Systematic review explores conceptualizations of transnational families, revealing biases and suggesting future research directions.
<ns5:p> In recent years, the notion of <ns5:italic>transnational families</ns5:italic> (TNFs) has become central to understanding how kinship, care, belonging and identities are sustained across borders in an increasingly mobile world. This literature review systematically analyses how the concept of TNFs has been applied in academic work published between 2018 and mid-2023. Drawing on nearly 400 peer-reviewed publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC, last searched in spring 2023, it identifies five distinct patterns of conceptual use. The analysis reveals that the term remains broad and is inconsistently applied, often conflating <ns5:italic>transnational</ns5:italic> , <ns5:italic>long-distance</ns5:italic> and <ns5:italic>migrant</ns5:italic> families. Empirical research remains thematically concentrated on caregiving and ICT-mediated ties within families with underaged children and older parent-adult child dyads, with comparatively little attention to couples, siblings, extended kin, queer families, or forced separations. Moreover, the review uncovers persistent Western-centric and classificatory biases: families from the Global South and Eastern Europe are routinely framed as TNFs, while white, middle-class (Western) Europeans are less visible in this strand of research. By synthesising the conceptual patterns and dominant foci and identifying less-researched aspects, the review advances a more reflexive and inclusive understanding of TNFs. It calls for future research that pays greater attention to the temporal dimension and integrates structural inequalities, diverse family forms, and intersectional perspectives into the study of transnational family life. The main limitations of the review relate to the use of a specific keyword search strategy and reliance on selected academic databases. Given its conceptual focus, no formal risk of bias assessment was conducted. The review was not prospectively registered. </ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budginaitė‐Mačkinė et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: