The purposes of this article are: (a) to examine current trends and issues in family nursing research from the perspective of an intimate outsider to the field, and (b) to offer predictions regarding future trends for family nursing research. The article is divided into three sections. First, the unique dimensions offamilies are identified and the problems these characteristics present to researchers are briefly examined. Second, a brief overview of the topics studied in family nursing research and the methodological issues of that body of literature are presented. Finally, conclusions are drawn and observations are made about the current status of family nursing research, and recommendationsfor thefuture are offered. Among the predictions are an increase in multidisciplinary research teams, greater use of midrange theories, an increase in conceptual and methodological complexity, more study offamily diversity, greater use offeministframeworks, and an increase in the number offamily nursing scholars who have programs of research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahrons, C. R.
, & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Divorced families: A multidisciplinary developmental view. New York: Norton.
2.
Amato, P.
, & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,43-58.
3.
Austin, J. K.
(1991). Family adaptation to a child's chronic illness. In J. J. Fitzpatrick, R. L. Taunton, & A. K. Jacox (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (pp. 103-120). New York: Springer.
4.
Bateson, M. C.
(1989). Composing a life. New York: Plume.
5.
Boss, P. G.
, Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (1993). Sourcebookoffamily theories and methods: A conceptual approach. New York: Plenum.
6.
Broderick, C.
(1993). Understandingfamily process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Cardwell, M. M.
(1993). Family nursing research: A feminist critique. In S. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M. Bell, & C. L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing offamilies: Theory/research/education/practice (pp. 200-210). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Clingempeel, W. G.
, Brand, E., & Segal, S. (1987). Amultilevel-multivariabledevelopmental perspective for future research on stepfamilies. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting today: Research and theory. New York: Guilford.
9.
Clingempeel, W. G.
, Flescher, M., & Brand, E. (1987). Research on stepfamilies: Paradigmatic constraints and alternative proposals. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances infamily intervention: Assessment and theory (pp. 229-251). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
10.
Coleman, M.
, & Ganong, L (1987). The cultural stereotyping of stepfamilies. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 19-41). New York: Guilford.
11.
Coleman, M.
, & Ganong, L. (1990). Remarriage and stepfamily research in the 80s: Increased interest in an old family form. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 925-940.
12.
Cowan, P. A.
, Hansen, D. A., Swanson, G. E., Field, D., & Skolnick, A. (1993). Issues in defining a research agenda for the 1990s. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self, and society: Towarda new agendaforfamily research (pp. 465-482). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Deatrick, J. A.
, Faux, S. A., & Moore, C. M. (1993). The contribution of qualitative research to the study of families' experiences with childhood illness. In S. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M. Bell, & C. L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing offamilies: Theory/research/education/practice (pp. 61-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Draper, T. W.
, & Marcos, A. C. (Eds.). (1990). Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Duffy, M. E.
(1988). Health promotion in the family: Current findings and directives for nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13, 109-117.
16.
Farley, R.
, & Allen, W. R. (1987). The color line and the quality of life in America. New York: Russell Sage.
17.
Fawcett, J.
, & Whall, A. L. (1990). Family theory development in nursing. In J. M. Bell, W. L. Watson, & L. M. Wright (Eds.), The cutting edge offamily nursing (pp. 17-23). Calgary, Alberta: Family Nursing Unit Publications.
18.
Feetham, S. L.
(1984). Family research: Issues and directions for nursing. In H. H. Werley & J. J. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (pp. 3-16). New York: Springer.
19.
Feetham, S. L.
(1991). Conceptual and methodological issues in research of families. In A. L. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the art and science (pp. 55-68). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
20.
Ganong, L.
, & Coleman, M. (1993). A meta-analytic comparison of the selfesteem and behavior problems of stepchildren to children in other family structures. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19, 143-163.
21.
Ganong, L.
, & Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Gilliss, C. L.
(1983). The family as a unit of analysis: Strategies for the nurse researcher. Advances in Nursing Science, 5, 50-59.
23.
Gilliss, C. L.
(1989). Family research in nursing. In C. L. Gilliss, B. L. Highley, B. M. Roberts, & I. M. Martinson (Eds.), Toward a science offamily nursing (pp. 37-63). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Gilliss, C. L.
(1991a). The family as a unit of analysis: Strategies for the nurse researcher. In A. L. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the art and science (pp. 197-207). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
25.
Gilliss, C. L.
