A Contextual Approach to Family Theories and Methods

1. A Contextual Approach to Family Theories and Methods Doherty, W. J., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3-30). New York: Plenum Press.

2. The Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of the Family Field • The progressive era and social reform • The 1920s and 1930s -- The turn to the personal • The postwar period -- The era of “normalcy” • The 1960s and 1970s -- The breakdown of the postwar consensus • Linkage between theory and research: there has been less than optimal linkage between theory and research (Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

3. Historical Influences • Qualitative methods were important in the 1920s and 1930s because • of cultural interest in the personal domain of life, • quantitative methods were still relatively crude. • Quantitative methods were important in the 1920s and 1930s because Americans were becoming fascinated with using “scientific” methods to understand personal life. • The positivist and quantitative paradigm was emphasized during the mid-twentieth century because of American fascination with the power of science and technology to • create the “good life,” • fight off enemies. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

4. Historical Influences (cont.) • 1960s: unprecedented ability, due to technological advances, to conduct complex qualitative and quantitative analyses. • Development of video technology combined with the birth of family systems theory provided scholars and clinicians a new tool for direct observation of families. • Social and government optimism about the ability of social scientists to diagnose and change social problems created funding opportunities to conduct large-scale longitudinal research utilizing nationally representative samples. • Qualitative methods re-emerged as a result of feminism and human liberation movements in an effort to understand the subjective meaning of experiences of marginalized people. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

5. Emerging Trends in the Family Field in the Early 1990s • The impact of feminist and ethnic minority theories and perspectives • Epistemological and ethical challenge: revise family paradigms to recognize and celebrate diversity of family experience, particularly for those of marginalized and oppressed groups. • Embrace a postpositivist philosophy of science: acknowledge and examine the inevitable intermingling of scholars’ personal and cultural values in their work. • Realization that family forms have changed dramatically: enhanced recognition of diversity. • The trend toward greater professional inclusiveness: family science is conducted across academic disciplines. • The trend toward more theoretical and methodological diversity: enhanced blending of theory and methods. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

6. Emerging Trends (cont.) • The trend toward more concern with language and meaning: revival of interest in symbolic-interactionism and phenomenology. • The movement toward more constructivist and contextual approaches • An increased concern with ethics, values, and religion • A breakdown of the dichotomy between the private and public spheres of family life and between family social science and family interventions. • Greater recognition by family scholars of the contextual limits of family theory and research knowledge. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

7. Effect of Trends: • Increased awareness of sociocultural context and personal meaning. • Impact on research: • Most articles in the major family journals emphasize positivism, objectivity, and a value-neutral approach. • Grants, which fund research, seem to emphasize similar themes. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

8. Pitfalls and Paradoxes of Postpositivist, Contextual Approach • Constructionism: can impair scholars’ understanding of social forces such as discrimination which affect families. • A multidisciplinary approach may promote mindless eclecticism. • Emphasis on pluralism and diversity may inhibit understanding of commonalties among families. • Acknowledgment of one’s values is only the beginning of the search for understanding; otherwise, scholars’ could use this as an excuse to avoid critical self-scrutiny and dialogue. • Preoccupation with criticism may promote cynicism and promote a reluctance to create or entertain bold ideas, both new and old. • Enthusiasm for qualitative methods could promote a new “orthodoxy” about research methods which might diminish the usefulness of experimental methods and statistical procedures. • Although it is important to recognize the impact of personal world-view on research, there is a danger that research will be trivialized or politicized rather than used to promote open debate. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

9. Types of Theories “Theorizing is the process of systematically formulating and organizing ideas to understand a particular phenomenon. A theory is the set of interconnected ideas that emerge from this process (Doherty et al., 1993, p. 20) • Empirical generalizations: summaries of research findings which are linked to other research findings and some general findings but which are not discussed in terms of an overarching theoretical scheme. • Causal models: • More complex empirical generalizations which are generally shown as diagrams which use statistical results to demonstrate a relationship between variables. • They are usually presented as models to be tested in a study, not just as a summary of research findings. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

10. Types of Theories (cont.) • Middle-range theories: • More abstract than empirical generalizations and causal models. • Still confined to a particular topic. • Formal prepositional theories: abstract statements used to explain a particular phenomenon (e.g., marital quality positively influences marital stability). • Analytical typologies: another use of diagrams to represent relationships, but at a general level (e.g., the Circumplex Model of family cohesion and adaptability developed by Olson and his colleagues). • Conceptual frameworks: • A set of assumptions and ideas about the fundamental features of the social world. • These assumptions are used to develop theories to be tested. • Metatheories: study of one’s own field of knowledge rather than the study of a particular topic within the field. • Level of abstraction and scope of content: see Figure 1-1 on p. 22. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

11. Controversy About Goals of Social Science Theories • Naturalistic-positivistic knowledge versus sensitizing-descriptive knowledge: Should social science theory emphasize objective, empirically verifiable knowledge or focus on clarification of meaning but without pretense to universal, objective knowledge? • Abstract versus contextual: Should theory try to be free of time, place, and context or should historical and cultural context be considered? • Falsifiability as a core element: Should theory be stated so that it can be empirically tested and proven wrong (e.g., rejection of the null hypothesis) or should theory be evaluated based on plausibility, intuitive appeal, value judgments, and aesthetics? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

12. Controversy(cont.) • Should the goal of theory be to explain or predict and control? • Academic knowledge versus personal knowledge: Is objective knowledge developed from conceptual frameworks superior to personal experience? • Knowledge for itself versus knowledge for social change: • This refers to the historical split between social science and social action. • How are these complementary rather than contradictory? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

13. Evaluating Social Science Theories • Richness of ideas: intuitive appeal, based on originality and depth. • Clarity of concepts: how well are the ideas defined and distinguished from related concepts? • Coherence of connections among concepts: how well do the concepts link together in the theory? • Simplicity or parsimony: it is important to explain a wide range of phenomenon with a few concepts (e.g., social exchange theory’s use of rewards and costs), but care should be taken to avoid over-simplification. • Clarity of theoretical assumptions and presuppositions: How clear are assumptions about social behavior (e.g., individual, couple, family)? • Consistency with its own assumptions and presuppositions: internal coherence. • Acknowledgment of sociohistorical context: self-reflexive, explicit consideration of social and historical forces. • Acknowledgment of underlying value assumptions. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

14. Evaluating Social Science Theories (cont.) • Acknowledgment of theoretical forebears. • Potential for validation and current level of validation: level of validation, however defined, is important to evaluation of a theory. • Acknowledgment of limits and points of breakdown: self-critical stance which promotes understanding and dialogue. • Complemntarity with other theories and levels of explanation • Openness to change and modification • Ethical implications • Sensitivity to pluralistic human experience: gender, race, ethnicity, age, social class, and sexual orientation. • Ability to combine personal experience and academic rigor • Potential to inform application for education, therapy, advocacy, social action, or public policy Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

15. Future Prospects for Family Science • Optimistic that scholars will adopt principles of postpositivism without surrendering many traditional academic values and research methodologies. • It is appropriate to continue to conduct research using quantitative measures (e.g., questionnaires) as long as there is an effort to examine sociocultural contexts. • Critical challenge: become more critically self-reflective. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson