Theoretical

and Methodological Approaches to

Studying Families

Theories are not fixed, complete, or “once and for all” explanations of how things work or are expected to
work. They neither emerge as “complete theories” nor remain the same because theory and research are
intertwined (Ingoldsby et al. 2004:2) and one advances the other. As our understanding or theory changes, so
do our research questions. Likewise, as we do research and come up with new observations that run counter
to existing theories, our theories change. Even the seemingly unchanging or indisputable theories in the
natural sciences are constructed in cultural and ideological contexts and so are influenced by social change.
For example, Galileo challenged the widely accepted idea that the earth was flat—to the profound disapproval
of the Catholic Church, ultimately resulting in his arrest. This shows us that we often accept things to be
theoretically sound or “true,” often despite evidence to the contrary or in the absence of adequate evidence,
because of the social climate in which we live.

Paradigm shifts or radical changes in scientific views occur after significant data have been collected that do
not fit the existing theory, to the extent that a new theory is needed to fit the data. This is clearly the case in
theorizing on or about families, as family theories have undergone a number of significant shifts and
modifications, resulting from political shifts, peoples’ challenges or revolts, and social and ideological change,
as we have seen in the case of Black Lives Matter movements around the world.

Theories provide us with a lens through which we look at the social world. With a shift in theory, we take on a
different lens with which we try to understand the social world in general and families in particular. Theories
then suggest what we look at and how, because each theory contains underlying assumptions about how the
social world works—which in turn guide our research questions and methods. For example, some assume
human behaviour is biologically based, and so things like the gender division of labour are not only justified,
but deemed natural and unalterable. Others assume our behaviour is learned and so can be unlearned,
relearned, or learned differently as products of the culture in which we live; therefore, patterns of behaviour
can be constructed to support specific groups and interests, at the expense of others. For the first group of
theorists, certain kinds of social change are viewed as problematic or dysfunctional, and so they seek to
preserve particular existing structures and relations. Others, like those in the second group, recognize power
struggles and inequities in existing structures and relations, and so seek change.

Although some approaches seemingly lend themselves to certain methods, as we will see below, it is
important to note that sociologists and other family researchers within each theoretical tradition can and do
use multiple types of methods—both qualitative and quantitative.

Researchers may use seemingly similar methods but with different theoretical approaches, therefore coming
to very different conclusions. For example, anthropologists have been studying families in cross-cultural
contexts, and comparative case studies, for a relatively long time. Within the discipline there has also been
considerable variation in theorizing. For example, George Murdock (1949), who surveyed 250 human
societies, concluded that the nuclear family was universal and served four basic social functions: sexual,
economic, reproductive, and educational. According to Murdock, a man and woman constituted an efficient
co-operating unit, whereby a man’s “superior physical strength” and ability to “range further afield” to hunt
and trade complemented a woman’s “lighter tasks” performed in or near the home. He claimed that all known
societies work this way because of innate and inevitable biological facts and differences (Murdock 1949:7).

In contrast, Margaret Mead’s comparative ethnographic research done in the South Pacific at approximately
the same time is qualitative and descriptive in nature. Mead identified considerable variation across cultures
and stressed that the division of labour in every known society rests firmly on learned behaviour and not
simply on biological differences. For example, she noted that if men went away to work in the city, women
were left behind to do the farm labour, which, by Murdock’s biological explanation, would be considered
heavy male labour requiring “superior male strength.” She did not dismiss or even minimize biology, but
instead argued that “human beings have learned, laboriously, to be human” (Mead 1949: 198).

Clearly, two seemingly similar cross-cultural studies of societies from around the world came to different
conclusions about family life because of differing theoretical orientations. Let us explore some of these
theoretical differences.
Functionalism
In general, structural functionalist theories are based on the idea of organic ontology, which assumes that
society is like a living organism, made up of a series of interrelated parts working together for the good of the
whole. Each social institution or subsystem, like parts of the organism, serves specific functions, keeping
society in a state of equilibrium. Individuals within the institutions, like cells in an organism, fill specific and
prescribed roles—again, for the proper functioning of the institution and society. From a functionalist point of
view, families are institutions that serve specific functions in society, and family members are expected to fill
prescribed roles within the institution for the good of society as a whole. Social change, or a challenge to the
existing order is thus, considered undesirable.

