Theoretical Approach

I’ll apologize in advance for sermonizing my own theoretical approach, but I offer it as an insight to the guiding reasons behind why and how I do what I do. I’ll say up front that I recognize that science is an endeavor of the many, and I appreciate the contributions of any sincere researcher- regardless of their theoretical orientation or topic of interest.

My interest in parenting is guided by the theoretical principles of Tinbergen and Lorenz. While these ethologists are best known for their studies of animal instinct, their theoretical approaches are far from being reductionist or biologically-determined. Indeed, my principle inspirations is drawn from Tinbergen’s four questions:

 

	Proximate (Immediate)	Ultimate (Historical)
How	Development	Evolution/Phylogeny
Why	Causation/Neural	Function

I have modified the table slightly to suit my own view of Tinbergen’s four questions.  They are:

1-     How does the behavior develop in the individual? To answer that question, use developmental psychology. 

2-     How did the behavior come to be through history? To answer that question, one must use evolutionary and cultural phylogeny/history. 

3-     Why does the behavior exist right now? To answer that question, one must examine immediate internal (neuroscience) and external (social/environmental psychology).

4-     Why is the individual doing that behavior in the grand scheme of behaviors? To answer that question, one must examine the evolutionary and cultural purposes of the behavior.

So for example, one could explain a parent feeding a newborn.  The parenting skills required develop through an individual lifespan, within a range of possibilities determined by the species biological capacities and cultural norms (e.g., it would be impossible for an average man to nurse a child due to biological reasons as well as strong cultural reasons).  So an individual learns that newborns need to be fed liquid foods.  Biologically, that’s all newborns can handle, and culturally, that’s all newborns are generally fed.  The individual is feeding the newborn liquid foods because hormones in their head are making them feel love for the infant, and the nurse beside them is giving them instructions. The individual is feeding the newborn liquid foods because food helps the infant survive, and infant survival is highly important biologically and culturally.

 

As you can see, that’s a very encompassing (if individually shallow) explanation of why an adult would feed a newborn.  In science, there is a general trade-off between the detailed understanding of the particulars of a behavior, and the ability to make “big-picture” explanations.  While most scientific progress is made through the daily grind of high-detail work, ultimate progress depends on being able to step back and integrate the answers to the four questions.  But, according to Lorenz:

 

“Many students of animal behavior have become so fascinated with its directedness, with the question, “What for” or “Toward what end?”, that they have quite forgotten to ask about its causal explanations.  Yet the great question…“How?” [is] quite as fascinating as the question “What for?- only [it] fascinate[s] a different kind of scientist. If wonder at the directedness of life is typical of the field student of nature, the quest for understanding causation is typical of the laboratory worker. It is a regrettable symptom of the limitations inherent to the human mind that very few scientists are able to keep both question in mind simultaneously.”  - Lorenz, 1978, p.122

 

Thus, Lorenz asks similar questions to Tinbergen, and it is again the answers to these multiple questions that I seek.  Therefore, my research spans a broad range of topics, using a broad range of approaches, to answer a broad range of questions. I suppose the bottom line is that my curiosity is too great to let me focus on only a single question!