Promoting children's mental health in disadvantaged areas: profiles of fathers.

Thirty inner-city fathers of preschoolers described how they see their role in promoting their children's mental health. Fifteen were very involved fathers with a strong sense of competence, and 15 were uninvolved fathers with a weak sense of competence. Through qualitative analysis of the interviews, we developed a typology consisting of five profiles of fathers. The fathers had two contrasting concepts of their children's mental health: one focused on fitting into society and meeting expectations, the other on expressing individuality and independence. The implications for promoting fathers' involvement and working with fathers are explored.

Key Words: fatherhood, mental health, socialization, childhood, disadvantaged area

**********

Many authors underscore the importance of parental influence on the socialization of children related to health (Bush & Iannotti, 1988; Mechanic, 1980; Pratt, 1976; Roberts & McElreath, 1992; Tinsley, 1992), the process through which children acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes making them capable of "managing" their physical or mental health (Jutras & Bisson, 1994). Yet because researchers consider mothers to be primarily responsible for health care within the family (Bailey, 1990; Cresson & Pitrou, 1991; Graham, 1984; Phipps, 1991), very little is known about fathers and how they foster their children's health. Recent research nonetheless clearly shows that father's involvement is crucial to their children's health and welfare (see literature reviews by Biller & Solomon, 1986; Lamb, 1995; Lamb, Pleck, & Levine, 1985; Phares, 1999; Radin & Russell, 1983; Turcotte, Dubeau, Bolte, & Paquette, 2001) and sometimes even protects against abuse and neglect (Biller & Solomon, 1986; Egeland, Jacobitz, & Sroufe, 1988; Quinton, Rutter, & Liddle, 1984; Turcotte, Dubeau, Bolte, & Paquette, 2001).

The comparison between fathers and mothers is the usual paradigm of research on fathering (Le Camus & Zaouche-Gaudron, 1998), so few researchers until now have addressed differences among fathers. Research on fathers must now explore the uniqueness of the father's contribution and the differences between individuals without reference to mothers (Le Camus & Zaouche-Gaudron, 1998; Palkovitz, 1997; Pedersen, 1981). Typologies of fathers are one way to do this. The two most commonly identified types in the literature are traditional fathers and involved fathers (Queniart, 2000; Le Camus & Zaouche-Gaudron, 1998; McBride & Darragh, 1995; Pedersen, 1981). Jain, Belsky, and Crnic (1996) distinguish two subtypes of traditional fathers, disciplinarians and uninvolved fathers, and two subtypes of involved fathers, caretakers and playmates-teachers. Along with stimulative fathers, Paquette and his colleagues (2000) distinguish between authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive fathers, identified earlier by Baumrind (1966, 1967, cited in Paquette, Bolte, Turcotte, Dubeau, & Bouchard, 2000).

There is thus a pressing need for research on men's unique contribution. New studies on variations between fathers should, however, go beyond measuring parenting behavior to consider fathers as complex individuals who think and feel as well as act (Jain, Belsky, & Crnic, 1996; Palm, 1997). So far, few researchers have been interested in the meaning that fathers themselves attribute to fatherhood (Lamb, 2000). Very little is known, either, about the reality of fathers in disadvantaged areas (Cabrera & Peters, 2000; Marsiglio & Cohan, 2000). The rare studies of such fathers emphasize negative conduct, such as the impact of their absence or nonpayment of child support (Cabrera & Peters, 2000; Phares, 1999). Yet if we are to broaden our understanding of the causes, nature, and consequences of paternal involvement, we must understand how the men from various milieus view fatherhood (Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000).

In order to address such gaps in the literature, this study looks at how fathers of preschoolers in low-income areas think and talk about their role in socializing their children with regard to mental health. More specifically, its goal is to identify various profiles of fathers according to their role in fostering their children's mental health. The little progress made in advancing knowledge in this area justifies a qualitative approach, which many feel is the best strategy for discovering and exploring new avenues of research (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

This study looks at not just the content and method of health socialization, but also the conditions in which the process takes place. Goodnow and Collins (1990) attribute the origin of parents' ideas and practices to two distinct sources: direct experience with children and cultural influences. In this study, measures of fathers' involvement and feelings of competence serve to operationalize the concept of direct experience. Parental involvement and feelings of competence are related concepts, both theoretically and empirically, as direct experience of success in a task is the chief source of feelings of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Lamb, 1995; Masse, 1991; Turcotte, Dubeau, Bolte, & Paquette, 2001). Moreover, degrees of involvement and feelings of competence are both associated with variations in which tasks are done and how they are performed (Ehrensaft, 1995; Lamb, 1995; Queniart, 2000). Parents with strong feelings of competence generally adopt better, more appropriate childrearing practices than parents who do not feel very competent (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). The comparison between very involved fathers with strong feelings of competence and uninvolved fathers with weak feelings of competence may reveal differences in mental-health socialization.

METHOD

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

Thirty fathers from two-parent families with at least one child between the ages of three and five took part in the study. They were either biological fathers or father figures (having lived with the child for at least a year), all of them ethno-culturally French-speaking Quebeckers. Tables 1 and 2 show their socio-demographic characteristics.

This sample of 30 fathers was drawn from an independent quantitative survey in which 250 parents (fathers and mothers) recruited from a representative sample of the population of two inner-city neighborhoods answered a series of questionnaires on their family lives (see Bouchard, 1996). The participants were interviewed at home and responded orally to a series of questionnaires (participation rate = 20%), including the Montreal Father's Involvement Questionnaire (MFIQ) and the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSCS). The family was then given Can$20 as compensation for the interview, which lasted an average of two hours.

Of the 250 fathers and mothers who took part in the survey, 116 fathers of children aged three to five agreed to be contacted again to take part in another study. The percentile rankings of those fathers' scores on the MFIQ and the PSCS at the time of the survey allowed the creation of two contrasting groups, constituting a maximum-variation sample (see Patton, 1990): (a) a group of very involved fathers with a strong sense of competence (n = 28, participation rate = 88%) and (b) another group of uninvolved fathers with a weak sense of competence (n = 31, participation rate = 50%). The fathers were contacted at random until 15 from each group agreed to be interviewed about their experience as parents. The interviews took place in their homes or at the university. The interviews, which lasted an average of 45 minutes, were tape recorded. The fathers were given Can$25 as compensation.

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS AND INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The Montreal Father's Involvement Questionnaire. The MFIQ covers various spheres of fathering, both direct, such as caring for the child, and indirect, such as planning activities. The 31 items assess the absolute or relative frequency of tasks or actions performed by fathers under eight headings: basic care, availability/accompaniment, discipline/socialization, talking about child, planning/initiation, support/affection, playing, and teaching. Internal consistency and stability over time are satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha = .82; r = .80 on test-retest a month apart). Two groups of experts confirmed the validity of the content. Verification of correlations between the answers of 225 fathers to the MFIQ and variables associated theoretically with father's involvement also partially confirm the validity. Last, the MFIQ results are not correlated to a measure of social desirability (see Dufour, Bolte, Begin, Paquette, & Bouchard, 1998, for the instrument, its stages of development, and its correlates).

The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale. The PSCS assesses parents' perception of their own competence (Gibaud-Wallston, 1977; we used the French version translated and adapted by Bolte, 1994). The PSCS consists of 20 items, each rated on a six-point Likert-type scale. Internal consistency of the overall score (alpha = .81) and of the scores on all three scales are acceptable (alpha = .78 for parenting satisfaction; .74 for parenting efficacy; .72 for motivation/appreciation). The original English version is correlated with a self-esteem rating (r = .43; p < .01; Gibaud-Wallston, 1977), and the French version is correlated with a parenting attitude scale measuring the parent's satisfaction with his or her child and the relationship between them (r = .60; Bolte, 1994). Experts have confirmed the validity of the content (Bolte, 1994).

Interview protocol. The interview protocol comprised 40 standardized, open-ended questions on the following topics:

1. Conception of children's mental health. For example, "How do you know when a child of that age is developing properly and happily?"

2. Conception of father's role. For example, "In concrete terms, what does being a father mean to you when it comes to your children's well-being?"

3. Subjective assessment of father's role. For example, "What do you like least about being a father?"

4. Parenting practices. For example, "How do you show your child how to (do something mentioned by the father)?"

5. Perception of neighborhood. For example, "In your neighborhood, what can you think of that is good for your children's balance and well-being?"

6. Requests for help and discussions about their role as fathers. For example, "Do you talk about (child's name) with your friends and family about how (he or she) is doing?"

DATA ANALYSIS

The qualitative data analysis was done in two stages. The interview material first underwent a descriptive analysis: a horizontal, or interparticipant, analysis of all the answers to the same interview question (see Dufour, 2001, for a detailed description). There were three steps to this preliminary analysis:

1. Content analysis (see L'Ecuyer, 1990; Patton, 1990), which organizes and simplifies the verbatim remarks of participants into a limited number of mutually exclusive, univocal, and homogeneous categories.. From a close reading of theinterview material, as many categories as necessary are created to cover all responses to the question being analyzed; all the categories together constitute the coding form for the question. Coding then consists of placing each response in a single category. This is done for each interview question.

2. Calculation of interjudge agreement, in which, for each question's coding form, the responses from six interviews are recoded by an independent judge. The kappas varied between 1 and .73 (median kappa = .83).

3. Extraction of main topics. We tried to come up with the most synthetic description possible of each of the six interview topics to serve as a unifying concept. Each main topic incorporates all the categories relevant to that topic and generally combines several coding forms (see Table 3 for a description of the six topics).0To illustrate, let us look at the process leading to the extraction of the points under the main topic, "conception of mental health." After performing the content analysis, we noted that the coding categories, "mental-health criteria" and "childrearing goals," covered similar concepts. We therefore merged them and re-divided them into two contrasting categories: "encouraging expression of individuality/independence" and "learning to fit in/meet expectations." Depending on the dominant conception he expressed, each father was placed at one extreme or the other of the spectrum for the topic, or in the middle.

The second degree of data analysis entailed developing a typology of fathers. The objective was to define profiles of different kinds of fathers. The typology is a vertical, or intraparticipant, analysis, in that the combination of responses in a single interview is analyzed. There were four steps to the analysis:

1. Establishing an individual profile, which specifies the participant's position with regard to the six main topics identified in the previous stage (for example, encouraging expression of individuality/independence for conception of mental health, neighborhood perceived as toxic to children, etc.). Thirty profile sheets, one for each participant, were filled in.

