After considering the diverse strategies presented in these articles, I began to ask what the point of all these approaches were. To me it seems two-fold: personal development and policy. One part of sociological research is an attempt to explain individual behavior, and even justify it in accordance with greater observed trends. The other is, as Ben-Porath discusses, an appeal to policy makers. Many of the articles discussed the importance of social welfare. However research on all types of the family is necessary to understand how this should be implemented- should there be more support for single mothers? Should more money be provided during the first year of childbirth?
As necessary as this is for policy, there are two glaring problems. First, all the research presented in these studies is retrospective, and leads to the formation of policies which are reactionary rather than preventative. When looking at life-courses, biosocial, or economic approaches to family research, we observe trends and general effects of history, which show that the family is pretty constantly in flux. There are general life changes that all these theories address (marriage, having children, etc), but if attitudes towards divorce, marriage, and even the age of undergoing puberty is changing, how can we predict future trends? In addition, questions of “should” imply that there is a correct way the family and “life courses” need to develop. These articles skim over the studies used, and don’t release demographic information on their participants, making me wonder how applicable they are to the general population.
Questions:
- What assumptions do the writers make in assuming the way a family “should” develop?
- Did you find that your personal feelings and biases affected your readings of these articles? If so, what were they?
- Are there other factors that could explain the biological approach to family development?
No comments:
Post a Comment