conjointly experienced history” (p. 118) that serves as a starting point to creating
80 80
new memories and identifies partners “in relation to each other” (Wood, 2000, p.
99).
Each of these sub-processes of symbolic practices relates to an aspect of a
couple’s relational culture. Relational culture is subjective and created, in other
words, it is constantly negotiated between the partners. This negotiation not only
encompasses ritualistic behavior but also new behaviors.
The existence of new behaviors versus rituals can be explained by noting
the deployment cycle was a new relational experience. So instead of ritualistic
actions that help to connect the relational partners, the recognition of new
behaviors symbolize a lack of a shared history or more specifically potential
instability in what has been “given” in the relationship. New behaviors involve an
adjustment in intimacy because it brings questions about shared history, which
was experienced differently during deployment, and in turn affected the relational
culture. As stated above, these relational cultures involve negotiated intimacy
created by having shared meanings. The inability to continue to build shared
meaning because of distance creates an awareness of new behaviors such as the
institution of date night and a renewed appreciation for rituals like “coffee time.”
The suggestion for date night by J might become a ritual if it becomes special to
the partners but has yet to reach that status based on the surprise Sue exhibited for
the behavior. Yet, not all new behaviors where experienced by first time
deployment spouses. Jane experienced a new communicative act when her
husband wanted to smoke a hookah together.
Smoking a hookah was a behavior Jane’s husband engaged in while
overseas; he sought to share in this behavior with Jane. At first she was not
willing to engage in this act with him because it was contradictory to their
relational rules. Relational rules “define acceptable codes of thought, feelings, and
81 81
conduct” (Wood, 2000, p. 91) yet, this was a new behavior that had not been
defined within the confines of the couple relationship. It was apparent in Jane’s
blog post that she was confused by this new behavior and was unsure how
smoking the hookah would affect her identity within the relationship and outside
of the relationship.
Yet another part of relational culture is the process of change over time. As
Jane processed the behavioral change of her husband as a hookah smoker she
came to accept this as a change in her husband, and thus a change in their
relational culture. After seven months, Jane and her husband engaged in smoking
together. Jane stated that smoking together helped the reintegration process.
There are three factors that support this:
1) Participating in a behavior that meant something special to her husband
enabled both Jane and her husband to share an experience that was new to the
relational culture;
2) Jane was able to process a change in her husband’s identity that
acknowledged he had experiences that did not include her, yet he was willing to
share those experiences; and
3) Through this act, Jane and her husband negotiated new rules for what
was considered acceptable for the relationship. The hookah was in the house for 5
months before Jane and her husband smoked together. During the 5 months
before smoking the hookah together, the husband refrained from smoking by
himself because of his desire to share the activity with his wife. This timeframe
speaks of the husband’s willingness to wait because he wanted to share this
experience with Jane and Jane’s willingness to participate in a new experience
because it was important to her husband. Wood (2000) referred to the act of
influencing each other as reciprocal influence, and goes on to state “whatever the
82 82
partners ratify as their relational culture takes on a life of its own and influences
the activities and identities of those who created it” (p. 80). These acts build
intimacy, which in turn contributes to one aspect of relational culture.
New behaviors are not necessary to sustain a relational culture. While the
beginning of the post-deployment phase is said to start with a period of overly
polite behaviors, or the “honeymoon phase,” old routines also signal intimacy.
The sub-category of reverting to old routines is a good example of how
relationship culture can be continually reified by routine behaviors. Sue states that
she felt like everything was starting to feel settled when she saw her husband
mowing the yard. This was a behavior solidified in a role that was filled by the
husband before deployment but during deployment was performed by another.
The return to the previous roles was reminiscent of a relational culture that
Sue recognized. Because this behavior took place eight months into the post-
deployment phase, Sue found relief in the familiar. Yet, this took place after many
months of uncertainty regarding the reintegration and role negotiation so it became
significant based on that time frame.
Part of the process of reintegration is role negotiation. The service member
has been away; therefore, someone needed to fulfill the vacated role. Many times
the non-deployed spouse fulfills those duties in addition to his or her own. The
manner in which roles get renegotiated lead to (re)constructing reality in the
relational culture.
Meta-talk. (Re) constructing reality also takes on the characteristic of
meta-talk of reintegration, which is talk about the reintegration process that served
to express the rituals, new behaviors, and familiar routines. Meta-talk of
reintegration had two characteristics: 1) meta-talk of reintegration reports on
83 83
relational rituals and symbolic practices, and 2) talk of reintegration is used as a
sense-making tool for the wives.
First, a phenomenon specific to this category was the way the wives’
addressed conflict within the relationship. Where relational conflict might be
talked about and recognized as normal during any other time frame, the conflict
was now being associated with the deployment cycle, and mainly the
reintegration. The research units that were placed in this sub-category were not
value neutral. Wives’ statements that referred to the feeling of not knowing what
was occurring in the relationship or feeling like they had no control were
heightened due to the extended period apart. Where renegotiation of roles take
place—on a smaller scale—daily in relationships, the role negotiation or
recognition of new and old behaviors after deployment is mixed with a myriad of
other relational events such as confronting change in the family routine,
processing the change of identity from single parent or spouse of a deployed
service member to having the family reunited, and managing expectations of self
and others.
Although meta-talk of reintegration was initially perceived as the fourth
sub-category of (Re) constructing Reality, further analysis demonstrated the
interdependence of rituals, new communicative acts, and reverting to old routines,
are also examples of reintegration meta-talk. In this sense, the meta-talk of
reintegration is not a distinct phenomenon of the reintegration process or the
summation of talk about reintegration; but a category that indicates a discursive
process that provides meaning for copresence and the ability to exist in a
relationship that is experiencing reintegration. Through meta-talk of reintegration
meaning is not only created, but vital to the discursive processes that
(re)constructs spouses’ reality. For example, the change of identity seemed to
84 84
surprise Sue when she had finished her first deployment. Sue inquires about her
purpose and questions: “Who am I?” and goes on to state that before and during
the deployment she had no problem answering as she says, “wife, mother,
daughter staying strong and accepting the extra responsibilities of being a single
parent…I knew my purpose was to support my husband and care for my family.”
In contrast, after the deployment she posited “no time has been more confusing for
me than at the conclusion of my husband’s recent deployment.” Sue suggested
that feeling lost occurred for two reasons: 1) she was no longer surrounded with
other Army wives that were experiencing the same deployment, thus suggesting a
loss of an established support system and 2) the “sense of urgency and worry is
done…[leaving] me with a feeling of ‘where do I go from here?’” This is an
example of evidence that Sue was seeking to make sense of her experience
through the discursive action of writing in her blog or in other words, meta-talk of
reintegration.
While Sue explained her angst as “feeling lost,” Jane used more explicit
metaphors to express her thoughts of reintegration. Jane simply stated,
“homecoming is not the pill that cures deployment,” in other words the act of
being together in close proximity does not make the role negotiation or the tension
of reintegration go away but being able to blog about the feeling assisted in
relaying her experience of reintegration.
Jane also wrote that the reintegration process reminded her of a surfing
incident during her youth. She was floating on her surfboard waiting for a wave
when one of her friends saw a huge shadow of a fish. Not knowing whether the
object was a shark or a harmless fish she explained the physiological reaction and
psychological foreboding this induced; the fear of the unknown was memorable.
This was the experience she correlated with the feeling of reintegration.
