Chapter 2, "Studying the Family," seems to be an overview of different types of research conducted in relation to the family. This chapter allows one to see that the understanding that one may think they have about family and family matters may be completely based on his or her own family. Different types of theoretical perspectives on the family are shown to be of great importance in understanding the true nature of families. It is true that ignorance plays a large role in one's inability to understand family studies and for this reason we are able to state that what one does not know can have adverse effects on such an individual. Also, the research methods about families are discussed in detail whether the research is conducted knowingly or subconciously. There are eight theoretical perspectives including structural-functionalist, conflict, feminist, ecological, developmental, symbolic interactionist, social exchange, and family systems. These are in order from macro to micro theoretical perspectives respectively. While these no doubt tend to over-lap in research and in life, scientists and researchers tend to continue to seperate them while using them in unison in research.
I found much of the information to be new and interesting to me; however, it was odd (yet made sense) to see that the research conducted was not true for all situations, and in most cases was only related to certain situations. While this was less than disconcerting, I find it very important to note that there is no "right" way to be a family and in every situation there are thousands of variances that makes this research that much more difficult to record.
My question is mostly based on the overall chapter and less on certain pages or pieces of information. How, with all of the variability not only in families but also in genetics, is it possible to gain data that is not completely generic and only surface level?
No comments:
Post a Comment