Beyond Ticks and Clicks: The Need for More Diverse and Broader Conceptualizations and Measures of Father Involvement.

For a quarter of a century, the concept of father involvement has had an important place in the scholarship of family studies and human development. In fact, the term father involvement currently may be as common to scholars as such terms as marital quality and attachment. However, marital quality and attachment have a considerable intellectual history with important debates about what the concepts mean and how they should or should not be measured (Sabatelli, 1988). Perhaps twenty-five years is not long enough for a term such as father involvement to have generated the kind of in-depth conceptual debate and measurement attention that other important concepts in the field have produced. But the time for refinement of the construct has come, given the amount and breadth of contemporary scholarship that focuses on the correlates and consequences of father involvement. In order to mature, the field needs a focused and sustained effort among developmentalists and family scholars to differentiate and integrate their concepts of father involvement and to explore more diverse and inclusive ways of measuring its many dimensions. With this paper, we hope to contribute to the maturation process with a critical review and a constructive refinement of the concept father involvement.

However father involvement is conceptualized, an impressive body of research now exists documenting its important effects on child outcomes. Biller (1993), Blankenhorn (1995), Parke (1997), Lamb (1997), and Pleck (1997) summarize extensive literature showing linkages between father involvement (or the lack of it) and children's self-acceptance, sense of security, depression, positive gender identity, sense of independence, self-control, empathy, moral responsibility, curiosity, problem-solving skills, academic success and achievement, occupational achievement, physical competence, healthy body image, sexual behavior, capacity for intimacy, and adolescent risk behavior and delinquency.

The term, father involvement, as it has been used over the past twenty-five years, is conceptualized and operationalized primarily as a temporal and readily observable phenomenon (Lamb, 1997; Palkovitz, 1997; Pleck, 1997). That is, father involvement is portrayed as time that fathers spend with children or discrete events tallied, usually in direct interaction with children.

This portrayal is not surprising since pioneering scholars in the field of fathering were often trained as developmental psychologists, many of whom emphasize perspectives and methodologies that lend themselves to quantifiable time and observable interaction. Moreover, the emphasis on temporal involvement fit with a broader social agenda: the need for fathers to assume a greater load of direct care-giving because of mothers' greater involvement in paid labor. Of course, time in direct interaction is an important dimension of father involvement; spending time with children is a dominant discourse in men's notions of what it means to be a good father, as Daly (1996) recently reminded us. And indeed, in the hectic, time-starved lives that so many families experience today (Daly, 1997; Hochschild, 1997; Pipher, 1996), a focus on time and tasks cannot be dismissed lightly. Time--or the lack of it--may be a crucial way that parents--men and women--think about their involvement with children. But time is not the only important dimension to father involvement (Palkovitz, 1997). Unfortunately, empirical studies that consider father involvement as more than a linear temporal and directly observable phenomenon have been slow to develop.

More than a decade ago, Lamb (1986) suggested a somewhat more differentiated conceptualization of father involvement. He presented a three-part typology of involvement that a number of scholars have endorsed and continue to use (e.g., McBride, 1990; Pleck, 1997): (I) interaction (one-on-one interaction with the child such as playing, reading, or feeding; (II) accessibility (availability to the child, even if not directly interacting); and (III) responsibility (assuming responsibility for the care and welfare of the child). This conceptualization of father involvement encompasses categories outside of direct interaction and includes activities not fully captured by linear time. Still, we see limited evidence that researchers have expanded their conceptualizations of father involvement to incorporate other important dimensions of fathering, such as the resources fathers provide their children, the monitoring they do, or the moral guidance they give. While Lamb's typology affords advantages over less differentiated models, it does not appear to be facilitating greater exploration of other forms of father involvement. Of course, Lamb (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine, 1987a) did not claim that this typology of father involvement encompassed all aspects of paternal behavior important to children. Nevertheless, we believe more robust and enlightening linkages between fathering and children's well-being, as well as adult development (Palkovitz, 1996), will result from direct attention to how we conceptualize and measure father involvement.

The problem with a hegemonic emphasis on time is that it is such an imperfect proxy for the actual processes that connect paternal involvement to children's

(and adults') well-being. We believe that a focus on the nature and experience of the activities themselves--instrumental, affective, social, cognitive, ethical, and spiritual--rather than an undifferentiated temporal summation will lead to stronger connections between father involvement and outcomes. Pleck (1997) makes a similar point when he suggests that measures of father involvement will be improved by identifying how specific paternal actions (such as soothing children, reading to them, or helping them solve a personal problem) are thought to enhance children's particular developmental outcomes. He recommends the term positive paternal involvement to describe this approach.

But even a simple summation of a wider range of activities (as opposed to their temporal duration) is unlikely to be effective. Much of human experience, including our experience of time, is socially constructed (Daly, 1997). Hence, the mechanistic ticks of linear clock time and the additive clicks of a frequency count will inevitably be asynchronous with the social concept they attempt to measure. Ticks and clicks are part of the concept of father involvement, but much remains to be examined with improved ideas and instruments.

Recent scholarship suggests that father involvement is rich, multifaceted, and multidimensional and will require considerable work to understand and measure effectively (see Palkovitz, 1997; Pleck, 1997). Although far from mature, a growing movement is beginning to push some scholars toward more differentiated and integrated conceptualizations of father involvement in helpful ways that will increase the quality of research and application. In this paper, we review briefly this nascent scholarly trend and outline the anticipated benefits to the field we perceive as a result of broader and deeper conceptualizations of father involvement. This paper represents our developing thoughts. Further discussions and critiques will be important in refining and modifying our reasoning.

MOVEMENT TOWARD MORE MATURE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

Movement toward more mature conceptualizations of father involvement has benefited greatly from theoretical and methodological work on fathering that has occurred over the last five years, as well as a movement to include men in the diverse contexts in which contemporary fathering takes place. A willingness to consider ethical issues in regard to responsible fathering also has helped. Eriksonian theory, human capital theory, identity theory, psychodynamic theory, and qualitative research with fathers have each been used productively to show us important dimensions of father involvement that have received inadequate attention.

