Introduction

A genogram is a key tool used to symbolically represent family connections, structure, and generational ties (McGoldrick et al., 2020). Its conceptual foundation was introduced by Bowen in the 1950s as a means of visualising and exploring family systems. In the 1980s, McGoldrick played a pivotal role in standardising and expanding the genogram, thereby enhancing its clinical utility (McGoldrick et al., 2008, 2020). Genograms provide a comprehensive view of family composition by incorporating both objective data, such as family structure, sociodemographics, and health issues, along with subjective aspects, including relational dynamics, life stressors, behaviours, and cultural influences. This dual approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of both the factual and emotional aspects of family dynamics, making genograms a valuable tool in the therapeutic context (Alexander et al., 2018; Mackay, 2015; McGoldrick et al., 2020). Genograms are therefore commonly utilised in therapeutic contexts for conducting assessments and gathering historical information (Mackay, 2015). It often encourages clients to engage in deeper self-reflection, gain a better understanding of their familial relationships, and explore alternative ways of interacting with family members (McGoldrick et al., 2008).

In recent years, the genogram has become a valuable tool for researchers seeking comprehensive insights into a diverse range of intergenerational aspects, from familial dynamics and stressful events to the different styles of parenting practices (Alexander et al., 2018; Dyer et al., 2018; McGoldrick et al., 2008; Webb, 2013). With their tangible visual depictions of intricate family structures, genograms offer an effective means for researchers to collect and record crucial family information, providing a clear snapshot of the family’s composition and relationships from the perspective of a focal individual (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2015; McGoldrick, 2016).

Structure and Composition of Genograms

There are some basic principles to consider in all genograms. One important principle is that genograms utilise labels, lines, and symbols to convey pertinent family information (Webb, 2013). The basic family structure illustrated in a genogram employs squares and circles to denote individuals, with lines delineating their various relationships, whether close, distant, or cut-off (McGoldrick, 2016). Through these visual representations, researchers can formulate hypotheses regarding birth order, cohabitation arrangements, family structures, and familial dynamics and roles (McGoldrick et al., 2008). For example, the frequency of adoption within different branches of the family may be examined. The genogram essentially offers a visual tool for researchers to analyse and draw conclusions about the family’s structure, connections, and patterns (Friedman & Krakauer, 1992; McGoldrick et al., 2008, 2020).

Another important principle to consider when constructing genograms is a family’s household composition (McGoldrick et al., 2008). This encompasses factors such as whether the family is traditional, single-parent, or multi-household, with all members cohabiting in the same residence denoted on the genogram by a circle encompassing the household (Friedman & Krakauer, 1992). Researchers may also examine the relationships and roles within these family structures, which are represented through the various lines used on the genogram (McGoldrick, 2016; McGoldrick et al., 2020).

Furthermore, genograms depict the sibling constellation by describing each individual’s date of birth, gender, and relationship. Factors that influence sibling patterns and relationships include the timing of the child’s birth, the sibling’s position, the difference in number of years in age from other siblings, gender, ethnicity, and life circumstances. Sibling patterns may also undergo changes due to shifting family structures and varying childbearing and child-rearing practices (McGoldrick et al., 2008). As a result of divorce, remarriage, and adopted children, families may have a combination of siblings, adopted siblings, or step-siblings who may live in different households and come together only occasionally (McGoldrick et al., 2020).

Genograms are often created individually, although they can be co-constructed by multiple individuals (McGoldrick, 2016). Even when developed by one person, genograms inherently represent immediate and extended family members who are typically not consulted about how they are depicted or involved in the consent process (McGoldrick et al., 2008).

Researchers may employ various types of genograms based on what aspects of relationships they are attempting to investigate. These may include, but are not limited to, sexual, spiritual, community, and timeline genograms (Alexander et al., 2018; Campbell, 2018). The selection of a specific genogram is contingent on the specific aspects that are explored (McGoldrick, 2016).

In South Africa, where extended kinship networks, communal caregiving, intergenerational dynamics, and linguistic diversity shape everyday life, genograms hold promise as a flexible and adaptable tool for psychological research. They may provide a unique lens through which to examine how individuals make sense of their family histories, relationships, and identities within complex social contexts.

The Structure, Value, and Limitations of Timeline Genograms

The timeline genogram is a variation of the standard genogram. Majhi et al. (2018) noted that the timeline genogram differs from other genograms, as it plots time on a vertical axis to show changes in relationships as they occur over time (refer to Figure 1 for an example).