2. Calculating degree of association between participants, which indicates how similar or dissimilar any two participants are in terms of the main topics. The degree is scored on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 meaning that two participants are different for all main topics and 6 similar for all main topics. By way of illustration, Table 4 is an extract of a cross-tabulation table showing the degree of association among all participants. Participants 24 and 31 have a degree of association of 5, meaning that they are very similar, because they are similar on five main topics. By way of contrast, participants 24 and 68 are very different, because they have only one main topic in common (degree of association0of 1).

3. Grouping similar fathers, to put together the fathers most similar to each other (degree of association 4, 5, or 6) and isolate dissimilar fathers (degree of association 0 or 1). In this way we created five fairly homogeneous groups of fathers.

4. Conducting comparative analysis of groups of fathers, which first allowed us to identify the dominant characteristics of each group (i.e., characteristics shared by most fathers in each group). The two-typology axes were then established. The first axis is the diversity of parenting practices (i.e., number of different strategies), as most fathers in each group were in the same position on this main topic (not very, fairly, or highly diverse). The second concerns the fathers' attitudes toward childrearing. Proactive attitude characterizes very involved fathers with a strong sense of competence; reactive attitude characterizes uninvolved fathers with a weak sense of competence. The five groups of fathers were finally organized according to these two independent axes (see Table 5).

RESULTS

REACTIVE FATHERS

Table 3 lists the characteristics of reactive fathers. Most of them are uninvolved fathers with a weak sense of parenting competence. They conceive of their children's mental health chiefly in terms of their present and future ability to fit into society and meet expectations. They are neither particularly comfortable nor uncomfortable in their role as fathers, which they see as requiring them to be available, provide affection, meet their children's basic needs, and socialize them. Most of the fathers in this group have a limited repertoire of childrearing practices. Reactive fathers include all the "insecure" fathers, who rely on a range of sources for support, information, reassurance, and advice. They do not share any particular point of view on threats that their neighborhood might present to children's well-being. There are two profiles of reactive fathers: family men and worried fathers, examples of which follow.

Family men. Paul is typical of the family men, similar to the traditional fathers described by Queniart (2000), Le Camus and Zaoucbe-Gaudron (1998) and Pedersen (1981). He is not a very involved father and is not sure of his parenting skills. Paul is not too concerned about this role, and he often repeats that he is proud of being a father. In his family, choices are made based on the children, sometimes even to the detriment of the parents. His role as a parent goes hand in hand with that of his wife: often when Paul speaks of his role as a father, he says "we," rarely "I." In short, the family is a central value in Paul's life.

   Whenever we buy anything, it's not really [for] the whole family....
   We wouldn't think of getting a babysitter so we could go out. If ...
   we go out to eat, we all go out. Otherwise, we don't go.... They
   hardly ever have a babysitter. They come with us everywhere.

Worried fathers. Doubt, questioning, and guilt run through the interviews with the worried fathers: "I often question what I'm doing, I want to change myself [and] my way of dealing with them [the children]." In fact, several of these men want to avoid acting like their own fathers:

   My father ... passed on to me his positive and negative sides. The
   way I see things with my son ..., it's to pass on the torch in
   better shape than when I received it.... Things ... [that] made me
   suffer or are negative, I try not to pass on, because I know that it
   can ... interfere with his personal and professional development.

These men perceive their neighborhood as extremely toxic to children; some even plan to move away:

   I don't like the neighborhood ... because it's rough. I see kids ...
   swearing in the street and smoking cigarettes. I'm not saying that
   my daughter will do any better, but I don't want her seeing that
   kind of thing. We should move out of town.... There's a lot of
   [people living on] welfare around here. I ... think there are a lot
   of children left to themselves.... They don't have regular
   mealtimes, they don't have regular bedtimes.... they don't have
   enough limits.

PROACTIVE FATHERS

Table 3 lists the characteristics of proactive fathers, a group that includes the vast majority of highly involved fathers with a strong sense of competence. These men see children's mental health both in terms of their ability to fit into society and meet expectations and in terms of their independence and expression of individuality. They are generally quite comfortable in their role as fathers, which to them consists mainly of being very available to their children, providing affection, and socializing them well. These fathers employ a wide variety of childrearing practices. The group includes most of the "candid" fathers, who gain social and emotional support and companionship from their discussions of parenting, and all the "practical" fathers, who derive instrumental support and information from their discussions. The proactive fathers do not express a particularly favorable or unfavorable opinion on the influence of their neighborhood on their children's well-being. Beyond their similarities, these fathers have quite varied repertoires of childrearing practices and have different ideas about their role. The parenting practices of accommodating fathers are not very diverse, and these fathers talk mostly about how comfortable they are in their role. Guiding fathers, whose parenting practices are fairly diverse, see themselves first and foremost as their children's coaches. Pragmatic fathers, whose parenting practices are highly diverse, talk about a concrete, immediate experience of fatherhood, rooted in daily life. Now let us look at men who fit the profiles of the three types of proactive fathers that our analyses revealed.

Accommodating fathers. Accommodating fathers are comfortable with being parents and do not worry too much about it. Jacques, for example, says that he is very involved and feels very competent as a father. His pride in his children and the importance of modeling in his childrearing practices are the two main topics of his conversation with the interviewer. He often says that his children's good behavior reflects his parenting skills: "Seeing him do the same things we do is important to me. Because I know that when other people look at a child, what they see is [...] the parent."

