Radical-Critical Theories

A Conscious and Inclusive Family Studies

“…Despite numerous challenges from radical‐critical, feminist, or postmodern theorists (Agger, 1998; Cheal, 1991; Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Osmond, 1987; Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Sprey, 1988; Thorne, 1982), the interdisciplinary area of family studies promotes a conservative academic discourse in which the central positivist core once articulated by Christensen (1964) remains intact. The dominant discourse about families prevails in our mainstream journals, long after critiques of the absence of radical‐critical theories (Osmond) and feminist interpretations of published scholarship (Thompson & Walker, 1989, 1995) have been widely circulated.…”

“…Gone are the days when family scholars could hide behind the shield of objectivity as a defense for the legitimacy of our methods and results. In recent examinations of critical and postpositivist theorizing in family studies, Osmond (1987) and Thomas and Wilcox (1987) concluded that the goal of a value‐free social science articulated by Christensen (1964) is impossible to achieve. Despite the recognition by family scholars about abandoning the search for the discovery of a single universal truth in favor of allowing for multiple truths, most of the research we publish in the mainstream journals is rooted in the 19th‐century orthodoxy of positivist science (Agger, 1998; Osmond, 1987).…”

“…In recent examinations of critical and postpositivist theorizing in family studies, Osmond (1987) and Thomas and Wilcox (1987) concluded that the goal of a value‐free social science articulated by Christensen (1964) is impossible to achieve. Despite the recognition by family scholars about abandoning the search for the discovery of a single universal truth in favor of allowing for multiple truths, most of the research we publish in the mainstream journals is rooted in the 19th‐century orthodoxy of positivist science (Agger, 1998; Osmond, 1987). All scientific claims are saturated with localized meaning; as many philosophers of science now argue, “no orthodoxy—or skepticism—can be totally stable, no theoretical closure complete, no incommensurability absolute” (Smith, B. H., 1993, p. 95).…”

Comparison between the structure and function of chloroplasts at different levels of willow canopy during a growing season

“…I S . quantum flux densities (Anderson and Osmond, 1987). At level 1 (60 cm aboveground) the ratio increased slightly until the middle of July (Fig.…”

Qualitative Family Scholarship: Innovative Theories in the Interpretive Tradition—Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Walker, 1985), there is little doubt that the model developed by Hill had a foundation in symbolic interaction and retains importance for the family field. The social constructionist or Chicago School branch of symbolic interaction (led by Herbert Blumer, 1900-1987 emphasized processes of social relationships, favored qualitative research methods, and focused on the interpretive social construction of meaning (Blumer, 1969;LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Conflict and negotiation between family members in terms of how they interpret situations and how those interpretations affect their relationships and produce change has been a growing edge of social constructionist symbolic interaction inquiry (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993).…”