BRIDGES OF DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE

Abstract

The introduction to the current issue of Research in Human Development discusses four articles. Using the metaphor of “bridges,” I explain how each submission is a bridge in developmental science. The authors offer ways in which there is connectedness between developmental levels, contexts, and historical time periods. An important contribution of these papers is that the authors remind developmental scientists to critically analyze the extant literature from historical, intersectional, contextual, and systems’ perspectives.

The articles in this issue serve as bridges of developmental science. Each article serves as a bridge in between what is known and future directions. I use the term “bridges” to express the connectedness between developmental levels, contexts, and time periods. This issue is an example of bridges. To begin, Johnson (2022) not only extends a bridge to the previous issue Research in Human Development (Glover & Hilliard, 2021), but Dr. Johnson bridges the socialization literature to classic and contemporary examples. For example, Johnson (2022) brilliantly reminds the reader of classic scholarship that influenced current debates by highlighting the classic work of Dr. Jean Carew (Carew & Clarke-Stewart, 1980). In discussing Carew’s contributions to developmental science, Johnson states, “ … who laid the groundwork for generations of new scholars to assert the essential and nuanced parenting practices for protecting and nurturing Black and Brown children and youth on their racialized paths to maturity (p. 2). This statement reminds the reader of how the Glover and Hilliard (2021) special issue is a bridge from classic research and an extension of contemporary discussions (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006). After discussing the papers in the special issue, Johnson poses future research questions. For example, Johnson (2022) asks, “What does it take to create and live in an unbiased world (p. 6)?” The affirmative response is to continue to be present in the future and simultaneously build bridges from the past on the research journey to the future.

The next paper (Cross, 2022) is a bridge to scholarly contributions of Dr. Allison Davis that are not well known. Davis and Hess (1963) arguably are pacesetters for understanding what is currently known as emerging adulthood. While Arnett (2000) is credited for introducing the term “emerging adulthood,” Cross (2022) argues that a bridge from classic research by Davis and colleagues (e.g., Davis & Dollard, 1940; Davis et al., 1941; Davis & Hess, 1963) is not fully considered in contemporary arguments. Cross (2022) states, “ … the Davis and Hess longitudinal study, it is now possible to back-date evidence of the emergent adulthood trope to as early as 1963, but when the transformative effects of the GI Bill are taken into consideration, the actual origin of the emergent adulthood trope can be traced back to sometime between 1945 and 1950 (p. 4).” Cross’ discovery of classic work reminds developmental scientists that interdisciplinary research enhances our understanding of current phenomena. It also reminds us that our understanding of developmental phenomena is best understood from including classic examples. While Arnett’s (2000) contribution is important, it is limited in its scope. As Davis and Hess (1963) longitudinal study reminds us, the experiences of emerging adults are linked to whether these young people attend college or not. Cross (2022) argues that developmental scientists need an expansive notion of emerging adulthood that includes interdisciplinary perspectives on human development. In doing so, a bridge from classic scholarly contributions to future directions can be solidified.

Examples of bridges in developmental science include the contribution of recent empirical research. How do diverse contexts intersect with each other? Hardy et al. (2022) address this question. Using data from the National Study of Youth and Religion, the authors examine the roles of the individual, family, peer, and religious communities as predictors of religious deidentification in adolescence and young adulthood. The longitudinal study adds a bridge to the developmental science literature by highlighting how specific contexts are associated with how young people feel about their religious beliefs. While individual, family, peer, and religious community factors play roles in religious deidentification, the family context seems to be the most salient developmental context for religious development. Hardy et al.’s finding add to the extant literature and highlights the importance of the family context during the second and third decades of life. The study builds bridges to the previous research in the area because it does support prior studies that have reported individual religiousness as a mediator between family religiousness and youth outcomes (Chamratrithirong et al., 2013; French et al., 2013; Kim-Spoon et al., 2014). Simply stated, families matters! They matter early in life and continue to be important as young people transition to adolescence and young adulthood. In the case of Hardy et al.’s (2022) study, youth who were more religious or grew up in more religious families were less likely to deidentify from religion. The implications of these findings are especially salient giving the coping strategies needed for young people to interact within a diverse world. Additionally, the results were consistent across racial and ethnic groups.

The final article in this issue ties into the “bridge” metaphor by examining adolescents’ social support and the importance of out-of-school time (Heath & Thornock, 2022). Using data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, the authors used latent class analysis to identify patterns of social support across indicators of informational and appraisal support. Specifically, Heath and Thornock (2022) emphasize the important both appraisal support and out-of-school participation for adolescents’ educational and employment outcomes. By examining support across four contexts (e.g., family, peers, teachers, and out-of-school time), the authors were able to examine how support from these contexts build a bridge from adolescent experiences to young adulthood outcomes. The out-of-school context is an especially important contribution to the literature because researcher report less on this context. Yet, the literature is clear that adolescents spend a significant amount of their time in out-of-school activities such as organized clubs, extracurricular activities, and other activities supervised by adults (Vandell et al., 2015). This important context, as highlighted by Heath and Thornock’s (2022) results, is an important bridge to positive youth educational and employment outcomes. Regardless of social support from the other four contexts, the out-of-school context is associated with important adolescent trends. Developmental scientists readily acknowledge context matters. However, the specifics of the out-of-school context add additional information of how this context contributes to both educational and employment outcomes even though the supports seem to be education related. Thus, there is a need for scholars to examine what occurs after school with more details. This is not to say that social supports in other contexts are not important. They are equally important. Perhaps supports from the other contexts are consistent and adolescents take them for granted. This was the case in a study of African American adolescent girls’ reports of supports from their mothers and fathers (Trask-Tate et al., 2010). In this study, adolescents reported higher amounts of social support from their mothers than their fathers. However, social support from the father was a statistically significant buffer from exposure to negative live events. Trask-Tate et al. (2010) posit that adolescent girls’ take for granted the social support from mothers; and that social support from fathers enhanced the support from the mother. A similar pattern appears to be the case in the Heath and Thornock (2022) study. Out-of-school time may enhance the sources of social support from other areas.

Taken together, the papers in this issue are examples of bridges in developmental science. Using historical (Cross, 2022), critical synthesis (Johnson, 2022), family systems (Hardy et al., 2022) and domain-specific contributions of social support (Heath & Thornock, 2022) each paper is bridge from what is known to new directions. An important contribution of these papers is that the authors remind developmental scientists to critically analyze the extant literature from historical, intersectional, contextual, and systems’ perspectives.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.