Running head: MULTIDIMENSONAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1 Multidimensional Family Development Theory: An Evolution of Family Development

The general concept of family development seems to persist, despite the criticisms of family development theory and the difficulty in applying it to modern families. We aim to take further steps in the evolution of family development theory, and propose the multidimensional family theory. Addressing issues and criticisms that have plagued the theory, this evolution includes theoretical modifications that might provide greater flexibility to the theory of family development, while retaining useful concepts and propositions established by previous scholars. We break down the composite stages into their individual parts, and derive four dimensions of development: individual (biological), couple, vocational, and generative/childrearing. We discuss each of these dimensions and how they develop. We further discuss their relationship within an individual, and how they reciprocally interact across the entire family. Roles and stages are discussed within the context of these dimensions of development. We examine the feasibility and utility of retaining stages, stage comparison, and family tasks, while still allowing for family individuality and uniqueness in matters of development. The link between process and structure in terms of development is posited. We propose common language for discussing issues related to family development in areas as diverse as multi-partner fertility and disability, and vocabulary to the relationship between structure and process. We discuss how the theory can be applied in research, touching on how the theory can generate hypotheses, promote research questions, guide methodology, make predictions, and explain observed phenomenon. Practical application in terms of counseling and education is discussed. MULTIDIMENSONAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THEORY 3 Multidimensional Family Development Theory: An Evolution of Family Development The general concept of family development seems to persist, despite the criticisms of family development theory and the difficulty in applying it to modern families. That is, scholars still address the idea that families change and develop over time (e.g. Davies & Gentile, 2012; Laszloffy, 2002; Martinengo, Jacob, & Hill, 2010). This idea may fit with many individuals’ experiences with families (Daly, 2003), but for family scholars and interventionists, the lack of a theory with adequate yet variable, flexible structure hampers the ability to discuss, examine, and address developmental phenomena in family contexts. We aim to take further steps in the evolution of family development theory. We propose theoretical modifications that might provide greater flexibility to the theory of family development, while retaining useful concepts and propositions established by previous scholars. We hope to provide a wider variety of tools to discuss and examine phenomena related to family development (and individual development in the family context). We also aim to give common language for discussing issues related to family development in areas as diverse as multi-partner fertility and disability. To be of maximum use, family development theory must be infused with flexibility in how families are framed and researched. We thus focus on modifications to the theory that we hope will allow better adaptability and specificity in research, generate hypotheses, promote research questions, guide methodology, make predictions, and explain observed phenomenon. We examine the feasibility and utility retaining stages, stage comparison, and family tasks, while still allowing for family individuality and uniqueness in matters of development. With multidimensional family development theory (MFDT), our aim is to give vocabulary to discuss phenomena of family development, including the relationship between structure and process. MULTIDIMENSONAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THEORY 4 History and Background Family development theory emerged as part of efforts to address “family disarray” in the post-World War II years (Duvall, 1988, p. 127), and as such became one of the first theories that specifically focused on families. Family development theory exists as a hybrid of family sociology and human development within family context, and thus its roots extend earlier than the theory itself (Duvall, 1988). Even in the mid-20 century, during the active formulation of family development as a theory, its components were not new. For example, family developmental stages were integral early in the 20 century to Rowntree’s (1906) study of poverty among working families in rural England. Moreover, Duvall’s conceptualization of development stemmed from individual patterns and processes of human development. These included key periods of physical development, longitudinal personal development (including biological and environmental aspects), and even personality, psychosocial, cognitive, and moral development (Duvall, 1988). In order to use these concepts to speak to the family, Duvall (and others) formulated family development theory, and focused much of the theory on the family life cycle and family developmental tasks (Duvall, 1957). Family development theory is built on the idea that families develop in a manner similar to individuals (White, 1991), and that there is a universal nature to the way a family develops (Duvall, 1988). The development of the family consists of the family life cycle, a series of stages that encompass roles and tasks (Duvall, 1957). The most common parsing of these stages are the eight put forth by Duvall (1957): (1) beginning families (the establisment phase), (2) childbearing families (the transition to parenthood), (3) families with preschool children, (4) families with school children, (5) families with teenagers, (6) families as launching centers, (7) families in the middle years, and (8) aging families. Over the years, there have been other MULTIDIMENSONAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THEORY 5 attempts to parse out stages of the family life cycle, but most in use today (e.g. Davies & Gentile, 2012) are derivations of the eight posited by Duvall (1957).