• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Don't You Know What Causes That? Advice, Celebration, and Justification in a Large Families Bulletin Board

Posted on: Tuesday, 21 February 2006, 15:00 CST

By Arnold, Lorin Basden

A thematic analysis of an on-line bulletin board for parents of large families revealed three prominent patterns of talk related to advice seeking and giving, celebration of family, and justification of family size. This combination of discursive behaviors seem to be largely social supportive in nature and may have implications regarding the lack of face-to-face social support for large families and the potential importance of communication within on-line groups for providing that support.

Keywords: Large Families; Bulletin Boards; Narratives; Social Support; Justification

Most pregnant women have had the experience of having a stranger touch their stomachs, or tell them what to eat and drink (or not eat and drink), or what to do (or not do). Most parents of a newborn have had someone tell them to "put a hat on the baby," or that the baby is too warm in that outfit, or the baby needs to be fed, or if you hold him or her that much you will spoil him or her. Most parents of toddlers have had someone look askance as their child throws a tantrum, eats candy, etc. There is something about the parenting process that seems to open an invitation for comment, advice, and criticism. Parents of large families get all of that again, and again, and again. But, they also get people asking if they are "done yet" or if they "know what causes that" or if they "really need that many children" or how they can afford that many children.

The diversity of family forms in the United States means that the majority of people do not live in the family often presented as the standard (married heterosexual parents with two or three children) in media and public images. Today, large families are considered unusual in the U.S. However, understanding communication both within and about diverse family forms is an important part of the study of family. The interpretive research described here focused on an Internet bulletin board for members of large families. Analysis of the talk from that board suggests that the board provides these individuals with social support, in relation to their family lives, that they may not be receiving in other domains.

In this paper, I will first briefly consider the extant scholarly research related to large families. Second, I will discuss social support and its effects on individuals and families. Third, I will provide a brief background of bulletin boards in general and this on- line community specifically. Next, I will discuss the main rhetorical patterns I saw on this bulletin board during the 18 months under analysis. And finally, I will consider some of the implications of such discourse.

Large Family Research

Large families, while more common in the past and in less industrialized countries, have become rare in much of the Western world. In the U.S., the average number of children in a family (as of the 2000 census) is 1.87 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Families with more than six children are so rare that the census no longer tracks that data (Hartill, 2001). In Canada, as of 1996, only 1% of all families had five or more children (Ko, 1999). In the UK, the average family has two children and less than 30% of women have three or more children (Office of National Statistics, 2004). In New Zealand, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands the average birth rate for women is under two children (Statistics New Zealand, 2003). While large families have become rarer in many countries, they do still exist. Thus, it is important that such families remain a part of family communication research.

A very small amount of research has been done concerning communication in or about large families per se. A group of studies exists in the fields of population studies, anthropology, sociology, and medicine related to communication specifically about contraception and family planning (principally as related to unindustrialized nations) (e.g., Feyisetan, 2000; Isiugo-Abanihe, 1994). However, there is little extant work on the other communicative issues of, or about, large families. Additionally, most of that work has been devoted to family size more generally, with large families at one end of the continuum of findings. Kiesler (1977), for example, considered how parents engage in justification of family size after the family is complete. In this research, Kiesler found that women with more than the "normative" number of children (two) are more likely to engage in post hoc justification of their family size and have more positive attitudes about their own family size. She argues that this is likely due to the lack of external pressure to have more than two children and the fact that childbearing is generally considered a matter of choice. While Kiesler's research does not precisely focus on large families, it suggests that as families get larger they may feel more need to justify their size.

Similarly, Mueller and Yoder (1999) argue that "supernormative mothers," those with four or more children, face criticism from others. Large families are viewed, say these researchers, as potentially neglectful and parents are encouraged to stay within "normal" (two or three children) parameters of childrearing. An example of this type of criticism of large families in scholarly research can be found in the work of Douglas Downey. Downey and his associates (Downey, 1995,2001; Downey, Powell, Steelman, & Pribesh, 1999) argue a dilution model of parental resources. In this argument, they state that each additional child added to the family creates a reduction in parental time, energy, and financial resources for the current children. Thus, children in large families are positioned as lacking in these dimensions of parental support.

Other, more personal, reports also suggest that the experience of receiving criticism for family size is a prominent part of life in a large family. A variety of popular press articles contain stories from large family members noting criticism of their life style (e.g., Clyde, 1997; Godfry, 2001; Hartill, 2001; Ko, 1999; Walsh, 2001; Zanichkowsky, 2000). These individuals state that others primarily overlook the benefits of large family life and see the problems as overwhelming. This is probably in part due to the scarcity of large families in many cultures. If large families are rare in a culture, few people are likely to have first-hand experiences of them. Thus, their understandings may be based on imagining what life in a large family is like, and how complicated, rushed, and over-extended it must be.

As communication scholars, we have largely ignored the dynamic of family size, and in particular large families, in our research. The small selection of reports detailed above, while not all scholarly, provide us with a glimpse into the lives of members of large families. They suggest that members of large families may not feel that their life experience is particularly supported by those around them, and may even feel a sense of social stigma (Goffman, 1963). Such stigma could produce a lack of social support for large families, and that, in turn, may have a negative impact on the lives of family members. Thus, this avenue of research seems an important one for family communication scholars. This study was conducted to investigate the ways that parents of large families communicate with each other about their family experience on an Internet bulletin board.

Social Support Research

Social support is "information leading the subject to believe that [s]he is cared for and loved, esteemed, and a member of a network of mutual obligations" (Cobb, 1976, p. 300). Cutrona (1996, p. 3) defines social support as "the fulfillment by others of basic ongoing requirements for well being ... and the fulfillment of more specific time-limited needs that arise as the result of adverse life events or circumstances." Social support is a multidimensional concept, and support may take many forms and serve many purposes (Cutrona & Russell, 1987). Types of social support that have been identified by scholars include instrumental support, emotional support, appraisal, and informational support (House, 1981).

