The use of theory in sexuality research.

In his 1981 presidential address to the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Ira Reiss (1982) argued that no global discipline of sexual science had yet to emerge and that advances in our scientific understanding of human sexuality had been made chiefly in and would continue to arise from research in a variety of traditional academic disciplines. Reiss was criticized in some quarters (Moser, 1983) for his failure to recognize the important contributions of sexologists who had not been trained and were not working in traditional disciplines. Moser did acknowledge, however, that the distinctive theories and methodologies developed by sexologists needed to be more fully "delineated" (p. 195).

I have no interest in fully reviewing the debate between Reiss and Moser. However, a key feature of the argument presented by Reiss was his contention that the general goals of sexual science were best served by the specific scientific theories developed in traditional disciplines, such as biology, psychology, and sociology. Reiss maintained that the traditional disciplines had been the source of scientific sexual theory. For Reiss, theoretical explanations comprise the heart of science. Such explanations are what scientists do. This is a view shared by Kerlinger (1979), who went so far as to suggest that the purpose of science is theory.

In this sense, the status of any particular scientific area can be accurately assessed by an examination of the state of scientific theory in that area of study. This special issue of The Journal of Sex Research represents an attempt to review and evaluate sexual theory critically. It is, I believe, the first issue of a sexological journal to be devoted to an assessment of the use of theory in sexuality research and an evaluation of the status of various sexual theories. Compared to many other areas of scientific inquiry, it is fair to suggest that sexual theory is still in its infancy--both because relatively little sexuality research is oriented to testing theoretical hypotheses and because few empirically-tested theories with conceptual precision have yet to emerge.

In this opening article, I review the use of scientific theory in previous research, identify 25 classic examples of sexual theory, and compare the use of theory in sexuality research to several other areas of scientific investigation. However, before proceeding to that set of tasks, I present a conceptualization of scientific theory in general. This perspective includes a definition of theory and related terms, brief review of recent criticisms of what has come to be known as the positivist tradition of science, description of the components of theory, and set of criteria for evaluating theories. This framework provided a basis, in part, for the selection of the theories included in this issue. It also established guidelines for the authors of the articles to make comparable reviews of the various theories. Finally, it provided a perspective for the more general assessment of the status of scientific theory in sexuality research in the concluding article.

Metatheory--Conceptualiztions of Scientific Theory

Klein and Jurich (1993) argued that it is useful for practitioners to pause occasionally and reflect on the work done in their field. They recommend a process of analysis and evaluation, an inventory of the field--taking stock. In the case of a scientific field, this involves the assessment of research methods and theoretical models. This is an attempt to analyze and explain the field, including an identification of its strengths and weaknesses. Klein and Jurich emphasized the critical character of this self-evaluation. They used the term metatheory to describe the theoretical aspects of this process and defined it as "theorizing about the nature of theory" (p. 32). Metatheoretical analyses include several related activities: (a) identification of major schools of thought or theoretical perspectives, (b) critical evaluation of the meanings and structure of past and current theoretical explanations, (c) examination of theoretical trends, and (d) assessment of the "rules" for theory construction that have developed in the field (Klein & Jurich, 1993; Nye & Berardo, 1981). A similar view of metatheory has been advanced, where it is seen as a branch of the philosophy of science that is used to analyse the activities of scientists, as well as evaluate the nature of theoretical frameworks (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993).

A metatheoretical perspective is important to a full understanding of scientific theory in two ways. First, it helps us to reflect on the meaning of "theory" in different contexts. In everyday language, the word theory is commonly used to describe a hunch or a set of untested ideas. Even many professionals use the term to describe speculative works that are not supported by empirical evidence. This meaning differs substantially from what scientists mean by the term. Second, a metatheoretical perspective helps to identify and evaluate different types of theory. Scientists have defined a variety of types of theory (e.g., axiomatic, causal, set-of-laws) and have outlined different approaches to constructing theory (e.g., theory-then-research, research-then-theory, causal modeling). In fact, a number of conceptualizations or definitions of theory have been proposed (Doherty et al., 1993). For example, Mullins (1973) has presented an unusual approach to metatheory by organizing sociological theories by the intellectual leaders of a theoretical approach and the graduate programs that subsequently trained students in that theory.

By far, the most widely shared perspective has been a view that has come to be known as the positivist approach. In this tradition, scientific theory is viewed as a logically interrelated series of propositions that are used to specify the empirically meaningful relationships among a set of concepts (Babbie, 1995; Burr, 1973; Kerlinger, 1979; Klein & White, 1996; Martindale, 1988; Marx, 1963; Nye & Berardo, 1981; Reynolds, 1971; Runkel & McGrath, 1972; Sjoberg & Nett, 1968). I have presented this lengthy list of references to demonstrate that this particular definition of scientific theory has been widely shared for a considerable period of time.

Four dimensions of this positivist conceptualization of theory are worth noting. First, science has a tradition of basing its claims on the results of observation and experimentation, which is aimed at explaining and predicting specified phenomena (Babbie, 1995; Edwards, 1957; Marx, 1963; Reiss, 1982). In other words, scientific theory is subjected to empirical testing. Second, scientific theory is built around concepts, which have actually been described as the "building blocks" of theory (Babbie, 1995; Klein & White, 1996). A concept is an abstract, symbolic representation of an idea or phenomenon (Babbie, 1995; Klein & White, 1996; Marx, 1963; Nye & Berardo, 1981; Reynolds, 1971). Because concepts are employed to build theoretical explanations, issues of the clarity of definition, agreement among scientists about the meaning of the definition, and potential for measurement of the concept are always prime concerns (Klein & White, 1996).

The third dimension of this approach to theory concerns the use of propositions. Propositions constitute the heart of scientific theory. A theory is comprised of a series of propositions, each of which is a statement of some association between concepts (Babbie, 1995; Klein & White, 1996; Marx, 1963; Nye & Berardo, 1981; Reynolds, 1971). Various kinds of relationships (e.g., existence, correlational, causal) can be specified (Klein & White, 1996; Reynolds, 1971), but the key component of scientific explanations is the specification of relationships among concepts in the form of propositions. Some authors maintain that the assumptions about a theory may also be considered an important component (Klein & White, 1996; Nye & Berardo, 1981). Assumptions can be distinguished from propositions by the fact that assumptions, in the case of the human sciences, are more likely to delineate a set of general human characteristics, rather than specify a relationship between concepts. Assumptions also represent the underlying premises of the theory, and they are frequently untested.

Finally, theories are designed to explain particular phenomena. No single theory is intended to explain everything in the universe or about human beings. Rather, scientific theory is designed to use a designated set of concepts to explain a particular set of phenomena (Klein & White, 1996). As just one example, cognitive theories in psychology are designed to explain the process of cognition across situations. There is much about human beings that cognitive theories were never intended to explain, and they have no corresponding conceptual apparatus to explain other phenomena. The term mini-theory has been used to describe theories intended to explain specific, particular phenomena. Perhaps the classic example of a minitheory in sexuality is the Theory of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness (Reiss, 1967).

Some authors (Burr, 1973; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979; Nye & Berardo, 1981) have suggested that scientific theory can also be constructed through the use of explanatory or causal models. Typically, in this approach, little attention is paid to identifying underlying assumptions or defining variables in a conceptual way. Rather, researchers move directly to measuring variables and testing propositions (hypotheses) (Nye & Berardo, 1981). Examples in the area of sexuality research include causal models of sexual coercion (Allgeier, 1987) and child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1984).

Criticisms of the Positivist Philosophy

This positivist approach has been traced in the social sciences through Karl Popper and Max Weber back to the works of Comte in the early nineteenth century (Babbie, 1995). Most scientific journal articles and most research grants in the United States reflect a positivist approach (Doherty et al., 1993). Babbie (1995) has argued that the positivist philosophy has been built upon three primary assumptions: logical empiricism, rationality, and objectivity.

There have been critics of positivism throughout its history. However, there has been a sharp increase in attacks on this metatheoretical approach in recent decades. Postpositivist or postmodernist critics have challenged the premises underlying positivism, particularly the notions that value-free, universal, objective, and rational research can be conducted and that such theories can be constructed (Doherty et al., 1993; Simon, 1996). Postmodernists have emphasized the contextual (i.e., socio-cultural) process of science and the multiplicity of meanings associated with events and symbols. With respect to sexuality research and theory, this applies both to the populations and phenomena studied and to the activities of sexual scientists themselves.

Postmodernists have criticized positivism for its focus on a value-free, objective science, but relatively few would go so far as to question the empirical base of science (Martindale, 1988; Reiss, 1982). As a rule, postmodernists have not rejected the collection or analysis of empirical data (Doherty et al., 1993; Simon, 1996). In addition, postmodernists have generally been more adept at criticizing the weaknesses of positivism than they have at recommending alternative approaches or solutions to those problems.

Several authors (Babbie, 1995; Doherty et al., 1993; Martindale, 1988) have argued, in response to these criticisms, that positivists did not deny or ignore the influence of values on objectivity but sought to minimize its impact. Certainly, there is little question that what we observe and what we conclude are shaped by what we already believe (Babbie, 1995). At the very least, scientific theorists need to recognize the contextual nature of science and the multiplicity of meanings assigned to the phenomena studied.

