Social science deals with problems of biography, of history, and of their intersection within social structures. (Mills 1959/1980, p. 159)

Introduction

My focus in this book is on the specific sociological tradition of biographical research that originated in Chicago more than a 100 years ago. Throughout the following chapters I will trace the development of this approach from its beginning in American pragmatist thought and Chicago sociology at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the writings of C. Wright Mills in the 1950s and his inspiration for its revival in European sociology in the 1980s. I will show its relevance for capturing social processes in different societies across historical contexts. This means that discussions about the multitude of topics related to other varieties of biographicalFootnote 1 research are sacrificed for the sake of clarity of the arguments that address an approach which connects processes at the individual level with those at the level of society. The history-biography dynamic, as introduced by C. Wright Mills (1959/1980) is the book’s analytical frame of orientation. Mills referred to the ‘the sociological imagination’ as the ability to grasp problems that occurred in the intersections of biography and history within society, and that ‘the most fruitful distinction with which the sociological imagination works is between the ‘personal troubles of milieu’ and the ‘public issues’ of social structure’ (Mills 1959/1980, p. 14). In his contemporary society Mills’ ideas were not put into empirical practice in the sense of collecting and analysing biographical material, yet the significance of his writings for the development of life course studies is unquestioned (Elder 1974/1999).

It has been claimed that Chicago sociology was and is, atheoretical. Andrew Abbott (1997) said this claim originated in an idea that ‘to be theoretical is to make assertions about the relation of abstractions like “gender”, “capitalism”, “education”, and “bureaucracy”’ (p. 1152). Chicago sociology did and does not engage with such abstractions,

In a single sentence, the Chicago school thought - and thinks - that one cannot understand social life without understanding the arrangements of particular social actors in particular social times and places. Another way of stating this is to say that Chicago felt that no social fact makes any sense abstracted from its context in social (and often geographic) space and social time. Social facts are located. (Abbott 1997, p. 1152)

This means contextualising social life and that is precisely what a biographical life course approach does.

The very questions that are at the core of this approach is not new to general sociology. The relationship between single individuals on one side and society on the other, is a topic that has been discussed in numerous ways throughout the history of philosophy and in sociology.Footnote 2 The terms for this discussion have shifted, as has the focus. Since it goes to the heart of what the biographical life course approach contributes to sociological research, it is of importance to start this book with a wider overview and set the discussion of this particular topic within an historical and conceptual framework.

Changes in vocabularies since the 1990s to a certain extent replaced the traditional micro-macro pair of concepts with those of agency and structure. Mills’ focus on sociology as having its subject of study in the intersection between history and biography and hence the history-biography dynamic as a fully processual conceptualisation of this specific topic, did not gain much traction until the revival of biographical research in the 1970s and 1980s and was then eclipsed by the pair of terms ‘agency-structure’. From a theoretical point of view, the relationship between the two levels micro-macro, agency and structure, or biography and history, is not clear cut, hence the many debates over the issues. Mills’ insistence on seeing the two as intertwined in a dynamic process in time was different from other perspectives in many ways; even from some that were, and still are, influential in life course research where dynamism and process are key terms to understand human lives.

In the next sections debates in general sociology about these distinctions are set in relation to historical contexts in which they gained prominence in discussions. After briefly addressing the micro-macro distinction, important theoretical contributions are examined in relation to notions of structure and agency. A characteristic of the writings in general theory is that the gendered aspects of agency and structure are rarely mentioned as part of the mainstream theoretical landscape. Thus a section on thoughts about gendered dimensions of agency sets the debates within their period specific contexts. Another section is devoted to the discussion of the differences between the structure-agency divide on the one hand, and the history-biography dynamic on the other. Specific attention is given to the wide variety of conceptualisations of the combined structure-agency relationship over different periods. Approaches to the history-biography dynamic have varied in biographical life course research, and these are addressed and discussed in relation to the Millsian starting point.

The final section gives an overview of the chapters in this book.

