To boldly go: The paradigmatic framework, coordination theory, and the quest for unified theory

Todd Jensen (2025) began his commentary with a plea for humility in science. I begin my response in humble gratitude for the time, attention, and intelligence directed by Jensen, Bethany Willis, Nikki DiGregorio, David Bell, Armeda Wojciak, and David Olson toward a challenging theory (Constantine, 2025). I also thank our editor, Katherine Allen, for making possible this collaborative exploration and clarification and for shepherding our contributions through to publication. I am humbled by the task before me of responding meaningfully to such rich and diverse commentary. At the same time, I am grateful for the opportunity this affords to clarify and expand on details of the Paradigmatic Framework and the theory on which it is based.

Science itself, of course, cares little for humility or hubris, timidity or temerity. Science cares about the quality, validity, and utility of research and theory, all in the pursuit of ever more accurate and complete comprehension of the world, including ourselves. Scientists may judge other scientists for being bold or brash, arrogant or ingratiating, but in the end, what matters to science is the contribution, or lack thereof, that the work of scientists makes to the grand collective quest for insight and understanding.

Labels and terminology change with changing perspectives. At one point in the review process, I was chided about the phrase “marriage and family field” and reminded that it is now known as “family science.” If it is to fully take its place as a science, then what once was family studies may need to come to terms with the fact that vigorous, bold criticism and debate are the norm rather than the exception in the sciences.

In order to simplify and sharpen the comparison with the Circumplex Model, the original paper (Constantine, 2025) focused on those aspects of the Paradigmatic Framework and its underlying theory most relevant to that task, omitting additional features that are integral to the theory but not as directly relevant to the comparison. Many of the concerns and issues raised in the commentaries are related to these omissions and are, perhaps, best addressed by filling in the blanks.

At the most elementary level, underlying the Paradigmatic Framework is Coordination Theory (Constantine & Lockwood, 2025), that is, a theory of coordination in human systems. In itself, Coordination Theory consists of a small number of basic concepts and principles; in this core simplicity lies some of the apparent boldness of its conclusions.

To reiterate, a human system is a system, specifically any organized assemblage of any number of human actors exhibiting sustained patterned collective behavior. Coordination Theory is built on the following premises. (a) Patterned collective behavior in human systems requires coordination. (b) There are a limited number of physical mechanisms by which collective behavior can be coordinated, namely negative feedback (deviation-attenuating), positive feedback (deviation-amplifying), and internal programming of actors (shared mental models). (c) Human systems can be understood in terms of process (function, behavior), organization (structure, relationships), and paradigm (guiding model, worldview). (d) There are a limited number of fundamental issues that all human systems must address (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), including, among others, the relative priorities of continuity and change and the collective and the individual. (e) Process, organization, and paradigm are mutually reinforcing; particular patterns in process favor and are favored by particular forms of organization and particular guiding models.

Coordination theory incorporates additional models omitted or glossed over in Constantine (2025) that refine and detail process and organization in terms of communication, participation, and enablement. Communication in human systems is detailed in the media-message model, an extension of Kantor and Lehr's (1975) “access dimensions” and “target dimensions” (pp. 36–65). The former are the media in which communications take place, the latter are the human and interpersonal relevance of messages. Kantor and Lehr's access dimensions of space, time, and energy were expanded to include matter (material transactions), and the “target dimensions” of power (control, dominance), meaning (identity, significance), and affect (feelings, emotions) were expanded to include data (facts, literal contents) (Constantine, 1986, pp. 143–168).

For an example of the richness the media-message model brings to understanding human communication, consider this brief message from a teenager to their father. Teen (bouncing to door after dinner and grabbing car keys from hook while opening door): “I'm out of here. Taking the van. Back around nine. Okay?” A complete analysis of this brief message includes: space (at periphery, moving out); time (compressed, punctuating end of dinner); matter (keys taken); energy (hasty, energetic departure); power (token acknowledgement of parental authority while asserting independence); meaning (asserting emerging separate identity, “I'm a driver now.”); affect (eager, confident, but also tentative and aware of parental concern); content (9 O'clock is a specific time but “around nine” is an approximate commitment, to be distinguished from “before nine” or “by nine.”).

Participation in collective action is modeled through the actor-action model representing the possible relationships between individual participants and collective activity. Not only is each actor at any given moment in some relationship to the collective activity, but actors may (and generally do) exhibit preference for certain positions over others. The actor-action model arises from Kantor's Psychopolitics (Kantor & Lehr, 1975, pp. 177–204) or Four Player Model (Kantor, 2012, pp. 23–48) that recognized four possible fundamentally distinct “positions” or “stances” in relationship to the current collective action: following (supporting, continuing), opposing (challenging, changing), moving (defining, initiating), and bystanding (neutral, outside). The actor-action model, not surprisingly, maps into the taxonomy based on how each position facilitates and is relatively favored by a different paradigm. This mapping identifies a fifth position, called reflecting, that synthesizes bystanding (uninvolved neutrality) and moving (involved defining), essentially an inside-outsider. Reflecting is meta to collective action and is distinct from following, opposing, moving, and bystanding (Constantine & Lockwood, 2025).