Social support has been found to have positive impacts on the physical and mental health of individuals (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & seeman, 2000; Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith, & Sarason, 1994). Studies have found physical and psychological benefits related to cancer (Ford, Babrow, & Stohl, 1996; Manne et al., 2003; Shaw, McTavish, Hawkins, Gustafson, & Pingree, 2000; Wright, 2002), rheumatoid arthritis (Holtzman, Newth, & Delongis, 2004), heart health (Janevic et al., 2004; Pedersen, van Domburg, & Larsen, 2004), disability (Braithwaite, Waldron, & Finn, 1999; Fox, 2000), and AIDS (Cawyer & Smith-Dupre, 1995; Leserman et al., 1999), among other health issues. These studies suggest that social support can have a direct impact on the psychological state of patients (and caregivers) that increases their ability to cope with the physical state and can thereby have positive effects on the physical state of the patients.

Within family settings, a number of studies have indicated the importance of social support for parents in relation to their emotiona\l health, parenting, and marital success, indicating that social support within the family is likely to increase marital satisfaction, decrease depression, and increase feelings of parenting efficacy, among other positive effects (e.g., Erdwins, 2001; Graham, Fischer, Crawford, Fitzpatrick, & Bina, 2000; Koerner & Cvancara, 2002; Lee & Duxbury, 1998; Tardy & Hale, 1998; Owen & Mulvihill, 1994; Wan, Jaccard, & Ramey, 1996; Xu & Burleson, 2004). Other studies suggest that social support for families may also be correlated with positive child outcomes related to both internalizing and externalizing behaviors (e.g., Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Moore & Chase-Lansdale, 2001; Rosenfeld & Richman, 1998; Sommer et al., 2000).

From the findings related to social support, if large families are feeling stigmatized and not supported within their social environments, it could have troubling impacts on the lives of the family members. If on-line bulletin boards, then, provide social support for their members, this could lessen the negative impact of the critical responses of others in the "face-to-face" system.

Bulletin Boards

There are an amazing number of on-line bulletin boards available on the Internet in the year 2005. Bulletin boards can be found on a wide variety of topics including sexuality, politics, health, family issues, occupations, technology, sports, current events, romantic relationships, and addiction. While bulletin boards vary in topic, most have a relatively similar format.

Typically, bulletin boards are arranged in a topic tree format. An individual "posts" or submits a topic of interest or a question to the board. Subsequently, other individuals will read and respond to that "thread" with their own posts concerning the topic. Topic trees are usually kept for a set period of time and are available for public scrutiny during that time. After that time period, service providers often move messages to an archive, where they can be accessed and retrieved. Keyword searches are available in some systems as well. Membership to a bulletin board may be required, or posts may be largely anonymous. Even on systems that require membership, anonymity is preserved through the use of individually selected user names. Some boards are moderated by the service that provides them and posts that violate the board standards are removed. On other boards, there are no official moderators, but members can report violations to the service.

Internet bulletin boards have both communicative advantages and disadvantages for the user (Barnes, 2003; Burrows, Nettleton, Pleace, Loader, & Muncer, 2000; Chenault, 1998; Finfgeld, 2000; Fox, 1998; Walther, 1996; Wright, 1999). Because users can reply to posts that were submitted at a previous time, boards allow for asynchronous group communication. This means that users can access the information at their own convenience and allows for ease of communication across time zones. A second positive to bulletin boards is that they allow a user easy access to a community of peers. Individuals who may not find it easy to locate someone with similar interests or problems in their local community can quickly do so on-line. A third advantage to bulletin boards is that potentially they allow the writer to take time in carefully constructing a response. Many bulletin boards also provide the possibility of re-editing responses prior to posting or after posting. This may result in more adeptly worded communication than what might occur in a chat room or in face-to-face conversation. A final value of bulletin boards is that they offer the user anonymity. Typically, users choose on-line names. They can then choose to provide personal information at any level they wish. Thus, prejudices based on social categories like age, sex, appearance, social status, race, etc. are less likely to figure in the conversation. However, this advantage is also one of the downfalls of bulletin board communication.

Anonymity means that individuals who participate on the board cannot be sure, simply from the posts, that other participants are who/what they claim to be. Thus, online interaction may necessitate a greater degree of care/cynicism than might be present in face-to- face peer communities. Anonymity can also provide users with the opportunity to "flame" or attack other users without fear of any real repercussions. Additionally, the non-verbal cues normally associated with communication are missing on-line. This may increase the number of misunderstandings or miscommunications that occur (e.g., Baker, 2001; Jacobson, 1999, Sproull & Keisler, 1986). Walther (1996) also argues that, in the absence of some information available in face-to-face encounters, on-line interactants may develop unrealistic images of others, because they must attempt to "fill in the blanks" of the communication channels not available. Posters attempt to counter this problem with acronyms meant to represent non-verbal communication behaviors or emoticons, typed characters used to indicate emotion (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000). As use of bulletin boards increase, the methods of attempting to "get around" the problems associated with board use are likely to continue to become more sophisticated.

Because the use of bulletin boards is a growing trend, studies of this communication phenomenon are needed. Various studies about boards have been conducted (e.g., Arnold, 2003; Benson, 1996; Braithwaite et al, 1999; Burrows et al., 2000; Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull, 1994; Fox, 1998; Nagy, 1994; Pandey, 2000; Wellman, 1997; Wright, 1999; Wright, 2002). Based on these studies, scholars have suggested that on-line bulletin boards have characteristics of community, offer social support to members, and provide unique communication avenues to participants. This study considers the use of bulletin boards by parents of large families. Because of the scarcity of large families in U.S. culture currently, Internet bulletin boards may provide members of these families with a chance to interact with others in the same situation. Such a chance may not, for many families, present itself in the "real world" of face- to-face interaction.

