Integral Metatheory: Beyond Specializations, Theoretical Pluralism, and Conventional Metatheory

Abstract

Recent family and consumer science (FCS) conceptualizations of specialization embrace the notions of interdisciplinary specialist, integration of perspectives, integral specialist and a generalist in transdisciplinarity. These innovations open the door for a conversation around the impact of research methodologies (different from methods) on the profession’s body of knowledge. Conventional metatheory is explained, with four examples from the field of FCS. The paper then introduces the idea of integral metatheory, asking practitioners to strive for a deeper understanding of theoretical pluralism and a new form of synthesis: being able to integrate the results obtained from the integration of several theoretical perspectives. Instead of practicing from a platform of many individual theories, FCS professionals are asked to employ integral metatheory so they can consciously develop links among the theories and multiple perspectives, thereby leading to richer understandings of the complexity of the human condition.

Misunderstanding Metatheorizing

“…They are integrative and pluralistic, they combine both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and they are designed for application to contemporary global problems. On the metatheoretical side, this fifth phase can be identified with the ‘framework for multiparadigm multimethodologies’ of Bowers (), the ‘integrative pluralism’ of Edwards () and McGregor's ‘integral metatheory’ approach (McGregor, ). The corresponding phases in each of these accounts are laid out in Table .…”

“…One of the major aims of metatheoretical research is to move across the boundaries that divide theoretical and paradigmatic perspectives. In some ways, Transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and other varieties of boundary crossing research are fundamentally metatheoretical (McGregor, ).…”

Home economics as an integrated, holistic system: revisiting Bubolz and Sontag's 1988 human ecology approach

“…Bubolz and Sontag (1988) developed their position before Brown's (1993) critique of human ecology's relevance to home economics, titling it integration in home economics and human ecology (Brown uses the phrase home economics as human ecology, a very different perspective). Their intent was to stimulate discourse about how to achieve a higher level of integration in home economics so as to mitigate the fragmentation and overspecialization that Brown claims characterizes the profession (see also McGregor, 2009a). In the same year, Touliatos and Compton (1988) propose that human ecology is a perspective for home economics (again a subtle but significantly different tact than in home economics and as human ecology).…”

“…2). McGregor (2009a,b) observes that the profession is still fragmented, that there is still too much specialization and too little integration or cross fertilization. McGregor and MacCleave (2007) report a very low level of global agreement on home economics professional competency domains (less than 25%).…”

“…For decades, many critical and constructive publications in home economics, including Bubolz and Sontag (1988), have lamented that the profession is too fragmented, that there are too many specializations, which are too removed from any common home economics philosophical core (Brown, 1985, 1993; McGregor and MacCleave, 2007; McGregor, 2009a). von Schweitzer (2006) characterizes this as ‘the increasing variety of professional specialities and task areas for home economics and their specific job titles’ (p. 15).…”