Enablement is defined in systems-theoretic terms that are independent of paradigm (Constantine, 2025, p. 8). It is modeled in terms of the probable direction of failure, as noted in Constantine (2025), but also in other forms of enablement-disablement and function-dysfunction dependent on paradigms that have been explored in some detail previously (Constantine, 1983, 1984, Constantine, 1986; Constantine & Israel, 1985) as well as in new work detailing insights into how resources, repertoire, and requisite variety (Ashby, 1958) affect resilience as a function of paradigm (Constantine & Lockwood, 2025).

The idea of exaggeration in relation to dysfunction was first introduced as “probable direction of error” (Kantor & Lehr, 1975, pp. 151–6), meaning that each family naturally tends to draw, with increasing effort, on those methods, modes of operation, and coping styles consistent with its guiding paradigm. As Jensen (2025) notes, “a family's paradigm and associated processes appear intimately tethered to how dysfunction is likely to manifest” (p. 6). The theory itself, however, has no in-built bias for or against any particular paradigm. Not only is the “map of the territory” without any preferred locale, but the definition of enablement and disablement is also independent and unbiased. At the most elementary systems-theoretic level, a system must succeed and survive as a system and, on average, enable success and survival of its component parts. This irreducible minimum of efficacy or enablement is unbiased as to how or in what style this is achieved.

The theory predicts that each type of family has a tendency to exhibit a different typical response to stress or crisis and to move in a particular direction as it becomes more challenged and less successful at meeting the challenges it faces. In recognizing that all types of families (and other forms of human systems) can be effective and all can be ineffective, each tending to succeed or fail in its distinctive ways, the Paradigmatic Framework has no intrinsic cultural bias for or against any particular form. For example, effective Open-paradigm families succeed by negotiation, discussion, and consensus-building; effective Closed-paradigm families succeed through informed and benevolent leadership and by following proven tradition. When they fail, Open-paradigm families tend to get caught up in endless cycles of discussion and debate without resolution; when Closed-paradigm families become dysfunctional, authority tends to devolve into dictatorship and tradition can become rigid enforcement.

The taxonomic aspects of the Paradigmatic Framework are another concern that warrants clarification. Feger (2001), writing in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, cites Mendeleev's periodic table of the elements as an exemplary taxonomy for satisfying five criteria: theoretical foundation, objectivity, completeness, simplicity, and prediction. Mendeleev's taxonomy described relationships among chemical elements and even made testable predictions about then-unknown elements and their characteristics, but it did not in itself fully explain these. Underlying the structure of the periodic table is explanatory theory regarding the structure of atoms and the nature and behavior of subatomic particles, much of which was not understood at the time the table was first constructed.

Not all taxonomies are like Feger's example of the periodic table. Many, but not all, are hierarchical, like the venerable Dewey Decimal System used in libraries or the well-known Linnaean taxonomy in biology that gives rise to the binomial naming system of genus and species by which organisms are identified. Although unambiguous classification is always the goal, not all taxonomies are as definitive as the periodic table. In biology, despite many attempts to define species rigorously and the boundaries between them absolutely, the construct of species remains in some ways ambiguous and subject to debate. Even in modern cladistics and taxonomy based on genomics, admixtures and fuzzy boundaries are possible. I may be Homo sapiens, but genetically I am also a little less than 2% Homo neanderthalensis and a small fraction of a percent of Homo denisovans—separate species that nevertheless interbred—which puts me unambiguously in the sapiens corner of a many-dimensional property space but not at the vertex of species perfection.

The Paradigmatic Framework, although a very different form of taxonomy than the periodic table, nevertheless meets all five of Feger's criteria, including predicting the existence and features of previously unidentified taxa based on an underlying explanatory theory. The framework is not at all unusual in comprising taxa that are demarcated by well-defined limiting cases but that admit admixtures and borderline cases (Aitchison, 1981). Classification is nevertheless unambiguous in that any real instance of a human system can be located within a closed property space and characterized according to its dominant taxon. Whether the taxa of this framework are examples of Weberian ideal types, as Bell (2025, p. 2) asserts, is a matter to leave to the sociologists. Within the Paradigmatic Framework, the taxa are defined as regions of a property space bounded by well-defined vertices that ultimately derive from empirical findings (e.g., Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Reiss, 1981).