Micro-macro Distinctions

An important dividing line in discussions about the individual-society divide used to be, and still is, a distinction between micro and macro perspectives on societies. Alexander and Giesen (1987) for instance, discussed this divide in a larger perspective starting from the philosophical roots in writings about the differentiation between individuals and the state in late medieval society. They observed that when this topic came to be addressed within the realms of sociology as a discipline, the ontological and epistemological issues that had been involved in discussions about this in philosophy, gradually changed and, ‘The questions came to focus on whether action was rational or interpretive and whether social order was negotiated between individuals or imposed by collective, or emergent, forces’ (p. 2). They gave an overview of the classics (Marx, Durkheim, Weber) as well as of thinkers from American pragmatism and their approach to this divide. Mead’s work was addressed in terms of him being a leading thinker amongst the pragmatists. They were critical of some of their contemporaries in the interactionism camp who presented Mead and his writings as purely on the micro side. His ideas could rather be seen as a possible bridging of the micro-macro divide since he presented ‘a microanalysis that is open to more collectivist concerns’ (Alexander and Giesen 1987, p. 9). The micro-macro divide could, according to these authors, best be approached as different levels of empirical reality in research. Collins (1988) came to similar conclusions when he addressed the discussions about this theme in the late 1980s. His concern was to demonstrate how this divide could be bridged theoretically by way of empirical research, ‘When the substantive work is done, it moves closer to a micro-macro connection, not further away from it’ (Collins 1988, pp. 251–252). Whilst the micro-macro distinction was more debated in earlier days it is still a terminology that has relevance in some areas of sociological research.

Agency and Structure in General Sociological Theory

The notion of structure has many definitions, not all of them compatible with a processual view, even in life course theory. For instance, Alwin (1995) defined social structure as ‘a set of opportunities and constraints within networks of roles, relationships, and communication patterns, which are relatively patterned and persistent’ (p. 218). The emphasis here was on stability and not on change. The definition thus showed resemblance to many others in the general sociological literature that often drew on functionalist theory and saw structure as a kind of grid or skeleton upon which social processes unfold (Settersten and Gannon 2009). Anthony Giddens (1984), also critical of a functionalist approach, gave the following definition of the term, ‘Structure thus refers, in social analysis, to the structuring properties which make it possible for discernible similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time and space and which lend them ‘systemic’ form’ (p. 17). What set Giddens’ approach apart from many others in general sociology in the mid-1980s was his underlining of the temporal and spatial aspects of social structure and thus its transient properties, albeit without emphasising structure as history, as conveyed in Mills’ conceptualisation.

Agency, biography and individual are terms that have different connotations but are nevertheless often used interchangeably in life course discussions. Whereas the term individual is intuitively understood, agency and biography demand closer definition. Agency is associated with action; individual purposive action. Biography is thought of as a story or narrative about an individual’s life course. However, these terms not only differ in definitions, they are also associated with different theoretical traditions that have been influential in various historical periods (Giddens 1984; Mills 1940).

Giddens’ (1984) definition of agency has been much cited: it ‘refers not to the intentions people have in doing things but their capability of doing those things in the first place (which is why agency implies power)’ (Giddens 1984, p. 9). Barry Barnes (2000) was critical of many of the agency definitions provided, Giddens’ included. He thus said of the concept that: ‘Agency’ is said to denote the independent power of the individual, not in relation to rules, or cultures, or anything at all, but in relation to whatever might be cited as a possible constraint upon her’ (p. 48). He bemoaned the dualism associated with the distinction between agency and structure,

The relationship between ‘the individual’ and ‘society’ or ‘social structure’, has been addressed without proper regard for social interaction, with the result that ‘society’ itself has been conceived in unduly individualistic terms and the understanding of its components has been marked by attention to the ‘subjective’ and the ‘objective’ at the expense of the inter-subjective. (Barnes 2000, p. x)Footnote 3

Agency is a complex term and has been widely debated in sociology (see e.g. Archer 2000; Barnes 2000; Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Giddens 1984). Barnes’ (2000) writings stem from a period during which there was much discussion about the individualisation thesis and little attention to structural, or historical, features of society. He dismissed a simplistic view of this notion that merely suggested the independent power of individuals. In doing this he was highly critical of the premises upon which the individualisation thesis rested. He was likewise critical of rational choice theory and the idea that individuals are single, isolated entities operating from rational motives in a calculative manner.Footnote 4 In a discussion about how individual motivations can be understood in relation to agency, Barnes drew heavily on a paper Mills published in 1940. Here Mills discussed different ways of approaching and discussing motives for action and he described how in different times and societies varying vocabularies—sets of terms and concepts—were accepted as standard for explaining motives. He concluded that in order to make sense of these in a sociological way, ‘What is needed is to take all these terminologies of motive and locate them as vocabularies of motive in historic epochs and specified situations. Motives are of no value apart from the delimited societal situations for which they are the appropriate vocabularies’ (p. 913, italics in original). Mills’ sensitivity to historical context and the variability over time in what terms and concepts were deemed acceptable in explanations of social phenomena, be they motives or other notions, inspired Barnes’ discussion of agency. This way of thinking about sociological terms is helpful in many instances.

Emirbayer and Mische (1998) took Mead’s temporal and relational thinking as their starting point in a discussion about the notion of agency in sociological theory. They did this because it is, ‘the work of George Herbert Mead that offers us the most compelling tools for overcoming the inadequate conceptions of agency in both rational choice and norm-oriented approaches’ (p. 968). Based on pragmatist thought they defined agency as,

The temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments—the temporal-relational contexts of action—which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations. (p. 970)

They provided this definition in relation to different temporal orientations of agency in their discussion of ‘analytical dimensions of agency rather than action’s structural contexts’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p. 970, footnote 5). This definition of agency is helpful in discussions of the concept in relation to biographical research because of its sensitivity to temporality. But whilst both Barnes, and Emir Bayer and Mische, discussed agency within a theoretical framework and with reference to theoretical debates, in biographical life course studies agency is inextricably related to structure, and as the concepts are used in empirical analyses definitions from this level are included here.

As stated elsewhere, the most prominent empirical study that became important for the revival of life course research, was Glen Elder’s Children of the Great Depression. He was greatly inspired by Mills’ thoughts when he approached the data and had no established theoretical framework to draw on in his analyses of the rich empirical material that the cohort studies provided.Footnote 5 The contextualist life course approach that Elder formulated came from the historical sensitivity that Mills suggested sociological studies ought to rest on. Social interaction, as defined by Herbert Mead, was a prerequisite for society as well as for individuality. Thus interacting individuals form societies, and one cannot exist without the other. History and biography are part of the same whole in a dynamic relationship. However, not all empirical analyses of life course data follow Elder’s approach in discussions about agency and structure. There are a variety of ways of considering this dimension in research where life course data are analysed.

Two examples from recent quantitative life course studies that put the question of agency centre stage in a discussion of life course trajectories and transitions phases are first Hitlin and Johnson (2015) who, writing from a social psychological viewpoint, did an empirical analysis that included variables about young people’s expectations for the future. They observed that agency as a theoretical notion on the one hand, and as an empirical dimensions in life course research on the other, were out of synch. Whilst the theoretical conceptualisations were complex and manifold, they maintained that empirical attempts to address agency did not pay enough attention to temporal dimensions and hence presented static descriptions of the level of individual actions. Another study by Schoon and Lyons-Amos (2016) addressed notions of agency and structure from the viewpoint of empirical analyses of the transition to adulthood. They examined the role of agency in terms of decision making and choice within structural frameworks for diverse transition pathways. They suggested that investigating the diversity dimension was crucial for conceptualising varieties of agency during transitions.

When agency and structure are discussed separately and singled out as discrete units or processes that each need addressing in their own right, much insight into theoretical ideas and social processes at either level can be gained. However, other aspects of social life may come to the fore only when the two are looked at simultaneously and in relation to one another. For example, gender and social class are aspects of life that are part of the structural features and thus impacts on agency in all societies. How, and in what ways these become actualised, is dependent on historical contexts in particular places and can be addressed by using the terms as ‘sensitising concepts’ (Blumer 1954).

As the two examples above from empirical research demonstrate, as well as the discussions from the theoretical field, structural elements such as gender were not made a concern in either of these debates. Before looking more closely into the empirical implications of the biographical-history dynamic as put forward in Mills’ writings, and how this may help in uncovering how structural aspects intersect with the biographical level, I will give a brief account of how the theoretical aspects of gendered agency, or biography, have been discussed in the theoretical literature over the past decades.

Gendered Notions of Agency

Agency has been much debated in feminist philosophy and in feminist studies generally. These discussions have often been framed within the cluster of concepts such as agency, autonomy and independence (Code 2000). The oppression of women in history, throughout all known cultures, is an important basis for this framing of the discussions. In the general theoretical writings cited above, agency was discussed in genderless terms. In the feminist literature discussions about the set of concepts agency belongs in, have taken hue of the historical contexts of debates; what particular themes that had definitional, or framing, power in particular periods. Benhabib (1992) for instance, discussed notions of gender and agency in relation to the fierce debates within feminism at the timeFootnote 6 that involved questions about essentialism and postmodern theories. She summed up how the prominence of ‘discourse’ misrepresented women’s struggles: ‘women who negotiate and resist power do not exist; the only struggles in history are between competing paradigms of discourses, power-knowledge complexes’ (p. 222).

McNay (2000), who was also critical of the effects postmodern thought had on feminism took task with what she called ‘the negative paradigm of subjectification’ found in the works of Foucault and Lacan where subjectivity was seen as discursively and symbolically constructed, which again would lead to deterministic viewpoints on a passive subject. In this paradigm notions of action were often considered in terms of resistance to dominant norms, which according to McNay would need more specific and varied accounts of agency in order to be effective. The implicit account of agency inherent in this argument was for her an account that ‘leaves unexplained the capabilities of individuals’ to respond to difference in a less defensive and even, at times, a more creative fashion’ (p. 3). She therefore suggested a need for contextualising agency within power relations and called for a regenerative theoretical framework which included temporal aspects of subjective formation, and hence of notions of agency.Footnote 7

In current debates of the topic of gender and agency other concerns than postmodernism have gained prominence. The notion of agency has become a much more frequently used term in general writings, in both the public and the academic domains. In the social sciences the past decade has seen attention turned towards the increase in social inequalities, both globally between countries and regions as well as within nation states. These issues have also become more prevalent in feminist theories where notions of identity are often paired with those of agency.Footnote 8 When relating to the social inequality theme agency as a concept has been criticised for its atomistic overtones. It is associated with a neo-liberal individualistic ideal that promotes self-sufficiency and is ‘ideally suited to the practices and the values of the market economy’ (Evans 2013, p. 49) of which are most likely embodied by men (Evans 2013; Madhok 2013; Wilson 2013), and is often clustered with notions of ‘autonomy’, ‘aspirations’ and ‘free choice’ (Friedman 2003; Wilson 2013). These theoretical discussions have not made the historical context a specific and explicit topic. It has rather been referred to implicitly by setting debates into a contemporary terminology when addressing issues of the day such as exemplified here.

However, gendered notions of agency are relevant for biographical life course studies referring to any society and across historical periods. Variations in ways in which agency is gendered are what matter and these are closely connected to the interweaving of structure and agency or history and biography. Examples of empirical studies, my own and those of others, where these dimensions have been given prominence will be referred to throughout the chapters in this book.

Structure-Agency/Biography-History

In biographical life course sociology, the earliest attempts to address the society-individual theme was in Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1918–1920) pioneering work. As will be elaborated on in the next chapter, the origin of their study was in pragmatist thought where Mead’s concept of the social self is the core of any notion of society. Thomas and Znaniecki made a distinction between ‘values’ and ‘attitudes’ as a theoretical basis for their empirical study.

Together these two terms would address what is specific to human society where values were ‘the changing character of contemporary social life’ and attitudes, ‘the subjective character of human experience’ (Blumer 1939/1979, pp. 19–20). This pair of concepts were used in complex ways in their study. ‘Attitudes’ sometimes referred to phenomena that could be interpreted as within the realm of psychology, whilst ‘values’ were associated with sociological dimensions. The concepts were criticised during the Appraisal proceedings in 1938 (Blumer 1939) for their lack of specificity and clarity. These conceptualisations were nevertheless important at the time because it was the first attempt to bring empirical biographical material into a discussion of a topic that had mainly been given theoretical and philosophical attention. The notions never became standard references in sociology but they did mark Thomas and Znaniecki’s case for a processual approach to the relationship between individuals and society and as such they have therefore been of importance.

Whichever definition of agency is subscribed to, this aspect of human action does not take place with isolated individual entities. It always involves interactions at different temporal and societal levels. In life course and biographical research, the processual element introduced by time is crucial. Following Mills, a terminology that refers to the history-biography dynamic rather than the agency-structure divide, is helpful for understanding the relevance of historical sensitivity and process. Where a ‘divide’ indicates a breach in spatial terms, a ‘process’, or a ‘dynamic’ signifies a temporal dimension of continuity.

For Mills (1959/1980) the intersection of history and biography was the essence of what he named ‘the sociological imagination’. Moreover,

We have come to see that the biographies of men and women, the kinds of individuals they variously become, cannot be understood without reference to the historical structures in which the milieux of their everyday life are organized. Historical transformations carry meanings not only for individual ways of life, but for the very character – the limits and possibilities of the human being. (Mills 1959/1980, 175)

The importance of studying the social world as the intersection of biography and history as suggested by Mills, and thereby emphasising different aspects of context in relation to individual’s opportunities and constraints for action, was at the core of the early studies after the revival of this tradition (see e.g. Bertaux 1981, 1982; Elder 1974/1999, 1985; Hareven 1977; Mayer 2004). Bertaux (1982) drew on Hareven’s (1977) writings to emphasise how essential Mills’ notion of the sociological imagination had been for the development of life course sociology (p. 130). The focus was to be on both structure and agency, from a processual approach. This was further explored in Bertaux and Bertaux-Wiame’s (1997) case studies of multigenerational families in relation to social class. They sought to investigate the boundaries of an approach that included both aspects in a study of social mobility, a topic which has clear processual qualities attached to it as such mobility over generations happen in historical time,

We have attempted to demonstrate that socio-structural components may be found in those decisions and acts apparently most clearly powered by will: and conversely, that praxis may be found in the very heart of what, viewed from afar, seems to be pure reproduction by direct transmission. (pp. 94–95)

The structural side of the agency-structure relationship has been approached from a variety of perspectives depending on period specific debates in the social sciences. Ken Roberts (1968) is known for his launching of the ‘transition paradigm’ with its companion concept of ‘opportunity structures’ in 1968.Footnote 9 The transition paradigm was originally an approach to the analysis of young people’s entry into education and work and this paradigm bore resemblances to the life course approach, only it focussed primarily on one particular phase of the life course: youth. As Roberts stated (2009, 2018) it was an approach that brought a sociological perspective to a field that in the 1960s was dominated by psychology. In the 1970s there was a debate within sociology between those who favoured a focus on human action on the one hand, and those who advocated social structures as the main object of study for the discipline. Questions such as whether young people’s careers were the outcome of individual choice or whether the actual routes young people had access to were decisive, were at the core of these opposite perspectives.

Roberts said of the relationship between structure and agency, the terminology used in the transitions paradigm, and that of opportunity structures that had changed considerably over the decades since his first writing about it:

… seeking the source of change in the opportunity structures that surround young people, thereby initially decentring young people themselves, is more fruitful than probing young people’s minds. The constituents of opportunity structures have all changed interactively, and young people have not been agents of change but have had no choice but to exercise individual agency within their reshaped opportunities. (Roberts 2009, p. 358)

The notion of opportunity structures works well within a life course frame of reference. However, the biography-history dynamic demands more attention to the agency, or biography, side of the matter than the transitions paradigm in its purest form offers. Combining aspects of Roberts’ theoretical framework in a Millsian history-biography approach gives the structural side a more specific direction since opportunity structures are particular to time and place.

Roberts did not address the gendered side of either structure or agency though, which is no surprise as few within general sociology have done so. Extending the term to include a temporal element, as in ‘temporal opportunity structures’ (Nilsen 2023) in discussions about young people’s thoughts about future work, education and family, captures the gendered element, which will be discussed in a later chapter.

Summary

To sum up this discussion, the relationship between single individuals on one hand and society on the other was the main topic in this chapter. The biographical life course approach rests on addressing social life from a processual perspective, as advocated by Mills and echoed in the quote from Abbott in the first section of the Chapter.

The discussion has shown the many ways in which this topic has been approached in the history of sociology. A specific focus was on the particular relevance this theme has had for the focus of this book. The micro-macro distinction was addressed as an early conceptualisation of the individual-society relationship, with reference to important texts on the issue. In Thomas and Znaniecki’s pioneering work they made a distinction between ‘values’ and ‘attitudes’ as concepts to address these themes. It was as such an early attempt at constructing notions to discuss this issue in relation to biographical research.

The prominence of the agency-structure pair of concepts since the 1990s, was addressed with reference to how these conceptualisations had obscured the Millsian history-biography dynamic from the view of mainstream sociology. Debates in general sociology about the agency-structure distinction were addressed in relation to the historical contexts of their origin. The section outlined arguments from some of the prominent sociologists who have written about the topic such as Giddens and Barnes. Some examples from empirical studies were provided as a backcloth to the discussions about these notions in relation to biographical life course research. Gendered aspects of concepts are seldom addressed in mainstream sociological theory. So also with notions of agency. Therefore a section that discussed this topic in its own right was included in this chapter. It set notions of gendered agency within the historical contexts of debates where these were addressed.

The differences between the structure-agency divide on the one hand, and the history-biography dynamic on the other was addressed, and an overview of the diversity of approaches to the history-biography dynamic in biographical life course research were discussed in relation to the Millsian starting point of this pair of concepts.

Overview of Chapters

Chapter 2, on the origins of biographical and life course research, draws the lines from American pragmatism which started from a processual approach with time and temporality as central features. George Herbert Mead’s writings have great relevance for biographical perspectives. His concept of the processual self provides an entry point for understanding biographical material. Crucial to the development of this approacb was the meeting place provided by Hull House. The women at this charity, Jane Addams in particular, contributed to the methodological innovations of Chicago sociology. The funder of the charity provided a grant for William I Thomas study that he published with Florian Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. This very first example of a sociological study that applied biographical material is presented. A brief section discusses how this work only received recognition when Herbert Blumer chaired the Appraisal proceedings of it at an American Sociological Association session in 1938. The chapter then establishes connections to C. Wright Mills’ research. His book The Sociological Imagination made the dynamic history-biography relationship an inspiration for later biographical life course research as we know it today. The chapter ends with a discussion of Glen Elder’s classic study Children of the Great Depression and demonstrates how Elder’s inspiration from Mills set his approach to the analysis of longitudinal data apart from those who sought to uncover ‘laws of social deviance’ through longitudinal studies.

The revival of biographical research in Europe and America is the topic of Chap. 3. Some of the most important contributions to a revival of this tradition are presented and the places and period in which these revivals occurred are discussed. The section on pioneering biographical studies on the continent gives an overview and discusses of the revival of this approach in French sociology with Daniel Bertaux and Isabelle Bertaux-Wiame, and in German sociology with the works of Martin Kohli and others who provided important contributions to the theoretical perpsepctives as well as to quantitative life course studies. In the UK sociologist Ken Plummer and the oral historian Paul Thompson were important for the development of biographical studies. In Scandinavia the life course approach was adopted in what was then called ‘women’s research’. In America Elder’s study inspired a more quantitative approach but his groundbreaking longitudinal study of the cohorts living through The Great Depression introduced the contextualist life course approach and a range of concepts.

Chapter 4 discusses the topics of time and temporality in biographical research. These are key notions in a processual approach to sociology. The Chapter addresses the centrality of Mead’s writings on time and temporality. His notion of the temporal self was of particular relevance for this tradition. A section on historical time discusses the impact of period specific historical events on intergenerational relations and on the individual level. Family time is addressed in Tamara Hareven’s framework as an intermediary temporality between biographical and historical time. Discussions on intergenerational time explore topics such as social mobility and set these in an historical framework that demonstrate how biographical studies can add layers of knowledge about the processes involved that quantitative approaches miss. At the biographical level life course phases are addressed in relation to transitions and variations across cultural and structural contexts. Specific attention is paid to the phase of adulthood since it has largely had a kind of taken-for-granted definition without much attention to variations by gender and social class over historical time. A section on gender and time sets discussions about this theme in its historical context and extends the topic to include temporal aspects of biographical interviews and gendered narratives. In this section empirical examples from my own and other research are used to exemplify the arguments addressed.

The relevance of a biographical approach to studies about the future is the topic of Chap. 5. In a discussion that takes its point of departure in theories of time and temporality, the significance of particular aspects of historical periods for what topics about the future are deemed research-worthy is addressed. The chapter discusses how ideas about Progress impacted on notions of time and temporality during earlier historical periods. In empirical research the future as a topic has been addressed from a variety of perspectives and approaches in the social sciences. Studies discussed in this chapter demonstrate their embeddedness in specific circumstances and particular historical periods. These research topics thus provide insights into how changes at the structural level, be they environmental problems such as climate change, pandemics, or credit crises, in any present are woven into and become topics in individual biographical accounts. The early studies of women and time and gendered thoughts about the future, for instance, originated in a period when changes in gender relations in all areas of social life happened at a rapid pace in the Scandinavian countries in particular. The chapter shows that whilst gender, age and social class are essential analytical elements of sociological analysis that transcend historical periods, the contexts of their impact are diverse and varied.

Chapter 6 addresses methodological and other controversies in the biographical research tradition. Two strands of methodological debates have run parallel; the quantitative-qualitative divide that foregrounded methodological issues, and the other debate originating in the ‘cultural turn’ in the social sciences, that put epistemological questions centre stage. The quantitative-qualitative dispute has early origins. The discussion as it relates to life course and biographical research have been a constant since the origin of this approach. The methodological divide has persisted over the years and is also related to epistemological debates that have created dividing lines within qualitative approaches. A section discusses the meeting between the different approaches to qualitative biographical research in the social sciences and the humanities. The heated discussions from the 1980s onwards, that were in reality addressing themes in the philosophy of science, are presented in their contemporary contexts. Another line of debate is about notions and attention to historical time and is addressed in the section called ‘From history as periods to history as epoch’. Theoretical notions such as ‘the individualisation thesis’ and a ‘de-standardisation’ of life courses are terms associated with notions of history in epochal terms such as ‘late modernity’ and show how this vocabulary became influential.

Chapter 7 starts with general discussions about divides in the wider research community and then narrows down the focus to the biographical life course approach and the various suggestions that have been put forward for bridging methodological divides. Mixed methods strategies across the quantitative-qualitative gap is the title of a section that presents different research designs in such studies that make use of both quantitative and qualitative material. It discusses challenges and potential barriers against incorporating both types of data along a continuum of statistical techniques for causal analyses on the one end, and biographical material for exploring social processes, on the other. Examples from empirical research illustrate the points raised. Questions of quality in biographical life course research is the topic of a separate section that underlines how different research strategies and approaches invite specific types of questions in relation to e.g., generalisability. The chapter ends with some general reflections inspired by research from this approach in contemporary society.