When analysing the timeline genogram, researchers may utilise vertical scanning, which allows them to observe relationship patterns over time and events that occurred in an individual’s life, such as starting a new school, beginning a job, or experiencing illness. They may also apply horizontal scanning, revealing concurrent events in the broader family and context, such as siblings entering school at the same time or family financial stress overlapping with a parent’s job change (Friedman & Krakauer, 1992). This complexity of information further allows researchers to answer important questions, such as what is happening in the family after a critical event, such as an autism diagnosis or a death in the family.

While timeline genograms are widely recognised for their value in therapeutic practice (Mackay, 2015; McGoldrick et al., 2020), their application in research introduces complex ethical challenges that should be carefully considered. Ethical challenges may involve simplifying complex relational narratives, which risks overlooking important nuances, or prompting participants to explore emotions and experiences they have not previously reflected on, potentially causing discomfort or distress (Alexander et al., 2018; Newbury, 2019).

Despite their growing use in research, there is limited literature on the use of timeline genograms as a qualitative research tool, particularly concerning participants’ experiences. Moreover, their application has not yet been documented in South African research. In a highly diverse and multilingual context, visual methods may offer an effective means of capturing complex family narratives. This study investigates how participants experience the use of timeline genograms in qualitative research and the insights generated through this method in the exploration of family relationships. Given their potential to shape how participants reflect on and represent their experiences, it is important to understand their impact within the research process. In doing so, this research highlights the value of timeline genograms as a methodologically adaptable tool for qualitative research in South Africa. This article emerges from a larger doctoral study, which examined the evolving family relationships of emerging adults (who grew up with an autistic sibling) over time, using semi-structured interviews and timeline genograms.

Methods

Research Design

The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was selected as the research design because it delves into participants’ life worlds and the meanings they attach to their experiences (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021). IPA principles draw on phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography (Smith et al., 2009; Smith & Fieldsend, 2021).

Semi-structured interviews allowed for the exploration of participants’ lived experiences, thereby adhering to the principle of phenomenology. Following the interviews, the accounts of the participants were analysed. This entailed interpretating each participant’s story, which encapsulated the hermeneutic component of IPA. Finally, each case was analysed separately, with close attention paid to its particularities. Therefore, this research adhered to the principle of idiography.

Participants and Recruitment

IPA research requires small sample sizes to facilitate in-depth analysis (Alase, 2017; Smith et al., 2009). Hence, a total of 12 participants were recruited. This sample size facilitated a thorough examination of participant perspectives and insights.

Recruitment was facilitated through a South African non-governmental organisation (NGO) supporting families of autistic individuals. The NGO distributed the information leaflet to potential participants via email without divulging their contact details to the authors, ensuring participant confidentiality. Potential participants who expressed interest responded directly to the first author (F.A.) via email. All participants met the study’s inclusion criteria, which required them to be aged 18–29 years (an emerging adult), to have been raised by at least one parent and to have a sibling diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The final sample comprised 10 women and 2 men, aged between 18 and 29 years (see Table 1 for a visual representation of participant demographics).

Ethical Considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Johannesburg, as indicated by the clearance number REC-01-013-2020. Subsequently, potential participants were invited to take part in the study. Participants provided informed consent, were assured confidentiality, and could withdraw at any point during the research process. Given the potential emotional impact of reflecting on family relationships, free counselling services were offered to the participants.

Confidentiality was adhered to in all transcripts and timeline genograms. Participants chose whether to conduct their interviews face-to-face or via the Zoom online platform. Four participants completed face-to-face interviews, while the remaining eight participated through Zoom.

Genogram Construction and Semi-Structured Interviews

The original study used semi-structured interviews guided by questions focusing on emerging adults’ family relationships over time, including experiences of family dynamics, changes across developmental stages, and meanings attached to key family events such as a sibling’s autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Participants’ responses during these interviews formed the basis for constructing the timeline genograms. To ensure participants understood how to create a timeline genogram, they were emailed examples demonstrating the construction process. Before beginning the interview, F.A. explained how the timeline genogram would be constructed and showed an example of a completed timeline genogram.

