Grandparents often serve important childrearing roles. The present study is a systematic review of research that examined the association between intergenerational coparenting and children's development. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, 220 records were identified, and 16 studies were included in the final review. The review provided a detailed analysis of the methodological characteristics of research in this area. Findings indicated that better intergenerational coparenting was associated with higher levels of children's social competence, executive functioning, and attachment security. Evidence also suggests parenting mediates the relation between intergenerational coparenting and child development. Several directions for future research emerged from the review including the need (a) for measurement strategies that reflect the multidimensional nature of intergenerational coparenting, (b) to consider the various parent‐grandparent dyads, and (c) to incorporate other family factors and processes (e.g., quality of parent‐grandparent relationships) into studies that focus on intergenerational coparenting.
{"title":"Intergenerational coparenting and child development outcomes: A systematic review","authors":"Weiman Xu, Gilbert R. Parra, Ma'Kiya Carter","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12594","url":null,"abstract":"Grandparents often serve important childrearing roles. The present study is a systematic review of research that examined the association between intergenerational coparenting and children's development. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, 220 records were identified, and 16 studies were included in the final review. The review provided a detailed analysis of the methodological characteristics of research in this area. Findings indicated that better intergenerational coparenting was associated with higher levels of children's social competence, executive functioning, and attachment security. Evidence also suggests parenting mediates the relation between intergenerational coparenting and child development. Several directions for future research emerged from the review including the need (a) for measurement strategies that reflect the multidimensional nature of intergenerational coparenting, (b) to consider the various parent‐grandparent dyads, and (c) to incorporate other family factors and processes (e.g., quality of parent‐grandparent relationships) into studies that focus on intergenerational coparenting.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Through the lens of evolutional psychology, mate preferences are posited into a three “G” framework (good genes, good resources, and good persons/parents/partners) that captures genetic quality, resource acquisition, and personality and caregiving qualities. Previous research acknowledged that adult children had different mate preferences from their parents, but had no consensus on how such differences existed in certain mate characteristics. This meta‐analysis aimed to examine the discrepancies of characteristics in mate preferences between parent and adult child, and how the moderators of culture, gender, measurement scoring type, and study quality could influence such discrepancies. We summarized 25 eligible articles (N = 21,008) on parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences, which covered 1473 effect sizes. A three‐level random‐effects meta‐analysis result showed that adult children's mate preferences had significant differences from parents’ preferences on in‐laws in good genes (Cohen's d = 0.42, 95% CI [0.237, 0.595]), indicating that adult children emphasized more on traits associated with genetic quality. No significant group differences were found on the related traits about good resources (Cohen's d = −0.11) and good persons/parents/partners (Cohen's d = 0.08), indicating that parents and children have similar preferences on provisioning‐related mate traits and personality. Our results also revealed that the parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences differ across culture, gender, measurement scoring type, and study quality. Our results offer insights into revisiting evolutionary perspectives of mate preference and highlighting the existing parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences that can be explained through social structural theories and family systems theory. We also discussed practical implications for research on mate preferences and highlighted new avenues for future studies.
通过进化心理学的视角，配偶偏好被假定为一个三 "G "框架（好基因、好资源和好人/父母/伴侣），其中包括基因质量、资源获取以及个性和照顾品质。以往的研究承认，成年子女对配偶的偏好与父母不同，但对这种差异如何体现在某些配偶特征上却没有达成共识。本荟萃分析旨在研究父母与成年子女在配偶偏好特征上的差异，以及文化、性别、测量评分类型和研究质量等调节因素如何影响这些差异。我们总结了 25 篇符合条件的文章（N = 21008），内容涉及父母与子女在配偶偏好方面的差异，共涉及 1473 个效应量。三级随机效应荟萃分析结果显示，成年子女的配偶偏好与父母对优良基因姻亲的偏好存在显著差异（Cohen's d = 0.42，95% CI [0.237，0.595]），表明成年子女更重视与遗传质量相关的特征。在与好资源（Cohen's d = -0.11）和好人/父母/伴侣（Cohen's d = 0.08）相关的特质上，没有发现明显的群体差异，这表明父母和子女在与供给相关的配偶特质和个性上具有相似的偏好。我们的研究结果还显示，父母与子女在配偶偏好上的差异因文化、性别、测量评分类型和研究质量的不同而不同。我们的研究结果为重新审视配偶偏好的进化观点提供了启示，并强调了父母与子女在配偶偏好上的现有差异，这些差异可以通过社会结构理论和家庭系统理论来解释。我们还讨论了配偶偏好研究的实际意义，并强调了未来研究的新途径。
{"title":"Parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences: A three‐level meta‐analysis","authors":"Lu Ran Zhang, Kelly Ka Lai Lam, Wei‐Wen Chen","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12588","url":null,"abstract":"Through the lens of evolutional psychology, mate preferences are posited into a three “G” framework (good genes, good resources, and good persons/parents/partners) that captures genetic quality, resource acquisition, and personality and caregiving qualities. Previous research acknowledged that adult children had different mate preferences from their parents, but had no consensus on how such differences existed in certain mate characteristics. This meta‐analysis aimed to examine the discrepancies of characteristics in mate preferences between parent and adult child, and how the moderators of culture, gender, measurement scoring type, and study quality could influence such discrepancies. We summarized 25 eligible articles (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 21,008) on parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences, which covered 1473 effect sizes. A three‐level random‐effects meta‐analysis result showed that adult children's mate preferences had significant differences from parents’ preferences on in‐laws in good genes (Cohen's <jats:italic>d</jats:italic> = 0.42, 95% CI [0.237, 0.595]), indicating that adult children emphasized more on traits associated with genetic quality. No significant group differences were found on the related traits about good resources (Cohen's <jats:italic>d</jats:italic> = −0.11) and good persons/parents/partners (Cohen's <jats:italic>d</jats:italic> = 0.08), indicating that parents and children have similar preferences on provisioning‐related mate traits and personality. Our results also revealed that the parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences differ across culture, gender, measurement scoring type, and study quality. Our results offer insights into revisiting evolutionary perspectives of mate preference and highlighting the existing parent–child discrepancies in mate preferences that can be explained through social structural theories and family systems theory. We also discussed practical implications for research on mate preferences and highlighted new avenues for future studies.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142321474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article introduces a new conceptual model for examining classism among adolescents and families. Classism refers to the discrimination that individuals experience because of their social class. For adolescents, social class refers to their family's social class and includes income, education, occupation, and position in society. Despite extensive research that has shown how social class is associated with adolescent development, there remains a gap in the knowledge about how classism might explain this association. To advance scholarship about classism among adolescents and families, I present a new model. This model integrates theories on (a) classism among adults, (b) discrimination among adolescents, (c) family science, (d) social class, and (e) intersectionality. I include hypotheses about the associations between classism and adolescent developmental outcomes and conclude with directions for future research.
{"title":"Don't skip class: A new conceptual model for examining classism among adolescents and families","authors":"Zena R. Mello","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12589","url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces a new conceptual model for examining classism among adolescents and families. Classism refers to the discrimination that individuals experience because of their social class. For adolescents, social class refers to their family's social class and includes income, education, occupation, and position in society. Despite extensive research that has shown how social class is associated with adolescent development, there remains a gap in the knowledge about how classism might explain this association. To advance scholarship about classism among adolescents and families, I present a new model. This model integrates theories on (a) classism among adults, (b) discrimination among adolescents, (c) family science, (d) social class, and (e) intersectionality. I include hypotheses about the associations between classism and adolescent developmental outcomes and conclude with directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142306266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In adoption, it is common to consider the adopted child, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother as part of the adoption galaxy. Yet, birth fathers are often missing elements in adoption‐focused research. This article aims to comprehensively understand the current knowledge regarding birth fathers' experiences in adoption. Adapting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses approach, this review identified 100 peer‐reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2022 on birth fathers in adoption. This article used a mixed‐methods approach to analyze the landscape of the current research. Quantitative analysis confirmed that birth fathers in adoption are under‐researched worldwide. In the qualitative analysis, the following themes emerged regarding birth fathers: a lack of openness, negative stereotypes, gatekeeping, and emotional impacts. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering the wishes and support needs of birth fathers when their child is being placed for adoption.
在领养过程中，人们通常将被领养儿童、领养父母和生母视为领养银河系的一部分。然而，在以收养为重点的研究中，生父往往是缺失的元素。本文旨在全面了解目前有关生父在收养中的经历的知识。本综述采用《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses）的方法，确定了 2000 年至 2022 年间发表的 100 篇关于收养中亲生父亲的同行评审文章。本文采用混合方法分析了目前的研究状况。定量分析证实，全世界对收养中的生父研究不足。在定性分析中，出现了以下有关亲生父亲的主题：缺乏开放性、负面刻板印象、把关和情感影响。研究结果表明，在孩子被收养时，考虑生父的意愿和支持需求非常重要。
{"title":"Bringing birth fathers to the forefront: A two‐decade scoping review of birth father experiences in adoption","authors":"Samantha Bolsby, Kyle Breen, Haorui Wu","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12590","url":null,"abstract":"In adoption, it is common to consider the adopted child, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother as part of the adoption galaxy. Yet, birth fathers are often missing elements in adoption‐focused research. This article aims to comprehensively understand the current knowledge regarding birth fathers' experiences in adoption. Adapting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses approach, this review identified 100 peer‐reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2022 on birth fathers in adoption. This article used a mixed‐methods approach to analyze the landscape of the current research. Quantitative analysis confirmed that birth fathers in adoption are under‐researched worldwide. In the qualitative analysis, the following themes emerged regarding birth fathers: a lack of openness, negative stereotypes, gatekeeping, and emotional impacts. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering the wishes and support needs of birth fathers when their child is being placed for adoption.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142306425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Caroline Sanner, Deadric T. Williams, Sarah Mitchell, Todd M. Jensen, Luke T. Russell, Aran Garnett‐Deakin
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.
{"title":"Reimagining stagnant perspectives of family structure: Advancing a critical theoretical research agenda","authors":"Caroline Sanner, Deadric T. Williams, Sarah Mitchell, Todd M. Jensen, Luke T. Russell, Aran Garnett‐Deakin","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12587","url":null,"abstract":"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 <jats:italic>must</jats:italic> 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.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"382 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142144229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"A theoretical integration of work–family studies with the transactional model of stress","authors":"Geunpil Ryu","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12586","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142142559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Systems intelligence and families","authors":"William J. Doherty","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12585","url":null,"abstract":"In a world of increasing complexity, I propose that the concept of <jats:italic>emotional intelligence</jats:italic> 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.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142142578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Institutional power and the deinstitutionalization of marriage","authors":"Rhys James Herden","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12583","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142084647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Applying Hegelian theory to contemporary family science","authors":"Diana Cedeño","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12574","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jftr.12574","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"16 3","pages":"563-581"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142084648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Emerging Voices: Amplifying the perspectives of students and new professionals","authors":"Caroline Sanner","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12582","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jftr.12582","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"16 3","pages":"468-471"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141974279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：