(1991b). Family nursing research, theory, and practice. Image, 23, 19-22.
26.
Gilliss, C. L.
, & Davis, L L. (1992). Family nursing reach: Precepts from paragons and peccadilloes. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 17,28-33.
27.
Gilliss, C. L.
, & Davis, L. L. (1993). Does family intervention make a difference? An integrative review and meta-analysis. In S. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M. Bell, & C. L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing offamilies: Theory! research/education/practice (pp. 259-265). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Given, B. A.
, & Given, C. W. (1991). Family caregiving for the elderly. In J. J. Fitzpatrick, R L. Taunton, & A. K Jacox (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (pp. 77-101). New York: Springer.
29.
Hagestad, G.
, & Smyer, M. A. (1982). Dissolving long-term relationships: Patterns of divorcing in middle age. In, S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships. London: Acadenic.
30.
Hayes, V. E.
(1993). Nursingscience infamily care, 1984-1990. InS. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M. Bell, & C. L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing of families: Theory/research/education/practice (pp. 18-29). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
Kitson, G. C.
, Sussman, M. B., Williams, G. K., hand, R B., Schikmianter, B. K., & Steinberger, J. L. (1982). Sampling Riues in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 965-981.
32.
Kuhlman, G. J.
, Wilson, H. S., Hutchinson, S. A., & Wallhagen, M. (1991). Alzheimer's disease and family caregiving: Critical synthesis of the literature and research agenda. Nursing Research, 40, 321-337.
33.
Larsen, A.
, & Olson, D. (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: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Larzelere, R E.
, & lein, D. Li (1987). Methodology. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 125-155). New York: Plenum.
35.
Lavee, Y.
, & Dollahite, D. C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361-373.
36.
Mercer, R T.
(1989). Theoretical perspectives on the family. In C. L. Gilliss, B. L Highley, B. M. Roberts, & I. M. Martinson (Eds.), Toward a science offamily nursing (pp. 9-36). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
37.
Miller, B. C.
(1993). Families, science, and values: Alternative views of parenting effects and adolescent pregnancy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 7-21.
38.
Moriarty, H. J.
(1990). Key issues in the family research process: Strategies for nurse researchers. Advances in Nursing Science, 12(3), 1-14.
39.
Moriarty, H. J.
, & Cotroneo, M. (1993). Sampling issues and family research: Recruitment and sampling strategies. In S. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M. Bell, & C. L. Gilliss (Eds.), The nursing offamilies: Theory/research/education! practice (pp. 79-89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
Murphy, S.
(1986). Family study and nursing research. Image, 18,170-174.
41.
Osmond, M. W.
, & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in families. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook offamily theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 591-622). New York: Plenum.
42.
Ransom, D. C.
, Fisher, L., Phillips, S., Kokes, R. E, & Weiss, R. (1990). The logic of measurement in family research. In T. W. Draper & A. C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 48-63). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
Sullivan, J.
, & Fawcett, J. (1991). The measurement of family phenomenon. In A. L. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the art and science (pp. 69-106). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
44.
Thomas, R
(1987). Methodological issues and problems in family health care research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 65-70.
45.
Thompson, L.
(1992). Feminist methodology for family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 19-30.
46.
Thompson, L.
, & Walker, A. (1982). The dyad as a unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 889-900.
47.
Troost, K.
, & Filsinger, E. (1993). Emerging biosocial perspectives on the family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 677-710). New York: Plenum.
48.
Touliatos, J.
, Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook offamily measurement techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Uphold, C. R.
, & Harper, D. C. (1986). Methodological issues in intergenerational family nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 38-49.
50.
Uphold, C. R.
, & Strickland, O. L. (1989). Issues related to the unit of analysis in family nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 11, 405-417.
51.
Wald, E.
(1981). The remarriedfamily: Challenge and promise. New York: Family Service Association of America.
52.
Whall, A. L.
(1986). The family as the unit of care in nursing: A historical review. Public Health Nursing, 3, 240-249.
53.
Whall, A. L.
(1991). Commentary [on Gilliss, The family as a unit of analysis: Strategies for the nurse researcher]. In A. L. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the art and science (p. 208-208). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
54.
Whall, A. L.
, & Loveland-Cherry, C. J. (1993). Family unit-focused research: 1984-1991. In J. J. Fitzpatrick, J. S. Stevenson, & A. K. Jacox (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (pp. 227-247). New York: Springer.
