Questions to consider:

 

"What We Are " : The Contextualist Perspective

 

Summary of Primary Characteristics

- Belief that the study of human development always reflects the sociohistorical perspective of the researcher

- Belief that the meaning of an event is best defined from the perspective of the individual experiencing the event

- Belief that explanations and interpretations of human development are always situated in and restricted to any particular sociohistorical context

- Belief that human development is an open-ended phenomenon, with no necessary theoretically, implied directions, patterns, or limits

- Belief that there is a moral and ethical imperative in the study of human development that is directed toward a "politics of liberation"

 

 

Discussion Question 1:

Pepper's (1961) chooses the historical act as the metaphor for contextualism. He describes these acts as intrinsically complex, composed of interconnecting activities with continuously changing patterns. How is this approach distinctive from the organismic and mechanistic worldviews? For instance, how does the use of the term context within a contextualist framework differs from the way that context is conceptualized in the mechanistic approach? How is the contextualist notion of context similar to that in the organismic perspective?

 

Discussion Question 2:

For contextualists, the search for meaning is always specific to time and place. There is no sense that patterns identified necessarily hold the same meaning for other times and other places. As social scientists, we seek to develop frameworks and models of development where generalizability is often a key priority (e.g., lack of generalizability is often a "limitation" in research studies). We traditionally have sought models from which we can describe behavior/development and, more importantly, that allow us to predict behavior/outcomes reliably. How can we reconcile these priorities with an approach where no "permanent" structures/conditions exist? In other words, if laws and abstractions are out, then what is left to study?

 

Discussion Question 3:

One way of thinking about contextualism in the framework of universal meaning is by thinking about what some term as "quality" and "texture."

Quality refers to the wholeness of an event, and texture refers to the details and relations that make up this quality. Each provides a unique way of viewing a context. For instance, Pepper notes:

"We intuit the familiar character of a home as we drive up to our door, and only occasionally ask ourselves what features distinguish this from hundreds of other houses we drive up to. We intuit objects as chairs, cups, cats, tulips, oaks, and only rarely wonder how we know these so quickly and surely. These intuitions are of the qualities of these textures, and the textures are rarely noticed except when we do notice intently, and then it is the qualities that are not noticed." (p. 239).

 

How can we evaluate both qualities (the person in context) and textures (characteristics of the person and the setting) in our research? Should we? Does what is important to look at depend on the questions we are asking? What qualifications do we need to make in choosing to look at one or the other?

 

Discussion Question 4:

One criticism of the contextualist approach is that contextualists can never be "objective." Because meaning is contingent of time and place, the observer must be an active participant. She must form her questions based on constructs based on norms that hold meaning in a specific domain. These norms are not based on the theoretical but on the social, cultural, and political processes of child rearing, parenting, education, media; by the whole range of elements which in any given time, come to define the range and characteristics of what is accepted or approved modes of activity or development - forms of dress, codes of social behavior - all those aspects of culture that are transmitted and preserved. Why do you think this would be viewed as negative? Since theorists do not have the power to determine these norms, then what is the responsibility of the contextualist researcher in examining behavior?

 

Discussion Question 5:

Each of the three developmental worldviews look at persons in context. Mechanistics do so in a reductionist way that allows them to disentangle independent variables. Organicists do so in a holistic way that allows them to make universal claims about sequence. For contexualists, though, development is best studies from a systems perspective (e.g. Bronfenbrenner). What are the difficulties of examining change from such a perspective?

Further, how can patterns of development be described?

 

Discussion Question 6:

What methods would you expect to be preferred among contextualists for studying development?