Snarey's (1993) important four-decade study of how fathers care for the next generation brought Erikson's (1963) concept of generativity to the forefront of fathering scholarship, thus expanding the conceptualization of father involvement (see also Kotre, 1984). Snarey (1997) argues that the concept of generativity is a multifaceted and effective conceptual tool for understanding the great variety of fathering, one capable of bringing "order to a field generally characterized by an eclectic array of empirical research findings, clinical observations, and subjective experiences" (p. xi). Bringing generativity to the conceptual center stage casts fathering as a complex and extended developmental process that weaves together intergenerational aspects of men's growth and children's well-being (J. M. Erikson, 1988; Snarey, 1993). A focus on generativity suggests that care--in its many manifestations-is the central component of father involvement. It also highlights the ethical dimension of fathering because care is the virtue that develops as fathers involve themselves in their children's lives and because self-absorption and rejection of others is the result of a failure to develop generativity (Snarey, 1993). Generativity is a rich concept (McAdams, Hart, & Maruna, 1998) that leads scholars to think about fathering as more than time in direct interaction with children. We believe that conceptualizations and measures of father involvement must give more direct attention to the richly varied manifestations of paternal care.

Building on Snarey's (1993) work, Dollahite, Hawkins, and Brotherson (1997) articulated a conceptual ethic of fathering as generative work, or "fatherwork." They postulate seven kinds of generative work that respond to challenges of the human condition and children's needs: ethical work (committing and continuing in response to children's needs for security and continuity); stewardship work (consecrating and creating in response to children's needs for resources and opportunities); development work (caring and changing in response to children's needs for attention and accommodation); recreation work (cooperating and challenging in response to children's needs for relaxation and capabilities); spiritual work (confirming and counseling in response to children's needs for encouragement and meaning); relational work (communing and comforting in response to children's needs for intimacy and empathy); and mentoring work (consulting and contributing in response to children's needs for wisdom and support) (Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998). Paralleling LaRossa's (1988) culture/conduct distinction, the authors recognize that this conceptual ethic represents an ideal of what fathering can and should be, not always what it is. The ethic suggests that father involvement in children's lives is more than a social role men play, but is the work they do each day to care for the next generation. It also highlights the ethical, value-laden nature of that work. "Fatherwork" functions to broaden and deepen scholars' thinking of the many important ways that fathers are involved in their children's lives beyond temporal involvement and direct interaction. New measures of father involvement would do well to attend to these many dimensions of involvement, to the metaphor of work that is used to frame the concept of involvement, and to the ethical context in which the implied work is done.

The writing of Doherty and his colleagues (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998) on responsible fathering also highlights the ethical nature of father involvement and some fundamental ways that fathers are involved with their children. Drawing on the work of Levine and Pitt (1995), the concept of responsible father involvement is defined to include establishing paternity when pregnancy occurs, sharing with the mother in continuing financial support for children from pregnancy onwards, and participating with the mother in the continuing emotional and physical care of the child. Doherty and his colleagues (1998) continually emphasize that a key element of father involvement is establishing a working co-parental relationship with the mother, even if the parents are unmarried. The implication is that some of the critical dimensions of father involvement operate through indirect routes; the ongoing financial support a father provides and the quality of his relationship with and support of the mother are important to children's well-being. Hence, a key to expanding measures of father involvement requires attention to such issues as financial support and maintaining the co-parental relationship regardless of residential status.

Amato (1998) is another scholar whose work suggests the need to consider the prominence of indirect involvement. In his comprehensive literature review addressing the effects of father involvement (and lack of involvement) on children's wellbeing, he frames fathers' contributions to their children's healthy development (or the harm they can do) in terms of human capital (i.e., promoting or modeling skills for achievement), financial capital (i.e., resources that support children's health, safety, growth, and success), and social capital (i.e., relationships that benefit the child, such as the co-parental relationship or parent-child relationship). Implicit in Amato's framework is that many characteristics, possessions, and skills that fathers have are ways of being involved, albeit indirectly, with children.

When only the temporal and observable dimensions of father involvement are emphasized, it is easy to leave out other relevant dimensions, such as psychological and emotional involvement. The recent exploratory work of Cohen and Dolgin (1997) addresses this issue and suggests a potential measurement problem to fathering researchers: fathers and children (and mothers) may emphasize different dimensions when asked to report on father involvement. Their data suggest the possibility that fathers may emphasize psychological aspects (the degree of identifications and prioritization of fathering in one's role set) and emotional issues (the depth of closeness fathers feel towards their children) when reporting on involvement, while their children may focus more on the temporal and behavioral components ("being there"). These differences are related to fathers and children having different developmental abilities and needs. That traditional measures of father involvement focus on temporal issues and directly observable interactions also stem from the fact that early studies of father involvement focused on child development outcomes; most studies began when children were infants. As a result, measures of involvement focused on aspects of father behavior that would be meaningful to a child in the sensorimotor stage of development (Palkovitz, 1980). Specifically, father involvement was conceptualized and measured in a manner that was ecologically valid for considering outcomes for child development. However, in recent years, developmentalists and family scholars have turned their attentions to the effects of fathering on men's adult development. As such, scholars have refined constructs of involvement to be more representative of the father's perspective, including some aspects that are difficult to observe directly--the affective and cognitive domains. This suggests that traditional measures of father involvement have been oriented more toward children's experiences of involvement rather than adult men's perceptions. As family scholarship has elaborated the reciprocally dependent nature of parent-child relationships, it has become increasingly apparent that both types of analyses yield meaningful information. What is currently lacking is a metric to capture the full range of men's involvement in fathering.

