Journal of Family Theory & Review最新文献

Many Americans believe that a breakdown in the “traditional” two-married-parent family and the rise in single-parent families are responsible for persistent family inequality. The general argument is that children do best when they are raised by both biological parents. Evidence increasingly calls into question conventional wisdom about the universal benefits of the two-parent family, yet mainstream approaches to studying family structure continue to reinforce oversimplistic interpretations of the impact of family structure on well-being. In this article, we reconsider long-standing assumptions about the superiority of the heteropatriarchal two-married-parent family using historical and contemporary evidence to offset the stagnant theorizing in the study of family structure. We argue that, in pursuit of better science, family researchers must commit to theoretical approaches that move us beyond conventional perspectives of families toward critical perspectives that guide more nuanced, holistic, and contextualized analyses of how family structure actually operates in people's lives.

The work–family conflict theory posits that due to limited time and energy, individuals inevitably experience work–family role conflict, resulting in increased role strain. Conversely, the work–family enrichment theory suggests that multiple role involvement in work and family can lead to positive effects on well-being through a virtuous cycle, known as a positive spillover effect. The theoretical review integrates work–family research with stress theory, focusing on coping behaviors and proposing a new theoretical framework. The conceptual model highlights individuals' diverse coping efforts to alleviate role strain and suggests that these strategies can result in various outcomes, including both work–family conflict and enrichment.

In a world of increasing complexity, I propose that the concept of emotional intelligence is limited for understanding how people manage their family relationships and interactions with community systems. I review the background of the emotional intelligence concept and point out its limitations for dealing with multilateral relationships. I define systems intelligence as the capacity to effectively interact in multilateral relationships, including families, work groups, and social institutions. Systems intelligence encompasses the understanding of interpersonal systems, and the practical ability to act constructively in those systems. I also make a distinction between competency in dyadic relationships (relational intelligence) and competency in multilateral relationships (systems intelligence), and I illustrate systems intelligence with respect to stepfamilies and families' relationships with health-care professionals. A principal implication for the family field is to move beyond a focus on dyads (parent/child and couple) to include multilateral relationships that are intrinsic to family life.

Although symbolic interactionism sheds light on how parents may impact their children's behaviors and outcomes through socialization, it has been underutilized in research and theorizing on Chinese parents' role in their children's academic development. Because work considering academic socialization holistically in Chinese families is limited, we use symbolic interactionism to propose a model that advances this theory by incorporating academic socialization as a formal construct that impacts Chinese children's academic outcomes. Specifically, we suggest that academic socialization shapes children's academic self-concept directly and indirectly through academic achievement, with variations in Chinese parents' academic socialization based on socioeconomic status. Implications for research, theory, and practice are elaborated.

In this article, I revisit the debate surrounding the deinstitutionalization of marriage. I identify the divergent methodologies used to evaluate deinstitutionalization and argue that institutional power requires greater definition. I develop the concept of institutional power by applying a Lukesian lens to new institutionalist theories of institutional activities. I define deinstitutionalization as the loss of connection between institutions and their sources of institutional power which constitutes their institutionality. Further, I argue that the indicators used to assess deinstitutionalization must recognize (a) the formal and informal aspects of marriage's institutionality and (b) the regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive bases of marriage's institutional power. I argue that discursive processes drive developments in the discursive field of intimacy yet the emphasis on individualization in existing scholarship struggles to adequately explain developments such as same-sex marriage. I propose that the personal life thesis offers a more cogent explanation of these changes.

Despite Hegel's thorough exploration of the interplay between politics, family dynamics, and the role of self-consciousness in family processes, his work has been notably absent from discussions within family science and human development. This paper aims to bridge this gap by conducting a comprehensive review of Hegel's contributions, addressing historical issues, and presenting arguments for the relevance of Hegelian concepts in family research, including an overview of methodological possibilities. The paper begins with a concise introduction to Hegel's views on family and society, examining key theoretical concepts such as marriage and family capital. Following this, the discussion delves into the application of Hegelian notions of spirit and develops a list of family values based on my interpretation of Hegel's works. The conclusion underscores the importance of Hegelian thought, emphasizing its potential as an epistemological foundation for advancing family science.

Given their value, literature reviews and syntheses are featured in numerous family-centered academic journals, including the flagship journals of the National Council on Family Relations. Although literature reviews and syntheses, including meta-analyses, have been published in family-centered academic journals for decades, the application of these methods to topics germane to family science has increased substantially over time. This trend—coupled with a desire to support the conduct of high-quality literature reviews and syntheses in family science—prompted the development of this article, which aims to provide an efficient, didactic overview of common literature review and synthesis approaches, including meta-analysis. This article also offers several considerations intended to support family scholars' efforts to develop strong literature reviews, syntheses, and meta-analyses, particularly ones intended for publication in family-centered academic journals. The skillful application of these methods will support family scholars' continued efforts to enrich, guide, and advance family science.

An increasing number of scholars suggest the need to enhance the incorporation of diversity and social justice across all areas of family science. Part of this work has seen family science more strongly and explicitly incorporate intersectional theorizing to problematize individual biases and power positions, generally, and of researchers and participants, more specifically. More work is needed to connect theory, method, and methodology to advance the call of scholars. Here, we attend to this call by providing methodological considerations for conducting intersectional phenomenological research in family science. We begin with an overview of phenomenology, including its philosophical and methodological foundations and variations. We then introduce the history of intersectionality, followed by critical methodological considerations for intersectional phenomenological research in family science. This integration of intersectionality and phenomenological research centers the lived experiences of individuals and families with historically marginalized identities while attending to power dynamics often part of scholarship.

This paper examines how Black mothers have had each tenet of reproductive justice violated by state powers and institutions, how Black mothers have resisted these injustices, and how this struggle between reproductive oppression and resistance is critical to understanding the relevance of Black motherwork in intersectional theories in family science. I argue that applying a reproductive justice analysis to Black motherwork involves three key components: (a) the right to identify and engage with Black motherwork; (b) the right of empowerment to disengage (further) with Black motherwork; and (c) the right to perform Black motherwork in safe and survivable environments. This paper emphasizes that infringements on Black women's reproductive liberties happen beyond the site of the body. They expand into their homes, their neighborhoods, and even their educational spaces.