Concerns and issues raised by the commentaries make clear that the exact role and form of dialectic logic in the construction of the taxonomy warrants further explanation. The taxa of the framework are defined formally through the application of a precisely defined recursive logical function that generates a potentially open-ended series of maximally conceptually and analytically distinct constructs or classes. This form of dialectical logic is decidedly not the argumentation model of Plato and Aristotle nor the historical dialectic of Marx and Engels, nor is it any of the many, varied, and often conflicting interpretations of the dialectic long used in sociology (Schneider, 1971). In the Paradigmatic Framework, the dialectic serves solely as a logical engine to satisfy the core objectives of all typology and taxonomy, that is, to identify classes that are as coherent and distinct as possible (Bailey, 1994).

The recursive dialectic function can be defined rigorously mathematically (Constantine, 2025b), but here suffice it to say that it generates a series of concepts, classes, or constructs through alternating application of two logical operators referred to as absolute antithesis and absolute synthesis. Absolute antithesis means an exact opposite, not a mere reaction to or alteration of a thesis nor a form of internal contradiction or tension between opposites; absolute synthesis means an integration of a thesis and its absolute antithesis with emergent properties, not merely an admixture or intermediate form.

It is possible that this use of the dialectic as a recursive function to identify a series of conceptually maximally distinct classes in a taxonomy is novel. Neither bibliographic research nor consultation with authorities has yet identified a precedent.

The dialectic as a generative function is not diachronic, a time series of successive improvement, but merely a matter of logical distinction. Random, for example, is neither a contradiction of nor a successor to Closed, but merely its logical opposite: change-oriented rather than continuity-oriented, prioritizing the individual rather than the collective, high in ambiguity tolerance and low in closure seeking rather than low in ambiguity tolerance and high in closure seeking. Its roles are unassigned and undifferentiated rather than fixed and strongly differentiated; it encourages change rather than resisting it; it makes informal bottom-up decisions rather than formal top-down ones.

It is important to understand the role binary opposition and categories play in constructing the Paradigmatic Framework. The recursive dialectic function serves only as a means to identify maximally distinct taxa, but these are, in turn, simply markers helping to delineate a larger space of possibilities. Consider, for example, just the first two paradigms, Closed and Random, in relation to just the fundamental priorities represented by the dualities of continuity and change and of the collective and the individual. By themselves, these define a taxonomy of only two taxa modeled as a one-dimensional property space, a line segment whose endpoints represent the pure forms of the taxa (Figure 1A). Any intermediate point along the line represents a mixture of “closedness” and “randomness,” a shifting prioritization of continuity and the collective relative to change and the individual. Closed and Random are thus not absolute categories but merely reference points on a spectrum. Of course, the Paradigmatic Framework does not stop there. Incorporating the next term in the series results in the property space represented in Figure 1B, where intermediate values or admixtures of three taxa can be represented without sacrificing unambiguous classification, as the delineated kite-shapes represent areas in which a particular taxon dominates.

Ultimately, the Paradigmatic Framework encompasses a full four-dimensional property space and thereby covers the full range of possible admixtures or variations of five taxa. Although the Paradigmatic taxonomy is not itself so limited, it offers insight regarding absolute categories, strict binary distinctions, and either/or thinking, which are characteristic of the Closed-paradigm worldview, for example, in contrast with the both/and synthesis of the Open-paradigm worldview or the complete relativity of the Random paradigm.

One way to keep theory and research humble is to acknowledge and delineate the limits of applicability. All theory, even the grandest, is limited in scope, applying to some phenomena and excluding others. The mathematical models of Einstein's theory of general relativity, noted by Willis and DiGregorio (2025), abstract and general though they are, do not cover the very smallest scales, the quantum level, and break down in the interior of the very black holes they predict.

Although Coordination Theory and the Paradigmatic Framework are broad in scope, they are not in any sense about “everything.” In their present forms they are restricted to the domain of human systems (cf., Constantine, 2025a), that is, organized assemblages of human actors exhibiting patterned collective behavior. The theory covers process (function), organization (structure), and paradigm (guiding model and worldview) of human systems and the mutually reinforcing relationships among them as well as the variations across paradigms. From the summary and elaboration in the sections above, it is apparent that the framework does indeed address beliefs and values—including their embodiment in religion, myth, folklore, and family stories—in terms of how these are likely to cluster within a taxon and differ across taxa.

In terms of process, Coordination Theory also incorporates a media-message model that details inter-actor communication in possible physical media and message content in terms of human interpretation. This model includes material transactions or exchanges and emotional communication, including love and its expression as a function of paradigm. As Kantor and Lehr (1975, p. 150) found, for example, emotional communication in Closed-paradigm families emphasizes durability, fidelity, and sincerity, while in Random-paradigm families, rapture, whimsicality, and spontaneity are valued, and in Open-paradigm families, authenticity, responsiveness, and latitude are favored. Additionally, the framework models participation in process in an actor-action model representing the possible relationships between an actor and ongoing action.