Murdock’s work exemplifies this approach. He believed we can best understand the family by examining what
it does and how it functions for, and within, society. Talcott Parsons (1955) also studied the functions of family
by looking at the roles men and women fill within them. According to Parsons, men are biologically better
suited to fulfill instrumental functions, that is, tasks that need to be performed to ensure a family’s physical
survival, including providing for material needs by earning an income (Parsons and Bales 1955). He believed
women are better suited to performing expressive functions—the tasks involved in building emotionally
supportive relationships among family members—that are needed to foster psychological well-being. In other
words, women were expected to fill the nurturing role. Today, evidence of the tenacity of functionalist framing
of family life and the idea of separate but complementary sex roles can be found among some who hold
strong religious beliefs. For example, a recent study by Whitehead and Perry (2019) revealed that Christian
nationalism is a very strong predictor of holding a traditionalist gender ideology (even after they took into
account a number of political and other religious characteristics). They found the relationship between
Christian nationalism and gender traditionalism held true across different Christian religious traditions
(Whitehead and Perry 2019).

Marxism
The functionalist approach to the study of families was particularly popular in North America throughout the
1940s and 1950s. However, competing views also existed, and some researchers studying families turned to
the earlier work of Friedrich Engels, who provided a very different explanation and approach to the study of
families in Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1972 [1884]). Engels, with Marx, argued that
a number of distinct phases in human history shape, alter, and constrain human relations. He explained that
the mode of production, or the way we organize economic life—whether hunting and gathering (foraging) in
primitive communism, land-based (agrarian) feudalism, or modern industry and profit-driven capitalism—
affects the way we organize social life and experience family relations. He claimed that in a period of
primitive communism, characterized by a foraging/nomadic existence, the notion of private ownership was
absent and there was relative equality between the sexes. Then, with land-based feudalism (a social system in
which peasants were obliged to live on a lord’s land in exchange for homage and labour) came a
reorganization and privatization of family life and a change in power relations between the sexes. With the
advent of the notion of private ownership and male control of land and other property, women lost power and
control both within and outside of families. Ideally, for Marxists, the social goal is to abolish private property,
re-establish communism, and return to more equitable relations between the sexes. Thus, unlike
functionalists, for Marxists, gender differences in power and status and the domination of men over women,
within and outside families, are neither natural nor inevitable but rather are a product of the (re)organization
of economic life. This approach, again unlike functionalism, implies that social change is a normal, and at
times desirable, part of social life. For family researchers who embrace a Marxist approach, a likely goal
would be to identify power relations within the home and connect them to inequities in economic relations
outside it.

Symbolic Interactionism
While Marxists looked outside of families to economic forms and relationships in order to understand what
was happening within them, others have looked instead within families at social relations and interactions.
That is, while Marxists saw economic forces acting on individuals and families, others, like George Herbert
Mead, assumed that individuals were active agents or “doers” of social life; in other words, if you want to
understand social life in general and family life in particular, you should examine how individuals construct
meaning through their daily interactions with others. For example, according to Mead, understanding family
involves understanding parent–child relations and “the relationship between the sexes” (Mead 1967
[1934]:238). Exchanges or interactions between them lead to the organization of the family and society. That
is, he explained that “all such larger units or forms of human social organization as the clan or the state are
ultimately based upon, and whether directly or indirectly are developments from or extensions of, the family”
(Mead 1967 [1934]:229). Therefore, in contrast to Marxism, this approach implies that the individuals and
interactions within families shape the organization of family life—which in turn helps shape larger
organizations like the state. Thus, researchers using this theoretical approach, would likely conduct in-depth,
qualitative interviews with family members and/or observe individuals and interactions within families as they
occur. This would enable a researcher to uncover the rich and complex underlying meanings of interactions
and relations, often from the point of view of the individuals involved in the exchanges.

Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory is a broad theoretical framework used to examine relational processes within families.
It borrows from psychology, sociology, and economics, as it seeks to explain the development, maintenance
(including the maintenance of power differences), and decay of “exchange relationships” (Nakonezny and
Denton 2008). It focuses on understanding the balance between the costs and rewards that marital partners
obtain when choosing to be and remain in a conjugal relationship. In this approach, marital exchange
relationships are conceptualized as transactions between partners for valued resources—including love and
affection—which culminate in individual or family-level profit or losses. The theory maintains that partners
seek positive outcomes based on rewards and costs, but each partner must value the other’s activities for
relational solidarity to be sustained. It purports that couples who receive favourable reward/cost outcomes
from each other—where the distribution of rewards and costs is perceived to be fair (enough)—are more
likely to develop solidarity and be more satisfied with their marriage (Homans 1974). These are, then, the
families that are most likely to remain together. Each partner’s satisfaction with the relationship is assumed
to correlate directly with the perceived rewards of the marital relationship and inversely with the perceived
costs (Nakonezny and Denton 2008).

A major risk factor for a relationship’s stability is at least one partner’s low level of satisfaction with the
distribution of costs and benefits; however, satisfaction alone is not enough. The theory goes on to explain
that the rewards and punishments that individual actors “administer” to each other is a key source of marital
power (Nakonezny and Denton 2008). The balance of power generally belongs to the partner who contributes
greater resources to the marriage. Inevitably, “resource differentials” produce “relationship asymmetry,”
which can result in exploitation in the marital relationship (Blau 1964). While interesting and seemingly
logical, because of its emphasis on micro-level exchanges and their outcomes, this theoretical approach tends
to overlook the broader social and cultural contexts that shape, constrain, and alter family life.

