I Reviewed an Article and it Took a Really Long Time

In the study “Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty- Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships”, the author Erin Sahlstein claims that making plans manages both certainty and uncertainty in long distance dating relationships (LDDRs). Sahlstein uses three forms of praxis strategies throughout the course of this study. Praxis is defined as a philosophical term for practical behavior. The author also mentions use of Relational Dialectics within the study, which Sahlstein claims is a “useful lens for examining simultaneous yet competing needs”. Sahlstein states that the reason for this study is clear in the literature, “there is a human desire to reduce uncertainty, to explain the world, and to render it predictable.” She then goes on to state that planning creates certainty. Sahlstein claims that uncertainties come about in LDDRs because of the ebb and flow of their partner’s physical presence in each other’s lives. Certainty is something that LDDR couples strive for because of such infrequencies.

The study consisted of the measure of twenty couples. They were each given a questionnaire to fill out alone, and then they were asked to complete a couple interview, where in which one person read the questions and then answer the question jointly. The questions were as flows: 1) How does your time together positively impact your time apart? 2) How does your time together negatively impact your time apart? 3) How does your time apart positively impact your time together? 4) How does your time apart negatively impact your time together? The participants were asked to tape their answers. The praxis strategies used reflect the couples interview where denial, balance, and segmentation. Planning as denial is when couples engage in planning talk, which produces certainty about future interactions. Planning as denial is when couples plan for conversations that have uncertain outcomes. Lastly, planning as segmentation allows for the clean separation between individual and relational lives. The results showed that over planning could cause anxiety for partners if they don’t finish what they had planned.

The claim that Sahlstein makes is valid. Certainty is guaranteed with plans, but the uncertainty lies within them. However, every couple is different, therefore this article cannot pertain to every LDDR. While certain aspects ring true for certain couples, the article as a whole could be perceived as something of a fallacy. Sahlstein makes a hasty generalization in saying that planning is something that all LDDRs need. While Sahlstein’s sources are qualified, being that they are in LDDRs, they are not reliable sources. Individuals often embellish themselves on psychological assessments. Therefore their answers may not be completely valid.

Another thing to note would be in the lack of a physical response check. While people may psychologically feel as though their relationship is in a comfortable place it is very possible that they are showing physical signs of unhappiness. If this study were to be properly conducted, they would not merely look at the psychological effects of a LDDR; they would examine the emotional effects and the physical effects along with it.

Perhaps one of the most prevalent issues that can be found in this study, and indeed, in every study, is the fact that every study treats every relationship the same. Every relationship is different and while certain areas of one study may be true for one relationship, the same may not be true for any other. Every study needs to acknowledge that each relationship, be it an LDDR or not, differs from one another. Hence, the experiment expressed in the article poses a logical fallacy.

Although the article has a large amount of faults, it also expresses some very valid points. The author mentions a very valid point within the article, which is the application of segmentation and its importance, so that a couple may direct their attention on their relationship when they’re able to physically be with each other. It points out that one of the major issues in any Proximal Distance Relationship (PDR) is that there isn’t a clear separation between the intimate lives of the couple and their social and professional lives, whereas in a LDDR the couple can clearly separate the two to allow for them to spend more time and focus to each aspect of their lives. The author makes a very valid point in the importance of segmentation.

Another very strong point that the Author makes in the article is making plans for conversations that ensure certainty between them. Sahlstein states that “Couples frequently discussed how they make explicit plans to ensure that 1) their future time together will be satisfying and 2) that they will not waste their precious moments together.” Couples in an LDDR tend to feel uncertain when they are not with each other and the author states that when they make plans, it will help make them feel more secure and more certain about each other.

Overall, Sahlstein makes good points for the case of the three praxis strategies. She points out that making plans as denial, balance and segmentation can lead to success in some LDDRs. However, she fails to note that not every long distance relationship functions in the same way. 






Sahlstein, Erin M. "Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty- Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships." Western Journal of Communication70.2 (2006): 147-65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.


***My blog won't show the works cited as having a hanging indent! But I promise it's there!

***