Coordination theory inexorably leads to what might be thought of as bold conclusions, among them that five maximally distinct paradigms modeled as a closed property space in four dimensions are necessary and sufficient to account for all possible human systems at all scales. Science itself actually embraces bold theory, provided the theory is sound, useful, and falsifiable.

Coordination theory and the concomitant Paradigmatic Framework are indeed falsifiable, in principle rather straightforwardly. For example, it would only be necessary to demonstrate the existence of a physical mechanism by which human systems could be coordinated that is not covered by communication (negative feedback or positive feedback) and internal programming (mental models). An alternative would be to exhibit a form of human system that cannot be represented as some admixture of the five paradigms.

Jensen (2025) identifies four hallmarks of “humble theorizing”: (a) acknowledgement of theoretical forebears, (b) an earnest discussion of the potential for a theory's validation or its current level of validation, (c) acknowledgement of a theory's limits and points of breakdown, and (d) a thorough and exhaustive assessment of a theory's complementarity with other extant theories (pp. 2–3). For purposes of comparison and contrast, condensed versions of the salient and relevant elements of both the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework were presented (Constantine, 2025). The Paradigmatic Framework being introduced needed more citations into the literature than the arguably already familiar and well-established Circumplex Model, which was adequately represented by the foundational paper (Olson et al., 1979) plus more recent comprehensive review summaries (Olson, 2000; Olson et al., 2019).

The paucity of effective measures and the limited direct data in support of the Paradigmatic Framework and its underlying theory are real limitations, as noted in more than one commentary. In science, data often lead theory, and theory emerges from observations and findings, but that is not always the case. Theory may sometimes leap ahead and posit phenomena for which there is little or no evidence at the time. General relativity, which Willis and DiGregorio (2025) reference, is such a case, explaining and predicting phenomena that had, at the time, never been observed, for which there was no evidence, and for which the measurement techniques of the day were inadequate (at least in the case of black holes and gravitational waves).

Research on the Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory may well also require novel techniques, at least ones that are relatively new to family science, such as advanced statistical techniques for analyzing compositional data and simplex spaces (Aitchison, 1982) or multi-attribute utility scaling (Edwards & Newman, 1982) for instrument design, among others.

The Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory are not about many things. They do not constitute explicit theory about, for example, such vital matters as race, gender, politics, family structure, emergent or alternative lifestyles, and human emotions per se—and the list goes on. However, they do offer insights into all of these in relation to how they take different forms or vary in how they are perceived and addressed within families based on different paradigms.

I am delighted that Willis and DiGregorio (2025) bring in feminist, queer, and critical perspectives, not only around critiques of specific aspects of the Paradigmatic Framework, but also drawing into discussion the larger issues of categorical thinking and binary opposition along with the risks of oversimplifying human experience and neglecting marginalized communities and non-normative families. They call for greater recognition of the cultural context in which theory is embedded and which is embedded in theory. These are issues not only of theoretical significance but of personal and professional importance. In fact, my own career in family science began with research on alternative lifestyles and unconventional family forms (e.g., Constantine, 1972; Constantine & Constantine, 1976), and I grew up with a non-binary sibling, although they did not, in those distant dark ages, know or use the label.

The Paradigmatic Framework has a unique potential for illuminating important issues around cultural context, conformity and non-conformity, inclusion and exclusion. Because the underlying Coordination Theory is scale independent, modeling human systems of all kinds at all scales, it is as much a theory of communities, countries, and cultures as of families. The same model can represent and make predictions about families and the cultural contexts in which they are embedded.

Willis and DiGregorio (2025) raise the notion of negatives spaces and the ways in which family theory can ignore or obscure aspects of lived experiences within everyday family life. They cite Daly (2003), who laments that “The unpredictable flow of daily events and the inconsistencies of family behavior have not been well accounted for in our theorizing” (p. 775). It is, of course, precisely theory that endeavors to make the unpredictable and the inconsistencies more predictable, to uncover and highlight pattern in process. In this regard, it is instructive to compare the roots of the Paradigmatic Framework and the Circumplex Model. The latter arose from two abstract dimensions identified through conceptual clustering of concepts employed by professionals studying and working with families. The roots of the Paradigmatic Framework, by contrast, arose from close, highly detailed observations of the everyday life of actual families (Kantor & Lehr, 1975).

Daly (2003) suggests using the “lens of culture” to address three “negative spaces” often ignored by family theorists and: (a) the realm of belief, feeling, and intuition; (b) consumption and the meaning of “things”; and (c) time and space. These neglected areas actually fall within the domain of discourse of the Paradigmatic Framework, which has the potential for contributing to deeper and richer understanding by framing how they can be expected to differ across different paradigms.