85 85
Experiencing reintegration for Jane was expecting one thing and getting another,
which induced somewhat of a panicked state when facing new situations
concerning the relationship with her husband, yet the talk about reintegration
served to inform her about the struggles she was experiencing by using meta-talk
about the reintegration. Meta-talk of reintegration was vital to each blogger
because it served as a way to express their experiences and worked as a way to
collect words that expressed their specific reintegration stories which in turn were
commented upon by readers, who served as a virtual support group.
The wives reported on the reintegration process by noting several things
such as what they expected versus what they got, new behaviors and old routines,
and trying to feel connected with their relational partners while recognizing their
separation. These issues can be described as dialectical tensions.
Dialectics. The reintegration process of going from non-copresence to
copresence can be informed through a relational dialectical perspective.
Throughout this study the basic research inquiry has been about how the post-
deployment phase of reintegration has been translated through the perception of
the non-deployed wife. Being of particular note is the relational tension felt by the
wife when the theme of Idealization is juxtaposed with the theme of the wives’
(Re) constructed Reality. The angst produced when the idealized does not mesh
with reality manifests recognition of simultaneous push and pull forces, which is
termed as a dialectical tension and serves to capture one way of describing the
dynamics of a relational culture.
As stated earlier, dialectical contradictions are a result of opposing tensions,
and are not meant to be resolved but instead are seen as a “continuous process”
(Wood, 2000, p. 82) that fluctuates between two pole ends that animate the
86 86
movement; the continual processing of a relational culture. Relational cultures
have structures, practices (e.g., symbolic practices) and dynamics that are unique
to the couple. Dialectical contradictions are a way to capture a relationship’s
cultural dynamics. Wood (2000) stated “the essence of dialectics is not the
impulses themselves but the tensions between them” (p. 82); the desire to
experience both ends of the pole shapes the relational culture. It is also suggested
that relational culture is shaped by “how partners work out dialectics and linkage
among them” (Wood, 2000, p. 82). The partners both individually and
collectively experience the dynamics of the relational culture through the tension
of dialectic contradictions.
Baxter and Montgomery (1998) introduced dialectical theory as “a family
of theories organized around certain shared assumptions and principals” (Baxter,
Braithwaite, Golish, & Olson, 2002) that contains three notions: 1) concept of
contradictions, 2) totality, and 3) praxis. The assumption of contradiction was
noted earlier as “a contradiction or tension of unifying oppositions…or themes
that are interdependent with one another at the same time that they function to
negate or oppose one another” (Baxter & Ebert, 1999, p. 548). The second
assumption, totality has two features. The first feature of totality refers “to the
knot of contradictions that co-exist in a relational system” (Baxter et al., 2002) that
form an interdependent knot where one contradiction informs another
contradiction such as ideal/real is contingent upon presence/absence. The second
feature is “situatedness, which emphasizes the need to attend to the unique,
indigenous contradictions that characterize specific situations” (Baxter et al., 2002,
p. 7). The last assumption is praxis which refers to how the contradictions are
negotiated. In this study three dialectical contradictions were evident in the wives’
blogs: ideal/real, presence/absence, and novelty/predictability.
87 87
The ideal/real dialectical contradiction is characterized by Rawlins (1992)
as “the interplay between the abstract ideals and expectations…and the nettlesome
realities or unexpected reward of actual communication” (p. 11). This dialectical
tension was readily seen in the blog entries when an ideal concept about the return
of the service member was juxtaposed with actual behaviors and conversation. As
Rawlins (1997) posited there was evidence of some wives struggling to manage
the tension of ideal/real and others received an unexpected reward because of real
communication. Sue experienced a “nettlesome” reality when her husband came
home and did not participate in household duties like she had imagined yet Jane
had the pleasure of having real communication become more satisfying than
anything she imagined via the route of smoking the hookah. While the service
member was away, idealizing certain aspects of the relationship became an
important maintenance practice yet upon the husband’s return ideals encountered
realities.
Sigman’s (1991) work on relationship continuity recognized that partners
seek to maintain the sense of being in a relationship even during times of non-
copresence. Idealization was a way for the wives to maintain the feeling of
connection when being geographically separated which introduces the second
dialectical tension evidenced in this research, presence/absence. The idealizing
functioned to connect the spouse during the absence so it mediated the
presence/absence contradiction; the wives can feel connected even in the absence.
Having the ideal/real tension inform the presence/absence contradiction illustrates
the “knot of contradiction” by being interdependent and by being evident because
of a specific situation—reintegration.
In a study based on adult dementia, Baxter et al. (2002) suggested the
spouses of patients with dementia were experiencing “married widowhood”
88 88
because the spouse that had dementia was physically presence and cognitively
absent. I too am suggesting that military wives also experience this type of
contradiction because of the unique circumstances of a military deployment cycle.
I believe during deployment the wives experience this feeling of having the
husband physically absent and exhibiting behaviors of being cognitively present
through mediated communication channels and also cognitively absence because
of stilted communication. The service member is unable to give information about
his military job and conversely, wives are cautioned to only give upbeat
information to their spouse. Once the deployment is over the service member is
physically present and is cognitively absent as Jane illustrates when she came
home from work and was upset about some gruesome pictures she had viewed.
She was sitting at the table alone and crying when her husband walked in and sat
down. Jane wrote
After a moment I stopped crying and he spoke ‘I can’t tell you details, but I
know how you feel’. I watched him as he got up from the table to go back
to whatever he had been working on before finding me and my wine bottle.
Initially I felt empty when he walked away without hugging me.
This is an example of being physically present and not fully engaged in being
cognitively present because of circumstances faced while apart. Sue had similar
encounters with her husband “not being the same” referring to his uncharacteristic
silence about the deployment.
Sahlstein et al. (2009) also found dialectical tensions in research on wives’
perspectives on wartime deployment. Sahlstein and colleagues (2009) found
“overwhelming reports of antagonistic struggles…regarding disclosure” (p. 434).
These struggles were evidenced by one partner desiring more or less
communication than the other partner. While desiring different levels of
89 89
communication is not uncommon to intimates, the praxis, or way of managing the
contradiction of openness/closeness is managed through presence/absence in a
couple reintegrating after a deployment cycle. As an example, Jane’s husband did
not want to reveal what had occurred during deployment that made him
sympathize with Jane’s viewing of gruesome pictures (openness/closeness tension)
but he wanted to comfort his wife. It was through his physical presence that he
chose to be more open about deployment experiences in order to comfort Jane. In
this example the dynamics of relational culture can be seen through Jane’s
husband privileging the relational culture above his personal desire to stay silent
yet this openness would not have occurred without the presence/absence
contradiction.
The novelty/predictability tension was the third dominant dialectical
tension in the blog entries of these military wives. As an example, this tension
was evidenced through Sue feeling good about witnessing the return of routine
behaviors like her husband mowing the yard and also being excited over the new
concept of date. Clearly, J (Sue’s husband) had spent some thinking about his
intimate relationship. This was evident because once J was home he initiated date
night. Sue was excited about this concept because it was a new way to spend time
together. Yet, Sue was just as excited to see a return of J performing household
duties. Sue was not more or less excited over either behavior; this signaled the
dynamic of both novelty and predictability as being appreciated in their relational
culture.
Another example of the novelty/predictability contradiction was when Jane
was presented with the new experience of smoking the hookah with her husband.
On one side Jane and her husband had predictability within their relational culture
of spending time together talking, yet Jane was asked to partake in a novel
90 90
experience while spending time together. How Jane responded to this new
activity shows the dynamic interplay of both predictability and novelty. The time
spent together talking with her husband was an existing part of their relational
culture but with the introduction of the hookah there was an opportunity to
experience something new within the comfort of the known. Not only was Jane to
experience something new within the relationship but her husband would also be
having a new experience. Although Jane’s husband experienced the hookah
during deployment, this would be a first time experience with Jane.
