This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 22 November 2014, At: 09:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Research in HumanDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrhd20

Innovative Methods forStudying Lives in Context: AView of the IssuesRichard M. LernerPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Richard M. Lerner (2004) Innovative Methods for Studying Livesin Context: A View of the Issues, Research in Human Development, 1:1-2, 5-7, DOI:10.1080/15427609.2004.9683327

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2004.9683327

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

52 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Innovative Methods for Studying Livesin Context: A View of the Issues

Richard M. LernerTufts University

Contemporary developmental science is framed by theoretical models that stressmutually influential and systemic relations between individuals and the multiplelevels of their social, cultural, and historical contexts (e.g., Eccles & Midgley,1989; Lerner, 2002). Prior to the emergence of developmental systems theories asa leading conceptual basis for scholars of human development to study the linksbetween person and context, longitudinal research provided the impetus for suchempirical emphasis (e.g., see Cairns, 1998; Elder, 1980, Magnusson & Stattin,1998). As lengthy long-term studies of people’s lives accumulated to create a data-base pertinent to human ontogeny, it became clear that these investigations were, inactuality, appraisals of lives in context; they were assessments of individual devel-opment among cohorts of people differentiated by time and place (Elder, Modell,& Parke, 1993).

Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that the recognitionof the temporal andecolog-ical embeddedness of individual development that derived from the results of longi-tudinal studies provided a foundation for the burgeoning contemporary emphasis ondevelopmental systems theories (Lerner, 1998). In fact, the results of longitudinalstudies underscored the importance of understanding relations between people andcontexts in accounting for intraindividual change and for interindividual differencesin intraindividual change, including variation associated with birth cohorts, time ofmeasurement, and normative and non-normative life and historical events (e.g.,Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998; Elder, 1998).

Accordingly, the longitudinal study of human development promoted an inter-est in devising observational and statistical methods to study relations between in-dividuals and contexts (e.g., Nesselroade & Baltes, 1979). In addition, both longi-tudinal research and studies derived from other research designs that were

RESEARCH IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 1(1&2), 5–7Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard M. Lerner, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Devel-opment,105CollegeAvenue,TuftsUniversity,Medford,MA02155.E-mail: richard.lerner@tufts.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

52 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

nevertheless informed by developmental systems—or, more generally, relationalmodels of human development—were increasingly drawn to methods used in ordeveloped by scholars from disciplines associated with the multiple levels of orga-nization involved in the ecology of human development (e.g., Eccles, Wigfield, &Byrnes, 2003). Indeed, to understand how levels of organization ranging from bi-ology through community, culture, and history may contribute to the impact of thedevelopmental system on the course of human life, contemporary developmentalscientists are increasingly more open to drawing on quantitative and qualitativemethods from, for instance, biology, medicine, sociology, economics, and historyas they are to using methods associated with psychology.

The articles in this issue both reflect and extend in significant ways the diversemethodological interests and potential repertoire of developmental scientistsstudying lives in context. John R. Nesselroade and Nilam Ram examine selectedfeatures of intraindividual variability and some of the research outcomes from itsstudy. Some current modeling techniques are discussed, including promising ap-plications stemming from dynamical systems theory work. They indicate how themethods they suggest for use in understanding intraindividual variability canstrengthen the further study of lives in context.

In turn, John B. Willett explains how the multilevel model for change and themethod of latent growth modeling can be used to successfully address in longitudi-nal analysis controversies regarding the measurement of change. He notes that la-tent growth modeling offers several unique advantages, including the ability tomodel change simultaneously in several domains, to model change in a constructor factor, to model change as part of an extended network of hypothesized relation-ships, and to explicitly model the error covariance structure associated with bothindividual growth and systematic interindividual differences in change.

Greg J. Duncan, Katherine A. Magnuson, and Jens Ludwig note that endogeneitybiasesmayresultwhenestimatesaremade indevelopmentalmodelsofprocesses in-volving contextual influences (e.g., child care arrangements, divorce, parenting,neighborhood location,peers) that are influencedby theactionsofeither the individ-uals being studied or the behaviors of their parents or teachers. To avoid these prob-lems, they recommend that developmentalists consider reorienting their data collec-tion strategies to take advantage of real or “natural” experiments that produceexogenous variation in family and contextual variables of interest.

John H. Laub and Robert J. Sampson note that a key instance of the challenge indevelopmental science—to integrate diverse theories and methods—is to bridgethe divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Using the study ofcrime over the life course as a sample case, they describe the various strategies theyhave used to synthesize quantitative and qualitative data in the service of under-standing the processes of life course continuity and change.

Finally, Elliot G. Mishler addresses the dilemma in the human sciences betweenbelieving there is an objective reality to discover and the fact that information

6 LERNER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

52 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

about this reality often comes already organized into narrative forms. In addition,different researchers may disagree about what their findings mean and tell us dif-ferent stories about what they claim are the same events; that is, they may create“restories.” Using the study of identity development as a sample case, he providesa frame for using historical methods to constitute restories of the self.

The articles in this issue reflect several of the cutting-edge advances beingmade within developmental science by scholars from multiple disciplines whoare interested in enhancing the methodological tools available in researchaimed at understanding person–context relations across the life span. Therange and quality of the methods presented in these articles attest to the richand vibrant character of the contemporary developmental scholarship pertinentto modeling and analyzing data about the complex and dynamic trajectories ofhuman life.

REFERENCES

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psy-chology. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1029–1144). New York: Wiley.

Cairns, R. B. (1998). The making of developmental psychology. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M.Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development(5th ed., pp. 419–448). New York: Wiley.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classroomsfor young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goalsand cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Byrnes, J. (2003). Cognitive development in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner,M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6. Developmental psychology(pp. 325–350). New York: Wiley.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1980). Adolescence in historical perspective. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbooks of ado-lescent psychology (pp. 3–46). New York: Wiley.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course and human development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M.Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development(5th ed., pp. 939–991). New York: Wiley.

Elder, G. H., Jr., Modell, J., & Parke, R. D. (1993). Studying children in a changing world. In G. H. El-der Jr., J. Modell, & R.D. Parke (Eds.), Children in time and place: Developmental and historical in-sights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, R. M. (Ed). (1998). Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human devel-opment. (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (1998). Person-context interaction theories. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human devel-opment (5th ed., pp. 685–759). New York: Wiley.

Nesselroade, J. R., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (1979). Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and de-velopment. New York: Academic Press.

STUDYING LIVES IN CONTEXT 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

52 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014