Parent2Parent.com1

Parent2Parent is an on-line site containing information for individuals involved in the care of infants and toddlers, as well as pregnant women and their partners. As part of this service, a variety of bulletin boards are offered that allow caregivers to communicate with each other regarding parenting and pregnancy issues.

While the Parent2Parent bulletin boards are available for reading to anyone on the Internet, in order to begin posting on a Parent2Parent bulletin board, individuals must become members of the "host company" that provides server space and sponsorship to Parent2Parent. In 2002, there were over 3000 bulletin boards hosted by this site. Since that time, the boards have decreased somewhat on this site (due to increasing numbers of other options). However, they remain quite active. In total, these boards produce thousands of unique messages in each day.

One set of bulletin boards on Parent2Parent is related to family size. In this section of the bulletin boards, there are boards for medium-sized families (two to four children), families with close siblings, families with widely spaced siblings, families with only one child, families with twins or other multiples, and the "Lots of Tots" board for families with five or more children (or those who are preparing to have five children). It is talk displayed on this board that I will analyze here.

Studying "Lots of Tots"

For this study, I followed the Lots of Tots bulletin board on Parent2Parent for 18 months. After careful consideration of the choice with the university IRB director, as well as analysis of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Frankel & Siang, 1999) report on human subjects on the Internet, I chose to "lurk" rather than announcing my study to the members of the board.21 made this decision to reduce the intrusiveness of my study for the group and also to prevent my cyber-presence from changing the nature of the talk. In addition to altering the bulletin board name, community name, and usernames of board members, I took additional measures to insure participant privacy as well. I did not interact on this board or seek any additional information. Finally, posts selected for report were those that do not contain demographic data.

During the time involved in this analysis, this bulletin board produced over 3500 printed pages of talk. Thus, an extremely large amount of discourse was available for scrutiny. In addition, this group also developed a membership page, and a page devoted to frequently asked questions about large families and responses to those questions. These pages also became part of the data set. -

Leatham and Duck (1990) suggest that social support should be looked at as a part of our situated social interactions. They note that one way to study this phenomenon is to observe the content of interaction. This was my attempt in this analysis. As I followed these parents' stories for a year and a half, I paid close attention to the communication patterns that were prominent on the board. I looked for themes in the posts and typical patterns of interaction through a process of constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lindlof, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), letting the discourse lead to the themes, rather than beginning with a set of pre-determined categories. As the only researcher for this study, this meant many hours reading and re-reading these pages of discourse in order to cull the common patterns in the talk. During this process of combing through the discourse, lists of categories representing recurring patterns of talk and meanings were created (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990); those categories \were then used to continue the process of analysis. Such thematic analysis has also been considered and used by Braithwaite, Baxter, and Harper (1998), Langellier and Sullivan (1998), Owen (1984), Rawlins and Holl (1987), and White (2004), among others. As the work continued, individual categories of interaction that seemed related to one another in their overall communicative purpose were combined in an effort to identify the primary communicative behaviors, related to large family life, that appeared in the talk of these parents.

The analysis discussed here is the result of a great deal of time spent "with" this group of parents attempting to understand the discourse of this bulletin board. In a sense, I became an "invisible" member of this group. From the time I spent "in" this club, I identified a number of rhetorical patterns commonly engaged in by the group. While there were many types of talk contained on this board (some about family, and some about other things such as movies, television, food, news, etc.), in this analysis, I focused on the most prominent patterns of talk related to large family issues. This list is not meant to be an exhaustive representation of the discourse of this group; rather, these three types of talk represented the patterns that were the most frequent on this bulletin board, and tended to engage the largest number of participants in the discussions. The three most common ways these parents talked about large family experience on this bulletin board were seeking and giving advice, celebrating the family, and justification of family size.

Advice Seeking and Giving

As in most support systems, parents who posted on the Lots of Tots (L.O.T.) board, during the time discussed here, turned to each other for advice. Because the board was related to parenting large families, most advice related to that issue. Of course, family life is a complex phenomenon, so there was a variety of issues about which advice was sought and provided.

Advice about the Pragmatics of Family Life

I am also homeschooling, and my husband works long hours, too. What's worse, is that his schedule is erratic. His work day might start at 9 am, or maybe 11 pm, or maybe 2 pm.. it's hard to keep the kids and myself on a schedule. We have six kids, ages 8, 7, 5, 3, 2, and 7 weeks. My house is generally a pigsty, when I am pregnant or have a young baby in the house, because I have physical problems too - my back and hips are not in good shape, and so I can't always do the housework. Then when I can do the housework, it's such a mess I can't get it all done. Then my back hurts from the work! It's a vicious circle, and it's the only thing in my life I don't feel really good about - and it's actually driving me bananas. All I can say is it helps when other members of the family pitch in. Now, how do I get them to do that without me having to yell at them? That's my question!! (6forsusie)

I think a large family and home schooling seems impossible at times. We really cut down on running all over the place. We get way less sick and the book work gets done plus I do not feel so drained. One thing [dear husband] did was hire household help for one morning a week. She does the 2 bathrooms and vacuums. The kids were doing it but she does it much better.(((: Plus it "frees" up our Saturdays and we can do some other things. I do not know what it is with backs but mine is killing me too most of the time. Going to the chiropractor helps even though it is costly but else I can't function. Decluttering and organizing helps too but I am not that good at it plus we live in a mobile, mom to 8- 13, 11, 10, 9, 8, 2 1/ 2, 1 1/2, 3 months (oldmotherhubbard)

Some of the advice sought, as seen in the discussion above, was purely pragmatic in nature. What type of vehicle to buy for a big family, what sort of laundry system to use, how to keep a house clean and organized, and recipes that are easy to cook for large groups were frequent topics of conversation. These conversations were repeated often as new participants entered the board and began asking for advice on these issues, or as families embarked on changes in living arrangements, vehicles, etc. In all, there were many pages of the final discourse set that involved repetition of these same pragmatic discussions of large family life.