Family Systems Theory

Influenced by symbolic interactionism, family systems theory assumes that a family is a relatively closed
system of social interactions, or a site of interacting personalities. According to this theory (especially
popular among family therapists and social workers), an individual’s behaviour is best understood in the
context of families because it is believed that the locus of pathology is not within the person but in a system
dysfunction. In other words, the family is more than a collection of individuals or interactions, it is a natural
social system, “with its own rules, roles, communication patterns, and power structure” (Ingoldsby et al.
2004:168).

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development utilizes a systems approach to understanding
family life by assessing how the home environment (or microsystem) affects child development.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, however, explains child development as a multi-level, interactive process,
requiring multi-level analysis of a number of interconnected systems. His bioecological paradigm stresses the
importance of reciprocal interactions between individuals and their micro- (family environment), meso- (e.g.,
school), exo- (institutions beyond a child’s immediate environment, like a parent’s workplace), and macro
systems (customs, values, and laws of the culture in which we live) on developmental and socio-emotional
outcomes (Bronfenbrenner 1977). All of these interacting systems taken together provided an understanding
of child development.
Doing research from this theoretical perspective would require the researcher to study interactions at
multiple levels—modelled like a series of circles, one inside the other. A researcher may first study a child’s
interactions within the home, the first and smallest circle; then the child’s interactions at school, the next and
slightly larger circle; then the child’s neighbourhood, the next and larger circle, etc. The aim would be to try
to understand how the child is affected by and affects relations within each environment or circle.

Developmental Theories
In the 1940s, some family researchers noted that, like individuals, families were influenced by developmental
processes, or experienced life cycles, with clearly delineated stages (Ingoldsby et al. 2004). In a report
created for the “First National Conference on the Family” established by US president Truman, Duvall and
Hill (1988) outlined a relatively new and interdisciplinary approach to the study of families. Evelyn Millis
Duvall, a specialist in human development, teamed up with Reuben Hill, a family sociologist, to create the
family development theory. Using Freud’s work on psychosexual development, Erikson’s research on
psychosocial development, Piaget’s theories on cognitive development, and Kohlberg’s ideas on moral
development—along with demographic and longitudinal research on families—Duvall and Hill argued that
families go through a series of eight developmental stages in the family life cycle (Duvall and Hill 1988). At
each life stage—marriage, child-bearing, preschool, school, teen, launching centre, middle-aged, and aging—
family members, depending on their physical maturation, are challenged by different developmental tasks
and normative events, which can at times result in stress, crises, and critical transitions.

Duvall noted that “although the timing and duration of family life cycle stages vary widely, families
everywhere try to conform to norms present in all societies in what is expected at each life cycle’s stage”
(Duvall and Hill 1988:130). She explained that the family development theory was unique among theoretical
frameworks because

a. its family life cycle dimension provides the basis for study of families over time;
b. of its emphasis on the developmental tasks of individual family members and of families at every stage
of their development;
c. of its built-in recognition of family stress at critical periods in development;
d. of its recognition ever since 1947 of the need for services, supports, and programs for families
throughout their life cycles. (Duvall and Hill 1988:133)

More recent research (Cooke and Gazso 2009) using a life-course approach (based on the assumption that
families move through a series of distinct stages over time) has attempted to capture life-course complexity
and gender-specific experiences and trajectories, which were somewhat lacking in the original approach (see
Krüger and Levy 2001).

Biases in Traditional Approaches/Theorizing

Within many of the family theories popular throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the family was
conceptualized as an important but relatively isolated unit “whose internal structures resulted mainly from
negotiated action of adult members” (Krüger and Levy 2001:149). Most of these theories tended to treat
families as homogeneous, and questions about gender differences and inequalities within and across families
remained unasked and unanswered. Writing about this, Eichler (1997) noted that a great deal of theorizing
about families contained a number of hidden assumptions and biases. She identified seven biases in family
literature and theorizing: monolithic, conservative, sexist, ageist, micro-structural, racist, and heterosexist.
Thus, theories tended to treat family as a monolithic structure by emphasizing uniformity of experience and
universality of functions—monolithic bias; in other words, they tended to underrepresent the diversity of
family forms that actually existed in any given society. She identified a conservative bias, wherein, theorists
tended to provide only a romanticized view of the nuclear family and regarded recent changes as ephemeral
or short lived. A sexist bias was manifested in a number of ways, including the assumption that there is a
“natural” division of functions between the sexes. Theorists also almost exclusively talked about families as
involving exchanges between two middle-aged adults, largely excluding children and the elderly in their
analysis, producing an ageist bias. She identified a micro-structural bias, a tendency to treat families as
encapsulated units, typically ignoring extraneous/external factors. Theories also often devalued or outright
ignored families of culturally, racially, or ethnically non-dominant groups—racist bias—and treated the
heterosexual family as “natural,” denying family status to 2SLGBTQI+ families—heterosexist bias. A large
number of these biases have since been addressed by feminist theorizing on families.