In both of these examples of novelty/predictability it is important to note
that the novel experience was based in the routine of the relationship. These wives
already spent time with their husbands but they were being asked to spend time
together engaging in different circumstances then before the deployment. Just as
the section old routines spoke to sustaining the relational culture, the new
behaviors lent themselves to show how relational cultures also shift with change.
Relational culture is about sustaining the routine and simultaneously managing
change.
As noted earlier, the first research question addressed the communicative
occurrences during the reintegration phase. Through the course of discussing the
findings it is evident that the wives of deployed military husbands navigate the
time between deployment and reintegration in interplay between idealization and
reality; they experience tension in the ideal/real, presence/absence, and
novelty/predictability contradictions between what they had idealized during the
deployment and the process of (re)constructing reality after deployment. The
second research question concerned how the wives managed the transition from
non-copresence to copresence. The data reveals that while the wives experienced
tension as a result of transitioning from distance to proximity, one way that the
91 91
wives managed the dialectical tensions was to blog about reintegration. A second
way the wives managed the dialectical tension was to renegotiate the relational
culture by grounding themselves within the relationship, in other words, each of
the women connected to the relationship in spite the disruption caused by the
transition from distance to proximity.
Deployment Residue: “The ‘D’ Word”
The theme of Deployment Residue captured the wives impression on the
deployment cycle and how they were personally affected by the deployment cycle.
Deployment Residue captured change and how the circumstance of experiencing a
deployment cycle becomes a lens through which to view future deployments or
times of non-copresence. I will discuss the implications of the results for this
theme by discussing identity transitions and deployment memories. I will discuss
the implications of my results in this area by further discussion of how the wives
acknowledged revelations about the deployment cycle and how those revelations
indicate relational turning points.
Identity transition. The deployment cycle is acknowledged as a changing
event; in other words, a person is not the same after the deployment as before.
Wives spoke of this more in terms of themselves and their children than of the
service member.
Sue wrote of “surviving” the deployment and even refers to her family as
“deployment veterans.” Mary writes that she believes “it is my job to help others
make it through” the deployment cycle because she had completed four cycles.
Blogging entries that addressed a change of identity became important to the
blogger because it served as a marker of transition. While the blog author’s
92 92
writing about deployment acknowledged it is a difficult process, completing the
process instilled pride for those that completed a cycle. And to those who have
completed a deployment cycle, they receive an honorary membership to an
exclusive club of deployment survivors, with those that have experienced more
deployments being bestowed with awe by less experienced members.
Deployment memories. While deployment memories were used as a tool to
assist others through the phases of the deployment cycle, it also served as a frame
for possible future events. Since only Jane and Mary had experienced a
deployment it stands to reason that they would reminisce about the past
deployments. Jane’s adult perspective of the deployment cycle was juxtaposed to
her childhood perception of deployments with her father being the service member
as opposed to her husband. Many of Jane’s comments about past deployments
were remembering how she felt as a child going through reintegration and trying
to preemptively address issues in her children that she remembered having.
Mary addressed deployment memories as a way to connect with her
blogging audience and also as a diary of her personal growth through the previous
deployment cycles. She often referred back to what she “felt” or “did” when she
experienced her first deployment cycle as a way to reassure others that they can
“make it.” For example, Mary writes of her and her husband’s first fight after one
reunion stating, “he loaded the dishwasher wrong” and goes on to tell her readers
that it was a big event to her at the time but in retrospect she is able to laugh about
it now. Mary also wrote about how her husband likes to clean when he returns
home from deployment, writing that at first her feelings were hurt because she felt
like she had not done a good enough job of cleaning to meet her husband’s
standards. She goes on to explain that instead of being hurt or upset over a
93 93
behavior, you should talk about it because it probably is being done for a good
reason. In this example, Mary uses her own experiences to help others in their
reintegration process and remind herself of personal growth.
Just as “meta-talk of reintegration” had two characteristics the theme of
Deployment Residue has the same two purposes. First, the writing of identity
transition and deployment memories served as a way to make sense of the
reintegration process. Second, a dialectical tension emerges in the dynamics of
their management of deployment, just as it did in the dynamics of managing their
changing nature of their relational culture.
When the wives blogged about benefits and detriments of the deployment
cycle they never talked about deployment as either beneficial or detrimental but
link them together as one unit. Every instance of benefit was always qualified
with a detriment and mostly every detriment was qualified with a benefit or silver
lining. Thus, for these wives, deployment was both a benefit and a detriment and
it is the interplay between both that the wives navigate what deployment means to
them and their relationship to the military spouse. For example, Sue expressed
both benefits and detriments of the deployment cycle, which included financial
gains through her husband receiving a steady paycheck, and an appreciation for
the daily interaction that others take for granted, such as her husband mowing the
yard or being present at their son’s birthday party. The benefit is plainly stated but
the veiled suggestions of negatives are the noted absence of her husband in regard
to household duties and his physical absence at special events.
Sue also noted experiencing a sense of empowerment that she had gone
through a deployment cycle that challenged her notion of who she was and what
she could accomplish and also noted that the empowerment was forced because of
her husband’s physical absence. The fact is that her husband was deployed and
94 94
she was able to take on additional responsibility and excel was a source of pride,
tempered with the desire not to go through another deployment cycle despite the
benefits discovered.
Mary, who had experienced the most deployments, also had a mixed
positive and negative outlook for the deployment cycle. On the one hand the
deployment allowed her and her husband to get to know each other on a different
level because of the absence of physical involvement, yet his absence had
potentially negative consequences for the children. Mary tells of a benefit she
received from experiencing the first deployment. Since it was years ago and they
were much younger, Mary and her husband wrote letters to each other using pen
and paper. During that first deployment she writes that “our letters were initially
‘getting to know you’ in sentiment.” These tangible letters serve as an artifact to
their developing romance and Mary credits the separation of the deployment cycle
for providing these artifacts, yet she also writes of the lack of time the children
have spent with their father and ponders how that will affect their future.
Mary was not the only wife to mention concern for their children’s
deployment experience. The three wives that had children reported anxiety in the
children over the deployment cycle and the possibility of experiencing another
cycle. Mary notes that her children are quick to bond while her husband is home
because they know he will not be there for long. Jane writes that she has to be
careful what she expresses because the children mirror her anxiety. Sue not only
experiences deployment residue on the reunion day when she wrote, “I know the
day will come when we have to do this again, but those thoughts are for another
day” but she also wrote of her children experiencing physical reactions like
constricted breathing and crying when their father is gone for a routine training
mission that lasts just a few nights. Sue also calls the deployment cycle the “D”
95 95
word as if the foreboding is enough not to want to say the whole word—
deployment.
These wives situate the benefit of deployment in relation to the negative
nature of deployment. The wives naturally juxtapose the positive with the
negative as a frame for processing the deployment cycle. It is apparent that their
joy is tempered through a filter. An example would be the joy expressed in
homecoming of their spouse being quickly tempered by acknowledging with
sadness that others are not able to rejoice because of death or injury of their loved
ones. A more poignant example is when Sue writes about a tragedy overseas that
resulted in death and expressing guilt that her first thought was relief because “it
can’t be J because he is home” yet is immediately contrite because someone else’s
family is not so fortunate. Although Sue’s writing served as an example, each of
the wives had a similar experience concerning the joy felt about her husband being
safe and acknowledging others have not been so fortunate.
The theme of Deployment Residue and more specifically the sub-category
of benefit/detriment have natural oppositions. The after effect of experiencing a
deployment cycle and the subsequent framing of the deployment suggests the
deployment cycle itself is a turning point in the relational culture.
Turning points. Modern turning point research began with Charles
Bolton’s (1961) original concern with the “psychological act of choice” (p. 234)
such as when the wives have chosen to frame their deployment experience in
terms of benefits and detriments. Bolton (1961) viewed turning points as
“interpersonal and personal change…as a series of related transformations in
actors’ definition of themselves and their relation to others” (pp. 236-237). He
went on to say that turning points were a “reformulation” of the acceptable terms
96 96
in the relationship, a shifting from one standpoint to another in terms of meaning.
Hence the concept of turning points denotes transformation, such as an identity
transformation as noted by Sue being a “deployment veteran.”
Transformative events are turning points. Baxter and Bullis (1986)
conceptualized the term turning point as an event or occurrence that is associated
with change in the relationship although Wood (2000) asserts not all events are
turning points. The perception of the event “as transformative” constitutes
whether an event is experienced as a turning point. This does not necessarily
mean each partner must agree to see the event as a turning point. Baxter and
Bullis (1986) found turning points characterized by both high and low partner
agreement as congruent to satisfaction. Low agreement was defined as a situation
where partners are in separate phenomenological relationship worlds yet still share
the relational culture. That is, perceptional consensus is not needed to further
relational satisfaction nor does it point to relational success. Researchers have
found that different construction of relational events is not harmful unless the
construction is incongruent with the other relational partner’s construction.
Although some turning points are characterized as having either a positive
or negative impact on the relational culture, physical distance in romantic
relationships did not fall into these categories (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). In other
words, the physical separation and subsequent reunion does not have inherent
relational value beyond how the partners negotiate the event (Wilmot, Carbaugh,
& Baxter, 1985); however, physical separation is associated with “relational
vulnerability” (Baxter & Bullis, 1986, p. 487). Although the time spent separated
did not seem to add to relational vulnerability for these blog writers, relational
vulnerability was evident in copresence during post-deployment reintegration.
97 97
Wood (2000) posited circumstances can cause a turning point in a
relationship. A circumstance such as job relocation is considered a type of turning
point. A military deployment is a form of job relocation, hence it can be seen as a
turning point. Baxter and Bullis (1986) also stated that relational partners had
very little trouble identifying relational turning points because they provide a
“useful story line” (P. 486). In this regard a deployment cycle is both a
circumstantial turning point that can be recalled using a specific timeline. Yet,
even in circumstantial turning points, it is the way in which the circumstance is
managed that determines if the event is positive or negative for the relational
culture.
Turning points “can be sequenced in different ways, resulting in distinct
trajectories of relationship development” (Wood, 2000, p. 135), in other words,
how the turning point is handled within the relationship affects the extent turmoil
the relationship sustains during the management of the relational culture. For
example, Ann’s relationship was the newest amongst the wives and she had the
highest amount of Idealization units assigned to her in addition to having the
lowest (Re) constructing Reality units assigned; Ann’s relationship had the longest
“honeymoon” phase and did not exhibit signs of reintegration until close to a
year’s time. At the time of showing reintegration signs the relationship was in
turmoil. On the other hand, Mary had experienced other deployment cycles and
accepted changes in the relationship culture as expected. It is interesting to note
that Mary had the lowest number of Idealization units and the second lowest (Re)
constructing Reality units. I see this as evidence of acceptance of changes, not
fantasy or what she thinks reality is, but simply being flexible in her relational
culture because her husband is an active duty Soldier, the deployment cycle was
part of their relational culture from the onset.
98 98
The second turning point evident in this research was in regard to the
wives’ social network. Wood (2000) suggested a type of turning point is when
people within the individual or couple social network affect the relationship. An
example of this would be when Sue was experiencing confusion about her
identity. Sue attributed part of her identity to being part of a spousal support
group while J was deployed. The wives had deployment in common and sense
deployment was now over, Sue’s social network changed and thus affected the
relationship with her husband because her identity changed with her husband’s
return.
While relational turning points are not inherently negative or positive, how
the individual and couple manages the events that lead to the relational turning
point is what determines the trajectory of development for the relationship. In
other word the perception of the turning point is what transforms the relationship.
However, relationships do not exist on a linear tract but are cyclical in nature.
This being said the management of dialectical tensions, turning points, and
circumstances that create the picture of relational dynamics transform relational
culture.
Discussion Summary
This study first established that idealization occurred during the
deployment cycle for military wives. Idealization worked to sustain the
relationship by producing a feeling of being in a relationship during non-
copresence. These findings are presented as a relational maintenance strategy for
long-distance relationships. Idealization becomes part of the relationship culture
when communication is limited as with a military deployment.
99 99
Second, idealization serves to connect the wives with their service members
yet becomes a dialectical tension when the realities of reintegration confront those
idealized conceptions of wife, spouse, and relationship. The resulting interplay
produced when the sub-categories within the themes of Idealization and (Re)
constructing Reality were juxtaposed producing evidence that dialectical tension
existed during the reintegration process of the deployment cycle and also after the
cycle ended being evidenced by the research units in Deployment Residue.
Turning points can be seen as a product of dialectical tensions because they
are part of relational development. Based on Bolton’s (1961) research on choice
in relationships, the management of dialectical tensions becomes a catalyst for
relational turning points. Yet, relational turning points can be a function of a
variety of categories, such as circumstances. In Deployment Residue a relational
turning point was noted by the way the wives placed units of benefit and detriment
in close proximity to one another. The data in Deployment Residue implicates the
deployment cycle as a catalyst for a circumstantial turning point.
At the beginning of this study it was noted that the biggest fear of service
members was the fear of losing an important relationship during the deployment
cycle. It remains unknown if the spouses had this same concern but the demise of
the relationship was never suggested. Through this research it was found that
while spouses’ exhibit concern for their marriages and blogged about subjects
pertaining to control and change, at no time during this study was ending the
relationship discussed within the blogs. Anxiety about how best to proceed and
trepidation about readjustment was addressed by the wives but never a mention
about losing the relationship. Although the demise of their intimate relationship
was not found in the wives of this study, issues of dialectical tensions, turning
100 100
points, and changes in the relational culture were revealed. In the next section
practical implications for this research is suggested.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study have implications for those interested in this line
of research. First, for both scholars and the military community in general, it is
apparent that the timeline for the post-deployment phase should be adjusted.
Pincus et al. (2001) suggested that the post-deployment timeframe last 3-6 months
yet evidence of that timeframe was inaccurate based on this research. There is
evidence of the post-deployment reintegration phase lasting beyond 6 months,
which is the later part of the suggested timeline. Although Pincus et al. (2001)
stated the timeline is to be used as a general guideline; this researcher believes the
timeline added stress to the situation by setting precedence as to “what is normal”
in regard to readjustment. As an example, each wife referred to the reintegration
timeline and expressed anxiety based on what they felt in relation to where the
timeline suggests they would be in the reintegration process and these wives’ were
far from atypical (Rosen, Durand, Westhuis, & Teitelbaum, 1995).
Second, it would be beneficial to reclassify the process of deployment
reintegration is turns of relational development. The term development suggests
there is not a definitive beginning and end. Relationships, it is assumed, move
linearly to more closeness, openness, trust, stability etc. Communication scholars
however acknowledge relationship development is not linear but cyclical and the
process of sustaining relationships are about keeping possibilities open for new
developments, and more importantly relationships display complicated interplay
between both the forces that push partners together and pull them a part.
101 101
Relational dialectical scholars note that there is no beginning or end to
relationships but only middles (Montgomery, 1993).
I would suggest the Venn diagram shown in Figure 4 (p. 68) be added to
the post-deployment brief given to those who will experience reintegration. The
diagram in Figure 4 illustrates the overlapping quality of reintegration in terms of
idealization, (re)constructing reality, and deployment residue that show the
constant nature of the three themes existing together.
Third, the discussion of these findings point to post-deployment
reintegration as a relational turning point. Using the communicative term—
turning point—suggests reintegration is a shift in the relational culture, not a start
or stopping point. Literature on turning points in relationships is more extensive
than that of reintegration which would allow those that wanted further description
of what a turning point entails could locate that information and use it to help
explain some of the dynamics they are experiencing during the post-deployment
phase. Empowering military families to understand the process of change that
their relational culture is experiencing serves to help in the process of
reintegration.
Fourth, it is apparent that these wives understood that they were
experiencing turmoil in their relationships due to the deployment cycle. More
specifically, their entries exhibit interplay between dialectical tensions. Their
lives, for instance, are not a matter of being either connected to or distant from
their military spouse but being both connected and distant. They idealize and face
realities. They work with both new ways of modifying their relational cultures
and using old ways to reassure a connection to their military spouse. Simply
recognizing the presence of dialectical tensions is helpful to relational partners;
that is, it is to be expected that you will find yourself involved in what feels like
102 102
contradictory forces. I suggest the military use the stories of reintegration from
the wives perspective to guide the literature about reintegration. The people that
have experienced the deployment cycle are the best avenue to discovering what is
happening within an intimate relationship. There is a need for more qualitative
research in the area of post-deployment reintegration. The spouses are able to
render a picture of reintegration that cannot be duplicated through quantitative
research. As the U.S. Military is experiencing the highest number of deployed
service members than at any other time, so also are the families that will be
experiencing reintegration.
Limitations of the Study
Though this study contained a substantial amount of discursive units that
were analyzed, it remains a small study based on the musing of four military
wives. Because of the narrow scope the findings are unable to be generalized to
the whole population of military spouses. In addition to the small number of blogs
utilized, the blogs studied were all from the wives’ viewpoint.
Although addressing this bias might seem natural, it must be
acknowledged that finding the viewpoint of male military spouses might prove
difficult considering 90% of the U.S. Military is male (Demographics 2010:
Profile of the military community, 2010), yet no less vital for understanding the
whole picture.
While this research focused on the typical configuration for the U.S.
military, an additional limitation addresses the exclusion of personnel that have
been affected by the ending military’s policy “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” Further
research incorporating views of gay and lesbian spouses might shed added light to
reintegration communicative patterns.
103 103
Recommendations for Future Research
There is a plethora of opportunities for future research. Among the areas
that offer the possibility of rich research topics are: parental issues with the post-
deployment phase, studies designed using other social media (i.e., Facebook,
Skype, Twitter), and studies that apply specific theories such as imagined
interaction theory, social exchange theory, and uncertainty management theories.
Past research concerning the different deployment phases exist in pre-
deployment, deployment, and post-deployment; these phases are addressed with
the service member and the marital family. Yet, the parental adjustment to the
deployment cycle is virtually non-existent; however, 43.6 % of the U.S. Military
that is unmarried (Demographics 2010: Profile of the military community, 2010).
The lack of research regarding parents of service members is important to address
because many time a single service member’s support network is the original
family unit of caregivers. This especially holds true when addressing the
dissolution of important relationships and physical or mental health issues after a
deployment.
Social media is a cost effective way to collect data. The extent to which
researchers have taken advantage of this data collection tool is minimal yet
research on social media itself is growing. This study extends the position of
using all social media as a data source. Social media are prolific, making cultures
that where once closed to researchers open. The ability to collect data without
traveling allows all researchers the ability to initiate studies where finances once
prohibited these actions. While perspective on social media providing an accurate
picture of an event can be debated, it is no more or less accurate than any other
research done from an interpretive framework (Bell, 2008; Highfield, Kirchhoff,
& Nicolai, 2011; Mann & Stewart, 2000).
104 104
As stated previously, this study used ground theory to determine themes
that were addressed by military spouses but the data has shown areas that could be
researched utilizing a priori theories. Areas addressed in the data highlighted
idealization, which is a factor with imagined interactions. Imagined interaction
theory seeks to focus on specific acts of communication while focusing on
individuals’ social cognition (Honeycutt, 2008). Although this epistemology is
post-positivist blogs, Facebook, and Twitter could be utilized as journals. Because
imagined interaction theory relies on intrapersonal communication, this theory
could be used to complete the psychological picture of the deployment process and
the extent that idealization plays in the different phases of the deployment cycle.
In the same vein as imagined interaction theory, social exchange theory has
a post-positivistic epistemology. Post-positivist epistemology seeks to explain and
predict behaviors, and social exchange theory could be used to shed further light
on the behavior of self-presentation on social media such as Skype. While social
exchange theory posits that social behaviors are a series of exchanges, those
exchanges are based on choices the participants make as to a cost/reward schema
(Stafford, 2008). Once the cost and rewards have been determined, the action that
follows has important consequences for any participant (i.e., spouse, parent, and
child) in the midst of a deployment cycle when copresence is established. Yet
research using social exchange theory is lacking.
Unlike imagined interaction theory and social exchange theory, uncertainty
management theories are predominately interpretive (Afifi & Matsunaga, 2008).
Uncertainty management theories have the distinction of crossing of post-positive,
critical, and interpretive paradigms (Babrow, Whaley, & Samter, 2007).
Uncertainty management theories include many theories that seek to explain,
understand, or critique. The extent of research utilizing the theory of uncertainty
105 105
reduction and uncertainty management is long but is does not mean that the area of
military research has used these techniques to study its population and the unique
circumstances faced by our U.S. military. The benefit of uncertainty research in
this area is a needed contribution because the military lifestyle represents a
community where uncertainty is habitual. The ramifications of research
conducted using uncertainty management theories could be of great benefit to
counseling and mental health fields alike. With the possibility of instituting
programs that serve as practical guidance to help not only military families but any
family that deal primarily in uncertainty such as migrant workers, commuter
marriages, or other long-distance relationships.
Concluding Remarks
This researcher is of the opinion that U.S. military is doing an injustice to
the military family by suggesting that reintegration has a time frame of 3-6 months
after the return of the service member from deployment and by failing to give
more in depth information on the communicative dynamics of reintegration. I
firmly believe that military families are some of the most resilient people in our
culture, thus by providing them with more information about what is occurring
communicatively during the post-deployment phase of reintegration will help in
processing the relational event (Theiss & Knobloch, 2011). Furthermore, it is
apparent that the information military families have received about this phase have
been acknowledged by the use of “honeymoon” and “reintegration” during the
writings on blogs. Now is the time to give more in depth information to the
military family about research findings that could be applied to this group. These
blogs show that some military wives are seeking intellectual understanding based
on the questions posed and topics addressed in the course of writing about the
106 106
post-deployment phase. At the very least, more exhaustive research needs to be
conducted addressing this area for the benefit of all military families.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Afifi, W. A., & Matsunaga, M. (2008). Uncertainty management theories. In
L.A.Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal
communication (pp. 117-132). Thousand Oaks:CA: Sage.