Though such parental chores and decisions are pertinent in all families, large families have some obvious issues in these arenas that smaller families may not face. Many times, members of the board indicated that the systems (or cars) that had worked for them before, and that worked for most of their face-to-face friends/ family, were no longer useful in light of their current family size. Face-to-face family and friends, even if available and willing to provide this type of informational support, are unlikely to have the same large family constraints. This made the L.O.T. board a unique opportunity to get practical advice on these issues from other large families.

Advice about Parenting and Family Planning

In addition to household issues, advice was sought about parenting decisions as well. Child illnesses, behavioral issues, sibling rivalry, breastfeeding, potty training, and discipline were all discussed on the board. The parents on this board shared information with each other about these common aspects of parenting on a daily basis. As with the pragmatic issues discussed above, these elements of family life are common to families of all sizes. However, the nature of large families may make some of the situations somewhat unique and create a situation where those with smaller families are unable to provide adequate informational support.

Because many of the parents who posted on the L.O.T. board were not "finished" adding to their families, there were also frequent discussions about family planning.

How do you decide how far to space your children? Also how do you KNOW how many you can handle? What a loaded question! For those of you who DECIDE/PLAN whatever you call it :0) when to get pregnant again/how far to space your children, how do you decide? Do you have a plan or is it a spur of the moment thing/whenever the urge hits you. I know this is coming across TOTALLY wrong. I guess what I am trying to say is I want a larger family. We have 5 children now (WOW it feels good to say that!) Our youngest is 5 days old and our oldest is almost 7 years old. I am trying to decide how long to wait in between. Is it dangerous having babies REALLY close in age? My closest are about 16 months. I don't know that I would want any closer but hey who knows ;0) .... Also, how do you know if you can provide enough love, finances, time, emotional support, etc for more children? How do you know when enough is enough? How do you know when to stop? Does your heart tell you or do you have to go with what your mind says? (lovinourkids)

First off, congratulations on your darling new baby!!! We have 11 children, mostly about 2 years apart. For us, this wasn't so much a decision as that with breastfeeding this is how my body works. At first we would talk about it and then decide to "try" but lately we've just kind of left it up to the Lord. We did have a vasectomy while we were expecting our fifth, but later undid it. My husband did the reversal for me, but now his heart has changed, too. Guess we'll know we're done when they stop coming, which will hopefully be after we have a twelfth! The baby will be one on Thanksgiving, so it's about time to think about another '" one. :-) As far as all the physical things, I don't know what to tell you, maybe you need to talk to you midwife about that. Until this last pregnancy, mine were all pretty easy and straightforward, so the number of babies didn't particularly take its toll on my body. I feel better pregnant than when I'm not! One thing to keep in mind, as simplistic as it sounds, is that the older ones grow up as you add younger ones! What I mean is that they can help more and are more independent... I doubt if this helped, but I did want you to have some answers to your questions. Just enjoy that little one, they grow too quickly! (happyapple)

Because many of the participants of this board were in the process of adding to their families through birth or adoption, conversations such as the one above were not unusual in the 18 months that I studied this group. Sometimes the questions would come from regular members of the board or "lurkers" (individuals who stated that they read the board regularly but rarely posted); however, often these questions were asked by "newbies" (new members of the board) or L.O.T. "wannabes" (people who hoped to some day have a large family). Largely, board members seemed very responsive to such questions and would respond with posts encouraging the individual to follow his/ her heart in regard to family size and spacing. At times, posts included more pragmatic discussions of N.F.P. (natural family planning). Rarely did anyone on the board actively encourage the use of pharmaceutical birth control in any form. And, since the culture of the board reflected a dedication to the idea of having a large family, discussions of how soon to have another child were more common than discussions of how to prevent another pregnancy.

Advice Seeking and Giving as Informational Support

The advice seeking/giving aspect of this bulletin board seems highly consistent with other on-line support groups, as well as face- to-face groups (Finfgeld, 2000; Muncer, Burrows, Pleace, Loader, & Nettleton, 2000; Selwyn, 2000; Tardy & Hale, 1998). Individuals who have a common situation often engage in sharing of information as a form of social support. Because this group seemed to see itself as a support group (the description of the board posted at the top of the page expressly invoked "support"), and was a group composed primarily of parents of large families, it perhaps is not surprising that mos\t of the information seeking and giving related somehow to the unique nature of large families. Additionally, this is probably connected to the way that talk about family planning was largely information about how to have more children (not how to prevent them). On a board where families with eight, ten, and twelve children were not uncommon, discussions about birth control or preventing pregnancy may have been seen as "not supportive."

Overall, discussions involving the provision of informational support were extremely common on this bulletin board. Members turned to each other as sources of information regarding the day-to-day enactment of large family life. This process of seeking and providing information seemed to be an important aspect of this support group. As Tardy and Hale (1998) note, information sharing can serve to empower group members in their own lives. For these parents, informational social support may have functioned in pragmatic ways (providing the information needed to make decisions) and also to increase parental feelings of efficacy, as parents acquired information that helped them feel that they "knew what they were doing." Sharing information with others may have also created for these parents a feeling that their large family experiences gave them a unique insight into parenting that could be valuable to others. In addition to giving each other information, members of this bulletin board also engaged in electronic celebrations of the positives of large family life.

