Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Configurational Approach to Families: Methodological Suggestions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Family Sociology in Europe

Abstract

The configurational perspective on families stems from various influences, among which the contribution of Norbert Elias is central. The focus on identification with the family as a group and the set of various interdependencies (e.g. emotional, financial, practical, symbolic) among a potentially large number of family members makes it necessary to ask specific research questions and use alternative data collection methods rather than standard surveys and mainstream qualitative approaches. This chapter makes some methodological suggestions that can be applied to advance the understanding of family configurations (i.e. networks of functional interdependences existing among large sets of actors). The importance of using dilemmas to uncover the balance of power and tensions behind family identification and functional interdependences among family members is emphasised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Antonucci, Toni C., and Hiroko Akiyama. 1987. “Social Networks in Adult Life and a Preliminary Examination of The Convoy Model.” Journal of Gerontology 42 (5): 519–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtson, Vern L., Carolyn J. Rosenthal, and Louis E. Burton. 1990. “Families and Aging: Diversity and Heterogeneity.” In Handbook of Aging and Social Sciences, edited by Robert H. Binstock, and Linda George, 263–287. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidart, Claire, and Daniel Lavenu. 2005. “Evolutions of Personal Networks and Life Events.” Social Networks 27 (4): 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bott, Elizabeth, 1957. Family and Social Networks. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, Julia. 2013. Life story talk: Some reflections on narrative in qualitative interviews. Sociological Research Online 18 (2): 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budgeon, Shelley, and Sasha Roseneil. 2004. “Editors’ Introduction: Beyond the Conventional Family.” Current Sociology 52 (2): 127–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Ernest W., and Harvey J. Locke. 1945. The Family: From Institution to Companionship. New York: The American Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Lori D., Ingrid Arnet Connidis, and Lorraine Davies. 1999. “Sibling Ties in Later Life: A Social Network Analysis.” Journal of Family Issues 20: 114–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, Anna-Maija, and Eric D. Widmer. 2015. “Insiders and Outsiders in Stepfamilies: Adults’ and Children’s Views on Family Boundaries.” Current Sociology 63: 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, Anna-Maija. 2019. “Becoming “Us”: Marital Name, Gender, and Agentic Work in Transition to Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 81 (1): 248–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, Anna-Maija, and Florence Maillochon. 2009. “Who Chooses the Wedding Guests, the Couple or The Family? Individual Preferences and Relational Constraints in France and Finland.” European Societies 11 (3): 369–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, Andrew J. 2010. The Marriage-go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, Andrew J., and Frank F. Furstenberg. 1994. “Stepfamilies in the US: A Reconsideration.” Annual Review of Sociology 20: 359–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology, 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, S95–S120. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connidis, Ingrid Arnet, and Julie Ann McMullin. 2002. “Sociological Ambivalence and Family Ties: A Critical Perspective.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (3): 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00558.x.

  • Connolly, John, and Paddy Dolan. 2011. “Organisational Centralisation as Figurational Dynamics: Movements and Counter-Movements in the Gaelic Athletic Association.” Management & Organizational History 6 (1): 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935910387026.

  • Cornwell, Benjamin. 2011. “Independence Through Social Networks: Bridging Potential among Older Women and Men.”The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 66: 782–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carlo, Ivan, Gaëlle Aeby, and Eric D. Widmer. 2014. La variété des configurations familiales après une recomposition: choix et contraintes. Revue Suisse De Sociologie 40 (1): 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, Pierpaolo. 2010. Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert. 1978. What Is Sociology. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert. 1989. “The Symbol Theory: An Introduction, Part One.” Theory, Culture & Society 6 (2): 169–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert. 1993. Engagement et distanciation. Paris: Fayard (1ère éd. 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert. 1994. The Civilizing Process. Vols 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert. 2013. Studies on the Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. University College Dublin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Norbert, and John L. Scotson. 1994. The Established and the Outsiders.Vol. 32. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, Janet. 2007. “Displaying Families.” Sociology 41(1): 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, Janet, and Jennifer Mason. 1993. Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Linton C. 2004. “The Development of Social Network Analysis.” A Study in the Sociology of Science, BookSurge, LLC, Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furstenberg, Frank F. 1987. “The New Extended Family: The Experience of Parents and Children After Remarriage.” In Remarriage and Stepparenting: Current Research and Theory, edited by Kay Pasley and Marilyn Ihinger-Tallman, 42–61. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganong, Lawrence H., and Marilyn Coleman. 2012. Stepfamily relationships. Springer-Verlag New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giele, Janet Z., and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1998. “Life Course Research: Development of a Field.” Methods of Life Course Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilgun, Jane F. 2005. “Qualitative Research and Family Psychology.” Journal of Family Psychology 19 (1): 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis, John R. 1997. A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis, John R. 2015. “Marriage of the Mind.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 66 (4): 988–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girardin, Myriam, and Eric D. Widmer. 2015. “Lay Definitions of Family and Social Capital in Later Life.” Personal Relationships 22 (4): 712–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girardin, Myriam, Eric D. Widmer, Ingrid Arnet Connidis, Anna-Maija Castrén, Rita Gouveia, and Barbara Masotti. 2018. “Ambivalence in Later‐Life Family Networks: Beyond Intergenerational Dyads.” Journal of Marriage and Family 80 (3): 768–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, Jung‐Hwa. 2008. “Changes in Support from Confidants, Children, and Friends Following Widowhood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70: 306–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E. Marvis, and Margaret Stanley-Hagan. 2002. “Parenting in divorced and remarried families.” In Marc H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Being and becoming a parent (p. 287–315). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E. Mavis. 2003. “Intimate Pathways: Changing Patterns in Close Personal Relationships Across Time.” Family Relations 52: 318–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISSP Research Group. (2016). International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles IV - ISSP 2012. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, Lynn. 2004. “Intimacy, Negotiated Non-Monogamy and the Limits of the Couple.” The State of Affairs: Explorations in Infidelity and Commitment, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael P., and Robert M. Milardo. 1984. “Network Interference in Pair Relationships: A Social Psychological Recasting of Slater’s Theory of Social Regression.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46 (4): 893–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokinen, Eeva. 2005. Aikuisten arki [Everyday Life of Adults]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, Leonard, and Peter J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, Peter. 1998. Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual review of sociology 24 (1): 183–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Irene. 1993. “Families as Mapped Realities.” Journal of Family Issues 14 (1): 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lück, Detlev, Sabine Diabaté, and Kerstin Ruckdeschel. 2017. “Cultural Conceptions of Family as Inhibitors of Change in Family Lives: The ‘Leitbild’ Approach.” In Family Continuity and Change: Contemporary European Perspectives, edited by Vida Česnuitytė, Detlev Lück, and Eric D. Widmer, 61–86. London: Macmillan Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, Kurt. 2002. “Intergenerational Ambivalence: Further Steps in Theory and Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (3): 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00585.x.

  • Lüscher, Kurt. 2011. “Ambivalence: A ‘Sensitizing Construct’ For the Study and Practice of Intergenerational Relationships.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 9 (2): 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Jennifer, Vanessa May, and Lynda Clarke. 2007. “Ambivalence and the Paradoxes of Grandparenting.” The Sociological Review 55 (4): 687–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1995. “The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect.” Social Forces 74 (2): 379–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milardo, Robert M. 1988. Families and Social Networks: An Overview of Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milardo, Robert M. 1989. “Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Identification of the Social Networks of Spouses.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51: 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, Jacob L. 1934. Who Shall Survive? A new Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations. Beacon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, David. 2011a. Family Practices. Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, David. 2011b. “Locating ‘Family Practices’.” Sociological Research Online 16 (4): 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, Tim. 1999. “Power, Subjectivity and British Industrial and Organisational Sociology: The Relevance of the Work of Norbert Elias.” Sociology 33 (2): 411–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038599000243.

  • Olson, David H., Hamilton I. McCubbin, Howard Barnes, Andrea Larsen, Marla Muxen, and Marc Wilson. 1983. Families: What Makes Them Work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oris, Michael, Marthe Nicolet, Eduardo Guichard, Christophe Monnot, and Dominique Joye. 2016. “Surveying the Elderly, Capturing Vulnerability. The VLV (Vivre-Leben-Vivere) Survey.” In Surveying Vulnerability, Surveying Vulnerable Populations. Ten Experiences Across the Swiss Society, edited by Michael Oris, Caroline Roberts, Dominique Joye, and Michèle Ernst Stähli. New York, NY: Springer Series Life Course Research and Social Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Freed Bales. 1955. Family: Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasley, Kay. 1987. “Family Boundary Ambiguity: Perceptions of Adult Stepfamily Family Members.” In Remarriage and Stepparenting: Current Research and Theory, edited by Kay Pasley and Marilyn Ihinger-Tallman, 206–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfau‐Effinger, Birgit. 2004. “Socio‐historical Paths of the Male Breadwinner Model–an Explanation of Cross‐national Differences 1.” The British Journal of Sociology 55 (3): 377–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintaneiro, Tânia. 2004. “The Concept of Figuration or Configuration in Norbert Elias’ Sociological Theory.” Teoria and Sociedade 12: 54–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapin, Marlène, Eric D. Widmer, and Katia Iglesias. 2016. “From Support to Overload: Patterns of Positive and Negative Family Relationships of Adults with Mental Illness Over time.” Social Networks 47: 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnettler, Sebastian, and Thomas Wöhler. 2013. “On the Supporting Role of Friendship for Parents and Non-Parents in Later Life. A Comparative Analysis Using Data from the Three Waves of the German Aging Survey.” In Vielfalt und Zusammenhalt: Verhandlungen des 36, edited by M. Löw. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bochum 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, John, ed. 2002. Social Networks: Critical Concepts in Sociology. Vol. 4. Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, Merril, and Roseann Giarrusso. 2010. “Aging and Family Life: A Decade Review.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 1039–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, Georg. 2015. Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die formen der vergesellschaftung. BoD–Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol. 2007. Personal life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol, and BeccyShipman. 2004. “Visions in Monochrome: Families, Marriage and the Individualization Thesis.” The British Journal of Sociology 55 (4): 491–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Catherine H., Ellen G. Bush, Ronald R. Ross, and Marcia Ward. 1992. “Mine, Yours and Ours: A Configural Analysis of the Networks of Married Couples in Relation to Marital Satisfaction and Individual Well-being.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9: 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, William I., and Dorothy Swayne Thomas. 1970. “Situations Defined as Real Are Real in Their Consequences.” Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, 154–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, Karin, Eric D. Widmer, Jacques-Antoine Gauthier, Vida Česnuitytė, and Rita Gouveia, eds. 2018. Families and Personal Networks: An International Comparative Perspective. London: Macmillan Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Jeffrey. 2007. The World We Have Won: The Remaking of Erotic and Intimate Life. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D. 1999. “Family Contexts as Cognitive Networks: A Structural Approach of Family Relationships.” Personal Relationships 6 (4): 487–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D. 2006. “Who are My Family Members? Bridging and Binding Social Capital in Family Configurations.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 23 (6): 979–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D. 2016. Family Configurations. A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. London, Routledge (Reedition), First Edition, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D. 2019. “Qui sont les membres de ma famille? Liens manquants, liens inattendus, et qu’ils nous révèlent des configurations familiales.” Revue de l’Institut international de psychanalyse et de psychothérapie Charles Baudoin 65: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D., Gaëlle Aeby, and Marlène Sapin. 2013. “Collecting Family Network Data.” International Review of Sociology 23 (1): 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E., Nicolas Favez, Gaëlle Aeby, Ivan De Carlo, and Minh-Thuy Doan. 2012. Capital Social et coparentage dans les familles recomposées et de première union. Sociographe. Université de Genève, Archives ouvertes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D., Francesco Giudici, Jean-Marie Le Goff, and Alexandre Pollien. 2009. “From Support to Control. A Configurational Perspective on Conjugal Quality.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (13): 437–448. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D., and Riitta Jallinoja. 2008. Beyond the Nuclear Family. Families in a Configurational Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, Eric D., Jean Kellerhals, and René Levy. 2006. “Types of Conjugal Interactions and Conjugal Conflict: A Longitudinal Assessment.” European Sociological Review 22 (1): 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E. D., and Lüscher, Kurt. 2011. “Les relations intergénérationelles au prisme de l’ambivalence et des configurations familiales.” Recherches familiales 1: 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartler, Ulrike. 2014. “How to Deal With Moral Tales: Constructions and Strategies of Single-Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76 (3): 604–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12116.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Eric D. Widmer

Authors
  1. Eric D. Widmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric D. Widmer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Anna-Maija Castrén

  2. Faculty of Human and Social Studies, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Vida Česnuitytė

  3. Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism, University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy

    Isabella Crespi

  4. University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jacques-Antoine Gauthier

  5. Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Rita Gouveia

  6. EHESP, CNRS (National Centre of Scientific Research), Rennes, France

    Claude Martin

  7. Campus María Zambrano, University of Valladolid, Segovia, Spain

    Almudena Moreno Mínguez

  8. Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

    Katarzyna Suwada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Widmer, E.D. (2021). The Configurational Approach to Families: Methodological Suggestions. In: Castrén, AM., et al. The Palgrave Handbook of Family Sociology in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73306-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73306-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73305-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73306-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation