IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/psydev/v13y2001i1p71-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Methodological Rigour in the Study of the Family: Problems and Prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Premilla D'Cruz

    (Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India)

  • Shalini Bharat

    (Unit for Family Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai)

Abstract

The multidisciplinary knowledge base that contributes to our understanding of the family does not facilitate methodological rigour. This is so because the methodology of the contributing disciplines does not always do justice to the unique features of the family, leading to a lack of "methodological understanding" (Brown & Kidwell, 1982: 852). Recognising the need to develop an independent methodology to study the family, experts in the field have put forward various alternatives. While many of these alternatives are neither new nor flawless, their proponents believe that they are the better methods that family researchers should adopt when conducting research on the family. This article discusses methodological shortcomings that are commonly found in the study of the family, highlighting the need for and the relevance of addressing them. Methodological alternatives are then described and critiqued, and suggestions for enhancing their sharpness advanced.

Suggested Citation

  • Premilla D'Cruz & Shalini Bharat, 2001. "Towards Methodological Rigour in the Study of the Family: Problems and Prospects," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 13(1), pages 71-91, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:psydev:v:13:y:2001:i:1:p:71-91
    DOI: 10.1177/097133360101300104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097133360101300104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/097133360101300104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:psydev:v:13:y:2001:i:1:p:71-91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.