Jacques feels especially comfortable as a father. Of course, he reports a few problems, but his positive emotions clearly dominate. He feels that he has some good qualities for childrearing, including patience. Jacques feels no need to seek information on childrearing and considers that he lives in "a good neighborhood for children."

Guiding fathers. Guiding fathers see themselves first and foremost as advisors to their children: "Being a father means ... being a guide, not letting [the child] run things or do whatever he wants." These men have thought a fair bit about their role as parents and are quite introspective. Thus Yvon is "very comfortable" being a father and has plenty to say on the subject. The child's free will and respect for her needs are central to his vision of childrearing:

   The parent's role [is] to listen, ... but not listening while saying
   "I'll give it to you." It's more being someone [who says,] "Here's
   my hand.... I'm holding out my hand, take it or leave it. It's your
   choice, I can't make you." ... If I encourage her to take it, I may
   turn her off, too. It's better when it's her own idea. But if you
   don't listen to her needs, you'll never know what you're holding out
   your hand to.

Pragmatic fathers. Joel provides a good illustration of pragmatic fathers, who are focused on their immediate experience as parents and its challenges. These fathers characteristically seek out information and instrumental support from an informal network and the mass media. Joel reports "always" feeling a need to find out more about parenting skills or children's development.

   I find out mostly from books [about] how to raise your child from
   this age to that age ..., what to show your child at this age or
   that age, all that.... I often spend an hour or two reading up....
   They have some good ideas.

He says he talks to his wife a lot about his daughter and his neighbors help him find out where his daughter is and how she is doing, so he finds there are practical advantages in talking to friends and family.

DISCUSSION

Many men are rethinking male identity, and fatherhood has been turned upside down. As the proposed typology shows, there is no longer just one way of fathering, but many (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; Griswold, 1997; Marsiglio & Cohan, 2000; Queniart, 2000). The profiles we have identified are in a way more specific subtypes of the two models of contemporary fathers identified in the literature: traditional fathers and new fathers.

TRADITIONAL FATHERHOOD, UPDATED

Many men still think about fatherhood in terms of the paterfamilias, or traditional father (Queniart, 2000; Le Camus & Zaouche-Gaudron, 1998; Pedersen, 1981). Reactive fathers in this study resemble them in their lack of involvement, weak sense of parental competence, and main goal of having their children fit into society and meet expectations. These reactive fathers are different from the traditional fathers described in the literature in several ways, however. First, all the fathers interviewed define their role by the need to be there and provide affection. Second, contrary to expectations, reactive fathers are no more likely than proactive fathers to mention their role as breadwinner in defining their role. Third, the reactive fathers more often consider providing basic care to be part of their role than do the others.

These observations concur with those of Barclay and Lupton (1999), who emphasize that most of the fathers in their study seemed to have incorporated the aspects of caring and availability central to the new idea of fatherhood into their role. These aspects may now be a common denominator to various conceptions of fatherhood, whether traditional or new. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the fathers interviewed still talk about themselves as breadwinners, as did the participants in Ranes and McBride's study (2000). Yet the function of breadwinner is less and less recognized and valued in the popular media or by experts (Lupton & Barclay, 1997; Menard, 1999). Like the fathers interviewed by Super and Harkness (1992, cited in Hewlett, 2000), these inner-city men talk about the most worrisome aspects of their role as fathers (for example, economic support) and they omit, at least partially, the most obvious aspects that they quite likely take for granted (for example, basic care, for the proactive fathers).

If the "reactivity" of the family men can be seen essentially in their relationship with their children (lack of involvement and weak sense of competence, limited repertoire of childrearing strategies), that of the worried fathers shows up mainly in their relationship with the physical and human environment (neighborhood perceived as toxic, seeking reassurance through use of social support and resources). Several of their characteristics suggest that the worried fathers have assimilated at least some of the new ideas on fatherhood (parental involvement, values focused on child development, providing a healthy environment, etc.), making them the most reformist of the reactive fathers. Yet they are not convinced that they have what they need to do their job: they are not particularly comfortable in their parental role, and they feel the need for constant reinforcement. They seem thus to be halfway between two conceptions of fatherhood, neither totally traditional nor totally "new fathers." Although family men no longer represent the only style of fathering, they are supported by a secular family tradition that is still alive and well in contemporary society. As to the new fathers, they draw support from experts and the media, an entire society that approves of and validates their style of fathering (Wilkie, 1993, cited in Cabrera & Peters, 2000). The worried fathers in our study seem to be stuck between the two models. Grappling with great feelings of guilt, haunted by the image of the absent father (possibly their own), filled with the desire to be an involved father, but paralyzed by fear of not being up to the job--are these men the betrayed heirs of the new model of fatherhood? Yet, as Snarey suggests (1997, p. xi), "... asking one's self the question, 'Am I a good father?' represents one of the most widespread and important acts of ethical self-reflection among men."

THE NEW FATHERHOOD: DOES IT GET EASIER AS YOU GO ALONG?

Beyond the traditional model, fathers now have another way of being involved with their children. A high degree of direct involvement with their children and a fair division of household and childrearing responsibilities with the mother characterize what have come to be called "new men," "new fathers," or "involved fathers" (Queniart, 2000; Pedersen, 1981), whom the proactive fathers of our study resemble.