The Paradigmatic Framework addresses family dynamics broadly and abstractly, but it does not, in so doing, fail to also address the uniqueness of individual families or the experiences of individuals within families. Rather, as with all typologies and taxonomies, it provides a scheme of classification that facilitates understanding without necessarily erasing difference. As always, it depends on how classification is used in the hands of the practitioner, researcher, or theorist.

Willis and DiGregorio (2025) conclude that “theorizing that requires binary juxtaposition undermines the ability to understand the lived experience of families” and “integrative approaches are needed to shift beyond binary thinking and engage with the complex, dynamic, and multifaceted nature of family life.” It should be clear that the Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory do nothing to undermine understanding of lived experience and are, in fact, precisely the kind of integrative approaches they call for.

I am indebted to David Bell, an authority on sociological theory (Bell, 2009), for his attention to detail about the exegesis and explanation of the Paradigmatic Framework (Bell, 2025). For example, he points out some inconsistencies in terminology and lack of connection between the text and Table 1 (Constantine, 2025, p. 4). The fourth and fifth rows of the table are not explicitly labeled as representing core value orientations of continuity versus change and collectivity versus individual priority (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). However, reading across those rows makes clear that the Random paradigm is indeed the absolute antithesis of the Closed paradigm and the Open paradigm is the synthesis, with the Synchronous paradigm being the antithesis of the Open paradigm.

Unfortunately, the table fails to differentiate which of its entries derive from theoretical analysis and which are empirical summaries; this is a valid criticism. The simple answer would be that, as stated, the cell contents of the table represent the theory, for which there is, in most cases, some evidence, admittedly sometimes weak or indirect. Regrettably, the problem, once again, is that of theory getting ahead of data. Synchronous families, for example, were predicted before being reported in the clinical literature, but the emergent picture can sometimes be a little like the fuzzy radio-astronomy renderings that confirmed the existence of black holes predicted by general relativity. With time and better instruments, as Willis and DiGregorio (2025) noted, the picture can be expected to sharpen.

All forms of human systems, by definition, demonstrate pattern in process, hence manifest some form of stability. The Closed paradigm, however, is oriented around stability, prioritizing continuity over change. This feature is a core priority that is different from the core orientations of the other paradigms. Hierarchy of authority is a differentia distinguishing the Closed paradigm and its decision-making process from the other paradigms that do not rely on a hierarchy of authority in their decision making; Random, Open, and Synchronous are all inherently non-hierarchical models.

The mapping of five taxa in four-dimensional space into a two-dimensional projection also warrants revisiting and clarification. Solely for the purpose of comparison with the two-dimensional Circumplex Model, the fifth taxon, the Unified paradigm, can be temporarily ignored, leaving four taxa in three dimensions, as shown in Figure 2. Note, there are four differentiae (vectors to each vertex normal to the opposite face), one for each taxon. These are, as originally stated and self-evident from the diagram, decidedly not independent (orthogonal) dimensions but are negatively correlated. Each differentia represents some feature(s) or attribute(s) that distinguish a particular taxon from the other taxa. For example, the Random paradigm is the only paradigm that routinely accepts everyone merely doing their own thing as they choose as a valid collective decision or solution to a problem. Closed, Open, and Synchronous paradigms all expect a common collective or conjoint conclusion or solution, although reached through different means characteristic of each paradigm, namely hierarchy of authority, convergence through collaborative consensus-building, or extant shared mental models, respectively.

If the midpoints of opposite edges of the tetrahedron in Figure 2 are joined, the result is the three orthogonal axes shown in Figure 3 (with the tetrahedron rotated for visual clarity). In the interest of graphical simplicity, the differentiae have not been shown in this figure. The combined figure would require showing eight distinct lines, all intersecting at the centroid of the figure; a rendition with just seven of the eight is already extremely cluttered (e.g., Constantine, 1993, p. 56).

Clearly, each of the orthogonal axes represents some properties or characteristics that distinguish one pair of taxa from another, opposite pair, but what are these properties? What distinguishes Open and Random from Closed and Synchronous? Equivalently, what do Open and Random have in common, and what do Closed and Synchronous have in common ? Conceivably, there could be a number of possible answers, but, at the most basic, systems-theoretic level, process is much more variable over time in Open and Random systems than in Closed and Synchronous. This is the y-axis in Figure 3. A similar analysis yields interpretations of the other two axes. What characteristic do Open and Closed have in common that distinguishes them from Random and Synchronous? Participants are more connected, engaged with each other in Open and Closed systems, while those in Random and Synchronous systems are more separate, operating more independently. The z-axis is admittedly conceptually challenging. What do Open and Synchronous systems have in common that distinguishes them from Random and Closed; conversely, what regarding process in Random and Closed systems distinguishes them from Open and Synchronous? Process in the Random paradigm is skewed toward the individual, while process in the Closed paradigm is skewed toward the collective. Neither Open nor Synchronous is skewed in this way; they are higher in Synergy, intrinsically integrating individual and collective interests and priorities.