Allen, E. S. (2010). Hitting home: Relationships between recent deployment,
posttraumatic stress symptoms, and marital functioning for Army couples.
Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 280-288.
Babrow, A. S., Whaley, B. B., & Samter, W. (2007). Problematic integration
theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication:
Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 181-200). Mahwaw, NJ: Taylor
& Francis.
Basham, K. (2008). Homecoming as safe haven or the new front: Attachment and
detachment in military couples. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 83-96.
doi: 10.1007/s10615-007-0138-9
Baxter, L. A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(3), 261-280.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2002).
Contradictions of interaction for wives of elderly husbands with adult
dementia. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 1-26.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic
relationships. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 469-493. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00088.x
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bell, S. (2008). Wikis as legitimate research sources. Online, 32(6), 34-37.
Blount, B. W., Curry, A., & Lubin, G. I. (1992). Family separations in the
military. Military Medicine, 157, 76-80.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in
the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391-409.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion
of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(1),
175-183.
109 109
Bolton, C. D. (1961). Mate selection as the development of a relationship.
Marriage and Family Living, 23(3), 234-240.
Boulding, E. (1950). Family adjustments to war separation and reunion. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 272, 59-67.
Bowen, G. L. (2002). Promoting the adaptation of military families: An empirical
test of a community practice model. Family relations, 52(1), 33-44.
Bowling, U. B., & Sherman, M. D. (2008). Welcoming them home: Supporting
service members and their families in navigating the tasks of reintegration.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 451-458. doi:
10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.451
Brancu, M., Straits-Tröster, K., & Kudler, H. (2011). Behavioral health conditions
among military personnel and veterans. North Carolina Medical Journal,
72(1), 54-60.
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and
adult friendship. Communications Monographs, 64(1), 25-46.
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (2002). The function of mundane ritualizing in
adult friendship and marriage. Communication Research Reports, 19(4), 314-
326.
Burrell, L. (2006). The impact of military lifestyle demands on well-being, army,
and family outcomes. Armed forces and society, 33(1), 43-58.
Cacioppo, J. T., Reis, H. T., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Social resilience: The value of
social fitness with an application to the military. American Psychologist,
66(1), 43-51.
Carter, S., Loew, B., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H.
J. (2011). Relationships between soldiers' PTSD symptoms and spousal
communication during deployment. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(3), 352-
355.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
110 110
Cornelius, T., Shorey, R., & Beebe, S. (2010). Self-reported communication
variables and dating violence: Using Gottman’s marital communication
conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448. doi:
10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
Cornyn, D. K. (2008). Military, freedom of speech, and the internet: Preserving
operational security and servicemembers' right of free speech. The Texas Law
Review 87, 463.
Cox, J. (2012). Relationship satisfaction and resilience: Military couples and
deployment. Human Communication 15(1), 41-57.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy,
trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 172-188.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the
maintenance of long‐distance relationships. Communication Research
Reports, 19(2), 118-129.
de Burgh, H. T., White, C. J., Fear, N. T., & Iversen, A. C. (2011). The impact of
deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan on partners and wives of military
personnel. [Article]. International Review of Psychiatry, 23(2), 192-200.
Demographics 2010: Profile of the military community. (2010). Washington,
D.C.: Office of the deputy under secretary of defense Retrieved from
http://www.icfi.com/markets/defense/campaigns/workforce-research.
Dimiceli, E. E., Steinhardt, M. A., & Smith, S. E. (2010). Stressful experiences,
coping strategies, and predictors of health-related outcomes among wives of
deployed military servicemen. Armed Forces & Society, 36(2), 351-373.
Doyle, M. E., & Peterson, K. A. (2005). Re-entry and reintegration: Returning
home after combat. [Article]. Psychiatric quarterly, 76(4), 361-370. doi:
10.1007/s11126-005-4972-z
Dreher, B. (2011, December). Witty and wise, milblogs are a voice for military
spouses. Reader's Digest. Retrived from http://www.rd.com/advice/
relationships/witty-and-wise-milblogs-are-a-voice-for-military-spouses
Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M., & Cable, S. (2004). Military families under stress:
Implications for family life education*. Family relations, 52(3), 279-287.
111 111
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duck, S. (2010). Rethinking relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Eaton, K. M., Hoge, C. W., Messer, S. C., Whitt, A. A., Cabrera, O. A., McGurk,
D., . . . Castro, C. A. (2008). Prevalence of mental health problems, treatment
need, and barriers to care among primary care-seeking spouses of military
service members involved in Iraq and Afghanistan deployments. Military
Medicine, 173(11), 1051-1056.
Egerod, I., & Christensen, D. (2009). Analysis of patient diaries in Danish ICUs:
A narrative approach. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 25(5), 268-277.
Elliott, D. L. (2011). Facebook, resilience and Army spouses coping with combat
deployment (Master's thesis), Wake Forest University. Available from
Proquest Dissertations and Thesis database (UMI No. 1494555).
Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J. (1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing
strategies on young couples' relational repair and intimacy. Communication
Quarterly, 44(2), 166-182.
Faber, A. J., Willerton, E., Clymer, S. R., MacDermid, S. M., & Weiss, H. M.
(2008). Ambiguous absence, ambiguous presence: a qualitative study of
military reserve families in wartime. Journal of family psychology, 22(2),
222.
Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2008). Grounded theory method in management research:
Users' perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 430-455.
Floyd, K., Boren, J. P., Hannawa, A. F., Hesse, C., McEwan, B., & Veksler, A. E.
(2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood
lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of
Communication, 73(2), 113-133.
Fowers, B. J., Montel, K. H., & Olson, D. H. (1996). Predicting marital success for
premarital couple types based on PREPARE. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 22(1), 103-119.
Frisby, B. N., Byrnes, K., Mansson, D. H., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Birmingham,
M. K. (2011). Topic avoidance, everyday talk, and stress in romantic military
and non-military couples. Communication Studies, 62(3), 241-257.
112 112
Gambardella, L. C. (2008). Role-exit theory and marital discord following
extended military deployment. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 44(3), 169-
174.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory. Issues and discussions. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective. Conceptualization
contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (2012). The presentation of self in everyday life [1959]. In C.
Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J. Moody, S. Pfaff & I. Virk (Eds.), Contemporary
sociological theory (3rd ed., pp. 46-61). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Golish, T. D. (2000). Changes in closeness between adult children and their
parents: A turning point analysis. Communication Reports, 13(2), 79-97.
Gomulka, G. T. (2010). Saving military families: The military must do more to
prevent divorce and suicide among active duty personnel and veterans.
Military Review, 90(1), 111-116.
Goodwin, R. (2009). Changing relations: Achieving intimacy in a time of social
transition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gorbaty, L. R. (2009). Family reintegration of reserve service members following
a wartime deployment: A qualitative exploration of wives' experience.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts School of Professional
Psychology. Boston, MA.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory. A practical guide for management,
business and market researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An
inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Habermas, J., & McCarthy, T. (1985). The theory of communicative action:
Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon.
113 113
Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance
expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human
Communication Research, 37(4), 529-552.
Hall, L. K. (2011). The importance of understanding military culture. Social Work
in Health Care, 50(1), 4-18.
Henning, N. L. (1986). Military wives: Stress, strain and alcohol use.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Air Force Institute of Technology,
Wright-Anderson Air Force Base, OH.
Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Wright, E., & Bonus, S. (2005). Weblogs as a
bridging genre. Information Technology & People, 18(2), 142-171.