Few researchers distinguish between different types of involved fathers (see Jain, Belsky, & Crnic, 1996; Le Camus & Zaouche-Gaudron, 1998). In fact, the literature on fatherhood still does not take much notice of proactive fathers. While worried fathers are the most reformist of the reactive fathers, accommodating fathers could be called the most conservative of the proactive fathers. In some way, they resemble the family men (see Table 5). On the other hand, accommodating fathers say they are very involved, report a strong sense of competence, and are extremely comfortable in their role as fathers. They may be traditional fathers who have made the leap into involvement and derive obvious confidence and enjoyment from it.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROLE OF FATHER IN DISADVANTAGED AREAS

The various types of fathers described may also be seen from the point of view of adult development. Fathers' perceptions of their role vary in complexity, both with regard to the dimensions they see in it and the actions associated with it. For instance, while family men, who are more traditional, see themselves as more distant from the child, feel less able to fulfill their role properly, and report less diversity in their parenting practices, guiding fathers feel competent and involved and define their role in a more varied, more active way, closer to the child, recalling Bronfenbrenner's definition of human development (1979, p. 27):

   Human development is the process through which the growing person
   acquires a more extended[,] differentiated, and valid conception of
   the ecological environment, and becomes motivated and able to engage
   in activities that reveal the properties of, sustain, or restructure
   that environment at levels of similar or greater complexity in form
   and content.

By applying these principles to speculation on the next transformation of the role of the father, it is possible to imagine a new generation of fathers: politicized fathers, characterized by their psychological and collective empowerment. According to Zimmerman and Warschausky (1998, p. 6), "empowered individuals would be expected to feel a sense of control, understand their sociopolitical environment, and become active in efforts to exert control."

Particularly in disadvantaged areas, this perception of one's own power as a parent seems to be a promising avenue for attenuating the potentially harmful effects of the environment on children's development. In effect,

   Without the belief that people can effect real change in their
   lives, there is little or no incentive to try; and, as the
   literature ... illustrates, parental perceptions of personal
   efficacy may represent the primary means through which individuals
   are able to transform poor living conditions into environments
   conducive to child growth. In ecologically disadvantaged contexts,
   the culture of poverty conveys a message of reduced opportunity to
   exert personal influence in many facets of life that individuals
   living in more prosperous communities take for granted. A collective
   sense of powerlessness may also impair personal efficacy in such
   environments and the cultural climate may also need to be addressed
   in efforts to help parents living troubled lives achieve a sense of
   personal effectance. (Coleman & Karraker, 1997, pp. 71-72)

In fact, fathers like this can already be found among the participants in our study. Denis, for example, managed to have the time of meetings at work changed so he could spend evenings with his children, while Donald mobilized other adults to set up a friendly, safe play area for neighborhood children:

   It's a laneway that had a lot of traffic. The citizens got together,
   we planted trees and flowers, we created a nice, ... safe place
   where children could play.... I figure that if the services don't
   exist, we have to create them. Let's get together and create them
   with outside resources or among ourselves. I think we have the power
   to do that and succeed.... It's up to us to get rid of the bad
   things, and it's up to us to preserve and appreciate the good
   things. We have to get involved.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

Some biases reduce the internal validity of the study. First, refusals to be interviewed and dropouts (moved, changed telephone numbers, etc.) were quite a bit higher in the group of uninvolved fathers with weak feelings of competence than in the other group. It is possible that these men had different characteristics than those who firmly agreed to take part in the study. Also, the research topic is liable to arouse strong social desirability (Robert, 1988). As behavior was self-reported, it does not necessarily correspond to the actual parenting practices of the men interviewed. Finally, in terms of external validity, replication and generalization of results to other populations or situations are limited due to the homogeneity and small size of the sample. As the purpose of a qualitative sample is not to be statistically representative, we cannot claim that these conclusions apply to all fathers. The effect of the characteristics of the children themselves on the fathers' involvement and feelings of competence was not taken into consideration, either. Although we cannot generalize, we can extrapolate, that is, suggest possible applications of our findings to other similar, but not identical, situations (Patton, 1990). Extrapolations are logical and centered on lessons to be learned, rather than based on statistical, probabilistic rules (Patton, 1990).

The study's greatest strengths were its internal validity and the research protocol. The psychometric qualities of the instruments used and the statistical representativeness of the sample are positive aspects of an independent quantitative survey. The principle advantage of this survey was to gather a great deal of information about a large number of fathers in a short time, which also made it easier to control the heterogeneity of participants with regard to certain criteria and their homogeneity with regard to others.

The qualitative study, the main subject of this paper, has its own strengths. Miles and Huberman (1994) point out that the qualitative approach is, in the view of many, the best strategy for discovering and exploring new avenues of research, such as mental-health socialization. It can be used to study extensively and precisely what people do, know, think, and feel (Patton, 1980). The use of open-ended, contextualized interview questions is a promising method for studying parental attitudes toward childrearing (Sigel, 1992), one that is likely to be in keeping with the parents' natural or spontaneous vocabulary and categories (Murphey, 1992).