These three axes—orthogonal dimensions—are intrinsically connected to the taxa as originally defined and to their analytical and logical relationships with each other. In other words, intercorrelated differentiae and the orthogonal process dimensions all ultimately derive directly, in an unbroken logical chain, from the underlying systems-theoretic mechanisms by which pattern in process within human systems can be coordinated. There is no new theorizing or de novo conceptualization at any point nor any reduction from the four differentiae. The dimensions and differentiae merely represent different coordinate systems within a single property space, that is, Cartesian and quadriplanar coordinates, respectively (Mertie, 1964). The end result is a mathematical model with precise properties that can be shown to underlie other widely known and well-established theoretical models in family science.

The two-dimensional representation of Figure 4 is simply a projection into two-space of the same three-dimensional model represented in Figure 3 (which is the same as that of Figure 2). Synergy has not disappeared; the view is simply looking down on it endwise toward the xy plane.

In demonstrating how the Paradigmatic Framework explains Baumrind's (1995) findings, I employed an unfortunate shorthand by referring to “connection/cohesion” and “variability/flexibility” to refer at once to the interrelated dimensions of the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework. It would have been more precise in each instance to write something like “variability and its corresponding intercorrelated dimension, flexibility, from the Circumplex Model.”

Baumrind's parenting styles and the Circumplex Model are two-dimensional typologies, but the Paradigmatic Framework is not. The view in Figure 4 is only a projection, one of many possible views, of a rich and internally consistent model in three dimensions, which is itself a projection of a still larger model in four dimensions. This four-dimensional space can be projected into three dimensions, for example, as a so-called vertex-first Schlegel diagram, as shown in Figure 5, but such a representation is easily misinterpreted because the vertex representing the Unified paradigm is not actually in the center of the tetrahedral space but off in the fourth dimension.

The Baumrind parenting model and the Circumplex model are isomorphic with the two-dimensional projection of the Paradigmatic Framework not merely in having two dimensions, but also in that there is a correspondence in the semantics of those dimensions as well as in the classes they define. Even more importantly, the Paradigmatic Framework explains these isomorphisms as a consequence of fundamentals in a larger, more rigorous, and more comprehensive model of the nature of process in human systems in general. Why is it that theorists coming from very distinct perspectives, using different methods and approaches, arrived at models with similar dimensions and comparable classes? Because they all necessarily reflect, at varying levels of abstraction and with differing precision, underlying principles embodied in the Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory.

Wojciak and Olson (2025) provide a welcome opportunity to address some still open questions regarding the Paradigmatic Framework and its relation to the Circumplex Model. They begin with another overview of the Circumplex Model and a summary of the magnitude of its impact and importance, then move on to an extended clinical case study. I will focus on the theoretical implications of the case rather than countering with examples illustrating the clinical application of the Paradigmatic Framework, which has been done before (e.g., Constantine, 1984, 1986; Constantine & Israel, 1985; Nugent & Constantine, 1988).

The case study presented by Wojciak and Olson is instructive in highlighting an important difference in the theoretical assumptions of the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework. The diagram (Wojciak & Olson, 2025, Figure 2) and discussion show that “type” as assessed is not a stable feature of a family but one that can change substantially over relatively short periods, in this case in response to clinical intervention, suggesting that the Circumplex Model might be more a model of types of process than of types of families. This contrasts sharply with the Paradigmatic Framework and Kantor and Lehr's (1975) original conclusions that a family's paradigm or guiding model is largely consistent over time, although its structural solutions can adapt and its dynamic process can vary substantially.

The clinical implications of this difference in theoretical perspectives are potentially of great importance. Clinical progress within the Circumplex Model is seen as a change in type, whereas therapeutic intervention within the Paradigmatic Framework is premised on recognition of and respect for a family's core commitment as a particular kind of family. The case study of a Synchronous-paradigm family (Constantine & Israel, 1985) cited above highlights the importance of sensitivity to each family's unique culture and working within that family culture—their “type”—to enable it to be more effective rather than to change it to a different kind of family.

Unfortunately, neither the diagram nor the discussion (Wojciak & Olson, 2025) makes clear the connections between the FACES IV and CRS ratings and the content of the diagram. At the initial assessment, Jesse appears in the chaotic-disengaged type. Does this mean that he is chaotic and disengaged, or that he, unlike the rest of the family, sees the family as unbalanced in this way, or is this an expression of his personal preference for family type? The Paradigmatic Framework, in contrast, distinguishes individual preferences and worldviews (personal paradigm) from system paradigm, and it recognizes three levels of analysis—paradigm, organization, and process—as distinct but covered by a common map.

