Journal of Family Theory & Review最新文献

The aim of this article is to provide a theoretical application of transformative learning theory and politicized collective identity framework to examine the process cisgender parents and caregivers of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children undergo to become advocates for TGD justice. With an intensifying anti-TGD political climate and anti-TGD rhetoric, this novel approach to understanding identity development through the lens of these two theories provides a timely and relevant framework for future research to explore motivators for participation in civic engagement for TGD justice among parents and caregivers.

With the Black immigrant population in the United States rapidly increasing, there is a pressing need to understand their unique challenges. We examine the mental health issues of Black immigrant families in the US through the lens of intersectionality. We explore how overlapping identities, race, immigration status, and socioeconomic conditions impact mental health outcomes. Despite their growing numbers, Black immigrants remain underrepresented in mental health research, facing barriers such as language, cultural stigma, and limited access to services. Specific findings reveal how structural racism and migration stress compound to worsen mental health outcomes. This review highlights the importance of targeted, culturally sensitive interventions and comprehensive healthcare practices by analyzing these factors. We advocate for an intersectional approach to address systemic barriers and improve mental health outcomes for Black immigrant families, emphasizing the urgent need for expanded research to promote social justice and equity.

The notion of equality attracts both proponents and critics of nonmonogamy. Inequality is a widely discussed objection to nonmonogamy. Simultaneously, equality is highlighted as a core value in ethical nonmonogamy. The notions of equality and inequality in these debates have not been clearly conceptualized. In order to propose a conception of egalitarian nonmonogamy, it is important to first understand possible inequalities within it. This paper establishes a clearer and in-depth understanding of inequalities in nonmonogamy by categorizing inequalities in traditional polygamy into different kinds. I argue that these inequalities are generally unjust. Although these inequalities are common in traditional polygamy, the objection that polygamy—as a type of marriage—is inherently unequal and unjust is not a convincing argument. By contrast, not all kinds of equality—such as equal love or equal number of partners—are morally significant. I conclude this paper by providing some groundwork for future research on egalitarian nonmonogamy.

Constantine's (2025) theoretical framework has been shown to provide a useful set of orienting ideas, and the set of papers cited show where other authors have employed it. Therapists have clearly gained useful insights from these orienting ideas to help them perceive and analyze family processes. Constantine has done an exemplary job of recognizing important empirical patterns. It is clear that when trying to theorize, he can derive some of the observed patterns from quite simple base structures.

The Paradigmatic Framework has a grandiose title. It is certainly a Kuhnian paradigm that describes some ways systems may be classified (Kuhn, 1962). Although this framework can be seen as a paradigmatic framework to be sure, every other framework that describes types of systems or families (like Baumrind's, 1971) is also a paradigmatic framework of the same kind.

Any theoretical framework only explains what it explains and is inherently a partial view of the world. All theorizing is limited in this way. “It is about what it is about,” as Constantine states (p. 22). Theorizing depends on a careful specification of concepts and delineating of relationships among these concepts. As Constantine points out, “Critical analysis of theory as theory—its assumptions and concepts, implicit biases and limitations, core ideas and hypotheses—is an important but sometimes overlooked route to advancement” (p. 2).

One of the issues with any theoretical typology is that when you divide the world into clearly theorized groups, there are lots of rough edges and fuzzy boundaries when you apply the typology in the empirical world. The types that Constantine describes are ideal types, a term that refers to multidimensional concepts simplified into a typology (Weber, 1949). An ideal type is designed to reduce the innumerable dimensions that describe real life to a few core concepts. An ideal type description is assumed to be generally but not exactly descriptive of any empirical system.

Constantine notes that his framework has three fundamentals (pp. 5–6): (a) mechanisms of system theory; (b) system “issues” (which seem to be functional prerequisites: Parsons, 1951); and (c) the dialectic. Constantine's Table 1 describes his framework, but the language of criteria (a) and (b) do not appear within the table. The table lists multiple other criteria. However, it is not clear how the items in the table are logically derived from the dialectic criteria or other sources. Constantine may have provided such linkages elsewhere, but they are not available here.

The dialectic has an outsized role within his typology of general system types, although he has little to say about it. Constantine does not provide a source for his version of the dialectic. I am aware of two versions of the dialectic. In one (which seems to follow Plato's example: Straus, 1987) an argument (thesis) fo

Campus–community partnerships are essential to the field of family science. Like many other academic units in the applied social sciences, family science departments connect with communities to train students and engage in outreach, fulfilling the mission of many institutions, particularly land-grant universities. Establishing, nurturing, maintaining, monitoring, and improving these partnerships benefits academia, the scholarly institution in question, and the organizations and individuals in their host communities. This paper focuses on the application of a family science-derived theoretical model to illuminate connections between institutions of higher education and the communities in which they are situated, for better or for worse. Using case studies and real-life examples, we adapt the three corners theory of relationships to campus and community partnerships, illuminating how external interests and investment in the partnership can affect the productivity of joint initiatives.

After devastating earthquakes struck Türkiye in February 2023, the country faced the challenge of addressing the psychosocial needs of the survivors. This article uses the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) model to conceptualize Türkiye's responses to the earthquakes in terms of its demands (i.e., cumulative strains and current stressors), capabilities (i.e., existing resources and coping mechanisms), and meaning/belief systems (i.e., shared meaning, religion/spirituality, and positive outlook/hope). A historical context is provided to better understand the cumulative tensions and resilience of the country, seeking ways to strengthen effective crisis responses in anticipation of an even bigger earthquake in the coming years. Additionally, this article may spark a conversation among family practitioners in different countries about how to collaborate on mobilizing resources during challenging times.

This paper wrestles with the nexus of settler colonialism, the expropriation of Indigenous lands to establish the United States land-grant system, and the field of Family Science. Family Science programs are embedded within the power structures of the universities to which they belong; certain characteristics of these academic units—especially their emphasis on engagement and professional credentialing—theoretically could produce an idiosyncratic and nuanced context in which academy members operate. First, we grapple with the history of US settler colonialism and the land-grab concept, focusing attention on the enormous transfer of Native American lands into universities through the Morrill Act. Second, we examine the convergence between the applied activities of family scientists and the tripartite land-grant mission of teaching, research, and engagement. Consequently, our final aim is to investigate the impact of being a family scientist within a land-grant university grappling with the historical injustices surrounding its foundation.