Based on observation notes (which indicated that individuals may struggle with constructing timeline genograms on their own) from a pilot interview, participants were presented with two options for creating the timeline genogram. One option involved drawing the timeline genogram with facilitation, while the other involved the researcher constructing the timeline genogram based on participants’ responses to interview questions. All participants chose the latter option. The timeline genograms were drawn after participants had answered the interview questions, with participant responses assisting in the construction and completion of the timeline genograms.

A member-checking phase followed to ensure the accuracy of the information captured in the timeline genograms, during which the information was verbally reviewed with participants, allowing them to make corrections or changes. Participants were then asked to reflect on their experiences of constructing the timeline genogram.

Data Analysis

Interviews were analysed through IPA. This method focuses on understanding how individuals make sense of their life experiences (Miller et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2009). The IPA methodology involved several sequential steps. Initially, each transcript was thoroughly read and re-read to gain a comprehensive understanding of the content. Detailed notes were then made on key points and observations, highlighting significant aspects of the participant’s narrative. Following this, emergent themes were identified, capturing how participants experienced the process of constructing the timeline genogram and the reflections it generated. Connections among these emergent themes were explored to understand the within-case context of the data. This process was repeated for each participant’s transcript. Finally, patterns and themes were identified across all participant transcripts, synthesising findings to provide a cohesive understanding of the collective experiences.

Findings and Discussion

The findings and discussion are organised around two themes, namely, simplification of complex stories and relationships, and tracing family bonds and relational patterns over time.

Simplification of Complex Stories and Relationships

This theme delves into how the timeline genogram played a twofold role within the original research study. First, participants reported that the timeline genogram enabled an accurate depiction of their family relationships in a graphic form. Second, this had an indirect effect whereby participants reported that F.A. understood their stories. These aspects will be discussed in greater detail below.

Participants reported that the timeline genogram provided them with an accurate visual depiction of their family relationships. This graphical representation helped them view their familial dynamics in a simplified and comprehensible format. One participant expressed this sentiment by stating:

It brought down all of that mess of what I was saying into like an image. (Serena)

Another participant similarly reported how the timeline genogram provided an accurate breakdown of his familial relationships:

I would think that for me to have this genogram in front of me, of my immediate family, the way I analyse it and what I’ve told you, it shows it’s a breakdown of the relationships I had with my dad, and my mum, and my brother. It really shows the relationships. (Andy)

The statements above illustrate the genogram’s role in providing a clear, organised visual representation of participants’ family relationships. By making abstract narratives tangible, it clarified relational patterns and helped participants recognise interconnected experiences, while also confirming that F.A. accurately understood their perspectives. The use of relational lines (such as fused, close, distant, and caretaker) supported this process, with some participants selecting multiple lines to capture the complexity of their relationships. Semi-structured interviews then enabled participants to elaborate on and contextualise the relational lines they chose:

Maya: With my gran, well, I would say we were fused . . . No, actually, it’s caretaker because I was looking after her. But can there be more than one? [more than one relational line]

F.A.: Yes, you’re welcome to choose more than one.

Maya: Because I feel like it was both.

This exchange highlights two key findings. First, the need to use more than one relational line indicates that relationships cannot always be encapsulated by a single descriptor, suggesting that individuals experience multifaceted and dynamic interactions. Second, the ability to choose multiple relational lines provided participants with the flexibility to more accurately represent their experiences. While the process required a degree of simplification, it also enabled participants to capture complexity and develop multi-layered understanding within their narratives, allowing for deeper reflection on interconnected experiences.

This finding both supports and complicates existing critiques of genograms. Alexander et al. (2018) argue that genograms may oversimplify dynamic and ambivalent relationships due to their static nature. In contrast, participants’ ability to select multiple relational lines allowed for complexity to be preserved within the visual format, suggesting that flexibility in symbol use may mitigate some of the limitations identified in the literature.

The combination of the timeline genogram and interviews further addressed concerns raised by previous research. While genograms alone have been described as offering limited interpretive depth (Alexander et al., 2018), participants in this study used interviews to elaborate, contextualise, and sometimes challenge the visual representation. This supports Jordan’s (2004) assertion that genograms are most effective when embedded within dialogical processes that allow meaning to be co-constructed.

While timeline genograms serve as valuable tools for providing a structured overview of familial relationships, their limitations necessitate a holistic approach. The use of multiple relationship lines at specific time points, together with qualitative interviews, mitigates the reductionism of timeline genograms and enables participants to co-construct more nuanced and inclusive representations of their familial experiences.