As of this writing, it seems premature to predict how this dispute will be resolved. One article by DeLamater and Hyde in this special issue, about the essentialist and social constructionist disputes, can be seen as one element of the more general positivist versus postmodernist conflict. The concept of Kuhnian paradigms may be relevant here. Kuhn used the concept in two ways to describe both the idea of a single grand theory in a discipline (Babbie, 1995) and the idea of a universally recognized, ideal theory (Martindale, 1988). Postmodernism represents a challenge to the positivist paradigm, perhaps its greatest challenge. Certainly, many regard the two paradigms as incompatible. This has led to a loss of consensus as to what constitutes optimal theory and scientific methods. There is a sense of rivalry, and even hostility, between advocates of the two camps. However, precisely such disputes lead to new syntheses. We may yet find ways of satisfying the traditional positivist concerns with professional rigor and the postmodernist focus on subjective meaning. Some authors have already begun to think in these terms (Doherty et al., 1993; Thomas & Roghaar, 1990).

The Notion of Conceptual Frameworks

As with other fields, no single paradigm has yet to emerge in sexual science, either in the sense of a single grand theory of sexuality as a whole or an ideal theory universally accepted by sexual scientists. This is due, only in part, to the positivist-postmodernist disputes. In fact, no theoretical perspective of sexuality fully meets the standards of the definition provided earlier of theory as a set of systematic, interrelated, and empirically grounded propositions specifying relationships among concepts. In their assessment of theory in family studies, Nye and Berardo (1981) reached similar conclusions about the state of theory in that field. They employed the term conceptual framework to describe the state of family theory.

To Nye and Berardo (1981), a conceptual framework is a group of concepts employed as a classification scheme, the specification of a set of definitions delineating a few aspects of reality. In their view, a conceptual framework can be seen as a developmental precursor of theory. They used the term to describe a line of inquiry with a set of defined concepts along with a corresponding set of underlying assumptions. The concepts might be integrated into some meaningful configuration, but a systematic set of propositions had yet to be developed. Klein and White (1996) suggested that a conceptual framework can be seen as a vocabulary of shared definitions of concepts. Conceptual frameworks have also been seen as a set of assumptions and ideas about the fundamental features of the world or human life (Doherty et al., 1993). In this view, a conceptual framework serves as a guide to the focus of inquiry. It is broader, but less precise, than a theory.

Nye and Berardo (1981) believed that the construct of a conceptual framework was a useful device for creating more refined definitions of important concepts, organizing and testing possible propositions, and fostering theoretically meaningful research. In this sense, a conceptual framework was a stage that could lead to more fully developed theories. Klein and Jurich (1993) noted that there has been some controversy about whether the notion of conceptual frameworks actually advances theoretical development.

Perhaps a debate by sexual scientists about the relative merits of utilizing conceptual frameworks to guide research and build theory would be useful. It would constitute a form of self-examination and criticism in which sexual scientists have rarely engaged. In any event, the notion of conceptual frameworks is certainly relevant to this special issue. Most articles in this issue are reviews and critiques of conceptual frameworks with some established history, rather than theoretical models created by a single author or mini-theories of a particular substantive area. In planning the issue, I tried to include frameworks from a variety of academic disciplines, but I sought authors who could address broadly constructed conceptual frameworks. As a result, there are articles on evolutionary, social exchange, symbolic interactionist, social learning, and systems frameworks. The only exceptions to this principle of organization are the articles on the debate between essentialism and social constructionism (mentioned in the preceding discussion of the positivist-postmodernist disputes) and the article on theory in sex therapy, the only article focused on the use of theory in a particular profession.

Some may find it odd or even offensive that no article specifically on feminist perspectives was included. It may be premature to judge whether the feminist perspective will ever come to be regarded as a Kuhnian paradigm, but it certainly can be characterized as a unique school of thought, a worldview or an ideology. It is a particular way of looking at the world. Feminists have come to share some agreement about the phenomena to be studied, basic assumptions underlying their investigations, and the way questions should be framed. As yet, there is little agreement about the concepts that should be employed for analysis or about specific frameworks that would be best suited for feminist investigations. In fact, it appears that a feminist perspective can be readily incorporated into several conceptual frameworks. A number of the authors in this special issue made explicit reference to feminist principles as they presented their conceptual frameworks. In addition, feminist principles can also be included in numerous conceptual frameworks that have not been included. Social conflict theory is just one example of a framework that has been frequently utilized for feminist analysis (Farrington & Chertok, 1993).

Criteria for Evaluation of Theory

The discussion to this point on positivist and postmodernist perspectives and the debate about the utility of the conceptual framework approach to theory construction should highlight the diversity of metatheoretical perspectives on science. There are numerous approaches to defining theory and various strategies for theoretical development. Against this background, it is exceedingly difficult to specify a set of criteria for evaluating various theories or conceptual frameworks that is suitable for all metatheoretical perspectives. My list of evaluation criteria is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

     Criteria for Evaluation of Theory

Adequacy of Conceptual Apparatus
  Level of abstraction--independence of time and space
  Recognition of human pluralism
  Acknowledgment of context surrounding phenomenon
  Clarity of conceptual definitions
  Intersubjective agreement among scientists
Adequacy of Theoretical Explanations
  Richness of ideas generated
  Parsimony--simplicity of explanations
  Internal consistency--logical rigor
  Clarity of assumptions and propositions
  Ability to predict phenomena of concern
Level of Empirical Support
  Potential for validation--testability
  Amount of research generated
  Level of congruence with empirical data
  Level of validation
  Acknowledgment of limits and inconsistencies
  Openness to change and modification
  Level of generalizability
General Metatheoretical Characteristics
  Acknowledgment of values and ethical considerations
  Scientific utility--advances understanding of phenomena
  Potential for human intervention and social policy
  Ability to combine subjective human experience and scientific
    rigor

This particular set of criteria is not original. In compiling it, I have drawn on the work of several authors (Babbie, 1995; Doherty et al., 1993; Marx, 1963; Nye & Berardo, 1981; Reynolds, 1971). Moreover, some criteria may conflict with each other. For example, the idea that a theory should be abstract or independent of time and space considerations may well conflict with the idea that a theory should recognize its own socio-cultural context. The criteria are presented here in the hope of stimulating dialogue among sexual scientists. I see it as a starting point, a place where we can begin examining the question, What makes a sound sexual theory? It would be premature to expect consensus at this time.

Theory in Sexuality Research

The metatheoretical issues that I briefly discussed, including definitions of scientific theory, the post-modernist reaction to the positivist tradition, the possible utility of employing conceptual frameworks to make advances in sexual theory, and the specification of criteria for the evaluation of theory, are of great relevance to sexual scientists. They raise fundamental questions about the very nature of sexuality research, the practices of sexual scientists, and the future direction of sexual theory. To what extent has research on sexuality been informed or guided by theory? What kinds of sexual theory have been developed? Is there a tradition of metatheory in sexual science? What role, if any, have professional organizations played in fostering the development of sexual theory?

In one of the few attempts to assess these questions empirically, Ruppel (1994) conducted a content analysis of a sample of articles published in The Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior from 1971 to 1990. He rated the articles as to length, sexual topic, grant support, type (e.g., data report, theory development), discipline of the first author, methods of data collection, nature of sample, theoretical orientation, statistical techniques, and assumptions made by the authors. Ruppel reported that three fourths of the articles published in this period were primarily categorized as data reports. Roughly one fourth of the articles appearing in The Journal of Sex Research were primarily concerned with theory development, but only 6% of the articles in Archives of Sexual Behavior were primarily classified as theory-development works. Of course, the authors of some articles coded as data reports could have claimed to have utilized a theoretical perspective or discussed findings in terms of an existing theoretical model. However, fully 53% of the articles in Archives of Sexual Behavior and 31% of the articles in The Journal of Sex Research were coded as containing no theory whatsoever. Only 30% of the articles in both journals had a discussion of specific theoretical issues. Finally, Ruppel reported that there had been an increase in the percentage of articles concerned with theory in some way in The Journal of Sex Research, but not Archives of Sexual Behavior, from 1976 to 1985.

Allgeier (1984) reported, in a separate content analysis of the 253 articles appearing in The Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior between 1980 and 1983, that only 2% could be classified as presenting a "theoretical model." This estimate may be considered low, because any article with data collection and statistical analyses was placed into another category. However, Allgeier concluded that the majority of research published in these journals has been descriptive, rather than theoretical. She noted that tests of what she called "explanatory inferences" or "theoretical models" were fairly rare.

A more recent content analysis of articles appearing in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy from 1974 to 1995 (Dubois & Wiederman, 1997) is noteworthy for the fact that no codings were made of any theoretical issues. Dubois and Wiederman coded articles for length, number of references, gender of first author, and characteristics of the sample. They also rated the articles as to whether ethnicity was an issue of concern. However, no codings were made about the use of theoretical frameworks, discussions of theoretical issues, or the testing of theoretically-derived hypotheses.

Each of these studies depicts a tendency of the sexological journals to publish data reports, which are descriptive and atheoretical. Even when specific hypotheses are tested, they are rarely derived from or designed to test theoretical propositions. However, these studies tell us little about the kinds of sexuality articles that are published in other disciplines. Although I suspect that the same patterns will be evident, it is possible that sexuality articles published in journals in such fields as biology, psychology, and sociology are more likely to have been theoretical. This possibility should be tested.