Celebration of Family

Celebration of Growing Family

I'm pregnant! I just found out late yesterday. I don't know when I'm due, but I think the middle of September. Does anyone think I'm crazy to be expecting 20? I think I may be. (19kidsforme)

Not crazy..... ..congratulations and may you have an easy pregnancy. (maternalo)

Congratulations!!! 20 is a good even number :) My [dear daughter] has a good friend who's one of 2!..and all great kids, (weeonesplenty)

While only one of the parents on this bulletin board announced a 20th pregnancy, during the time of analysis, there were many announcements of pregnancy and birth. Without exception, these announcements were greeted with happiness and congratulations. This aspect of the board seemed very important to its members, probably because, as discussed by Mueller and Yoder (1999), women are often encouraged by family, friends, and medical practitioners to stay within the normative family limits, where normative is typically two or three children. Participants on the Lots of Tots board often noted that there were few people in their "real" lives that would greet their pregnancy news with other than a shudder. Several pregnant participants stated that they dreaded announcing their pregnancy to parents, siblings, or in-laws because they would be critical, and other members of the board responded with posts indicating that they had been through the same situation during their pregnancies. Based on these posts, it seems that family members and friends in the "real world" were not able to offer a supportive reaction to news of impending increases to family size. Therefore, the bulletin board offered an important venue to make their disclosure in an atmosphere where the receivers would be not only accepting, but also excited about the news.

Celebration of Large Family Life

In addition to celebrating new births and adoptions, members of the L.O.T. board also discussed the various advantages of large family life:

Good morning all!! What is your favorite part of having a large family?? (sspringg)

Watching how they are each alike, each different, seeing all the little interactions and relationships between them. ...and another cool thing is that you're recognized everywhere you go... We live in a big suburb, but everyone at the grocery store, gym, etc, knows me, talks to me, and asks how the kids are if I'm missing some or all of them. I think if I were just another mom with one or two kids nobody'd really care to know who I was. Of course, without the kids I do kinda travel incognito, which is cool, too. (kidkeeper)

I love the sparkle in a child's eye as they discover something for the first time...... really puts life into prospective for me. I also love snuggle time and hugs and kisses goodnight. Even our teenagers still have to have a hug and kiss goodnight and an occasional tuck me in. (fiveinthehouse)

Just the love all the around the house ( lOaremybunch)

While not all of the posts on the L.O.T. board were as "happy" as these, the general atmosphere of the group discussion during these months was very positive in regard to the benefits of large family life for parents and for children. At times, members would express that they were having a "hard day" coping with the children, the laundry, etc. But, even during these down times, no member made statements suggesting that he/ she wished the family were smaller. Some new members came to the board through a "sudden" family increase (i.e., through adoption of children, guardianship of children left by a deceased relative, or marriage). When these individuals announced their presence, members of the board rushed to reassure them of the joys of having a large family. While they acknowledged its logistical difficulties at times, these participants were overwhelmingly positive about the overall experience. Kiesler (1977) suggests that women with larger families may engage in more expression of satisfaction about their family size because it is a choice that they have made, it is "costly," and they engaged in the choice with little outside pressure to do so. For these parents, who had between five and twenty-six children, pressure from the outside had likely been, if anything, in opposition to their choices.

In two instances where members engaged in some complaining about children, there were very negative effects. In one instance, non- members of the board began posting messages suggesting that continuing to have more children was a bad choice if the current families were already problematic. In a second instance, an infrequent poster complained about her children's behavior and received some supportive "me too" responses from other posters. At that point, the conversation was picked up by another bulletin board, whose members proceeded to suggest that these mothers of large families were either foolish to have gotten themselves into such a situation or bad parents whose children should be removed from their homes. This discussion was then reported on the Lots of Tots board where the members' posts indicated extreme anger over this evaluation of their family situations. Such "lessons" on-line and in other parts of their life may have discouraged board members from speaking about their more difficult or doubtful parenting moments.

Celebration as Appraisal Social Support

The overarching positivity of board members about the large family experience likely functioned as a form of appraisal social support by offering social comparison and affirmation of the large family experience. The board offered to its members the unique social situation of being "surrounded" by others who had made the same unusual choice to have a large family. This isn't something that is likely to happen for most large family parents in the face- to-face domain. As members celebrated with each other their choice to have large families, that choice itself became even more appealing. Thus, the affirmative social support offered here makes this unusual lifestyle seem, not only as viable and reasonable as a more typical choice, i.e., having two children, but even better. This may explain why discussions of the negative aspects of large family life were rarer and often couched within claims that the positives far outweighed the negatives. The tendency of these parents to downplay the negative or troublesome aspects of family life was likely heightened by instances, such as the ones noted here, when nonmembers used statements about family problems as evidentiary claims for an argument that having a big family was a bad decision.

The concern about how others respond to large families was a strong theme on the L.O.T. board. Perceptions of large families held by family, friends, and the general public was an under-current of many discussions on the board. This became most noticeable in posts dedicated to consideration of "the questions."

Justification of Family Size

Although there were more (in total number of first-level messages) posts on the L.O.T. board that sought or gave advice on the assorted pragmatic and parenting aspects of large family life discussed earlier, no single topic generated more discourse than dealing with the comments and criticisms of others regarding large families. Members of the board even generated an on-line F.A.Q. page of questions they had been asked and the responses they had given, or at least wished they had given. This sense that members of large families needed to be prepared to continually provide justification for their family size was a strong part of the talk on the L.O.T. bulletin board.

The act of providing an account for behavior seen as unusual or questionable is a part of the social construction of truth. As Goffman (1971, p. 9) notes, "Without knowing how those involved in an act attribute responsibility for it, we cannot in the last analysis know what it is that has occurred." While accounts of any type are meant to relieve the individual of some negative attribution for an act, there are two primary types of accounts that can be offered (Goffman, 1959, 1971; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Tedeschi & Riess, 1980). Excuses represent admissions that the behavior is wrong or bad, but allow the actor to deny responsibility for the behavior. Justifications, on the other hand, are a full acceptance of responsibility for the act, but a denial that the act itself is blameworthy. In the case of the L.O.T. bulletin boar\d, accounts made for having large families took the form of justifications, rather than excuses. Some of the justification offered was done via humor, and other justification was based on a "higher power."

Justification through Humor/Sarcasm

While having others question your family form is probably not, in total, a laughing matter, members of the L.O.T. board indicated that they often greeted such claims with humorous or sarcastic replies.

Need your help with Witty Comebacks FAQ I finally decided to put together a FAQ with all the questions we get asked a lot and possible replies. But of course, I had to work from memory and know I have read lots of more great comebacks, so please help me out! (lisamz)

I got some! To "are you gonna get fixed?":

#1. Huh, we thought everything was working fine for us!?!

#2. We didn't know anything was broken.

#3. Don't you only fix things that aren't working properly? Well as you can see by the size of OUR family everything is in working order.

And for the "are you gonna have anymore?":

#1. We are trying to get into the [Guinness] Book of World Records of (add whatever here) most kids, largest family living in one house, whatever.

#2. Before we were married we planned on having 2, but I didn't know that my husband couldn't count!

#3. OH YES! I want to have a family bigger then the one in my favorite movie "Yours, Mine & Ours!" only (add a # here) to beat the 19 they had!! (funtimes5)

Some more:

"Are you going to have more?""Yes, I always want just one more."

"Don't you know what causes that?""Water or sex but I don't want to give up either."

"I can't believe how you do it, I cannot even handle my two!""I do it like most people, in bed and after the kids are sleeping." Or "I put knobs on the kids. Makes them easier to handle."

"I hope you aren't planning to have anymore?!?""OK, I won't plan my next one. Surprises can be fun!" or "Yup we are going to keep going till we get an ugly one."

"Haven't you heard of birth control?""Yes, that's great stuff for people with ugly kids!"

"Don't you have a television?""Yes 4 of them. Why?" (mommaluvs?)

Board members noted that they got questions like these at the grocery store, in the mall, in church, at school functions, at the physician's office, at family gatherings, etc. They stated that the questions came from family, friends, neighbors, clergy, service personnel, medical practitioners, and even strangers.

While board members were at times able to engage in humor regarding these questions, other posts noted the hurt caused by some comments. Members stated that many people who asked them questions were just curious, but others seemed hostile. Posts on the board indicated that these parents had been told that they were neglecting or harming their children by having such large families. Others stated that people sometimes assumed that they were either rich (to afford such a large family) or living in poverty (and having more children simply to get more money from the government). Such experiences may have made these parents wary that others might see them as needing "help" to raise their families, because, even within this largely supportive atmosphere, members often made explicit reference to the fact that they were raising their families without help from family or government sources. Few of the mothers on the board engaged in work outside of the home, and many of them home- schooled their children. Much discussion was devoted to the fact that these mothers did not even need the help of daycare providers or teachers to raise their families.

One conflict on the board related to having these comments and criticisms occur in what, members argued, was supposed to be an atmosphere of support. Periodically, someone who did not have a large family would begin posting on the board. Often, that person would indicate that he/she was considering having a large family someday, but had some questions to ask. Questions were typically about the cost of large families, and how parents could give quality attention to so many children. Such posts would generate a somewhat divided response. Usually, at first, most members would welcome the newcomer and provide a positive description of large family life. If the newcomer persisted in the questions or they became more pointed in nature, members would begin to react less positively. Some posts indicated that such questions seemed to be an implied criticism of their lifestyle. At times, members would invoke the statement at the top of the bulletin board, which described the board as a support forum for parents of five or more children, and ask the newcomer to leave. Others might defend the "newbie," noting that he/she was only seeking information. Typically, such conflict would gradually decline in a relatively short period of time and the board would resume its typically supportive nature. In addition to using humorous/sarcastic comments to provide justification for family size, members also used religious claims for that purpose.

Justification through a Higher Power

Even within the board, there was some degree of justification of family size. If a member posted a poll or question about house size, number of bedrooms, etc. responses would frequently contain not only the information sought, but also a justification of why a particular family had chosen to continue having children when they were living in a small house or how sharing a bedroom with many siblings was good for children.

How did we arrive at the decision to have a large family? Well, we had two and pretty much thought that was okie dokie. But the scripture that God primarily used to convict us, and continues to use to uplift us, was proverbs 3:5&6... "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths." Obviously, there is no mention of birth control in that scripture, but it sums up our whole philosophy. The Bible states that children are a blessing, and we take them as such. We believe that God plans best, and if we believe that He is all powerful, all knowing, and wants only the best for us, then He is certainly trustworthy and able to close and open my womb whenever He sees fit. I don't claim to never struggle with this decision, but for now, I keep on keeping on. It requires a daily laying down of my faulty, human understanding, and depending on His almighty Grace to sustain me. I don't care how many kids you have. I don't care how many kids my neighbors, friends, or fellow church-goers have. I know letting the Lord plan your family does not make you any more spiritual than the next person. But it's my way of "presenting my body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to the Lord"... who am I? The work of His hands, along with all the children He gives me. He is infinite and so much more able than I to choose what is right. (my8rewards)

As in this example, for many discussions involving justification of family size, religion was utilized. A very vocal segment of the L.O.T. board membership practiced the "quiver full" philosophy. This view is based on a biblical passage that says, "Children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them" (Psalm 127:3-5). Proponents of this view, as seen in the previous post, frequently produced discourse that invoked God as a justification for family size. While not all members of the L.O.T. board professed belief in the quiver full philosophy, those who did state this belief were some of the most active members of the board. Thus, an underlying religious text was present in much of the talk.

Regardless of the verity of the quiver full claims, statements of belief in such a religious position would provide some protection to parents of large families. To publicly try to convince someone that his/her religious beliefs are wrong is something that most people are unlikely to do. In a largely Christian country, espousal of these beliefs may protect parents of many children from some of the criticism they may otherwise receive. Additionally, these statements effectively reverse the claim that parents who continue having children are being selfish. The quiver full view positions parents, instead, as selfless and devoted to the fulfillment of a higher plan.

Justification as Emotional and Informational Support

As noted previously, posts that were dedicated entirely to justification of family size were not the most common discourse type on the L.O.T. board. In sheer number of first-level posts, there were more advice seeking/giving messages presented on the discussion board. However, the rhetorical activity of justification was a large part of the L.O.T. discourse. Even in discussions not related directly to explanation of family size or dealing with perceptions of others, messages related to this issue were quite common. Additionally, these posts were some of the most emotionally laden and involved discussions that occurred on the L.O.T. board during the 18-month observation period. It is important to note that the members of the L.O.T. board were not attempting to excuse or apologize for their family size; that is, they were not making an admission that it was wrong to have a large family. Instead, they were providing a justification for their family size by positioning it as a good choice, not a bad one.

Justification talk on the L.O.T. board functioned as both informational and emotional social support. This discourse provided members with emotional social support by showing empathy and letting board members see that others were experiencing the same forms of criticism that they were. Such talk, in effect, said, "I've been where you are, I understand." Engaging in this emotional support also positions the hurt, frustration, andanger that members expressed over the questions and comments they received from others as reasonable responses to such comments. This talk also functioned as emotional support by providing humor as a way of mitigating the hurt that may be caused by such critical questions or comments. Additionally these posts provided members with actual information regarding ways to cope with the problem of criticism from others regarding family size. The F.A.Q. page of questions and "comebacks" was a tool that members could use to develop their own justifying responses when confronted with claims that their large family was somehow inappropriate. Even if members never actually used the humorous or religious answers provided on the board, having them available, and knowing that others were going through the same issues, likely functioned to empower these parents of large families as they interacted with others in their face-to-face social worlds.

Conclusions

Overall, from my analysis of this on-line bulletin board, I concluded that the three most prominent patterns of talk about family related to advice seeking and giving, celebration of family, and justification of family size. These three types of discourse were clearly related to informational, emotional, and appraisal social support. Additionally, while justification of family size was not the most frequent type of talk on the board, it was the most heightened in emotional talk and involvement. The prominence of this pattern of talk suggests that parents of large families may spend a great deal of "real world" time justifying their families' existence. Therefore, they may lack in the social support that is useful and important to all family types. This on-line bulletin board, therefore, may be both a reflection of and substitute for the lack of face-to-face social support of large families.

The large amount of time, effort, and emotion expended on the L.O.T. board discussing ways to respond to others' questions and criticisms of family size suggests that these families may be receiving little social support in their "real" lives. Because large families are so rare, they have been "stigmatized" in the Goffman (1963) sense. Their unusual life choice makes them suspect and draws negative appraisal from the people they hope would support them. And, due to scarcity, they may find it difficult to find other large families to interact with in face-to-face settings. Without that faceto-face interaction, parents may have trouble getting informational, appraisal, or emotional social support in their surroundings. Thus, the social support being offered on this bulletin board might have operated as a substitute for the social support that was lacking in other venues.

While this thematic interpretive analysis represented a long- term study of one group of large family parents and resulted in some compelling findings, its limitations must be noted. First, the participants on this bulletin board are not representative of parents of large families in general, and no claims of generalization are being made in this analysis. Large family parents who have the time, financial status, and inclination to utilize Internet bulletin boards are certainly only a small segment of the overall population. And, because this bulletin board was a particular community with cultural tendencies, the communicative behaviors exhibited here may be somewhat unique to this group. second, because of the nature of the study, board members were not questioned as to their own impressions about the utility of the L.O.T. board in their lives. Studies addressing how members of such on-line parenting bulletin boards feel about these communities are an important part of understanding their function (Arnold, 2003). Third, as a rhetorical analysis of discourse presented in a public forum, it must be stated that the way these parents talked about family life on this bulletin board may be similar or different from the way they describe that experience in less public arenas. Other studies related to communication in and about large families are necessary to "flesh out" this very sparse field of study. Finally, as stated previously, this group produced a significant amount of discourse over this period of time. The study described here is, of course, only one way that discourse could have been considered. The themes presented are meant to provide an overall sense of the most common patterns of talk, and should not be taken as an exhaustive representation of this discourse.

Though the study conducted here is not generalizable, the findings are suggestive of some important issues that should be considered with regards to large families. If large families are unable to achieve adequate social support in their extended families or communities, it can have a negative impact on all members of the family unit. This suggests that bulletin boards such as the L.O.T. board, or other on-line communities, while providing social support of various types, may provide an important function for these families. Families who turn to such venues can get support in informational, appraisal, and emotional forms. While there is continuing debate over whether on-line interactions have the same quality as face-to-face interaction, in the absence of such "real world" interactions with similar others these Internet support systems may provide an important alternative.

Notes

[1] The bulletin board series, specific bulletin board, and all usernames have been altered to help protect the members of this community.

[2] The bulletin board discussed here exists in the public domain. The 1999 report of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Frankel & Siang, 1999), as well as other writings with regard to Internet research, suggests that several standards should be applied to assessing research with human subjects on the Internet. The standards include accessibility, perceived privacy, intrusiveness, vulnerability, and potential harm. In this case, the bulletin board studied was accessible to anyone with Internet access (no membership was required for viewing). When signing in to post, members saw an explicit warning that any information posted was public, so perceived privacy was not high (and members often made mention of this fact on the board). Intrusiveness of the study was negligible, because the researcher did not interact with board members. Finally, because the nature of the posts made on the board, and included in this report, was not highly sensitive, the vulnerability and potential harm to participants is extremely low.

References .

The American heritage dictionary of the English language. (2000). (4th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Arnold, L. B. (2003). Delivering empowerment: Women's narratives about the role of pregnancy bulletin boards. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 4, 45-52.

Baker, P. (2001). Moral panic and alternative identity construction in usenet. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved September 23, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol7/issue 1 /baker.html

Barnes, S. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to- human communication across the Internet. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Benson, T. W. (1996). Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication Quarterly, 44 (3), 359-378

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, L, & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 843-857.

