Paradigms in Family Research: Diversity and Reflexivity

Öz

This article addresses scholarly reflexivity in family research, by studying the use of paradigm from the second half of the twentieth century. In doing so, the present study focuses on countries that have produced remarkably abundant scholarly literatures on family issues, with a special focus on the United States, and with a limited focus on Japan for comparison from a non-Western context. By reviewing several types of family studies, this article throws light upon both the various manifestations of scholarly (self-)reflexivity and the diverse characteristics of the way paradigms are referred to in family science, as well as the connection between them. In doing so, the employment of paradigms is discussed through aspects such as the subject, the addressed field and its covered scale, as well as certain substantive attributes of the employed paradigm. In contrast, reflexivity in this study is referred to as reflexivity upon knowledge production, which is either related to the characteristics of a specific academic community or referred to a concrete research subject. By employing this conceptual tool, the present study, without claiming to be exhaustive, suggests that theoretical studies (especially from a philosophical approach), as well as emancipatory studies with a strong normative approach reveal high scholarly (self-)reflexivity, where the focus is either on the academic community, or on the applied research methodology and underlying assumptions, rather than on a specific family practice or process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Family
• Paradigm
• Social Science
• Diversity
• Reflexivity
• Ideoloji

Aile Araştırmalarında Paradigmalar: Çeşitlilik ve Düşünümsellik

Öz

Bu makale, yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren paradigmanın kullanımını inceleyerek aile araştırmalarında bilimsel düşünümselliği ele almaktadır. Bunu yaparken, bu çalışma, aile meseleleri hakkında dikkate değer büyüklükte akademik literatür üretmiş ülkelere, özellikle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Batı dışı bir bağlamda karşılaştırma yapmak için sınırlı bir şekilde Japonya’ya odaklanmaktadır. Bu makale, aile çalışmalarının çeşitli türlerini gözden geçirerek, hem bilimsel (kendi üzerine) düşünümselliğin çeşitli tezahürlerine, hem aile biliminde paradigmalara atıfta bulunulan yolların farklı özelliklerine, hem de ikisinin arasındaki bağlantıya ışık tutmaktadır. Bunu yaparken, paradigmaların kullanılması; kullanılan paradigmanın belirli esas özelliklerinin yanı sıra konusu, alanı ve kapsadığı ölçeği gibi çeşitli yönleriyle tartışılmaktadır. Buna karşılık, bu çalışmada düşünümsellik, ya belirli bir akademik topluluğun özellikleriyle ilgili olan veya somut bir araştırma konusuna atıfta bulunan bilgi üretimi üzerine düşünümselliğe göndermede bulunmaktadır. Bu kavramsal aracı kullanarak, bu çalışma, kapsamlı olma iddiasında bulunmadan, güçlü bir normatif yaklaşıma sahip özgürleştirici çalışmaların yanı sıra (özellikle felsefi bir yaklaşımdan yapılan) teorik çalışmaların belirli bir aile pratiği veya sürecinden ziyade, odağının ya akademik topluluk olduğu ya da uygulamalı araştırma metodolojisi ve altında yatan varsayımlar olduğu yüksek düzeyde bilimsel (kendi üzerine) düşünümselliği ortaya koyduğunu öne sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aile
• Paradigma
• Sosyal Bilim
• Çeşitlilik
• Düşünümsellik
• İdeoloji

Kaynakça

1. Allen, K. R., & Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1992). Innovative Ways and Controversial Issues in Teaching about Families: A Special Collection on Family Pedagogy. Family Relations, 41(1), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/585385
2. Allen, K. R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The Families of Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Frontier in Family Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/353821
3. Bahr, H. M., & Bahr, K. S. (1996). A Paradigm of Family Transcendence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.2307/353715
4. Barton, A. W., & Bishop, R. C. (2014). Paradigms, Processes, and Values in Family Research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(3), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12043
5. Bell, N. W., & Vogel E. F. (1960). A Modern Introduction to the Family. Glencoe: Free Press.
6. Beutler, I. F., Burr, W. R., Bahr, K. S., & Herrin, D. A. (1989). The Family Realm: Theoretical Contributions for Understanding Its Uniqueness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51(3), 805-816. https://doi.org/10.2307/352178
7. Brown, M. M. (1980). What is Home Economics Education? Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and Development Center for Vocational Education.
8. Caldwell, J. C. (2006). Book Review: Thornton, Arland. Reading History Sideways. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 12(1), 222-223. https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14679655/2006/12/1