Of course, the fact that journals that are primarily designed to publish the results of scientific sexuality research have been largely atheoretical for the last quarter of a century does not mean that there have been no major works of sexual theory. In fact, as with any academic discipline, there has been a tradition of theorizing about sexuality. Important theoretical works have appeared since the earliest days of sexual science. A list of 25 classic works in sexual theory, along with a brief statement about the significance of their contributions to the historical development of sexual theory, is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

     25 Classic Works of Sexual Theory

Author(s)             Date        Contribution
Ellis (Havelock)      1901/1936   Non-judgmental approach to
                                    analysis of sexuality,
                                    explored various sexual
                                    concepts, early
                                    conceptualization of
                                    sexual orientation
Freud                 1905/1957   Early presentation of specific
                                    theoretical framework,
                                    theory of sexual development
Malinowski            1929        Early anthropology
Mead                  1935        Early anthropology, concept of
                                    gender
Pitts                 1964        Review of structural-
                                    functionalism, concept
                                    of social control of
                                    sexuality
Broderick             1966        Mini-theory on childhood sexual
                                    development
Reiss                 1967        Mini-theory combining research
                                    and theory, formulation of
                                    specific propositions, concept
                                    of sexual permissiveness
Trivers               1972        Evolutionary perspective, concept
                                    of parental investment
Gagnon & Simon        1973        Concept of sexual scripting,
                                    early social constructionism
Beach                 1976        Concepts of proceptivity and
                                    receptivity, female selection
Foucault              1976/1980   Early social constructionism,
                                    critique of positivism
Byrne                 1977        Affect-reinforcement theory,
                                    causal model
Symons                1979        Evolutionary perspective
Fox                   1980        Anthropological approach, incest
Herdt                 1981        Anthropological approach,
                                    development of sexual
                                    orientation
Maltz & Borker        1983        Patterns of communication,
                                    concept of male and female
                                    cultures
Maddock               1983        Family systems theory,
                                    focus on non-pathological
                                    family dynamics
Van Wyk & Geist       1984        Sexual development processes,
                                    sexual orientation
Green                 1985        Causal model, childhood and
                                    adolescent experiences
Reiss                 1986        Cross-cultural meta-analysis
Allgeier              1987        Causal model of sexual coercion
Geer & O'Donohue      1987        Metatheoretical approach to
                                    numerous sexual theories
Levine & Troiden      1988        Analysis of concept of
                                    sexual addiction
Tiefer                1991        Feminist critique of various
                                    sexological concepts
Laumann, Gagnon,      1994        Testing theoretically derived
Michael, & Michaels                 hypotheses with national
                                    probability sample

Several points about this list should be made. First, I accept full responsibility for the decisions of which publications to include and, by extension, omit. Although I did consult with a number of colleagues, the eventual choices are entirely mine. Second, the list should not be interpreted as the "best" or "most important" theoretical works, or even the works that conform the most to the conceptualization of theory I presented earlier in this article. Rather, I tried to select a group of publications that would represent and reflect the historical breadth and variety of sexual theory.

In compiling this list, I purposely selected publications from a variety of academic disciplines and professional fields. Included are publications by authors from biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, communication, family studies, and women's studies. I also selected publications that represent various types of theoretical perspectives. There are publications that can be classified as metatheory (Geer & O'Donohue, 1987), conceptual frameworks (Beach, 1976; Byrne, 1977; Foucault, 1980; Freud, 1957; Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Maddock, 1983; Pitts, 1964; Symons, 1979; Trivers, 1972), mini-theories (Broderick, 1966; Mead, 1935; Reiss, 1967), and causal models (Allgeier, 1987; Byrne, 1977; Green, 1985; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). There is a blend of older and more recent publications, a mixture of highly prominent and more obscure works, a combination of perspectives that have been commonly used in sexological works and those that have not, and a mixture of perspectives with demonstrated relevance to the study of sexuality and those with untested, but promising potential. Although it was not a central concern in their selection, there is a similar variety of substantive topics and concepts in the list. Finally, there are publications from the positivist, postmodernist, and feminist paradigms. In short, the list of publications presented in Table 2 provides an overview of the history and development of sexual theory at a glance.

These 25 classic works of sexual theory, as well as several hundred others that might have been selected, certainly document that sexual scientists have developed and published a multiplicity of theoretical works. Many of these theoretical works have advanced our understanding of sexuality. In claiming that sexual science has largely been an atheoretical field of study, I do recognize the importance of these contributions. I am not suggesting that scientists in the field have failed to generate valid or potentially promising theoretical explanations of sexual phenomena. Rather, the conclusion is based on the evidence that relatively little research is founded on theoretical premises or designed to test theoretical hypotheses.