Recent work on father involvement from the perspective of identity theory is further confirming the importance of considering the psychological and emotional dimensions of father involvement (Ihinger-Tallman, Pasley & Buehler, 1993; Minton & Pasley, 1996). Identity theory draws attention to men's internal conception of appropriate paternal behavior, the psychological salience of that conception or identity, and the level of commitment to that identity. When men report on their involvement as a father, they may focus as much or more on these dimensions than on time and directly observable interaction. Coupled with qualitative investigations of the effects of fatherhood on men's development, these perspectives demonstrate that men think of father involvement as multidimensional, contextually and temporally influenced, multiply determined, and encompassing an array of indirect and or less observable components.

Although not guided by a specific theoretical framework but rather by a concern for the lack of effective measures of father involvement for low-income white and African-American men, Bruce and Fox (1997; Fox & Bruce, 1996) delineated four basic components of father involvement that provide a richer conceptualization. These components were derived from a review of 150 fathering studies in six leading family research journals from 1986 to 1996 and from intensive interviews with working-class fathers. The components are: (1) executive functions (e.g., decision-making, setting rules, supervision and monitoring, household organization, planning activities); (2) social/emotional functions (e.g., direct social interaction; recreational activity; sharing ideas and conversation; providing verbal and physical affection; providing comfort, praise, and encouragement); (3) custodial care-giving functions (e.g., supervising or assisting, bathing, dressing, feeding, preparing for bed or morning departure, providing sick care, providing transportation); (4) instructive functions (e.g., supervising and helping with homework, reading to/with the child, teaching basic social skills, disciplining, counseling, providing intellectual and cultural stimulation, religious or moral training). Bruce and Fox (1997) found that 24 of the 150 studies focused directly on father involvement, but only one (Deutsch, Lozy, & Saxon, 1993) incorporated all four dimensions in some fashion. They report that the remaining studies were about equally divided between a focus on the more "traditionally masculine" aspects of involvement (executive and instructive functions and limited elements of social functions) and the more "traditionally feminine" aspect (custodial care-giving and emotional functions). They urge researchers to consider the full range of involvement in order to understand fathering, especially for minority, low-income, and working-class fathers.

Palkovitz (1997) has provided a thorough evaluation of the field's use of the concept of father involvement, as well as the beginning of a comprehensive reconceptualization. He critiqued a number of myths or assumptions associated with father involvement such as: (1) more involvement is always better; (2) involvement requires proximity; (3) involvement can always be observed or counted; (4) involvement levels are static and therefore are concurrently and prospectively predictive; and (5) patterns of involvement should look the same regardless of culture, subculture, or social class. He listed many ways to be involved as a parent, only some of which are tapped in common measures of father involvement: planning, providing, protecting, giving emotional support, communicating, teaching, monitoring, thinking about children, running errands, being available, showing affection, care-giving, maintaining positive conditions, sharing activities, and sharing interests. He suggested that a more effective conceptualization of father involvement should include three domains--cognitive, affective, and behavioral--each simultaneously functioning and understood in the context of at least seven co-occurring continua: (l) appropriateness; (2) observability; (3) degree; (4) time invested; (5) salience; (6) proximity; and (7) directness of involvement.

In summary, our interpretation of a rising tide of scholarship over the past five years leads us to believe that numerous scholars are being pulled beyond traditional conceptualizations of father involvement as time and directly observable interaction, despite the acknowledged relevance of these dimensions to children's and men's development. We believe discovering stronger linkages as well as more subtle or refined understanding of the reciprocal influences between fathers and children (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) await conceptualization and measurement that scientifically account for the richness of the concept of father involvement from the perspective of fathers, mothers, and children.

THE SEMANTICS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

Before continuing, it may be useful to address directly an objection that some scholars may have to our work. The term father involvement seems to have a well-established meaning in the field: temporal and directly observable interaction between fathers and children. Changing the way scholars use this term could be confusing. Our reasons for wanting to expand the meaning of father involvement to encompass the dimensions raised in this paper rather than invent another term are both practical and conceptual.

Established Meanings. On a practical note, it may be too late for another term. Father involvement appears to be the pervasive term used to frame the bi-directional developmental linkages between fathers and children. That is, a father's involvement encompasses how he affects his child and how his child affects him. Trying to alert people that the scientific use of the term has a linguistically narrow and specific meaning would be difficult. But beyond that, while a temporal focus is a good place to begin to flesh out the concept of involvement, we see no compelling linguistic reason to limit the meaning of involvement in this way. Instead, we see the benefit of using a good term like father involvement and continuing to explore its many dimensions.

Limiting the Conceptual Boundaries. In expanding our understanding of father involvement, it is important to establish reasonable limits on the construct. While we recognize that many factors influence the degree and styles of men's involvement with their children, we suggest that such factors are outside the conceptual boundary of father involvement. For instance, should we assess the parenting a man received from his father as a part of that man's involvement with his own children? While a rich tradition of scholarship demonstrates the direct and indirect effects of fathers' relationships with their own parents in shaping their parenting, we view this and similar topics to be beyond the scope of father involvement. Although father involvement represents more than temporal and observable interaction, its conceptualization should still be bounded by things that fathers do for children, although those activities may be internal (e.g., cognitive, affective) as well as external, and thus more challenging to observe.

THE NEED FOR MORE DIFFERENTIATED AND INTEGRATED CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

We think broader, deeper, and more mature conceptualizations of father involvement are important for a number of reasons and will have numerous benefits for research and application. In this section, we list a set of benefits of richer conceptualizations of father involvement, along with current challenges in fathering research related to each potential benefit. The challenges and benefits we explore include: (1) greater inclusion of non-resident fathering; (2) greater attention to psychological, affective, cognitive, economic, ethical, and spiritual manifestations of involvement; (3) greater attention to the meaning, not just the amount, of paternal involvement; (4) greater attention to father involvement with older children; (5) greater attention to relatively unique ways that fathers (as opposed to mothers) care for their children; and (6) greater attention to father involvement in a time- and contextually sensitive manner. A caveat, however: these topics are hardly orthogonal. Indeed, they are highly interrelated. Each emphasizes a different tone in a single conceptual chord of reconceptualizing father involvement.