Highfield, T., Kirchhoff, L., & Nicolai, T. (2011). Challenges of tracking topical
discussion networks online. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), 340-
353.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to crises of war separation and
reunion. New York: Harper.
Hindriks, F. (2009). Constitutive rules, language, and ontology. Erkenntnis, 71(2),
253-275.
Hinojosa, R., Hinojosa, M., & Sberna-Högnäs, R. S. (2012). Problems with
veteran-family communication during operation enduring freedom/operation
Iraqi freedom military deployment. Military Medicine, 177(2), 191-197.
Hogan, P. F. (2010). Marriage and the military: Evidence that those who serve
marry earlier and divorce earlier. Armed Forces and Society, 36(3), 420-438.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2008). Imagined interaction theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O.
Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp.
77-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: an assessment of
data, theory, and reseach on marriage and divorce in the military (Vol.
599). Pittsburg, PA: Rand.
Kaun, A. (2010). Open-ended online diaries: Capturing life as it is narrated.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 133-148.
114 114
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice:
Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 11(2), 395-414.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2003). Responses to changes in relational
uncertainty within dating relationships: Emotions and communication
strategies. Communication Studies, 54(3), 282-305.
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples
during the post-deployment transition: Applying the relational turbulence
model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1-28. doi:
10.1177/0265407511431186
Lawson-Borders, G., & Kirk, R. (2005). Blogs in campaign communication.
American Behavioral Scientist, 49(4), 548-559.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in
interdependent romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 18(3), 423-440.
Le, B., Loving, T. J., Lewandowski, G. W., Feinberg, E. G., Johnson, K. C.,
Fiorentino, R., & Ing, J. (2008). Missing a romantic partner: A prototype
analysis. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 511-532. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2008.00213.x
Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2006). Bloggers: A portrait of the internet’s new
storytellers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology,
52(2), 223-240. doi: 10.1177/0011392104041809
Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach to qualitative research. In F.
Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in
organizations (1st ed., pp. 17-43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2008). Writing a successful thesis or dissertation:
Tips and strategies for students in the social and behavioral sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research:
A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
115 115
Mansfield, A. J., Kaufman, J. S., Marshall, S. W., Gaynes, B. N., Morrissey, J. P.,
& Engel, C. C. (2010). Deployment and the use of mental health services
among US Army wives. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(2), 101-109.
Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Gray, H. F. (2007). Romantic relationships and
health: An examination of individuals’ perceptions of their romantic
partners’ influences on their health. [Article]. Sex Roles, 57(5/6), 435-445.
doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9266-5
Mateczun, J. M., & Holmes, E. K. (1996). Return, readjustment, and reintegration:
The three R's of family reunion. In R. J. Ursano & A. E. Norwood (Eds.),
Emotional aftermath of the Persian Gulf War: Veterens, families,
comminities, and nations (pp. 369-570). Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Merolla, A. J. (2010a). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered:
Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. [Article].
Communication Theory (10503293), 20(2), 169-193. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2010.01359.x
Merolla, A. J. (2010b). Relational maintenance during military deployment:
Perspectives of wives of deployed US soldiers. [Article]. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38(1), 4-26. doi: 10.1080/00909880903483557
Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2003). Trait expressiveness and
marital satisfaction: The role of idealization processes. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 65(4), 978-995.
Milliken, C. S., Auchterlonie, J. L., & Hoge, C. W. (2007). Longitudinal
assessment of mental health problems among active and reserve component
soldiers returning from the Iraq war. JAMA: the journal of the American
Medical Association, 298(18), 2141-2148.
Montero, I., Escriba, V., Ruiz-Perez, I., Vives-Cases, C., Martín-Baena, D.,
Talavera, M., & Plazaola, J. (2011). Interpersonal violence and women's
psychological well-being. Journal of Women's Health, 20(2), 295-301.
Montgomery, B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change:
A dialectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2),
205-223.
Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an
online research tool. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context (pp.
249-287). Oslo, Norway: InterMedia.
116 116
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of positive
illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling nature
of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but
prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155-1181.
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital Ethnography. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.
Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog.
Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41-46.
Nice, D. S. (1981). A longitudinal analysis of Navy family separation. Navy
Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA. ADA108381.
O’Reilly, K., Paper, D., & Marx, S. (2012). Demystifying Grounded Theory for
Business Research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 247-262. doi:
10.1177/1094428111434559
Padden, D. L., Connors, R. A., & Agazio, J. G. (2011). Stress, Coping, and Well-
Being in Military Spouses During Deployment Separation. Western Journal
of Nursing Research, 33(2), 247-267.
Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families.
Military Psychology, 20(3), 205-217.
Peebles-Kleiger, M. J., & Kleiger, J. H. (1994). Re-integration stress for Desert
Storm families: Wartime deployments and family trauma. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 7(2), 173-194. doi: 10.1007/bf02102943
Pincus, S. H., House, R., Christenson, J., & Adler, L. E. (2001). The emotional
cycle of deployment: A military family perspective. US Army Medical
Department Journal, 4(5), 6.
Pittman, J. F., Kerpelman, J. L., & McFadyen, J. M. (2004). Internal and external
adaptation in army families: Lessons from Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm. Family relations, 53(3), 249-260.
Powell, K. D. (2011). In their shoes: Impact of emotions on marital satisfaction,
communication, and technology in spouses of deployed military.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
117 117
Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). Anonymity and self‐disclosure on weblogs.
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1428-1451.
Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in
online and offline relationships. [Article]. Communication Studies, 58(3),
315-337. doi: 10.1080/10510970701518405
Raschmann, J. K., Patterson, J. C., & Schofield, G. L. (1989). A retrospective
study of marital discord in pilots: The USAFSAM experience. School of
Areospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, TX. ADA219695.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the
life course. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Reger, M. A., Etherage, J. R., Reger, G. M., & Gahm, G. A. (2008). Civilian
psychologists in an Army culture: The ethical challenge of cultural
competence. Military Psychology, 20(1), 21-35.
Robbins, E. L. (2007). Muddy boots IO: The rise of soldier blogs. Military
Review, 87(5), 109.
Rosen, L. N., Durand, D., Westhuis, D. J., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1995). Marital
adjustment of Army spouses one year after operation desert storm1. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25(8), 677-692.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed., pp. 769-802). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and
being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21(5), 689-710. doi: 10.1177/0265407504046115
Sahlstein, E. M., Maguire, K. C., & Timmerman, L. (2009). Contradictions and
praxis contextualized by wartime deployment: Wives' perspectives revealed
through relational dialectics. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 421-442.
doi: 10.1080/03637750903300239
Saltzman, W., Lester, P., Beardslee, W., Layne, C., Woodward, K., & Nash, W.
(2011). Mechanisms of risk and resilience in military families: Theoretical
and empirical basis of a family-focused resilience enhancement program.
Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 14(3), 213-230.
118 118
Schulman, M. L. (1974). Idealization in engaged couples. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 36(1), 139-147.
Sheppard, S. C., Malatras, J. W., & Israel, A. C. (2010). The impact of deployment
on US military families. American Psychologist, 65(6), 599-609.
Spera, C. (2009). Spouses' ability to cope with deployment and adjust to Air Force
family demands. Armed Forces & Society, 35(2), 286-306. doi:
10.1177/0095327x08316150
Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on
relationships and patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 16(6), 834-851. doi: 10.1177/0265407599166009
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories. In L.A.Baxter & D. O. Braithewaite
(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 377-390).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship.
