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.
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
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
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 largescale 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
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
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
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 valueneutral approach.
 Grants, which fund research, seem to
emphasize similar themes.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
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
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
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
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
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
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: selfreflexive, explicit consideration of social and
historical forces.
 Acknowledgment of underlying value
assumptions.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
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
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