Co-cultural Communication Strategies and Agency of Women in Sinf-e- Ahan

Abstract

This study employs the co-cultural theory of Mark Orbe to explore how women in Pakistani television drama Sinf-e-Ahan utilised various communication strategies. It employs qualitative content analysis to analyse how female characters, as representatives of co-culture group members in the drama, negotiate their status through communication and use various communication approaches, such as assimilation, accommodation, and separation, to achieve their preferred goals. The study has analysed the female characters of Sinf-e-Ahan and explored 23 episodes of the drama to extract specific dialogues and scenes, in which female characters use communication strategically as a response to conservative norms, societal oppression, and marginalisation due to the dominant group in society. Moreover, the research has focused on the dialogues and scenes of the drama for a co-cultural communicative analysis of the communicative experiences and practices of female characters in the dearth research has focused on the dialogues and scenes of the drama, for a co-cultural communicative analysis. The findings of the study reveal that the female characters in the drama, as representatives of cultural groups, employ nine distinct communication orientations and various communication practices in their encounters with the dominant group. This study concludes that despite their limited power, they use communication strategically as a response to the conservative norms of society and to achieve their preferred goals.

References

Ade, N. P. (2021). Rethinking the implications of the patriarchic system of male dominance and female subordination in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), 1–6.

Bie, B., & Tang, L. (2016). Chinese gay men’s coming out narratives: Connecting social relationship to co-cultural theory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 9(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2016.1142592

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: Research methods for small-scale social research projects (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

DeJonckheere, M., Vaughn, L. M., James, T. G., & Schondelmeyer, A. C. (2024). Qualitative thematic analysis in a mixed methods study: Guidelines and considerations for integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(3), 258–269.

Esmaeili, M., Sheydayi, A., & Jamalabadi, F. (2025). A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative content analysis applications in urban planning research: Proposing a mixed method approach. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 151(3), 04025020.

Floris, M., Pinna, R., & Veglianti, E. (2025). Unveiling gender disparities in male-dominated industries: An intersectional perspective. In Feminist perspectives in business studies (pp. 171–196). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Givi, G. H., Azimi, D., & Mastanabadi, S. (2021). Comparison of communication patterns, self-efficacy and assertiveness at teenage girls with self-mutilation and normal group. Women’s Studies Sociological and Psychological, 19(3), 185–212.

Glenn, C. L., & Johnson, D. L. (2012). “What they see as acceptable:” A co-cultural theoretical analysis of Black male students at a predominantly White institution. Howard  Journal of  Communications, 23(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2012.722822

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). A first look at communication theory (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Jun, J. (2012). Why are Asian Americans silent? Asian Americans’ negotiation strategies for communicative discriminations. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2012.691525

Khan, M. A., & Imran, M. (2025). Identity construction and stereotypical roles of women in Pakistani TV dramas. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 9(1), 125–136.

Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Newbury House.

Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229.

Manian, S., & Sheth, K. (2021). Follow my lead: Assertive cheap talk and the gender gap. Management Science, 67(11), 6880–6896.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107

Muurlink, O., & Thomsen, B. (2024). Qualitative research approaches to social phenomena.

In Advanced research methods for applied psychology (pp. 99–110).

Orbe, M. P. (1997). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication. Sage Publications.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co- cultural communication theoretical model. Communication Theory, 8(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00209.x

Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of f irst‐generation college students. Communication Education, 53(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520410001682401

Rahman, A., & Susilo, A. (2024). The analysis of women’s leadership communication styles in group communication. e-BANGI Journal, 21(3).

Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.

Tang, L., Meadows, C., & Li, H. (2020). How gay men’s wives in China practice co-cultural communication: Culture, identity, and sensemaking. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 13(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2019.1576807

Tansey, J. F., & Parks, E. S. (2022). Privileged professionalisms: Using co-cultural communication to strengthen inclusivity in professionalism education and community formation. Ethics & Behavior, 32(5), 431–448.

Vatsadze, E. (2022). The role of “face” in building a successful relationship. Language and Culture, (28). https://doi.org/10.52340/lac.2022.04