9. Cheal, D. (1991). Family and the State of Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
10. Constantine, L. L. (1986). Family Paradigms: The Practice of Theory in Family Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
11. Evans, R. H., & Smith, N. R. (1969). A Selected Paradigm of Family Behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 31(3), 512-517. https://doi.org/10.2307/349774
12. Farber B. (1964). Family: Organization and Interaction. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
13. Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (1996). Rethinking Stratification from a Feminist Perspective: Gender, Race, and Class in Mainstream Textbooks. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 929-950. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096301
14. Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (2000). Gender Stratification and Paradigm Change. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 475-481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657469
15. Fuller, S. (2000). Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History For Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Greenwood, N. A., & Cassidy M. L. (1986). A Review of Introductory Marriage and Family Texts: Standards for Evaluation. Teaching Sociology, 14(4), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318393
17. Greenwood, N. A., & Cassidy M. L. (1990). A Critical Review of Family Sociology Textbooks.Teaching Sociology, 18(4), 541-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317649
18. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
19. Handel, G. (Comp.). (1967). The Psychosocial Interior of the Family. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
20. Hanson, S., Heims, M., & Julian, D. (1992). Education for Family Health Care Professionals: Nursing as a Paradigm. Family Relations, 41(1), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/585392
21. Hoisington, L. A. (2011). Family Paradigms and Human Emotions [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. https://doi.org/doi:10.25335/M5C14B
22. Howard, R. L. (1981). A Social History of American Family Sociology, 1865-1940. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
23. Humble, Á. M., &. Morgaine, C. A. (2002). Placing Feminist Education within the Three Paradigms of Knowledge and Action. Family Relations, 51(3), 199-205. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700135
24. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the Family: Toward a Theory of Family Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Kantor, D., & Vickers, M. I. (1983). Divorce along The Family Life Cycle. In H. A. Liddle (Comp.), Clinical Implications of the Family Life Cycle. Rockville, Md.: Aspen Systems Corporation.
26. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Larson, R. W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional Transmission in the Daily Lives of Families: A New Paradigm for Studying Family Process. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/353879
28. Mann, S. A., Grimes M. D., Kemp A. A., & Jenkins, P. J. (1997). Paradigm Shifts in Family Sociology? Evidence from Three Decades of Family Textbooks. Journal of Family Issues, 18(3), 315-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251397018003005
29. Manza, J., & Schyndel D. V. (2000). Still the Missing Feminist Revolution? Inequalities of Race, Class, and Gender in Introductory Sociology Textbooks (Comment on Ferree and Hall, ASR, December 1996). American Sociological Review, 65(3), 468-475. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657468
30. Miller, B. C., & Klein, D. M. (1981). A Survey of Recent Marriage and Family Texts. Contemporary Sociology, 10(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2067794
31. Morgaine, C. A. (1992). Alternative Paradigms for Helping Families Change Themselves. Family Relations, 41(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/585386
32. Morioka, K., & Mochidzuki, T. (1983). Atarashii Kazoku Shakaigaku [A New Family Sociology]. Tokyo: Baifūkan.
33. Nitza M. H. (1998). Toward a Definition of a Latino Family Research Paradigm. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236917
34. Ochiai, Emiko (1989). Kindai Kazoku to Feminizumu [The Modern Family and Feminism]. Tokyo: Keisō shobō.
35. Ochiai, Emiko (2013). Paradigm Shifts in Japanese Family Sociology. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 22(1), 104-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijjs.12011
36. Oliveri, M. E., & Reiss, D. (1981). The Structure of Families’ Ties to Their Kin: The Shaping Role of Social Constructions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(2), 391-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/351390
37. Rajkai, Zs. (2014). Kyōgō Suru Kazoku Moderu Ron [The Theory of Competing Family Models]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
38. Reiss, D. (1971). Varieties of Consensual Experience: I. A Theory for Relating Family Interaction to Individual Thinking. Family Process, 10(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1971.00001.x
39. Reiss, D., & Oliveri, M. E. (1980). Family Paradigm and Family Coping: A Proposal for Linking the Family’s Intrinsic Adaptive Capacities to Its Responses to Stress. Family Relations, 29(4), 431-444. https://doi.org/10.2307/584456
40. Reiss, D., & Oliveri, M. E. (1983). The Family’s Construction of Social Reality and Its Ties to Its Kin Network: An Exploration of Causal Direction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/351297
41. Rodman, H. (1965) The Textbook World of Family Sociology. Social Problems, 12(4), 445-457. https://doi.org/10.2307/798844
42. Smith, D. E. (1993). The Standard North-American Family. Journal of Family Issues, 14(1), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X93014001005
43. Thornton, A. (2001). The Developmental Paradigm, Reading History Sideways, and Family Change. Demography, 38(4), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2001.0039
44. Thornton, A. (2005). Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Waller, W., & Hill R. (1938 to 1951). The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
46. Ward, M. (1997). Family Paradigms and Older-Child Adoption: A Proposal for Matching Parents’ Strengths to Children’s Needs. Family Relations, 46(3), 257-262. https://doi.org/10.2307/585123