What are the links between fathering, family relationships, risk and child outcomes? Methodological and theoretical issues

C. Lewis
{"title":"What are the links between fathering, family relationships, risk and child outcomes? Methodological and theoretical issues","authors":"C. Lewis","doi":"10.1080/19424620.2012.788282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since John Nash’s (1965) clarion call for more research on fathers, there has been a flow of publications on men in families, peaking at about 1000 per year in the 1980s but also at a highly respectable 700–800 now. So large is this literature that the most prominent review has run to five editions (e.g. Lamb, 2010); there are several others that are required to fill in any gaps (e.g. Cabrera & TamisLemonda, 2013; Shwalb, Shwalb, & Lamb, 2013) and there are several specialist volumes which are required reading for those attempting to understand particular niche questions, including that of risk (Lamb, 1986; Phares, 1995). What have we learned from this outpouring of studies, therapeutic analyses and theoretical reflections, and how do the articles in this volume contribute to such a flow, or reflect its nature? To address this issue, I will dwell briefly upon the themes raised in these papers within the past 50 years of this research. The papers in this Special Issue are in many respects typical of those produced over the past 40 years. In this commentary, I will reflect upon two issues to examine how they fit into this complex and diverse literature: methodological innovation and the emergence of the dynamic family systems perspective that is the focus of Fitzgerald and Bradley’s introduction to this issue. Each of these issues from a puzzle that has been evident in the literature for many years: why do we ‘know’ so little about fathers when there is so much research on them?","PeriodicalId":89367,"journal":{"name":"Family science","volume":"3 1","pages":"229 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19424620.2012.788282","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2012.788282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Since John Nash’s (1965) clarion call for more research on fathers, there has been a flow of publications on men in families, peaking at about 1000 per year in the 1980s but also at a highly respectable 700–800 now. So large is this literature that the most prominent review has run to five editions (e.g. Lamb, 2010); there are several others that are required to fill in any gaps (e.g. Cabrera & TamisLemonda, 2013; Shwalb, Shwalb, & Lamb, 2013) and there are several specialist volumes which are required reading for those attempting to understand particular niche questions, including that of risk (Lamb, 1986; Phares, 1995). What have we learned from this outpouring of studies, therapeutic analyses and theoretical reflections, and how do the articles in this volume contribute to such a flow, or reflect its nature? To address this issue, I will dwell briefly upon the themes raised in these papers within the past 50 years of this research. The papers in this Special Issue are in many respects typical of those produced over the past 40 years. In this commentary, I will reflect upon two issues to examine how they fit into this complex and diverse literature: methodological innovation and the emergence of the dynamic family systems perspective that is the focus of Fitzgerald and Bradley’s introduction to this issue. Each of these issues from a puzzle that has been evident in the literature for many years: why do we ‘know’ so little about fathers when there is so much research on them?
父亲、家庭关系、风险和儿童结局之间有什么联系?方法和理论问题
自从约翰•纳什(John Nash)(1965年)呼吁对父亲进行更多研究以来,关于家庭中男性的出版物不断涌现,在20世纪80年代达到顶峰,每年约有1000篇,但现在也达到了相当可观的700-800篇。这方面的文献是如此之多,以至于最著名的评论已经出版了五个版本(例如Lamb, 2010);还有其他几个人需要填补任何空白(例如,Cabrera & TamisLemonda, 2013;Shwalb, Shwalb, & Lamb, 2013),对于那些试图理解特定利基问题(包括风险问题)的人来说,需要阅读几本专业书籍(Lamb, 1986;法勒斯,1995)。我们从大量的研究、治疗分析和理论反思中学到了什么?本卷中的文章如何促成这种流动,或反映其本质?为了解决这个问题,我将简要地阐述在过去50年的研究中这些论文中提出的主题。本期特刊的论文在许多方面都是过去40年来的典型。在这篇评论中,我将反思两个问题,以检查它们如何适应这种复杂而多样的文献:方法创新和动态家庭系统视角的出现,这是菲茨杰拉德和布拉德利介绍这个问题的重点。这些问题中的每一个都来自一个多年来在文献中显而易见的难题:为什么我们对父亲的“了解”如此之少,而对他们的研究却如此之多?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信