IRPG

Menu
Multidisciplinary

One journey, two worlds: How Couples perceive their Interpersonal Communication Experiences with Infertility – A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Analysis

IJMRB | Published: July 30, 2026 | Vol. 5 Issue 4 | ISSN: 3108-1428
Ms. Jescah Otieno1✉,
Dr. Jared Obuya1,
Prof. Masibo Lumala1
1 Department of Publishing, Journalism, and Communication Studies School of Information Sciences, Moi University, Kenya.
Download PDF View DOI

Abstract

This paper is based on a study that examined how couples experiencing infertility exchange messages at an interpersonal level. It addresses the question: How do couples living with infertility perceive their interpersonal communication about their status? Using hermeneutic phenomenology, five couples were sampled purposively, and data generated using in-depth conversational interviews and analysed using reflexive analysis. Findings demonstrate that couples perceive their communication about infertility on two fronts: at a personal level and a societal level, with society playing a dual role of both hurting and relieving couples of the pain of infertility through their words. The study concludes that the lack of sustained and deliberate interpersonal communication accounts for most of the suffering couples living with infertility endure. It calls for policymakers to infuse communicative etiquette, ethics, and soft-skill competencies throughout the educational curriculum to ensure that all citizens can recognize sensitive interpersonal situations with awareness, restraint, and empathy.
Keywords: couples; infertility; interpersonal communication; Kenya; phenomenology.

References

  1. Bauer, A. (2026). Americans spend just 39 minutes a day in face-to-face conversation. The Hill.
  2. Bratina, T. (2023). Digital devices and interpersonal communication over time. Journal of Elementary Education. Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 425-439.
  3. Chimbatata, N.B.W. and Malimba, C. (2016). Infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Woman’s Issue for How Long? A Qualitative Review of Literature. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 96-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.48012
  4. Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2010). Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  5. Dalgleish, T. L., Johnson, S. M., Burgess Moser, M., Wiebe, S. A., & Tasca, G. A. (2015). Predicting key change events in emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(3), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12101
  6. DeMaris, A., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2010). Sanctification of marriage and general religiousness as buffers of the effects of marital inequity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(6), 1485–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00774.x
  7. Hawkey, A., Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., Parton, C., Patterson, P., Bateson, D., & Bernard, D. (2021). Talking but not always understanding: couple communication about infertility concerns after cancer. BMC Public Health, 21(1), Article 10188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10188- y
  8. J., O. K. (2025). The Impact of Technology on Interpersonal Relationships. Newport International Journal of Scientific and Experimental Sciences, 6(3), 172. https://doi.org/10.59298/nijses/2025/63.172178
  9. KNBS. (2024). Kenya vital statistics report. Accessed August 29th 2025 https://www.knbs.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Kenya-Vital-Statistics-Report- 2024.pdf
  10. Koenig Kellas, J., & Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2015). Communicated narrative sense-making: Understanding family narratives, storytelling, and the construction of meaning through a communicative lens. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of family communication (pp. 76–90). SAGE Publications.
  11. Loscocco, K., & Walzer, S. (2013). Gender and the culture of heterosexual marriage in the United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1116/jftr.12003
  12. Njogu, A., et al. (2022). Experiences of infertile women pursuing treatment in Kenya: A qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health, 22:364 doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01950-
  13. Ong’ondo, C., & Jwan, J. (2020). Qualitative Research Process: From Conceptualisation to Examination. Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
  14. Palmer-Wackerly, A. L., & Krieger, J. L. (2014). Dancing around infertility: The use of metaphors in a complex medical situation. Health Communication, 29(8), 830–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.888386
  15. Peterson, R., & Green, S. (2009). Families First: Keys to successful Family Functioning Communication. Virginia Tech: Virginia Tech State University
  16. Pfeifer, V. A., & Mehl, M. R. (2026). Sliding into silence? We are speaking 300 daily words fewer every year. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916261425131
  17. Stieger, S., Lewetz, D., & Willinger, D. (2023). Face to face more important than digital communication for mental health during the pandemic. Scientific reports, 13: 8022 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34957-4
  18. Van Manen, M. (2017). But is it phenomenology? Qualitative Health Research, 27(6), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323 17699570
  19. WHO. (2023). Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. Geneva.
  20. Williamson, H. C., Ju, X., Bradbury, T. N., Karney, B. R., Fang, X., & Liu, X. (2012). Communication behavior and relationship satisfaction among American and Chinese newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027752
🔓 Open Access | Published by IR Publishing Group. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Log in

Sign up
Sign up
Scroll to Top