There are other fundamental differences worth underscoring. The Circumplex Model is, as its name states, a model. It is descriptive rather than explanatory. It argues that flexibility and cohesion are important basic aspects of marriages and families, but it does not explain why, other than by referring to an undefined and undescribed conceptual clustering, which is riddled with misclassifications and misunderstandings (Constantine, 2025). Given that its defining dimensions are derived from other theories and models, one might argue that the Circumplex Model is more a model of theories and models than of families. Despite these problems, the Circumplex Model basically got it right when it comes to the significance of cohesion and flexibility, as evidenced by extensive research and effective application and as explained by the Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory.

The Circumplex Model is a typology, in that it is multidimensional and conceptual, identifying types based-on theorized factors or dimensions (Bailey, 1994, p. 4); the Paradigmatic Framework, on the other hand, is a taxonomy, “a classification of empirical entities” (Bailey, 1994, p. 6), although one that has been extended and elaborated to incorporate theory-based dimensions.

Analytically, the Paradigmatic Framework is a very specific kind of taxonomy, a four-simplex, an Aitchison space of five taxa in four dimensions; these are terms that have precise and generally recognized definitions in statistics and analytical geometry (Aitchison, 1981, 1982). Although the Circumplex Model is not, strictly speaking, a circumplex as generally recognized in mathematics and the behavioral sciences (American Psychological Association, n.d.), its “brand” is so well-established that there is little justification for belaboring the point.

There is now a certain amount of agreement on a connection between the two models, not only in terms of classes (types and categories) but also in terms of dimensions on which these classes can be distinguished (Wojciak & Olson, 2025). However, this does not mean that the models merge; there remain important differences, as highlighted here.

In particular, the isomorphism mapping the Circumplex Model and the planar projection of the Paradigmatic Framework (Wojciak & Olson, 2025, Figure 3) does not mean that the two models are equivalent. In the Circumplex Model, type and function are conflated, whereas in the Paradigmatic Framework, these are independent. More pure forms of any of the paradigms are not intrinsically less functional; 50-50 mixtures of Closed and Random or Open and Synchronous are not, for example, intrinsically more functional even though they are intermediate in terms of variability and connection (or flexibility and cohesion).

Collectively, the commentaries call for next steps in the development and refinement of the Paradigmatic Framework and its theoretical foundations, particularly with regard to clarifying and expanding on the Unified paradigm and for empirical research and validation of the framework and theory through the development of reliable and valid measurement instruments, matters also raised by other commenters. I am in total and enthusiastic agreement.

With regard to validation, the validity of the taxonomy as such has already been established in two ways. First, it predicted the Synchronous taxon, which was missing from the original Kantor and Lehr (1975) taxonomy as well as in parallel forms in the early versions of the Baumrind (1967, 1971) and Reiss (Reiss & Oliveri, 1980) models. Second, it provides a common fundamental explanation for the apparent convergences among many different already validated models arrived at through many different methods.

As to the development of self-report and observational measurement tools, I concur that this is of paramount importance to build on the limited previous work. Bloom and Naar (1994) developed self-report measures based on factor-analysis that included three family-style scales—democratic, permissive, and authoritarian—and reported that “Constantine … has identified three family paradigms that closely match the three second-order factors.” Work to extend the Bloom self-report scales (Bloom, 1985; Bloom & Naar, 1994) was begun and cited in earlier publications (Constantine, 1993) but was abandoned for lack of resources and never published. Unfortunately, I have not since been in a position to conduct, lead, or supervise the necessary research, but I stand ready to consider collaboration or consultation with whomever might be in such position and has an authentic interest in advancing understanding of the framework and the theory.

Second, with respect to the Unified paradigm, we are in that exciting but unenviable position analogous to that facing chemistry when there were still gaps in the periodic table. The underlying theory demanded that the missing chemical elements must exist and enabled some tentative predictions about them, but these had not yet been observed in nature. The structure of the Paradigmatic Framework demands that Unified-paradigm human systems are possible, even if they have not been observed. However, it is possible that families dominated or characterized by the Unified paradigm are so unlikely that even large-scale research might not uncover any. We are left with “filling in the blanks” based largely on extension of the intrinsic structure of the framework and the underlying theory, as was attempted when the Paradigmatic Framework was first extended to five taxa (Constantine, 1988).