A second aspect of this claim is the fact that the field has generally been rather unconcerned with the development of a metatheoretical perspective for sexual science itself. In other words, sexual scientists have rarely paused to "take stock" of the state of sexual theory. In his analysis of publication trends in The Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior during the last two decades, Ruppel (1994) found few research articles with a theoretical base, and he failed to find a single article on sexual metatheory.

This point can be illuminated if a comparison is drawn to other fields of study. I have selected four fields for this. The first two, psychology and sociology, are traditional academic disciplines that are defined by their broad focus of study. Like sexual science, no single paradigm has ever emerged. No single theory has ever come to dominate either discipline. Yet a tradition of metatheoretical analysis and evaluation extends to the earliest periods of the twentieth century (Burgess, 1926; Cooley, 1902; Parsons, 1950; Waller, 1938; Watson, 1925). Marx (1963) suggested that this may be considered a critical approach to theory construction and refinement. This trend has continued in psychology (Baldwin, 1967; Gergen, 1993, 1994; Lindzey, 1954; Marx, 1963; Shaw & Costanzo, 1982; Swensen, 1973). The tradition has also continued in sociology, frequently in the form of conflict between competing theorists (Agger, 1991; Cook, Fine, & House, 1995; Coser & Rosenberg, 1969; Fine, 1993; Fine & Kleinman, 1986; Giddens & Turner, 1987; House, 1936; Martindale, 1960, 1988; Mullins, 1973, 1974; Shils, 1970; Skidmore, 1975; Turner, 1978).

Comparisons can also be drawn to child development and family studies. As with psychology and sociology, no paradigm has ever emerged in these fields. However, like sexual science, they are multi-disciplinary fields devoted to the study of a substantive focus. Although it is multi-disciplinary, child development has always been dominated by psychologists. As such, it shares many characteristics of that parent discipline. I have little to say about this, other than to note that a metatheoretical tradition has characterized the field of child development as well (Baldwin, 1967; Goslin, 1969; Horowitz, 1987; Miller, 1983; Zigler, 1963).

I will make more extensive comments about metatheory in family studies. This is due, in part, to the fact that family studies is the field of MY doctoral training. This is a professional field with which I am familiar. However, family studies also is a fully multi-disciplinary professional field. Although it was once dominated by family sociologists, it has eventually seen the emergence of several professional organizations. As with the professional organizations in sexuality, members are drawn from such diverse professions as theology, law, medicine, psychotherapy, and health, as well as the social sciences. Professional journals in the family field reflect this multi-disciplinary perspective. Thus, it shares much in common with sexual science.

Klein and Jurich (1993) argued that a tradition of self-examination in the family studies field extends to the 1920s, citing Burgess (1926) as an example. Nye and Berardo (1981) were more critical and argued that no tradition of metatheory, by which they mean the systematic construction and evaluation of theory, existed in family studies prior to 1960. However, since that time, a rich tradition of metatheory has emerged (Aldous, 1970; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Burr, 1973; Burr et al., 1979; Christensen, 1964; Hill & Hansen, 1960; Klein & White, 1996; Nye & Berardo, 1981). In contrast, Klein and White (1996) maintained that systematic theory building in the family field began around 1950. In their view, this early period, which they called the conceptual frameworks phase, ended in the mid-1960s with the publication of the Handbook of Marriage and the Family (Christensen, 1964) and the first edition of Nye and Berardo's anthology on conceptual frameworks (1981). This was followed by a period of formal theory construction, which lasted until 1980, culminating with another anthology to assess the state of theory (Burr et al., 1979). Klein and White described the 1980s and 1990s as a pluralistic period with at least one metatheoretical classic publication (Boss et al., 1993). Taken together, these publications demonstrate an ongoing commitment by family scholars regularly to examine developments in family theory.

In contrast, sexual scientists have never developed a comparable tradition of metatheoretical review and criticism. Although numerous books and articles have presented a specific sexual theory, few general reviews of sexual theory and even fewer critical evaluations of the status of sexual theory have been published. Moreover, sexuality publications, for the most part, have never reflected a strong concern with strategies for improving the quality of scientific sexual theory. Geer and O'Donohue (1987) provided one of the notable exceptions. They edited a collection of 14 essays reviewing and summarizing various theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. Included were such conceptual frame-works as evolutionary, phenomenological, developmental, sociocultural, learning, cognitive, social scripting, and psychoanalytical theories. Also included were essays summarizing theoretical issues in such disciplines as theology, history, feminism, anthropology, sociology, and physiology. Geer and O'Donohue indicated that they had tried to be as inclusive as possible. They did not provide a specific definition of theory or select perspectives by a system of metatheoretical criteria. Instead, they tried to-include the broadest group of perspectives possible. Given the state of sexual theory and the lack of a metatheoretical tradition in sexual science at the time, this approach was both understandable and laudable.

However, this anthology also illustrates the general lack of a metatheoretical perspective in sexual science. Although Geer and O'Donohue did briefly discuss several criteria for evaluating theory, they did not use these criteria to evaluate the various perspectives or ask their contributing authors to provide any systematic evaluation. One result is that many chapters can be described as advocating a particular perspective, rather than providing a critical review and assessment.

This comparison can be extended to the activities of professional organizations. Beginning in the late 1960s, the National Council on Family Relations has sponsored a theory-construction workshop as a regular part of their annual conventions. Its goals have been to foster dialogue about theory and to facilitate the development of new and refined theory. The organization also created a Research and Theory section of membership. Since 1970, a decade review issue has appeared every 10 years in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, published by the National Council on Family Relations. The decade review series has always included an assessment of developments in theory in the previous decade. Comparable activities have never been sponsored by sexuality organizations.

Summary

The publication of this special issue on theory is but one step in what I hope will become a metatheoretical tradition in sexual science. If, as Reiss (1982) suggested, theory is the heart of the scientific enterprise, then sexual scientists and sexuality organizations have much work to do. This particular collection of articles is certainly not the final or definitive statement about sexual theory. It is, however, an important attempt to examine the theories we use critically.

In preparing their theoretical reviews, the authors of the articles in this issue were asked to include the following areas:

1. Discipline in which the framework emerged and developed

2. Labels or names used to describe the framework

3. Level of analysis (macro or micro)

4. Object or unit of study (e.g., society, group, dyad, individual)

5. Historical emergence and use of the framework--how and when the theory emerged, who the major theorists were, what the intellectual tradition has been, how and when the theory was applied to sexuality

6. Focus of study--the particular areas of sexuality that have been studied

7. Basic assumptions

8. Major concepts--definition of major concepts of the theory, including an assessment of the extent to which different theorists agree or disagree about what the major concepts are and how they are defined

9. Theoretical explanations or propositions--identification of theoretical propositions or summary of the general relationships among concepts postulated by theorists

10. Research outcomes--assessment of the level and quality of research evidence supporting the theory

11. Critique and evaluation--assessment of the status of the theory, including a critical evaluation of the use of the theory in general and with respect to sexuality in particular

These are issues that many sexual professionals do not routinely examine. I invite readers to enjoy, digest, react, and even disagree. I am certain that the authors share my hope that our collective effort will stimulate dialogue. In an era when postmodernists are challenging traditional views of science, some forces question the very legitimacy of science, and political forces may dictate what we can teach about sexuality, it is more important than ever that sexual scientists should take steps to shape their destiny. It is also more important than ever to examine our own work critically, and this means examining the theories we use to explain sexuality.

References

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, post-structuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.

Aldous, J. (1970). Strategies for developing family theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32,250-257.

Allgeier, E. R. (1984, April). State of the science: Sex research--Contrasts and complements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Eastern Region, Philadelphia.

Allgeier, E. R. (1987). Coercive versus consensual sexual interactions. In V. P. Makosky (Ed.), G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series, volume 7 (pp. 9-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baldwin, A. L. (1967). Theories in child development. New York: Wiley.

Beach, F. A. (1976). Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals. Hormones and Behavior, 7, 105-138.

Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (1993). Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum.

Broderick, C. B. (1966). Sexual behavior among pre-adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 6-21.

Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unit of interacting personalities. The Family, 7, 3-9.

Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York: Wiley.

Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss, I. L. (Eds.). (1979). Contemporary theories about the family, volume II: General theories/theoretical orientations. New York: Free Press.

Byrne, D. (1977). Social psychology and the study of sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 3-30.

Christensen, H. T. (Ed.). (1964). Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., & House, J. S. (Eds.). (1995). Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Coser, L. A., & Rosenberg, B. (1969). Sociological theory: A book of readings. New York: Macmillan.

Doherty, W. J., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3-30). New York: Plenum.

Dubois, S. L., & Wiederman, M. W. (1997, June). The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy: A content analysis of articles from 1974-1995. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midcontinent Region, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Chicago.

Edwards, P. (Ed.). (1957). The encyclopedia of philosophy, volume 7. New York: Macmillan.

Ellis, H. (1936). Studies in the psychology of sex, volumes 1-4. New York: Random House (originally published in 1901).

Farrington, K., & Chertok, E. (1993). Social conflict theories of the family In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 357-381). New York: Plenum.

Fine, F., & Kleinman, S. (1986). Interpreting the sociological classics: Can there be a "true" meaning of Mead? Symbolic Interactionism, 9, 129-146.

Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61-87.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, trans.). New York: Vintage Books (originally published in 1976).

Fox, R. (1980). The red lamp of incest. New York: Dutton.

Freud, S. (1957). Three essays on sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. and trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, volume 7 (pp. 123-243). London: Hogarth Press (originally published in 1905).

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

Geer, J. H., & O'Donohue, W. T. (Eds.). (1987). Theories of human sexuality. New York: Plenum.

Gergen, K. J. (1993). Theory in historical context. In H. V. Rappard, P. J. van Strien, L. P. Mos, & W. J. Baker (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology, volume 8 (pp. 245-248). New York: Plenum.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Exploring the postmodern. American Psychologist, 49, 412-416.

Giddens, A., & Turner, J. (Eds.). (1987). Social theory today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Goslin, D. A. (Ed.). (1969). Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Green, V. (1985). Experiential factors in childhood and adolescent sexual behavior: Family interaction and previous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 157-182.

Herdt, G. (1981). Guardians of the flute: Idioms of masculinity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hill, R., & Hansen, D. A. (1960). The identification of conceptual frameworks utilized in family study. Marriage and Family Living, 22, 299-311.

Horowitz, F. D. (1987). Exploring developmental theories: Toward a structural/behavioral model of development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

House, F. N. (1936). The development of sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Klein, D. M., & Jurich, J. A. (1993). Metatheory and family studies. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 31-67). New York: Plenum.

Klein, D. M., & White, J. M. (1996). Family theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levine, M. R, & Troiden, R. R. (1988). The myth of sexual compulsivity. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 347-363.

Lindzey, G. (Ed.). (1954) Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Maddock, J. W. (1983). Sex in the family system. Marriage and Family Review, 6(3/4), 9-20.

Malinowski, B. (1929). Sexual life of savages in north-western Melanesia. New York: Halcyon House.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1983). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 195-216). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Martindale, D. A. (1960). The nature and types of sociological theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Martindale, D. A. (1988). The nature and types of sociological theory (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Marx, M. H. (Ed.). (1963). Theories in contemporary psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York: William Morrow.

Miller, P. H. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Moser, C. (1983). A response to Reiss' "Troubles in Paradise." The Journal of Sex Research, 19, 192-195.

Mullins, N. C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.

Mullins, N. C. (1974). Theory construction from available materials: A system for organizing and presenting propositions. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 1-15.

Nye, F. I., & Berardo, F. M. (Eds.). (1981). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis (rev. ed.). New York: Praeger (originally published in 1966).

Parsons, T. (1950). The prospects of sociological theory. American Sociological Review, 15,3-16.

Pitts, J. R. (1964). The structural-functional approach. In H. T. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 51-124). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Reiss, I. L. (1982). Trouble in paradise: The current status of sexual science. The Journal of Sex Research, 18, 97-113.

Reiss, I. L. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. New York: Prentice Hall.

Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ruppel, H. J., Jr. (1994). Publication trends in the sexological literature: A comparison of two contemporary journals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.

Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1982). Theories of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. ShIls, E. A. (1970). The history of sociology. Daedalus, 99, 760-825.

Simon, W. (1996). Postmodern sexualities. London: Routledge.

Sjoberg, G., & Nett, R. (1968). A methodology for social research. New York: Harper and Row.

Skidmore, W. (1975). Theoretical thinking in sociology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Swensen, C. H., Jr. (1973). Introduction to interpersonal relations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, D. L., & Roghaar, H. B. (1990). Postpositivist theorizing: The case of religion and the family. In J. Sprey (Ed.), Fashioning family theory: New approaches (pp. 136-170). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tiefer, L. (1991). Historical, scientific, clinical and feminist criticisms of "The Human Sexual Response Cycle" model. Annual Review of Sex Research, 2, 1-24.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.

Turner, J. H. (1978). The structure of sociological theory (rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Van Wyk, P. H., & Geist, C. S. (1984). Psychosocial development of heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 505-544.

Waller, W. (1938) The family. New York: Dryden.

Watson, J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.

Zigler, E. (1963). Metatheoretical issues in developmental psychology. In M. H. Marx (Ed.), Theories in contemporary psychology (pp. 341-368). New York: Macmillan.

Address correspondence to David L. Weis, Ph.D., Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone].

Note from former JSR Editor: David L. Weis's special issue on sexuality theories was begun during my tenure as Editor. Because it was not complete until my tenure ended, the new editor, John DeLamater, graciously agreed to allow it to be published as the first issue in his tenure as JSR editor--Elizabeth Rice Allgeier