Communication Research, 37(2), 275-297. doi: 10.1177/0093650209356390
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic
relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 8(2), 217-242.
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-
distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
24(1), 37-54.
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-
distance premarital relationships. Family relations, 39(3), 274-279.
SteelFisher, G. K., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Blendon, R. J. (2008). Health-related
impact of deployment extensions on spouses of active duty army personnel.
Military Medicine, 173(3), 221-229.
Stefanone, M. A., & Jang, C. Y. (2007). Writing for friends and family: The
interpersonal nature of blogs. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 13(1), 123-140.
119 119
Suzuki, R. (2004). Diaries as introspective research tools: From Ashton-Warner to
Blogs. TESL-EJ, 8(1).
Talkington, B. K. (2011). Communicating support: Where and how Army spouses
seek community. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State
University, Bowling Green, OH.
Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2011). Relational turbulence and the post-
deployment transition: Self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence.
Communication Research, 39(6), 1-25. doi: 10.1177/0093650211429285
Toller, P. W. (2008). Bereaved parents' negotiation of identity following the death
of a child. Communication Studies, 59(4), 306-321.
Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K. B.
Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in
personal relationships (pp. 98-118). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M., & Landreville, K. D. (2006).
Evolution of online campaigning: Increasing interactivity in candidate Web
sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication and
Society, 9(1), 21-44.
Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response
to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
22(6), 723-744.
Warner, C. H., Appenzeller, G. N., Warner, C. M., & Grieger, T. (2009).
Psychological effects of deployments on military families. Psychiatric
Annals, 39(2), 56-63.
Wiens, T. W., & Boss, P. (Eds.). (2006). Maintaining family resiliency before,
during, and after military separation (Vol. 3). Bridgeport, CT: Praeger
Security International.
Wilmot, W. W., Carbaugh, D. A., & Baxter, L. A. (1985). Communicative
strategies used to terminate romantic relationships. Western Journal of
Communication (includes Communication Reports), 49(3), 204-216.
Wood, J. T. (1982). Communication and relational culture: Bases for the study of
human relationships. [Article]. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 75-84.
Wood, J. T. (1995). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal
relationships. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
120 120
Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal
relationships (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CODING SHEET
123 123
Coding Sheet
Author:
Date:
Post Title:
I. Open Coding
A. First Read: Concept
B. Second Read: Categories
C. Third Read: Sub-categories
II. Axial Coding
A. Compare
B. Relationships
III. Selective Coding
A. Core Category
B. Additional Comments
APPENDIX B: TOP BLOGS RECOGNIZED BY MILBLOGGERS.COM
125 125
Table 5
U.S. Army
A Soldier's Perspective http://militarygear.com/asp/
Adonai is Semper Fi http://adonaisemperfi.blogspot.com/
Afghan Blue http://afghanblue.com/
Army Girl http://genevievechase.blogspot.com/
Army of Two http://armyoftwodc.blogspot.com/
Chief Wiggles http://www.chiefwiggles.com
Fear and Loathing in the Infantry http://fearandloathingintheinfantry.com/
Home from Iraq http://armynow.blogspot.com/
*The Rhino Den http://rhinoden.rangerup.com
Wings Over Iraq http://www.wingsoveriraq.com/
Table 6
U.S. Air Force
*Aim High Erin http://www.aimhigherin.com
Betrothed to the MILITARY http://serviceb4self.blogspot.com/
Married to the Job… http://airmanscott.blogspot.com
Multiply Leadership http://www.multiplyleadership.com
126 126
Table 7
U.S. Military Veteran
Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com
Armor Down http://www.armordown.blogspot.com
Blackfive http://www.blackfive.net
Bouhammer’s Afghanistan & Military Blog http://www.bouhammer.com/
Burn Pit http://burnpit.legion.org/
CDR Salamander http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com
Mass Casualties http://masscasualties.com
Neptunas Lex http://www.neptunuslex.com/
This Ain’t Hell http://thisainthell.us/
*You Served http://www.youserved.com
Table 8
U.S. Reporter
Red Bull Rising http://www.redbullrising.com
SOFREP http://sofrep.com
Susan Katz Keating http://www.susankatzkeating.com
The Best Defense http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com
The Long War Journal http://www.longwarjournal.org
*The Unknown Soldiers http://www.unknownsoldiersblog.com
War On Terror News http://waronterrornews.typepad.com
127 127
Table 9
2012 U.S. Coast Guard
Amver http://www.amveruscg.blogspot.com/
Coast Guard Alaska http://alaska.coastguard.dodlive.mil/
Coast Guard Compass http://coastguard.dodlive.mil
*ryan erickson http://ryanerickson.com/
The American Queen http://www.thecutterstoris.info/apps/blog
Table 10
2012 U.S. Navy
Feminine Fatigues http://www.femininefatigues.com
Information Dissemination http://www.informationdissemination.net/
Military Dad http://militarydadblog.com
Navy Operational Stress Control http://navynavstress.com/
*USNI Blog http://blog.usni.org/
Table 11
2012 U.S. Marine Corps
Castra Praetoria http://castrapraetoria1.blogspot.com/
*One Marine’s View http://onemarinesview.com/
The SandGram http://www.thesandgram.com/
Vintage Engineer Boots http://vintageengineerboots.blogspot.com/
128 128
Table 12
2012 U.S. Military Supporter
Assoluta Tranquillita http://assolutatranquillita.blogspot.com/
Bostonmaggie http://bostonmaggie.blogspot.com/
*Character Does Matter http://characterdoesmatter.tumblr.com/
From Cow Pastures To Kosovo http://fromcowpasturestokosovo.blogspot.com
Homefront United Network http://homefrontunited.com/
Iowa Troop Pantry http://www.iowatrooppantry.blogspot.com/
Military-Family Blog http://militaryblog.militaryavenue.com/
Project 365 Vets http://365vets.wordpress.com/
Pundit Review http://www.punditreview.com/
Tails from the Front Line http://tailsfromthefrontline.wordpress.com/
Table 13
2012 U.S. Military Parent
Knottie’s Niche http://knottiesniche.com/
Love You More Than You Know http://neomilitarymoms.wordpress.com/
Maureen’s Marines http://maureenmom.blogspot.com/
My Yellow Ribbon http://my-yellow-ribbon.blogspot.com
*Semper Fi Parents http://www.semperfiparents.com/
129 129
Table 14
2012 U.S. Military Spouse
Chambanachik http://www.chambanachik-live.blogspot.com
Forget The Dog Not The Baby http://forgetthedognotthebaby.blogspot.com/
Household 6 Diva http://www.household6diva.com
The Deployment Diatribes http://deploymentdiatribes.wordpress.com/
The Kitchen Dispatch http://kitchendispatch.blogspot.com
The New “Normal” http://thelongyearahead.blogspot.com
They Call Me Dependent http://theycallmedependent.com
*Wife [Widow] of a Wounded
Marine
http://www.widowofawoundedmarine.com
Wife of a Wounded Soldier http://www.wifeofawoundedsoldier.com/
Witty Little Secret http://wittylittlesecret.wordpress.com/
* denotes the winner in each category Coding Sheet
California State University, Fresno
Non-Exclusive Distribution License
(to make your thesis/dissertation available electronically via the library’s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno
Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next
paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print
and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission
to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to
grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does
not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would
not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained
the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights
required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and
acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency
or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you
have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or
agreement.
California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner
of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license,
to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate
your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.
Type full name as it appears on submission
Date
Marcie Lynne Lierly
December 21, 2012