The “Big Bang”—Feminist Theories

Feminism is not a new paradigm, and in fact has existed for as long as, if not longer than, sociology itself (for
example, see Mary Wollstonecraft, 1759–1797; Wollstonecraft 1988 [1792]). But what was novel was the force
with which feminism was able to challenge existing family theories in the period following the 1960s—a
period that David Cheal (1991) called “the big bang.” Since then, feminist scholarship and feminist questions
have charted a different course for theorizing on families. Feminism “is not only an academic school of
thought, it is also a broad movement for change” (Cheal 1991:9). Feminism took what, for a long time, had
been considered intimate or private matters—sexuality, violence, child-rearing and care, domestic division of
labour, etc.—and made them public, social, and political issues. Issues not only worthy of study, but in need of
change.

For more on feminist theories, see “Definitions of Domestic Violence” in Chapter 14.

Feminist theorizing on families generally challenges the apparently gender-neutral assumptions about family
life and roles—often found in other family theories—that ignore inequalities and result in negative outcomes
for women. Feminists typically seek to determine who does what, for whom, and with what consequences—
often assessing the differential distribution of activities, resources, and power (see Saul 2003). Additionally,
feminists believe that gender relations in the home and in other institutions are neither natural nor
immutable, but rather historical and socio-cultural products, subject to reconstruction (Elliot and Mandel
1998). Typically, feminists subject marriage and family to a series of profound and critical questions,
challenge myths about women’s roles and abilities, and advocate for change.

Having said this, there is considerable variation within feminism as feminists themselves depart from or have
developed in response to different intellectual traditions, for example, Marxism, symbolic interactionism,
phenomenology, postcolonialism, and psychoanalysis. These traditional approaches were “sooner or later all
reflected in feminist analysis of family life, and they were in turn transformed by it” (Cheal 1991:2). As a
result, within feminism there are liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, radical feminists, socialist feminists,
psychoanalytic feminists, post-structural feminists, post-colonial feminists, anti-racist feminists, etc. Each
focuses on a somewhat different aspect of inequality, often identifying a different source of the problem or
problems, and therefore proposing different solutions. The authors of the chapters that follow reflect some of
this diversity. One prominent Canadian example of feminist theorizing on families, discussed in this book,
focuses on the notion of social reproduction (see Bezanson, Doucet, and Albanese 2015; Luxton 2015). This
approach draws on Marxist and socialist feminism to shed light on power and household relations in capitalist
economies like ours.

Gazso (2009) points out that for many feminist scholars, the theoretical framework of social reproduction
offers a sharp focus on both micro-level relations, activities that make up families, and the broader social
processes that constrain them. This theoretical approach begins by pointing out that while men’s paid work in
the public sphere has been historically viewed as productive and socially valuable, the unpaid work so often
carried out by women—which meets the care and economic needs to maintain life on a daily basis and
contributes to the reproduction of labour in capitalist societies—has for the most part been undervalued and
ignored (Bezanson 2006; Bezanson and Luxton 2006; Fox 2015; Fox and Luxton 2001; Gazso 2009; Luxton
2001).

Researchers embracing this theoretical approach focus their attention on women’s care behaviours and
relations in order to highlight how women socially reproduce daily life for family members, making it possible
to, among other things, allow men to engage in paid work (Fox and Luxton 2001; Luxton 2015). Gazso (2009)
notes that social reproduction includes various kinds of work—mental, manual, and emotional—aimed at
providing the socially variable care necessary to maintain life and to reproduce the next generation. This
theoretical approach, while keenly in tune with the resistance and agency of women from various racialized
groups and class backgrounds, has been critiqued for not having done enough to analyze the experiences of
those growing up in 2SLGBTQI+ families.

Queer theory has provided some additional stimulus in rethinking family theories because most feminist
approaches, as noted above, have been criticized for failing to provide an adequate analysis of lesbian and
gay family experiences. For example, while feminists have done important work on family violence and on the
subordination of women of different races, classes, and of other diverse backgrounds, most have failed to
note that for lesbian families, “it is not their powerlessness within the family that marks their subordination,
but rather their denial of access to a legitimate and socially instituted sphere of family, marriage, and
parenting” (Calhoun 2000:139). This book also showcases the work of feminists who disrupt and challenge
colonization and systemic racism and oppression that have had profound impact on families in Canada today.
This more critical theorizing and activism has resulted in legal and attitudinal changes—yet much work
remains to be done.