Constitution of the qualitative sample also benefited from the independent quantitative survey, which allowed us to contrast subgroups on selected variables (involvement and feelings of competence) while at the same time confirming the socio-demographic similarities among participants. The maximum-variation sample allowed us to create a very good, detailed description of each case, which is useful for documenting the uniqueness of each father's experience. It allows us to explore the most widely differing fathering experiences within a specific group. Finally, it allows us to identify regularities among fathers, the importance of which was revealed despite the heterogeneity of the respondents (Patton, 1980). The size of the qualitative sample is adequate (Deslauriers, 1991; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1980). Random selection of participants from the subgroups and controlling the sex of the children also allowed us to eliminate two potential biases. Calculation of interjudge agreement increases the credibility of the categorization, while calculation of the degree of association between participants enhances the credibility of the typology. Finally, the study is ecologically valid, as it deals with the meaning that fathers themselves give to their experience (Robert, 1988).

CONCLUSION

This study, in looking at the active role that fathers take in promoting their children's well-being, clearly fits into the theoretical framework of what is known as "generative fathering." Unlike the deficit paradigm, which emphasizes what fathers are not, have not, or do not (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997; Pedersen, 1981), this approach acknowledges that most fathers not only want to take care of their children properly, but are able to do so (see Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997; Snarey, 1993). Our results suggest that fathering in a disadvantaged inner-city environment takes not one, but many, forms, and that these forms are stages in a personal and cultural evolution of fatherhood.

The results of this study also provide reference points for promoting fathers' involvement among men in low-income neighborhoods. Virtually all family aid or education programs in this milieu are designed for mothers (Cabrera & Peters, 2000). A better understanding of the target groups of promotional and educational efforts will help with more effective planning (Robert & McElreath, 1992). The most effective parenting education and support programs are adaptable to the diversity of representations of parenting and the characteristics of the communities in which they are to be used (Powell, 1993). "One program size does not fit all" (Powell, 1993, p. 89). Hewlett (2000) underscores the risks associated with promoting the same images of fatherhood and the same messages nationwide: "We know relatively little about the complex nature of fathers' roles, and any national policy for fathers must respect the enormous socio-economic, cultural, and demographic diversity" (p. 71). Projects to encourage and maintain fathers' involvement must acknowledge existing conceptions. The profiles identified in this study indicate different types of involvement, each with its own particular strengths that could be maintained and reinforced by promotional programs.

The diversity of values transmitted by fathers to their children also raises an important question: just what exactly are programs promoting? The discrepancies between the values of outreach workers and those of some fathers often raise ethical problems that cannot be ignored (Boutin, 1990). For instance, the conception of mental health that focuses on fitting into society and meeting expectations is not reflected in expert opinions. Yet this vision of child welfare is alive and well. How can men who hold this view be supported as fathers? How receptive are they to the messages transmitted by outreach workers? Fathers' anxiety and guilt are two more subjects that should be recognized and considered in programs.

In conclusion, fatherhood is a reality in transformation. No single definition of ideal fatherhood could be recognized by all fathers. Instead, we should underline the richness and diversity of fathering.

Table 1
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Participants

                                         Mean          SD

Age (years)                               34            6
Education (years)                         13            3
Married or living together (years)         8            4
Annual household income (Can$)       30,000-39,000   20,000


Table 2
Number of Hours of Paid Work per Week (Participants and Wives)

                       Fathers      Mothers

Less than 10               0            1
10 to 20                   0            1
21 to 30                   1            3
31 to 40                  16           10
41 or more                10            2
Not applicable             3           13


Table 3
Distribution of Reactive and Proactive Fathers by Main Interview Topics
and Sample Groups

                                                         Fathers
Main topic           Position                      Reactive   Proactive

Conception of        Fit into society/meet             6          2
children's mental      expectations
health               Fit into society/meet
                       expectations in AND
                       express individuality/          4          9
                       independence
                     Express individuality/            4          5
                       independence

Conception of        Availability and affection
  father's role        alone                           2          3
                     Availability and affection,
                       focused on basic needs          3          4
                     Availability and affection,
                       focused on socialization        0          7
                     Availability and affection,
                       focused on basic needs
                       and socialization               6          1
                     Availability and affection,
                       focused on helping at           3          1
                       home

Subjective           Negative                          1          3
  assessment of      Neutral                          12          3
  father's role      Positive                          1         l0
  Diversity of       Not very diverse                  8          4
  parenting          Fairly diverse                    1          5
  practices          Highly diverse                    5          7

Requests for help    Candid: Formal and
  and discussions      informal networks are
                       their main sources of
                       companionship and social
                       and emotional support           6         11
                     Insecure: Formal and
                       informal networks and
                       mass media are their main
                       sources of social and
                       emotional support,
                       validation and
                       information                     8          0
                     Practical: Informal network
                       and mass media are their
                       main sources of
                       instrumental support and
                       information                     0          5

Perceived toxicity   Toxic: Most environmental
of neighborhood        factors unfavorable to
                       children                        6          5
                     Neutral: Equal number of
                       favorable and
                       unfavorable factors             3          5
                     Friendly: Most
                       environmental factors
                       favorable to children           5          6

Sample groups        Uninvolved, feel
                       incompetent                    10          5
                     Very involved, feel very
                       competent                       4         11


Table 4
Degree of Association Between Participants (excerpt)

Participant No.     24     31     68     88

24                  --      5      1      0
31                         --      1      0
68                                --      5
88                                       --


Table 5
Typology of Fathers

             Parenting practices
Attitude     Not very diverse

Reactive     Family men (n = 7)
             * Uninvolved, weak sense of competence
             * Candid or insecure, in request for help
             * Mental health focused exclusively on
               fitting in or on both individuality and
               fitting in
             * Friendly neighborhood
             * Subjective assessment of parenting
               role: neutral
             * Fathering: focused on basic needs and
               socialization