Furthermore, participants noted that using the timeline genogram allowed F.A. to follow their narratives, giving them reassurance that they were making sense:

It’s not like you just taking notes and I’m wondering, am I making sense? Do I seem crazy in what I’m saying? But now I’m like, oh ok, now I can see this is what I’m saying, this is where it’s going. (Maya)

Another participant similarly stated:

You get to understand because it’s a drawn thing rather than something that is told and you are not really certain of it. (Katherine)

As a research methodology, timeline genograms provided participants with a tangible means of articulating complex familial relationships. By mapping their positions within their family systems, participants could visualise relational connections, contextualise past experiences, and experience a sense of validation. This aligns with existing literature, which highlights that genograms facilitate structured representation of family systems and support participant understanding of complex family dynamics (Jordan, 2004; McGoldrick, 2016; McGoldrick et al., 2020). When used alongside interviews, the generative capacity of timeline genograms yielded rich, nuanced data that would not have been accessible through interviews alone.

Overall, participants indicated that the timeline genogram clarified complex family narratives while validating their experiences, offering both visual insight and reassurance that their stories were accurately understood.

Tracing Family Bonds and Relational Patterns Over Time

This theme consists of two subthemes, which include participants’ early exploration of family bonds and uncovering patterns in understanding family dynamics.

Participants’ Early Exploration of Family Bonds

This subtheme delves into the impact of utilising the timeline genogram as a tool for participants to reflect on their familial dynamics across various time periods. By employing the timeline genogram, participants were afforded a unique opportunity to explore the evolution of their relationships with family members over time.

For many participants, engaging with the timeline genogram was their first opportunity to comprehensively explore the complex web of connections within their family. This process fostered a deeper understanding of familial dynamics and histories, as one participant noted:

It gave me an opportunity to open up the relationship I had with my father . . . (Andy)

Other participants similarly stated:

I think it’s actually quite interesting because I’ve never actually thought of the development of the relationship, like where we were at a certain point to where we are now, I’ve never really thought about that because I’ve always just been like, we move, you know? So, I guess it helps to show how much we’ve all grown individually and as a family. (Diana)

It actually gave me a better understanding of my family. In a way, you just live and you don’t really notice the things that are happening around you. (Athena)

These quotes illustrate how the timeline genogram gave participants an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of their family relationships, an introspection many had not previously undertaken. Participants noted that they often focused on moving forward without considering past interactions or their significance. The tool facilitated deeper understanding by helping them identify key moments, shifts, and patterns in their relationships.

As a visual methodology, the timeline genogram proved effective in eliciting insights that may not have emerged through verbal accounts alone. Its use prompted participants to engage in deeper reflection on their familial dynamics over time, often generating new insights into how relationships evolved and how previously unexamined aspects of their family histories shaped their present experiences.

Consistent with existing literature, a fully developed genogram functions as a reflective tool that enables individuals to map significant life events and relational patterns across generations (Alexander et al., 2018; Furtado Nogueira et al., 2017; McGoldrick, 2016; McGoldrick et al., 2020). By integrating temporal and relational dimensions, the method offers a structured yet flexible framework for examining the interplay between past experiences and current family dynamics (Friedman & Krakauer, 1992).

Importantly, the methodological value of the timeline genogram extends beyond visual representation to its capacity to stimulate dialogue and collaborative meaning-making. The tangible structure encouraged participants to engage in thoughtful discussion, explore relational complexities, and co-construct insights with F.A., thereby shaping both the research process and its outcomes.

Uncovering Patterns in Understanding Family Dynamics

Within this subtheme, participants reflected on their experiences with the timeline genogram and the insights they gained. Through the process, they described gaining deeper insight into their familial dynamics, particularly through its use, which facilitated the identification of recurring patterns within their relationships. One participant articulated the significance of this process, stating:

I do think that it’s very necessary to also look back and see, and reflect on things that you might have forgotten, or how it used to be. (Tammy)

Another participant similarly noted:

It helped me see my relationships I have with my mom and my grandmother, or even my brother when he was young. So, it’s the first time that I took time to really analyse the relationships that I have with members in my family and some things I just realised now. (Rose)

By visually mapping out relational dynamics, participants were better equipped to identify trends, make connections, and discern the impact of various factors on family functioning. Participants further elaborated on how engaging with the timeline genogram revealed previously unnoticed relational patterns. One participant remarked:

. . . looking at the differences, like fused, close, fused, I’m like, oh there’s a pattern here that I didn’t pick up on. So, I am picking up on patterns that I never realised were there because like, unless you ask the questions, you don’t actually realise there’s actually a pattern to this and I think life in general has patterns, how you respond to different things, how you see yourself, your characteristics, all of that comes from patterns which I wasn’t aware of. (Maya)

Moreover, participants highlighted the value of visually representing these relational patterns, with one participant noting:

But now I understand a lot, and then we see the impact of being around your family members and the way they behave. So, you can tell the difference rather than speaking about the difference. It’s better when you draw the difference and you can tell this is how, when someone behaves like this, the result of it ends up like this, and if two people develop a stronger relationship, these are the consequences. (Katherine)

This visual approach helped participants gain a deeper understanding of their familial dynamics, revealing previously overlooked patterns. It suggests that visual representations, such as timeline genograms, are valuable tools for facilitating self-reflection and comprehension of complex relational dynamics. This is consistent with research on visual methodologies, which highlights their capacity to make relational processes more visible, support the integration of visual and narrative data, and enable participants to reflect on and reinterpret their experiences (Ekoh & Walsh, 2024; Puhlman et al., 2023; Trainor & Bundon, 2026).

Engaging with the tool also increased participants’ awareness of relational trajectories and opportunities to strengthen family relationships. As one participant reflected:

It’s interesting to see like, how relationships improve or how they’ve changed throughout the years, and yeah, I feel like I have more understanding of the relationships that I have in the household and how that changed and how I can maybe better the relationships in general. (Tamia)

Participants’ engagement with the timeline genogram prompted reflection on previously unexplored aspects of family dynamics, deepening their understanding of relational histories, highlighting recurring patterns, and revealing opportunities to strengthen current relationships. This aligns with existing literature, which positions genograms as dynamic tools for identifying intergenerational patterns, relational dynamics, and emotional trajectories (Alexander et al., 2018; Arias, 2019; Jordan, 2004; Joseph et al., 2023; McGoldrick, 2016).

Taken together, participants’ engagement with the tool demonstrates that timeline genograms function as both a methodologically rigorous research instrument and a psychologically generative tool, fostering awareness, validation, and deeper understanding of familial relationships. Their visual and flexible nature makes them particularly suitable for the South African context, where families often exhibit diverse structures, multilingual communication, and communal caregiving arrangements.

Recommendations and Conclusion

This study demonstrates how timeline genograms enrich qualitative inquiry by complementing interviews with a structured yet flexible visual method. They facilitate nuanced accounts of family systems and relational histories in ways that align with IPA and related approaches. When used alongside interviews, timeline genograms allow participants to both visually map relationships and articulate the meanings underlying their representations. During interviews, participants can explain why they selected particular symbols or configurations on the genogram, offering richer, contextualised insights into family dynamics.

Participants’ engagement with the timeline genogram prompted experiences of validation and new perspectives on their family relationships. This process fostered insight into behavioural trends and relational trajectories, highlighting opportunities for growth within their families. Notably, family relationships are often complex and may be difficult to neatly classify using a single relational symbol. Participants may simultaneously experience connection, conflict, ambivalence, or emotional distance within the same relationship. Allowing participants to select multiple relationship symbols, where appropriate, prevents the oversimplification of these complex dynamics and supports a more accurate representation of lived relational experiences.

Given the time-intensive and emotionally reflective nature of genogram construction, researchers are encouraged to break the process across multiple sessions or include follow-up interviews, rather than completing the genogram in a single sitting. This approach can facilitate rapport-building, provide participants with necessary breaks, and allow for deeper reflection as insights develop over time. It may also enable researchers to more comprehensively capture evolving understandings of family relationships as participants revisit and elaborate on their narratives.

These findings position timeline genograms as more than methodological aids. They are psychologically generative tools that support reflective meaning-making and deepen understanding of family dynamics. Incorporating this method into psychology curricula and professional development can equip practitioners with tools for assessment, engagement, and structured reflection.

Ethical considerations remain essential. Researchers and practitioners should attend to the emotional impact of constructing timeline genograms, provide debriefing and referral where necessary, and remain transparent about the limitations of what the tool can capture.

In conclusion, this study positions timeline genograms as a visually adaptable research tool that integrates methodological innovation with psychological theory and practice. The method provides a valuable framework for exploring complex family dynamics, uncovering relational patterns, and generating deeper insight into familial relationships in South Africa and other diverse contexts.