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF INCLUDING NON-RESIDENT FATHERING

Current notions of father involvement that emphasize time and observable interactions have a difficult time shedding light on non-resident fathering; more mature conceptualizations of father involvement will foster inclusion of non-resident fathers in research. As an added benefit, researchers could make more effective comparisons of resident and non-resident fathering by partialing out the effects of residential status from other aspects of paternal involvement. Existing studies specifically directed at non-resident fathers have focused almost exclusively on temporal and observable interaction, such as frequency and length of visitation (Bruce & Fox, 1997).

An increasing proportion of children and fathers do not live together due to both high levels of divorce and nonmarital childbearing (Blankenhorn, 1995; Eggebeen & Uhlenberg, 1985; Popenoe, 1996). Indeed, this unprecedented social change is a primary reason why so much scholarly attention has turned to the study of fathering. But it is problematic to label non-resident fathers as uninvolved because of limited time with their children and low levels of direct, observable interaction. Even when there is little contact as measured by time and direct interaction, often there is still a considerable degree of involvement, particularly in the cognitive and affective domains (Palkovitz, 1997). Of course, research has shown that sustained contact between children and non-resident fathers is discouragingly low for most children (Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1990; Seltzer, 1991; Seltzer & Bianchi, 1988). On the other hand, research also has shown that many non-resident fathers remain involved with their children in important ways. For instance, a small but important proportion of so-called absent fathers provide regular child care for their young children (Mott, 1990; O'Connell, 1993). Also, teen fathers who do not live with their children often are more involved with them than we typically think, and they usually report that they desire greater involvement than they are able to have (Danzinger & Radin, 1990; Rhoden & Robinson, 1997). Divorced fathers face significant barriers to their continued involvement in their children's daily lives, but many work hard to surmount these barriers (Call, Hawkins, Froerer, & Dollahite, 1996; Pasley & Minton, 1997).

In addition, Amato's (1998) thorough literature review suggests that non-resident fathers can make a positive contribution to their children's lives with indirect forms of involvement. Scholarship suggests a strong psychological presence of a non-resident father may reside with the child (Krampe & Fairweather, 1993; Kurdek & Berg, 1987; McAdoo, 1988, 1993). Also, some never-married or divorced fathers continue to provide financial support to their children, even though they have infrequent contact with them, and that support is associated with better outcomes for children (Amato & Booth, 1997). Further, interview data make it clear that non-resident fathers perceive themselves to be involved in their children's lives and experience qualitatively different developmental paths than they would have if they had never had children (Palkovitz, 1996b). Also, research has consistently shown that maintaining a non-conflictual, working, co-parental relationship with the custodial mother has positive effects of children's well-being (Fox & Blanton, 1995; Guttman, 1989).

More differentiated and integrated conceptualizations of father involvement that go beyond temporal and readily observable interaction are needed to understand the lived experiences of a large proportion of fathers and children in contemporary society and may direct scholars to more helpful ways that non-resident fathers can stay connected to and facilitate the positive development of their children. Such conceptualizations may also lead to greater understanding of the developmental challenges non-resident fathers face. We note that this analysis is consistent with the call from Doherty and his colleagues for fathering research to be inclusive of responsible fathering inside or outside of marriage and regardless of co-residence with the child (Doherty et al., 1998).

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF INCLUDING DIVERSE MANIFESTATIONS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

Current conceptualizations of father involvement usually exclude important ways that fathers care for their children; more mature conceptualizations of father involvement will be more inclusive of the diverse ways fathers (co-resident and resident) serve the needs of their children. As we pay greater attention to the affective, psychological, cognitive, economic, ethical, and spiritual manifestations of involvement, we are likely to find more robust as well as more nuanced connections between paternal activity, children's growth and well-being, and adult development. Unquestionably, the time fathers and children spend together is important to children's and men's healthy development. Perhaps this is increasingly the case in a society in which both parents are employed outside the home and fathers are expected to care directly for their children's daily needs. The growing importance of men's care for children's daily physical needs, however, should not lessen the value of many other forms of involvement.

Provision. For instance, economic providing continues to be a critical function for a child's well-being, and is an important form of involvement (Christiansen, 1997). Economic providing is central to men's (and women's) notions of good fathering (Blankenhorn, 1995; Christiansen, 1997; Griswold, 1993; Popenoe, 1996). Even in a robust economy, such as the United States has been experiencing in recent years, men still worry about and experience employment uncertainty. For many economically disadvantaged men who have not benefited from recent economic prosperity, the lack of economic opportunities is a primary reason why so many do not form nuclear families or accept greater responsibility for their children (Allen & Connor, 1997; McAdoo, 1993).

In some families, men probably do not receive enough recognition for their involvement through the provider role. However, overemphasizing provision as the primary or most important means of involvement can cause economically challenged men to experience shame that contributes to avoidance patterns. By recognizing the value of various forms of involvement, such men may be encouraged to make contributions to responsible fathering in ways that would not otherwise occur.

Teaching. Similarly, teaching and guiding children historically has been an important work men do in their families (Griswold, 1993; LaRossa, 1997; Rotundo, 1993), and most men today still see this as important. Teaching and guiding runs the gamut from prosaic skills like helping young children learn to share toys with playmates to reinforcing the importance of education to school-age children to consulting with adolescents and young adults about important decisions regarding school, work, religion, relationships, and family. Indeed, the instructive function may be taking on even greater importance in a world of increasing social complexity and a kind of normative deregulation.

Narrow conceptualizations of father involvement largely undervalue these and other important dimensions of men's caring for children. As a result, researchers' understanding of the correlates and consequences of children's and men's healthy development are needlessly limited by employing only temporal, observable interaction measures. Broader and deeper conceptualizations will yield greater intellectual fruit in terms of understanding healthy human development. In addition, it is only with greater precision in measurement that we can accurately assess the causes and consequences of different patterns of father involvement. This is essential if we hope to design interventions with involvement patterns that diminish developmental risk.

Cultural and Historic Variability. Related to this need to broaden our vision to see other important dimensions of men's caring for children is a necessity to understand cultural and historical variations of paternal involvement. There is considerable diversity in cultural and sub-cultural manifestations of positive father involvement. Viewing patterns of father involvement through the lens of white, middle-class, North American secular norms prohibits us from recognizing commitment to generative fathering in cultures that esteem different values (Palkovitz, 1997). A challenging goal for comparative, cross-cultural studies of father involvement will be to develop measures capable of traversing cultural boundaries.

Similarly, historical comparisons of father involvement can be biased by common contemporary conceptualizations. As Griswold (1997) and LaRossa (1997) point out, involved fathering is not an invention of enlightened, Western, late-twentieth-century thinking. The manifestations of father involvement vary considerably throughout history, and they are not all readily measured by duration or quantity of direct interaction. But men caring for their children in important ways can be seen at all times. Deeper and broader conceptualizations of father involvement will help us to see simultaneously greater continuity and fluctuations in fathering across time and culture. As we pay attention to cultural and historical patterns of paternal care, we are likely to have greater understanding of the importance of affective, psychological, cognitive, economic, ethical, and spiritual manifestations of father involvement.

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF ATTENDING TO THE MEANING AND PROCESSES OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

Conceptualizations of father involvement have been focused primarily on the quantitative amount rather than the qualitative meaning it has for fathers, mothers, and children; more mature conceptualizations of father involvement will pay attention to the meaning of paternal involvement for fathers, mothers, and children, not just the amount. Recent scholarship makes clear that mothers and fathers do not accurately estimate their time in family care (Robison & Godbey, 1997), introducing substantial measurement error into research. But even if the quantity of father involvement were accurately assessed by temporal, self-report measures, the meaning of involvement would still be an important area of inquiry (Daly & Dienhart, 1997). While some aspects of father involvement may not consume much of a man's time (e.g., spiritual guidance), that type of involvement may hold critical meaning for him and his child. There is often a significant mismatch between fathers' priorities and the ways that they invest time (Palkovitz, 1997), both because it is a constant challenge to align them and because some important forms of involvement do not require large expenditures of time. Davies (1994) argues that care-work has been inadequately addressed by "clock time" with its emphasis on productivity and efficiency. What is missing is knowledge about how caregivers experience that time, as well as the experiences of those who receive (children) or observe that care (mothers). In short, we need to know more about the processes underneath time and the "felt experience" they foster. Thus, Daly (1997) calls for research that explores how "process time can undergird other activities when it is expressed in terms of private anxiety, worry, concern, or affection" (p. 224). New conceptualizations of father involvement need to move beyond a simple quantitative expansion of two or three types of involvement to four or seven categories. Rather a comprehensive reworking necessarily includes qualitative change that produces new domains of involvement, as well. Phenomenological studies of father involvement clearly will help to direct such efforts.

In addition, as researchers focus on process time, they would also be more likely to assess the priorities fathers give to different things they do for their children and whether they are spending time in a manner consistent with their priorities. Inquiries into the underlying value content of fathers' involvement with their children is a less cultivated area of research that is likely to yield important findings.

It is also important to recognize that individual fathers have divergent meanings connected to the same forms of involvement. Consequently, there are significant differences in a range of fathering activities that could be considered to be appropriate. The highest priority of involvement for one man may be less important to another. Although the literature suggests some reasonable bounds for positive parenting practice, there is considerable variety in the manner and style with which one could legitimately engage with children. Thus, it is important that new measures of father involvement give voice to the values men place on various aspects of fathering. Because of the diversity of developmental experiences and cultural and ideographic historical variability, there will be differences in what and how much men value and invest in various aspects of fathering.

The attention to the personal meaning of involvement presents a methodological challenge to researchers, however. Triangulation of measurement, or obtaining reports of phenomena from fathers, mothers, and children, is increasingly emphasized in developmental and family studies. Systemic phenomena, it is argued, are best addressed by systemic measures (Ransom, Fisher, Phillips, Kokes, & Weiss, 1990). If measures of fathers' involvement with their children are expanded to include affective and cognitive elements, they are not likely to be useful for triangulation; because a majority of cognitive and affective experiences are not directly observable, spouses' or children's ratings of fathers on these measures could not be expected to closely mirror those of the fathers. However, incongruencies in multiple perspectives themselves may prove an interesting course of exploration.

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF INCLUDING INVOLVEMENT WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS AND AGES OF CHILDREN

Current measures of father involvement tend to focus on a target child within a narrow age range. However, in many families, and especially in stepfamilies, men are fathering more than one child, and there may be a considerable range of ages in both biological and stepfamilies. While it makes sense to focus on involvement with a target child when research is directed toward examining child development outcomes, a father's experience of involvement may be distorted by focusing on a target child. Specifically, men may view their involvement as inclusive across family members. As such, when research is focused on the effects of fathering on men's adult development, it makes sense to avoid limiting data collection to a particular father-child dyad.

In addition, studies of father involvement have been focused primarily on young children; mature conceptualizations of father involvement should be more inclusive of fathers' relationships with adolescents and adult children. As discussed earlier, operationalizing father involvement as a temporal phenomenon seems to have come from the field's roots in child psychology. A generation ago, studies that exclusively examined mother-child relationships and interaction and care-giving patterns that affected young children's development were common. Lamb (1975) pushed the field to include fathers in the study of young children's development, a call reinforced by the increased need for more direct care-giving from fathers as mothers entered and remained in the paid labor force in unprecedented numbers. Lamb's call coincided with a substantial surge in studies of fathers and young children (for review see Biller, 1993; Lamb, Pieck & Levine, 1987b; Parke, 1981, 1996).

Attention to fathering issues in adolescent studies, however, has lagged behind the surge in studies of early child development. According to Hosley and Montemayor (1997), the "study of father-adolescent relationships is still in its infancy" (p. 162). Although descriptive studies over the last ten years have begun to map out characteristics of father-adolescent relationships, much less is known about the effects of fathers' involvement on adolescent development and outcomes (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997), as well as its affects on adult development. We suspect one factor that has contributed to this gap is a relative fixation on father involvement as a temporal and directly observable phenomenon. In the study of young (sensorimotor) children, whose lives and cognitions are comparatively simple, fathers' temporal involvement and direct interaction can be a strong, positive force for children's development. However, the ways that fathers are involved with older children, whose lives and cognitions are hardly simple and who are physically and psychologically individuating from their parents, are not fully captured by measures of time and direct interaction. Indeed, in later parental periods, effective involvement will sometimes be characterized by the absence of direct "face time" and interaction, thereby fostering independence during the "launching" phase of child rearing.

Even less attention has been given to the effects of father involvement with their adult children. In a time and place in which adult child-parent relationships generally last twice as long as young child-parent relationships (Hagestad, 1988) and young adults are living longer with their parents (Glick & Lin, 1986) and delaying marriage (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991), there is a compelling justification to examine how fathers continue to be positively involved in the lives of their adult children. Consistent with life-span human development perspectives that argue for understanding growth and development throughout adulthood (Lerner, 1986) and the centrality of intergenerational relationships, measures of father involvement need to be more attentive to and inclusive of the diverse and changing ways that fathers are involved with their children across the life span, not just in the early years.

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF AVOIDING RELATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT

Father involvement has often been measured as a relative concept. That is, fathers' involvement is compared to mothers' involvement (Day & Mackey, 1989). In extreme cases, fathering is assessed as "good enough" as it approaches levels and styles of mother involvement. And some scholars argue that there is no such thing as fathering, only men who mother (Kraemer, 1991). More mature conceptualizations will allow for different forms of involvement that are relatively unique to fathering. We have two concerns with relative conceptualizations and measures of father involvement. First, relative involvement, which compares mothers and fathers, necessarily requires specifying a list of ways to be involved. One of the practical outcomes of measuring father involvement relative to mother involvement is that it usually generates an inventory of tasks and interactions for comparison that emphasize the traditionally feminine, daily care-giving components of child care. While we should not diminish the importance of this form of involvement, we should expand attention to include additional dimensions of involvement, as we have consistently argued throughout this paper.

A second pragmatic issue is the diminishing need for comparing mothers' and fathers' involvement. Comparisons of mother and father involvement have been valuable to show how fathers' involvement lagged behind expectations for domestic change in the face of decreased temporal involvement with children by mothers. This well documented lag created legitimate concerns with the equity of domestic arrangements and women's well-being and justice. The most recent studies, however, show the "second shift" (Hochschild, 1989) is becoming increasingly ungendered; men are devoting greater time to domestic labor (Pleck, 1997), time in paid and unpaid work combined is virtually identical for men and women in dual-earner families (Levine & Pittinsky, 1997; Robinson & Godbey, 1997), and fathers are experiencing work-family role strain similar to women (Hochschild, 1997; Levine & Pittinsky, 1997). Accordingly, the social and political need for gender comparisons in domestic labor is diminishing. Some scholars now argue that conducting nonsexist family research requires avoiding a "matricentric" approach (Phares, 1996). There is much overlap in the way mothers and fathers are involved with their children. But with the diminishing need for gender comparisons, we believe with other scholars (Popenoe, 1996; Pruett, 1993) there is more room to explore thoroughly the ways men are involved with their children that are relatively unique.

THE CHALLENGE AND BENEFIT OF CAPTURING INVOLVEMENT ACROSS TIME AND CONTEXTS

Because there are temporal fluctuations in levels of father involvement, it is necessary to construct measures and employ methodologies in a manner that captures representative patterns of involvement. Many different professions have "seasons" that allow men to invest more or less time in their family interactions. For example, farmers are particularly pressed for time during planting and harvest. While agricultural settings are recognized for their seasonal aspects, many other occupations have busy and slack seasons (e.g., accounting and tax time, constructions crews and moderate weather, academics and the semester/term and summer rhythms). As such, it is advisable to construct involvement measures in such a manner that data will not be distorted to unrepresentative levels by seasonal variability, or to employ methodologies that capture temporal fluctuation, or both (Crouter, Hawkins, & Hostetler, 1992). Moreover, temporal fluctuations can be observed in shorter periods of time, such as a week. Fathering researchers have consistently demonstrated the need and utility of including men's involvement with their children on both work and nonwork days (McBride, 1990, 1991; Pleck, 1997).

Similarly, different contexts evoke different levels of father involvement. For example, different amounts of interaction and engagement are appropriate in religious services and amusement parks. Measures of father involvement are best if they are capable of registering contextually driven patterns of involvement.

CONCLUSION: TOWARD BETTER MEASUREMENT

Table 1 attempts to summarize our various arguments in this article. In essence, we suggest that more mature conceptualizations and more robust and sensitive measures of father involvement require us to go beyond a hegemonic focus on behavioral indicators measured by time and frequency, beyond "ticks and clicks," to include a broader and richer array of cognitive, affective, economic, spiritual, and ethical tasks that fathers do for their children that impact the development of their children and their own adult development, and to use different methodologies that are capable of measuring the dynamic phenomenon we call father involvement. Again, please note that the neat, tabular presentation in Table 1 of these thoughts masks the overlapping and interrelated nature of both the problems and the associated actions.

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROBLEMS WITH COMMON CONCEPTUALIZATIONS AND MEASURES OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND CORRESPONDING ACTIONS NEEDED

 Problem Action

1. Non-resident fathering Greater inclusion of diverse
 a. Not attemptive to forms of involvement, including
 non-resident fathering affective, psychological,
 b. Not sensitive to indirect cognitive, economic,
 forms of involvement spiritual, and ethical
 c. Inability to compare
 fathering across different
 family structures

2. Narrowness Greater inclusion of
 a. Financial providing not forms of involvement that
 considered involvement are relevant and sensitive
 b. Lack of attention to to non-resident fathering
 teaching and guiding as
 forms of involvement
 c. Lack of attention to
 cultural and sub-cultural
 variability
 d. Obscures good fathering in
 previous historical eras
 e. Typically ignore cognitive
 and affective components
 of involvement

3. Value Content Greater attention to the
 a. People poorly estimate meaning and process with
 amounts of time. involvement; inclusion of
 b. Meaning and experience of priorities ratings to
 time is ignored. correspond with reported
 c. Some important forms of behavioral involvement;
 involvement take little greater use of qualitative
 time. methodologies
 d. Insensitive to the value
 content of time and
 priorities for involvement
 e. Inhibits phenomenological,
 qualitative inquiries into
 father involvement

4. Older Children/All Children Greater inclusion of forms of
 a. Less attention to fathering involvement relevant to older
 adolescents children and greater attention
 b. Little attention to fathering to holistic experience of
 adult children fathering, not just a specific
 c. For individuating children, father-child dyad
 lack of face-to-face time
 can be positive.
 d. Focus on father-child dyad
 (target child) may distort the
 full experience of fathering
 all children in the family;
 less appropriate to exploring
 a father's adult development.

5. Mothering Comparisons Greater inclusion of relatively
 a. Sees fathering as simply unique forms of men's
 mothering done by men involvement with children;
 b. Emphasizes "traditionally avoid exclusive focus on
 feminine" tasks "traditionally feminine" tasks
 c. Ignores increasing equity in
 involvement between co-
 resident mothers and fathers

6. Temporal Dynamics Greater attention to the
 a. Involvement is temporally temporal dynamics of father
 dynamic, not static, involvement and to appropriate
 b. Insensitive to seasonal contextual variation
 variations
 c. Insensitive to
 workday/weekend variations
 d. Appropriate involvement
 varies by context.

The actions suggested in Table 1 present a tall order to the ambitious researcher. It is unlikely that any single instrument and methodology can adequately satisfy all these demands. Perhaps this list is best used as a set of criteria that can guide constructions of new measures and against which scholars can evaluate strengths and weaknesses of their methodologies. The collective efforts of many talented researchers, each headed in the general direction suggested by these criteria while emphasizing a particular set of them, will produce a valuable outcome.

We are confident that the next generation of fathering scholarship will produce clearer and stronger, as well as subtler, connections between father involvement and children's outcomes and fathers' development. This progress will be due in large part to more effective conceptualizations and measurements of father involvement. In the same way that improvements in the telescope resulted in dramatic increases in our understanding of the universe, improved measures are needed to afford us more refined views of the relationships between father involvement, child development, men's development, and family well-being.

A version of this paper was presented at the National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, November 9, 1997, Arlington VA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Alan J. Hawkins, Brigham Young University, School of Family Life, 350C Kimball Tower, Provo, UT 84602 or [email protected].

REFERENCES

Allen, W. D., & Connor, M. (1997). An African-American perspective on generative fathering. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 52-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men's contributions to their children's lives. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 241-278). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation of risk: Growing upon an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. New York: Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bruce, C., & Fox, G. L. (1997). Measuring parental involvement among low-income White and African-American fathers. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, November 5-10, Arlington, VA.

Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927.

Call, J. J., Hawkins, A. J., Froerer, K. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (1996). I know I'm not there, but I'll always be here: Connecting roads for non-custodial fathers. Poster. presented at the National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, November 10, Kansas City, MO.

Christiansen, S. L. (1997). Re-valuing the "good provider" role: Family and economic policy. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, November 9, Arlington, VA.

Cohen, T. F., & Dolgin, K. G. (1997). Both sides now: A two-generational assessment of emotional and psychological dimensions of father involvement. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, November 9, Arlington, VA.

Cooney, T. M., & Uhlenberg, P. (1990). The role of divorce in men's relations with their adult children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 677-688.

Crouter, A. C., Hawkins, A. J., & Hostetler, M. (1992). Seasonal stability and change in dual-earner husbands' psychological responses to work and family roles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 509-525.

Daly, K. J. (I 996). Spending time with the kids: Meanings of family time for fathers. Family Relations, 45, 466-476.

Daly, K. J. (1997). Families and time: Keeping pace in a hurried culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daly, K. J., & Dienhart, A. (1997). Stepping in time: The dance of father involvement. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, November 9, Arlington, VA.

Danzinger, S. K., & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 636-642.

Davies, K. (1994). The tensions between process time and clock time in care-work: The example of day nurseries. Time and Society, 3, 276-303.

Day, R. D., & Mackey, W. C. (1989). An alternative standard for evaluating American fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 401-408.

Deutsch, F. M., Lozy, J. L., & Saxon, S. (1993). Taking credit: Couples' reports of contributions to child care. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 421-437.

Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277-292.

Dollahite, D. C., & Hawkins, A. J. (1998). A conceptual ethic of generative fathering. The Journal of Men's Studies, 7, 109-132.

Dollahite, D. C., Hawkins, A. J., & Brotherson, S. E. (1997). Fatherwork: A conceptual ethic of fathering as generative work. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 17-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eggebeen, D. J., & Uhlenberg, P. (1985). Changes in the organization of men's lives. Family Relations, 34, 251-257.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton.

Erikson, J. M. (1988). The woven life cycle. In J. M. Erikson (Ed.), Wisdom and the senses: The way of creativity (pp. 74-112). New York: W.W. Norton.

Fox, G. L., & Blanton, P. W. (1995). Non-custodial fathers following divorce. Marriage and Family Review, 20, 257-282.