Proactive    Accommodating fathers (n = 7)
             * Highly involved, strong sense of competence
             * Candid, in request for help
             * Mental health focused both on individuality
               and fitting in or solely on fitting in
             * Subjective assessment of parenting
               role: positive
             * Fathering: focused on basic needs or
               on availability and affection alone

Attitude     Fairly diverse

Reactive

Proactive    Guiding fathers (n = 4)
             * Highly involved, strong sense of competence
             * Candid or practical, in request for help
             * Mental health focused on individuality
             * Neighborhood neutral
             * Subjective assessment of parenting
               role: positive

Attitude     Highly diverse

Reactive     Worried fathers (n = 7)
             * Insecure, in request for help
             * Mental health focused on individuality
             * Toxic neighborhood
             * Subjective assessment of parenting
               role: neutral

Proactive    Pragmatic fathers (n = 5)
             * Candid or practical, in request for help
             * Mental health focused both on individuality
               and fitting in
             * Neighborhood toxic or neutral
             * Subjective assessment of parenting
               role: positive or neutral
             * Fathering: focused on socialization

Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the first national symposium on the place and the role of fathers, Montreal, November 2000, and at the fifth international conference of the Organization for the Protection of Children's Rights, Dorval, Quebec, May 2002. Some of the work is included in Sarah Dufour's doctoral dissertation. The research was made possible in part thanks to a training grant from Health Canada's National Health Research and Development Program to the first author and a team grant from the Conseil quebecois de la recherche sociale to the second. The GRAVE-Ardec research team funded the translation of this paper.

REFERENCES

Bailey, W.T. (1990). Fathers' involvement in their children's healthcare. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152(3), 289-295.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barclay, L., & Lupton, D. (1999). The experience of new fatherhood: A socio-cultural analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 1013-1020.

Biller, H.B., & Solomon, R.S. (1986). Child maltreatment and paternal deprivation. A manifesto for research, prevention and treatment. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Bolte, C. (1994). L'evolution du sentiment de competence parentale chez les nouveaux parents d'enfants nes prematures [Evolution of the parenting sense of competence in new parents of premature babies]. Unpublished master's thesis, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Bouchard, C. (1996). Evaluation d'impact d'un module communautaire d'intervention pour promouvoir l'engagement paternel. Research grant application submitted in 1997-1998 to the Conseil quebecois de la recherche sociale. Laboratoire de recherche en ecologie humaine et sociale, Montreal, Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

Boutin G. (1990). Les programmes d'education parentale: questions methodologiques [Parental education programs: Methodology]. In S. Dansereau, B. Terrisse, & J.-M. Bouchard (Eds.), Education familiale et intervention precoce (pp. 129-137). Montreal: Agence d'Arc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bush, P.J., & Iannotti, R.J. (1988). Origins and stability of children's health beliefs relative to medicine use. Social Science and Medicine, 27, 345-352.

Cabrera, N.J., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Bradley, R.H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136.

Cabrera, N.J., & Peters, H.E. (2000). Public policies and father involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3), 295-314.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85.

Cresson, G., & Pitrou, A. (1991). The role of the family in creating and maintaining healthy lifestyles. In B. Badura & I. Kickbusch (Eds.), Health promotion research. Towards a new social epidemiology (pp. 213-227). Copenhagen: World Health Organization.

Deslauriers, J. P. (1991). Recherche qualitative: guide pratique. Montreal: Thema.

Dufour, S. (2001). La sante mentale des enfants de milieux defavorises. Conceptions, pratiques et profils de peres [Mental health in socially disadvantaged children: Conceptions, practices and profiles of fathers]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Dufour, S., Bolte, C., Begin, J., Paquette, D., & Bouchard, C. (1998, July). The Montreal Father's Involvement Questionnaire: Development and preliminary psychometric properties. Poster presented at the XVth meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development (ISSBD), Berne, Switzerland.

Egeland, B., Jacobitz, D., & Sroufe, L.A. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088.

Ehrensaft, D. (1995). Bringing in fathers: The reconstruction of mothering. In J.L. Shapiro, M.J. Diamond, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Becoming a father (pp. 43-59). New York: Springer.

Gibaud-Wallston, J.A. (1977). Self-esteem and situational stress: Factors related to the sense of competence in new parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College of Teachers, University of Rhode Island.

Goodnow, J.J., & Collins, W.A. (1990). Development according to parents. The nature, sources and consequences of parents' ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, H. (1984). Women, health and the family. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Griswold, R.L. (1997). Generative fathering: A historical perspective. In A.J. Hawkins & D.C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 71-86). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hawkins, A.J., & Dollahite, D.C. (1997). Beyond the role-inadequacy perspective of fathering. In A.J. Hawkins & D.C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hewlett, B.S. (2000). Culture, history, and sex: Anthropological contributions to conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3), 59-73.

Jain, A., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1996). Beyond fathering behaviors: Types of dads. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 431-442.

Jutras, S., & Bisson, J. (1994). La conception de la sante chez des enfants de 5 a 12 ans. Quelques cles pour la promotion de la sante [Health concepts in 5 to 12 years old children. Some tips for health promotion]. Sciences sociales et sante 12(2), 5-37.

