Introduction to Myths and Realities Associated with Research and Theorizing for Human Development

Abstract

The five papers in this issue address myths and realities associated with human development research and theorizing. The papers represent diverse perspectives on sexual minority youth, resilience and risk for youth in high achieving schools, a reconceptualization of hostility in African American parenting styles, a critical examination of diversity and contact for students attending racial/ethnically diverse schools, and a thoughtful consideration of contextual factors associated with aggressive attitudes and prosocial behaviors in African American males. The authors of each of these papers challenge human development researchers to consider new and/or alternative ways of examining empirical studies and conceptualizing new ones.

The scientific study of human development and family studies has a rich history. The journal, Research in Human Development, has been and will continue to be a part of this rich and successful history by publishing empirical, conceptual, and methodologically diverse perspectives that highlight the human experience across the lifespan. As the new editor of the journal, I am proud to continue the rich traditions of my predecessors. In fact, for the inaugural issue under my editorship, I solicited diverse voices and experiences. Although one issue cannot cover all aspects of human development, the authors of the articles in this issue offer perspectives that intrigue and challenge our thinking about human developmental processes from diverse disciplines and populations. The authors were asked to address a “myth” and a “reality” associated with human development research and theorizing. The resulting articles add to the extant field; the authors challenge our conceptualization of concepts discussed in the field and thoughtfully engage the reader about how to approach human development research.

There are five articles in this issue. Russell and Fish (2019) focus their discussion on sexual minority youth. Ebbert, Kumar, and Luthar (2019) focus on resilience and risk for youth in high-achieving schools. Rious, Cunningham, and Spencer (2019) push readers to question the notion of hostility in African American parenting styles. Yip, Cheon, and Wang (2019) bring a new perspective on diversity and a “contact in context” approach to human development research. Finally, Harris, Spencer, Kruger, and Irvin (2019) highlight the importance of contextual factors when examining aggression outcomes in African American males. The authors of each of these articles challenge human development researchers to consider new and/or alternative ways of examining empirical studies and conceptualizing new ones. A brief description of each of the article follows.

Russell and Fish (2019) eloquently describe changes in policies and family relationships associated with positive outcomes for sexual minorities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) people. The myth, however, is that these positive events, attitudes, and behaviors are rarely extended to adolescents. In fact, most of the acceptance for LGB issues are associated with adult populations. Although LGB students may receive more institutional and social support in schools and the larger sociocultural context for sexual minorities has improved, LGB adolescents “must navigate intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, social, and cultural milieu in which sexual and gender minority identities and issues may be particularly complex and thwarting” (Russell & Fish, 2019, p. 10). The reality is that most young sexual minority youth are thriving; however, they are simultaneously vulnerable to developmentally specific phenomena such as negative peer regulation, exclusion, or homo- and trans-equality. By naming the vulnerability, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers can be aware of opportunities to promote efficacious developmental contexts for sexual minority adolescents.

Picking up on the theme of naming vulnerability, Ebbert et al. (2019) advance a central premise that children and adolescents who attend high-achieving schools (HAS) that predominately comprise upper-middle-class families are at risk of for mental health challenges. The myth is that HAS students are faring well. The reality is that HAS students are just as vulnerable as other populations, and their experiences need to be represented more in the resilience and vulnerability literatures. Ebbert et al. (2019) highlight the point that delinquency is too often associated with a challenge for youth in low-income communities when, in fact, HAS students present with similar levels of delinquency. “Compared to their economically-disadvantaged counterparts, HAS students were higher in reported use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs, with the lowest levels of abstinence reported among high-SES girls” (Ebbert et al., 2019, p. 23). These issues do not occur in a vacuum. Parents and peers affect the experiences of HAS students too. With an aim of pushing students to achieve, many parents in high-achieving contexts have a focus on extrinsic rewards when a balance is needed for students such as simultaneous emphasis on students developing a positive self-worth. This is especially salient in the second decade of life when young people turn to their peers for social acceptance and confirmation of their self-worth. The challenge within the peer context is that competition to succeed may outweigh pathways to resilience. Ebbert et al. (2019) offer recommendations for interventions and future research to ensure that this forgotten vulnerable population can live up to all of the assumed potential.

The next article in this issue addresses the myth of hostile parenting in African American populations. Rious et al. (2019) recount the experiences of adolescent reports of their parents’ messages to them. Using cluster analytic techniques, the authors identify culturally specific parenting strategies that question traditional Eurocentric parenting strategies. More importantly, the parenting styles revealed are culturally appropriate for African American communities. Therefore, the notion “hostile parenting” has to be reconsidered especially when it is accompanied with parental warmth. Using Spencer’s PVEST framework as a conceptual template, Rious et al. (2019) encourage researchers and practitioners “to move beyond the traditional bipolar conception of ‘warmth’ and ‘hostility’ … and to more accurate understanding of African American parenting and its impact on prosocial behavior” (p. 47).

The complexity and nuances associated with racial and ethnic minority populations is further operationalized by Yip et al. (2019). The authors take a “contact in context” approach to conceptualize the notion of diversity and how a child’s race/ethnicity may play a part in the benefits and challenges to diversity. As the United States continues to represent more racial and ethnic diversity than past decades, Yip et al. argue that developmental scientists use more complex theorizing and measurement techniques to capture nuances associated with the interactions and experiences of diversity. Although using an assets-focused approach, the authors address the myth that simply discussing diversity is sufficient. Specifically, studying diversity as static features must change. The reality is that there are several simultaneous factors that should be considered such as how the student’s personal background interacts with the structural context. These issues are also not static and may differ for diverse populations.

Finally, Harris et al. (2019) examine racial identity and prosocial behaviors in African American males. They offer an interesting perspective that prosocial behaviors and aggressive behaviors operate together depending on the context. The myth is that these constructs are polar opposites. When the reality is that these constructs interact with racial identity. The experiences that African American males have while growing up build on each other over time. The interactions of prosocial behaviors, aggressive behaviors, and racial identity are the results of lifespan experiences and males’ phenomenological understanding of the self and context.

Taken as a group, these articles assist developmental scientists in questioning the status quo. My hope for this issue of Research in Human Development is that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers question what we may consider is typical for the human experience. More importantly, I hope these articles strike conversations to further examine the complexity of human development. The results will be more in depth conversations, which include new conversations across the developmental life span. The articles in the current issue are a beginning, but much more research and theorizing is needed that includes adult populations including our societal elders. Human development is not a new field and our theorizing and research need to continue to grow and become more diverse as our society does.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.