Fox, G. L., & Bruce, C. (1996). Development and validation of measures of parenting for low-income, high-risk men. Paper presented at the NCFR Theory Construction Research Methodology Workshop, November, Kansas City, MO.

Glick, P. C., & Lin, S. L. (1986). More young adults are living with their parents: Who are they? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 107-112.

Griswold, R. L. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A history. New York: Basic.

Griswold, R. L. (1997). Generative fathering: A historical perspective. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 71-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guttman, J. (1989). The divorced father: A review of the issues and the research. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 20(2), 248-261.

Hagestad, G. O. (1988). Demographic change and the life course: Some emerging trends in the family realm. Family Relations, 37, 405-410.

Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 162-178). New York: Wiley.

Ihinger-Tallman, M., Pasley, K., & Buehler, C. (1993). Developing a middle-range theory of father involvement postdivorce. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 550-571.

Kraemer, S. (1991). The origins of fatherhood: An ancient family process. Family Process, 30, 377-392.

Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Krampe, E. M., & Fairweather, P. D. (1993). Father presence and family formation: A theoretical reformulation. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 573-593.

Kurdek, L. A., & Berg, B. (1987). Children's Beliefs About Parental Divorce Scale: Psychometric characteristics and concurrent validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 712-718.

Lamb, M. E. (1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human Development, 18, 246-266.

Lamb, M. E. (1986). The changing role of fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father's role: An applied perspective (pp. 3-27). New York: John Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 1- 18). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the lifespan: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 111-142). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. (1987). The role of the father in the child development: The effects of increased paternal involvement. In C. Lewis & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations on fathers and the modern family (pp. 109-125). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lerner, R. M. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development. New York: Random House.

Levine, J. A., & Pitt, E. W. (1995). New expectations: Community strategies for responsible fatherhood. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Levine, J. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (1997). Working fathers: New strategies for balancing work and family. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: Psychosocial perspectives on caring for and contributing to the next generation (pp. 7-43). Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press.

McAdoo, J. L. (1988). Changing perspectives on the role of the black father. In P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood today: Men's changing role in the family (pp. 79-92). New York: Wiley.

McAdoo, J. L. (1993). The roles of African-American fathers: An ecological perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 74, 28-35.

McBride, B. A. (1990). The effects of a parent education/play group program on father involvement in child rearing. Family Relations, 39, 250-256.

McBride, B. A. (1991). Parent education and support programs for fathers: Outcome effects on paternal involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 67, 73-85.

Minton, C., & Pasley, K. (1996). Fathers' parenting role identity and father involvement: A comparison of nondivorced and divorced non-resident fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 26-45.

Mott, F. L. (1990). When is a father really gone? Paternal-child contact in father-absent homes. Demography, 27, 499-517.

O'Connell, M. (1993). Where's papa? Father's role in child care. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.

Palkovitz, R. (1980). Predictors of involvement in first-time fathers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3603B-3604B. (University Microforms No. 8105035).

Palkovitz, R. (1996). Parenting as a generator of adult development: Conceptual issues and implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 571-592.

Palkovitz, R., Christiansen, S. L., & Dunn, C. (in press). Provisional balances: Fathers' perceptions of the politics and dynamics of involvement in family and career development. Michigan Family Review, 3(1).

Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing "involvement": Expanding conceptualizations of men's caring in contemporary families. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Ers.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 200-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Parke, R. D. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Pasley, K., & Minton, C. (1997). Generative fathering after divorce and remarriage: Beyond the "disappearing dad." In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 118-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phares, V. (1996). Conducting nonsexist research, prevention, and treatment with fathers and mothers: A call for change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 55-77.

Pipher, M. (1996). The shelter of each other. New York: Putnam.

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66-103). New York: Wiley.

Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Free Press

Pruett, K. D. (1993). The paternal presence. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 74, 46-50.

Ransom, D. C., Fisher, L., Phillips, S., Kokes, R. F., & 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. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rhoden, J. L., & Robinson, B. E. (1997). Teen dads: A generative fathering perspective versus the deficit myth. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: The surprising way American use their time. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Rotundo, E. A. (1993). American manhood: Transformations in masculinity from the Revolution to the modern era. New York: Basic Books.

Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critique of contemporary survey instruments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 891-915.

Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father's role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79-101.

Seltzer, J. A., & Bianchi, S. M. (1988). Children's contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 663-677.

Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Snarey, J. (1997). Foreword: The next generation of work on fathering. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. ix-xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alan J. Hawkins is an associate professor of family sciences and director of the Center for Studies of the Family at Brigham Young University. He earned a Ph.D. in human development and family studies at the Pennsylvania State University. He has been teaching and conducting research and outreach at BYU since 1990. Hawkins's scholarship and outreach has focused on fathers' involvement with their children, the effects of that involvement on men's development, and the division of domestic labor in dual-earner households. Hawkins recently co-edited (with David C. Dollahite) Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives (Sage, 1997). ([email protected])

Rob Palkovitz is the father of four sons, aged nine to 18. He has studied various aspects of father involvement since his first transition to fatherhood. For the past seven years, Palkovitz has been studying the effects of involved fathering on men's adult development. As a person for whom faith is a central defining characteristic, he has noted positive relationships between his own fathering and faith development. He is an associate professor of individual and family studies at the University of Delaware, where his teaching and research interests center on the developmental outcomes of life course transitions. ([email protected])

ALAN J. HAWKINS School of Family Life Brigham Young University

ROB PALKOVITZ Department of Individual and Family Studies University of Delaware3

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	HAWKINS, ALAN J.; PALKOVITZ, ROB
Publication:	The Journal of Men's Studies
Geographic Code:	1USA
Date:	Sep 22, 1999
Words:	9574
Previous Article:	Pedagogical Issues and Approaches Encountered in a Psychology of Men Course.
Next Article:	Brass Balls: Masculine Communication and the Discourse of Capitalism in David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross.
Topics:	Conceptualism Evaluation Fatherhood Research Fathers Social aspects