As the synthesis of Open and Synchronous paradigms, the Unified paradigm has hallmarks of both, but with an important difference: an investment in understanding itself and its process through self-examination. Self-reflection is essential to the integration of the antithetical aspects of the Open and Synchronous paradigms. Self-reflection is both an asset and a liability. It enables continuous improvement through ongoing examination of process, but it also imposes overhead that can make the system less efficient and slower to respond. Building collective self-awareness along with deepening understanding of the real world is a complex, demanding process over an extended time scale.

In all my clinical and personal experience, I have encountered only a handful of married couples whose shared worldview and process seemed, at least at times, to resemble what might be expected within the Unified paradigm. Not surprisingly, in more than one case, one or both spouses were scientists. Their interactions were often characterized by frequent focuses on past experiences and events in relation to present circumstances. But rather than simple rehashes of the past, they seem to be seeking new and better shared understanding of the meaning of the past as it played out in the present, ultimately in service of greater effectiveness as a couple but also as part and parcel to understanding “what is really going on.” All of life was seen as a puzzle to be solved, including their own relationship.

Their worldview considered all things—themselves, their relationship, the world about them—to be understandable through an extended process of successive approximations. The truth of their marriage, indeed of all reality, was seen as evolving, neither fixed nor merely malleable, but always anchored to the best modeling possible at the moment of the what and why of their circumstances and challenges. This places the Unified paradigm in sharp contrast to the way families, relationships, and the external world are framed within the other paradigms.

Recognition of the Unified paradigm and some initial insight into its character open gateways to deeper understanding of the range of possible ways that human systems can be guided, organized, and operate. Even in the absence of large-scale data and statistically sound measures, perhaps clinicians and theorists with open minds will be able to enrich and refine the picture.

I started out to study theoretical physics, switched to biology, then detoured into management with a specialization in psychology and computer science before taking a twisting path less followed. Along the way, I have held academic appointments in psychiatry and in computer science and have earned licenses in social work, marriage and family therapy, and credentials in organizational development, industrial design, and journalism.

Such diversity of perspective and professional experience undergirds my work on family paradigms and its evolution into a theory of human systems in general, but it comes at a steep price. As Paul Ford (2023) put it, “The interdisciplinarian is essentially an exile. Someone who respects no borders enjoys no citizenship”.

The complete Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory in full detail has yet to see the light of academic publication, in no small part because it fits none of the scholarly silos. Versions of a comprehensive paper have been repeatedly desk-rejected by associate editors for being “out of scope.” It is not family science or systems science, not psychology, sociology, or social psychology, not anthropology or epistemology, not information theory or control theory—and yet it is all of these. As one consequence of the “not in our silo” logic of modern academic publishing, Ronald Phillips, colleague and coauthor of the comprehensive paper cited in Constantine (2025), did not live to see our joint work in print.

As Allen (2000) noted, “There is a story behind every paper we publish; we could learn more about the author's interpretation and how to evaluate the scholarship if we knew more about why and how the knowledge was created” (p. 6). What is the backstory here, the how and why of Coordination Theory and the Paradigmatic Framework?

As an interdisciplinary exile, I have worked largely alone and without funding or institutional support. Along the way, I have inadvertently reinvented concepts and techniques from scratch, such as the geometric structure and coordinate systems of the paradigmatic framework. The relevant work had been published in mineralogy (Mertie, 1964) and geography (Aitchison, 1981), but such distant sources eluded me when the theory was first under development. Perhaps this exchange of ideas in the Paradigmatic Symposium will inspire some other scholars to explore more widely and to import into family science these and other powerful tools from far afield.

From the beginning, I have had deep doubts about the reality and validity of the expanding theory and have been critical of my own analyses and skeptical about the conclusions. I have always been keenly aware of how easy it is for the human brain to see patterns, even where there are none. Self-doubt and continual self-criticism were a major contributors to it taking five decades to distill the theory down to its most basic elements and finally to dare to make the bolder claims regarding its scope.

That's about the how, but what about the why? Why now? I essentially abandoned the work in the early 1990s, in part because I did not then see any way forward and in part based on my deeply held belief in the inexorable enterprise of real science. All the pieces were already out there, albeit in journals scattered across multiple disciplines, and I was convinced that someone, perhaps someone smarter and better positioned, would come along and put the pieces together to complete the puzzle. A full generation later, no one had come along, and I reluctantly came to terms with the realization that it might fall on me to take up the cause and finish the work.

The other thread of the story that it is important to acknowledge is my personal and passionate belief in the validity of diversity, that there is more than one way to do family, to pursue a career, to organize a project team, or to run a country, that diverse forms can be successful and that all forms are heir to their own particular strengths and limitations. At its heart, the Paradigmatic Framework and Coordination Theory are about trying to make sense of this diversity, not by homogenizing it or by ignoring it, but by making the full panoply of diverse paradigms the very subject of our theories and our research.