Braithwaite, D. O., Baxter, L. A., & Harper, A. M. (1998). The role of rituals in the management of the dialectical tension of "old" and "new" in blended families. Communication Studies, 49,101- 120. Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in computermediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication, 11 (2), 123-151.

Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., Goldsmith, D. J., & Sarason, I. G. ( 1994). Introduction: The communication of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. xi-xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burrows, R., Nettleton, S., Pleace, N., Loader, B. & Muncer, S. (2000). Virtual community care? Social policy and the emergence of computer mediated social support. Information, Communication, and Society, 3(1), 95-121.

Cawyer, C. S., & Smith Dupre, A. (1995). Communicating social support: Identifying supportive episodes in an HIV/AIDS support group. Communication Quarterly, 43, 243-258.

Chenault, B. G. (1998). Developing personal and emotional relationships via computer-mediated communication. Computer Mediated Communication Magazine, 5 (5). Retrieved May 15, 2004, from http:// www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/may/chenault.html

Clyde, A. ( 1997, March/April). Is big beautiful? Family Life, 46- 47.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5, 300-314.

Constant D., Kiesler S. B., & Sproull L. S. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 400-421

Cutrona, C. E. ( 1996). Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social support and adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 37-67). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and parenting selfefficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child Development, 57, 1507-1518.

Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children's educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60 (5), 746762.

Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development. The Ame\rican Psychologist, 56 (6/7), 497-504.

Downey, D. B., Powell, B., Steelman, L. C., & Pribesh, S. (1999). Much ado about siblings: Change models, sibship size, and intellectual development. American Sociological Review, 64 (2), 193- 198.

Erdwins, C. J. (2001). The relationship of woman's role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations, 50 (3), 230-238.

Feyisetan, B. J. (2000). Spousal communication and contraceptive use among the Yoruba of Nigeria. Population Research and Policy Review, 19, 29-45.

Finfgeld, D. L. (2000). Therapeutic groups online: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 21, 241-255.

Ford, L. A., Babrow, A. S., & Stohl, C. (1996). Social support messages and the management of uncertainty in the experience of breast cancer: An application of problematic integration theory. Communication Monographs, 63, 189-207.

Fox, S. (1998). Issues related to negative communication on disability-related electronic listservs. Computer Mediated Communication Magazine, 5 (2). Retrieved May 15, 2004, from http:// www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/feb/fox.html

Fox, S. A. (2000). The uses and abuses of computer-mediated communication for people with disabilities. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 319-332). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet. Retrieved February 17, 2002, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Godfrey, A. W. (2001). Crowd control. Commonweal, 128 (3), 31.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. ( 1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row.

Graham, C. W., Fischer, J. L., Crawford, D., Fitzpatrick, J., & Bina, K. (2000). Parental status, social support, and marital adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 20 (7), 888-905.

Hartill, L. (2001). Life with a supersized family. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 15, 2004, from http:// www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/pl5sl-lifp.html

Holtzman, S., Newth, S., & Delongis, A., (2004). The role of social support in coping with daily pain among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 677-695.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Isiugo-Abanihe, U. C. (1994). Reproductive motivation and family- size preferences among Nigerian men. Studies in Family Planning, 25 (3), 149-161.

Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(1). Retrieved September 23, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/ issuel/jacobson.html

Janevic, M. R., Janz, N. K., Dodge, J. A., Wang, Y., Lin, X., & Clark, N. M. (2004). Longitudinal effects of social support on the health and functioning of older women and heart disease. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 59, 153-175.

Kiesler, S. B. (1977). Post hoc justification of family size. Sociometry, 40 (1), 59-67.

Ko, M. (1999). Why large families face insults. Alberta Report Newsmagazine, 26 (8), 30-31.

Koerner, A. F., & Cvancara, K. E. (2002). The influence of conformity orientation on communication patterns in family conversations. Journal of Family Communication, 2, 133-152.

Langellier, K. M., & Sullivan, C. F. (1998). Breast talk in breast cancer narratives. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 76-95.

Leatham, G., & Duck, S. (1990). Conversations with friends and the dynamics of social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 1-29). London: Sage.

Lee, C. M., & Duxbury, L. (1998). Employed parents' support from partners, employers, and friends. Journal of Social Psychology, 138 (3), 303-322.

Leserman, J., Jackson, E. D., Petitto, J. M., Golden, R. N., Suva, S. G., Perkins, D. O., et al. (1999). Progression to AIDS: The effects of stress, depressive symptoms, and social support. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 397-406.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Sherman, M., Classman, M., Ross, S., Goldstein, L, & Fox, K. (2003). Buffering effects of family and friend support on associations between partner unsupportive behaviors and coping among women with breast cancer. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20 (6), 771-792.

Moore, M. R., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). Sexual intercourse and pregnancy among African American girls in high-poverty neighborhoods: The role of family and perceived community environment. Journal of Marriage and family, 163 (4), 1146-1157.

Mueller, K. A., & Yoder, J. D. (1999). Stigmatization of non- normative family size status. Sex Roles, 41 (11/12), 901-919.

Muncer, S., Burrows, R., Pleace, N., Loader, B., & Nettleton, S. (2000). Births, deaths, sex and marriage ... but very few presents? A case study of social support in cyberspace. Critical Public Health, 10(1), 1-18.

Nagy, K. (1994). Cancer information seekers cruise the "highways." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86 (15), 1115- 1119.

Office of National Statistics. (2004). Fertility: Women are having children later. Retrieved November 17, 2004, from the National Statistics Online Web Site: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ CCI/ nugget.asp?ID=762&Pos= 1 &ColRank=2&Rank= 1000

Owen, M. T., & Mulvihill, B. A. (1994).

Source: Communication Studies

More News in this Category