L'Ecuyer, R. (1990). Methodologie de l'analyse developpementale de contenu. Methode GPS et concept de soi. Sillery, Quebec: Presses de l'Universite du Quebec.

Lamb, M.E. (1995). The changing roles of fathers. In J.L. Shapiro, M.J. Diamond, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Becoming a father (pp. 18-35). New York: Springer.

Lamb, M.E., Pleck, J.H., & Levine, J.A. (1985). The role of the father in child development. The effects of increased paternal involvement. In B.S. Lahey & E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (pp. 229-265). New York: Plenum.

Lamb, M.E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3), 23-42.

Le Camus, J., & Zaouche-Gaudron, C. (1998). La presence du pere aupres du jeune enfant: de l'implication accrue h l'implication congrue [Father presence in the life of a young child: From more involvment to pertinent involvement]. Psychiatrie de l'enfant, XLI(1), 297-319.

Lupton, D., & Barclay, L. (1997). Constructing fatherhood. Discourses and experiences. London: Sage.

Marsiglio, W., & Cohan, M. (2000). Contextualizing father involvement and paternal influence: Sociological and qualitative themes. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3), 75-95.

Marsiglio, W., Day, R.D., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications for conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3), 269-293.

Masse, R. (1995). Culture et sante publique: Les contributions de l'anthropologie a la prevention et a la promotion de la sante. Montreal: Gaetan Morin.

McBride, B.A., & Darragh, J. (1995). Interpreting the data on father involvement: Implications for parenting programs for men. Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76, 490-497.

Mechanic, D. (1980). Education, parental interest, and health perceptions and behavior. Inquiry, 17, 331-338.

Menard, A.-M. (1999). La vision du role paternel et les pratiques aupres des pores de milieux defavorises d'infirmieres oeuvrant dans les services de perinatalite en CLSC [Father's role in conception and practices with fathers from disadvantaged areas by CLSC perinatal nurses]. Unpublished master's thesis, Universite du Quebec h Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Murphey, D.A. (1992). Review. Constructing the child: Relations between parents' beliefs and child outcomes. Developmental Review, 12, 199-232.

Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing "involvement": Expanding conceptualizations of men's caring in contemporary families. In A.J. Hawkins & D.C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 200-216). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Palm, G.F. (1997). Promoting generative fathering through parent and family education. In A.J. Hawkins & D.C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 167-182). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Paquette, D., Bolte, C., Turcotte, G., Dubeau, D., & Bouchard, C. (2000). A new typology of fathering: Defining and associated variables. Infant and Child Development, 9, 213-230.

Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Pedersen, F.A. (1981). Father influences viewed in a family context. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Changing role of the father in child development (2nd ed., pp. 295-317). New York: Wiley.

Phares, V. (1999). "Poppa" psychology. The role of fathers in children's mental well-being. Westport: Praeger.

Phipps, S.A. (1991). Family systems functioning, family health roles, and utilization of physical health services. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 12(1), 23-41.

Powell, D.R. (1993). Supporting parent-child relationships in the early years: Lessons learned and yet to be learned. In T. H. Brubaker (Ed.), Family relations. Challenges for the future (pp. 79-97). Newbury Park: Sage.

Pratt, L. (1976). Family structure and effective health behavior: The energized family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Queniart, A. (2000). Qui sont les peres d'aujourd'hui? [Who are today's fathers?]. Interface, XXI(1), 35-41.

Quinton, D., Rutter, M., & Liddle, C. (1984). Institutional rearing, parenting difficulties, and marital support. Psychological Medicine, 14, 107-124.

Radin, N., & Russel, G. (1983). Increased father participation and child development outcomes. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy (pp. 191-218). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Ranes, T.R., & McBride, B.A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers' involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 347-366.

Robert, M. (1988). Fondements et etapes de la recherche scientifique en psychologie. St. Hyacinthe, Quebec: Edisem.

Roberts, M.C., & McElreath, L.H. (1992). The role of families in the prevention of physical and mental health problems. In T.J. Akamatsu, M.A. Parris Stephens, S.E. Hobfoll, & J.H. Crowther (Eds.), Family health psychology (pp. I-15). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Sigel, I.E. (1992). The belief-behavior connection: A resolvable dilemma? In I.E. Sigel, A.V. McGillicuddy-De Lisi, & J.J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (2nd ed., pp. 433-456). Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Snarey, J. (1997). Foreword. The next generation of work on fathering. In A.J. Hawkins & D.C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. ix-xii). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Tinsley, B.J. (1992). Multiple influences on the acquisition and socialization of children's health attitudes and behavior: An integrative review. Child Development, 63, 1043-1069.

Turcotte, G., Dubeau, D., Bolte, C., & Paquette, D. (2001). Pourquoi certain peres sont-ils plus engages que d'autres aupres de leurs enfants? Une revue des determinants de l'engagement paternal [Why are some fathers more involved than others? Review of father involvement influences]. Revue canadienne de psycho-education, 30(1), 65-91.

Zimmerman, M.A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for rehabilitation research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43(1), 3-16.

Correspondence should be sent to Sarah Dufour, a/s Camil Bouchard, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Departement de psychologie, C.P. 8888, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3C 3P8. Electronic mail: [e-mail].

SARAH DUFOUR Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada

CAMIL BOUCHARD Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada