The multidisciplinary knowledge base that contributes to our understanding of the family does not facilitate methodological rigour. This is so because the methodology of the contributing disciplines does not always do justice to the unique features of the family, leading to a lack of "methodological understanding" (Brown & Kidwell, 1982: 852). Recognising the need to develop an independent methodology to study the family, experts in the field have put forward various alternatives. While many of these alternatives are neither new nor flawless, their proponents believe that they are the better methods that family researchers should adopt when conducting research on the family. This article discusses methodological shortcomings that are commonly found in the study of the family, highlighting the need for and the relevance of addressing them. Methodological alternatives are then described and critiqued, and suggestions for enhancing their sharpness advanced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, K. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1): 4-17.
2.
Ambert, A., Adler, P.A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D.F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4): 879-893.
3.
Bharat, S. (1996a). Family measurement in India. In S. Bharat (Ed.), Family measurement in India . New Delhi: Sage.
4.
Bharat, S. (1996b). Indian instruments for assessment in family and marriage: A compilation of annotated abstracts. In S. Bharat (Ed.), Family Measurements in India. New Delhi: Sage.
5.
Bharat, S., & Desai, M. (1995). Indian bibliographies on the family. Mumbai: TISS.
6.
Brown, L.H., & Kidwell, J.S. (1982). Methodology in family studies: The other side of caring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(4): 833-839.
7.
Burgess, E.W. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting personalities . Family, 7(1): 3-9.
8.
Burr, W.R., & Leigh, G.K. (1983). Famology: A new discipline. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(3): 467-480.
9.
Christensen, H.T. (1964). Development of the family field of study. In H.T. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand McNally.
10.
Cromwell, R.E., & Peterson, G.W. (1981). Multisystem-multimethod assessment: A framework. In E.E. Filsinger , & R.A. Lewis (Eds.), Assessing marriage. California: Sage.
11.
Desai, M. (1994a). Family and interventions: Curriculum planning . In M. Desai (Ed.), Family and interventions—A course compendium. Mumbai: TISS.
12.
Desai, M. (1994b). Conceptual framework for analysis of family case studies. In M. Desai (Ed.), Family and interventions-Some case studies. Mumbai: TISS.
13.
Fisher, L., Kokes, R.F., Ransom, D.C., Phillips, S.L., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family data. Family Process, 24(2): 213-224.
14.
Gore, M.S. (1965). The traditional Indian family. In M.F. Nimkoff (Ed.), Comparative family systems . Boston: Houghton and Mifflin.
15.
Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centred social work practice. New York: Free Press.
16.
Henwood, K.L., & Pidgeon, N.F. (1993). Qualitative research and psychological theorising . In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. London : Sage.
17.
Kashyap, L. (1996). Measurement issues in family-centred social work . In S. Bharat (Ed.), Family measurement in India. Sage: New Delhi.
18.
Larossa, R. (1984). Family case studies. New York : Free Press.
19.
Larossa, R., & Wolf, J.M. (1985). On qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(3): 531-541.
20.
Larsen, A., & Olson, D.M. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems: Integrating family theory, family scores and family analysis. In T.W. Draper, & A.C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualisation, measurement and use. California: Sage.
21.
Larzelere, R.E., & Klein, D.M. (1987). Methodology. In M.B. Sussman, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum.
22.
Mane, P. (1996). Assessment in the area of marriage: The social work approach in India. In S. Bharat (Ed.), Family measurement in India. Sage: New Delhi.
23.
Marcos, A.C., & Draper, T.W. (1990). Capturing family variables. In T.W. Draper, & A.C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualisation, measurement and use. California: Sage.
24.
Miller, B.C., Rollins, B.C., & Thomas, D.L. (1982). On methods of studying marriages and families . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(4): 851-873.
25.
Nye, F.I., & Berardo, F.M. (1966). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis . New York: MacMillan.
26.
Olson, D.H. (1981). Family typologies: Bridging family research and family therapy. In E.E. Filsinger, & R.A. Lewis (Eds.), Assessing marriage. California: Sage.
27.
Ransom, D.C., Fisher, L., Phillips, S., Kokes, R.F., & Weiss, R. (1990). The logic of measurement in family research. In T.W. Draper & A.C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualisation, measurement and use. California: Sage.
28.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1969). Family sociology or wives' family sociology: A cross-cultural examination of decision-making. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31(3): 290-301.
29.
Schumm, W.R. (1990). Evolution of the family field: Measurement principles and techniques. In J. Touliatos, B.F. Perlmutter, & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques . California: Sage.
30.
Thomas, D.L., & Wilcox, J.E. (1987). The rise of family theory. In M.B. Sussman, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum.
31.
Thompson, L. (1992). Feminist methodology for family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(1): 3-18.
