Keywords

Although men have always been fathers and fathers have always been a part of families in varying forms and fashions, research and theorizing about fathers is a relatively recent development; instead, the bulk of parenting research and theorizing has focused on the ways mothers influence children. In fact, a 1985 article reviewing the theories used in fatherhood research began by observing that:

The subject of fatherhood has not attracted much theoretical interest. Theoreticians not only tend to ignore fathers per se, they have managed to overlook issues raised by the fact that the father role is found in all societies, and that expectations and performance of this role vary widely from place to place (Benson, 1985, p. 25).

As recently as 2011, Johansson echoed similar sentiments, stating “There is today a lack of conceptualisations and theories of fatherhood” (p. 227). With most societies holding patriarchal structures, men’s roles as workers, leaders, and “heads of household” have been assumed, but men’s roles as parents were less prominent in research and theory. The limited research on men as parents typically revolved around indirect or secondary forms of parenting, such as financial provision, discipline, or gender role models, rather than direct involvement in the care and nurturance of children’s development. Benson (1985) went on to summarize theoretically based fatherhood research and noted that it had occurred under a wide variety of perspectives: systems, biological (instincts and genetics), Freudian, attachment, symbolic interaction, social learning, and exchange theories. However, his discussion provided more in the way of how these theories could aid in investigations of fatherhood than how they have done so, and this was echoed in his closing statement that “such perspectives do not so much answer the questions they raise as provide dramatic reminders that these issues deserve continuing attention” (p. 38).

A focus on fathers as influential parental figures in the lives of their children began to emerge in the 1970s. This was largely due to the increasing divorce rate coupled with a maternal custody preference (itself due to the popularity of the Tender Years Doctrine that children need their mothers in early childhood) and thus, the number of households with “absent” fathers. This led judges, practitioners, and researchers to query whether such father absence adversely impacted children. In the 1970s, gender roles were also in flux due to the feminist movement, further pushing research, theory, and families to consider the ways in which fathers might contribute more to parenting and therefore “free” mothers from the demands and obligations of motherhood (although feminists were somewhat divided on this issue, which will be discussed more later) or provide childcare while mothers entered the workforce in increasing numbers.

By the 1990s, fathers as a focus of research had gained substantial traction and had blossomed into a more “mainstream” topic, although at that point research diverged into two distinct paths. The first path consisted of what are often termed “parenting” researchers, who viewed mothers and fathers as interchangeable caregivers for children, and who therefore simply added fathers to their samples of mothers and added/included fathers in their overall theories of parenting. It should be noted, however, that such additions to samples typically were not in equivalent numbers to mothers, and particularly within generally underrepresented populations, fathers remained far less visible. The second path consisted of “fathering” researchers, who viewed gender as a distinguishing characteristic of parents that divided mothering and fathering into distinct cultures and contexts, and who therefore primarily researched and theorized fathers as unique, or at least distinct. Because this is a Handbook of the Psychology of Fatherhood, here we will focus primarily on the latter group and those theories which have focused on the specific roles, sometimes overlapping and sometimes unique, that fathers play in families.

This chapter will provide readers of the Handbook with a “lay of the land” in terms of the ways that theorizing fathering has evolved over time, as well as future directions for theorizing fathering. As noted by Roggman et al. (2002), “there is no Grand Unifying theory of fatherhood to effectively guide research on fathers” (p. 6); rather, numerous and varied theoretical lenses have been employed. We will not necessarily cover every theory and model that has been used to address fathering, but we will discuss prominent themes and trends. Fathering research, like most research, can be grouped into studies that examined the impacts/outcomes of fathering, explored predictors of fathering, and contributed to our conceptualizations of fathering; this chapter will be organized according to the theoretical work done in each of these areas. Within each area, particular theories have been more or less prominent, and many theories have followed their own journeys over time. After reading this chapter, you should be aware of where we have been, where we are, and where we hope to see the field go in terms of the ways we theorize fathering. It is our hope that this chapter provides you with a variety of lenses through which you may view the subsequent chapters, as well as your research, so we can begin to address the often unanswered “why” behind the findings in our field.

Impacts of Fathering on Children and Families

Among the earliest studies were those that examined the potential impact of fathering on their children and, somewhat later, on mothers and fathers themselves. Driven by the aforementioned social changes, a number of theories were utilized or developed to help explain the mechanisms by which fathers could have a positive influence. Most of these studies took a systemic, developmental, or relational approach, although some theories contain elements from more than one of these. Each theory is discussed in more detail below.

Systemic Approaches

Systems Theory

Family systems theory emphasizes the interdependence of family members upon one another, with the behaviors and experiences of one person influencing the behaviors and experiences of all others in the system (Cox & Paley, 2003). Family members enact social positions according to implicit family rules, which tend to create homeostasis in family functioning over time. Multiple subsystems and alliances exist within families as well, including the mother–father relationship (both their overall relationship and as co-parents specifically), parent–child relationships, and sibling relationships. Additionally, family systems vary in their level of boundary permeability, meaning how easily new members are allowed in, or old members are removed. Particularly early on, research on fathers from a systems perspective tended to come from the “parenting” camp of research, examining overall patterns of family interaction (Grigg et al., 1989; Jacobvitz et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2019), especially interactions within the marital subsystem such as marital hostility and conflict (e.g., Franck & Buehler, 2008; Richmond & Stocker, 2008), and their resultant influences on child outcomes. Research that took a “fathering” perspective focused heavily on the importance of involvement by noncustodial fathers (e.g., Kissman, 1997) and the importance of viewing divorced, separated, and unmarried parents with children as what Ahrons and Rodgers (1987) termed the “binuclear family,” a family whose boundaries and systems extended over two or more households, rather than limiting our view to single households and deeming such families “single-parent families.” However, no research has looked at custodial fathers as also being members of a binuclear family system with noncustodial mothers, a gap that could be addressed in future research.

Because of its emphasis on the interdependence of families, research from a systemic perspective has tended to be less focused on fathers’ direct impacts on children’s outcomes and more interested in the mediating and moderating pathways through which fathers and mothers influence children. Examples of such research include fathers’ influence on the mother–father co-parenting relationship (e.g., Pech et al., 2020), mothers’ parenting (Wang et al., 2019), and on family communication, parental hostility/marital conflict, and sibling conflict and behavior problems (Relva et al., 2019; Richmond & Stocker, 2008).

With parenting scholars tending to view (primarily married) mothers and fathers as interchangeable and fathering scholars viewing (primarily nonresident) fathers as unique, there has been a dearth of research examining the unique influence of fathers in married families from a systems perspective. Palkovitz et al. (2014) utilized systems and feminist theories to support an argument that mothers and fathers differ in their influence on children due to essential differences in family roles and rules for men versus women, but they, too, noted the underutilization of systems theory in fathering research. Particularly co-parenting research would benefit from greater integration of the ways in which the mother–father system interacts in both coresident and nonresident father families and the ways mothers and fathers both influence their children in unique and overlapping ways. Also, systems theory has focused primarily on the family system, to the exclusion of other systems with which fathers interact and that can shape the development of their children (e.g., schools, work, and healthcare).

Ecological Theories

Similar to family systems theory, ecological theories (primarily Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework) emphasize the interdependent influences of multiple contexts on children’s development. Unfortunately, also like family systems theory, research using this perspective has focused heavily on the family system and its impacts on children’s development rather than truly examining the full ecology of fathering and interactions between fathers and external institutions and influences (e.g., schools, neighborhoods, churches, government policies and laws, and cultural beliefs). In fact, there are only two articles that propose ways to examine such nonfamilial influences (Cabrera et al., 2007, 2014, discussed more below).

Regarding family influences, Pleck wrote in 2007 about a number of theoretical perspectives that could illuminate the processes by which fathers benefit children, with bioecological theory playing a prominent role. He noted, “In Bronfenbrenner’s concept of proximal process, development is an inherently relational event, rather than an event taking place within the individual” (Pleck, 2007, p. 199), and he saw fathers as not only being proximal process partners in children’s microsystems but also as being a unique microsystem partner for children. A number of studies took this approach, for example, examining the role of fathers as socializers of ethnic and racial identity (Park et al., 2020) and fathers’ impacts on children’s behavior and well-being in a variety of family structures, including samples of married (Hanetz Gamliel et al., 2018), married/unmarried, and biological/nonbiological fathers (Black et al., 1999), single-mother and single-father families (Hilton & Devall, 1998), and even the influence of biological fathers on children in foster care (Vanschoonlandt et al., 2012).

Only one study has examined fathers’ influence on mothers rather than children using an ecological perspective (Fagan & Press, 2008), investigating fathers’ work-family crossover and its impact on mothers’ work-family balance. They found that when fathers reported bringing more stress home from work, mothers reported lower work-family balance. However, future ecological research could do more to examine fathers’ influences on relationship partners beyond just children, as it is far more common to examine children’s outcomes. This is due in large part to the fact that policymakers typically are more interested in protecting children than in “just” supporting adult well-being. In fact, the first author once heard a legislator comment in a state legislative hearing specifically about supporting fathers, “we’re only here because fathers impact kids; we aren’t particularly concerned with supporting fathers only for their own sake.”

The only scholars to look outside the family microsystem have been Cabrera and colleagues, who suggested two ecological models of fathering, examining predictors of fathering and the impact of fathers on children in 2007 (Cabrera et al., 2007) and then again with an updated model in 2014 (Cabrera et al., 2014). The 2007 model was more simplistic; it incorporated Belsky’s parenting model (1984) with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework and examined the ways fathers’ histories (cultural, biological, and their own rearing) influence their economic resources as fathers, which influenced fathers’ parenting, which influenced children’s outcomes. Fathers’ parenting also was hypothesized to be influenced by mothers’ parenting and the co-parenting relationship. In the first model, the focus remained heavily upon individual and family microsystem influences on fathers and, consequently, on children, with no real attention paid to external systems and influences, with the possible exception of fathers’ cultural history. It was not until the 2014 model that broader meso- and exosystem influences were more centrally considered, with fathers’ social networks and community; fathers’ work; and broader social, cultural, political, and economic conditions being added to the model as influences on fathers or fathers’ parenting in direct and indirect ways. The authors noted that “our original heuristic model did not fully incorporate reciprocal developmental influences or the idea that parent-child relationships are embedded in complex, dynamic systems” (Cabrera et al., 2014, p. 343), and so this updated model represented an improvement in theorizing about fathering influences from an ecological perspective.

However, even with the proposed theoretical models from Cabrera and colleagues and the empirical support that they cite for their proposed model, little to no empirical research has examined how systems outside the family affect the ways that fathers impact their children from an ecological perspective. Therefore, current research has yet to tap the true potential of ecological perspectives for fathering research. Cabrera et al. (2014) also specifically noted a dearth of research using an ecological perspective to examine cultural differences in fathering, something that ecological perspectives are particularly well-suited to address (see chapters “The Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Applications to Asian American Fathers” and “Cultural and Sociopolitical Influences on African American and Latinx Fathers”, this volume, for research regarding cultural differences in fatherhood).

In addition, although a number of studies claim a foundation in bioecological theory, it has been far more common for studies to mention bioecological theory than to truly use bioecological theory in terms of actually examining proximal processes and variability in various systemic influences. It is more often employed as a discussion point and as a way of framing findings than as a true theoretical foundation for studies of fathering (guiding research questions, design, sampling, and interpretation, rather than just interpretation). This is a common problem with the bioecological theory, and frankly, theory overall, and not limited to fathering research (Tudge et al., 2016). However, the commonality of a weakness makes it no less of a weakness, and future research and the field would benefit from the true integration of bioecological theory.

Relational Approaches

Attachment

The primary focus of relationally based theorizing has come from attachment theory (see also chapter “Fathers and Family Systems”, this volume), which was one of the early theories used to address fathering. Formed in the wake of WWII deployments, particularly by women, the core tenet of attachment theory is that all children form an attachment relationship with their primary caregivers in the first 1–2 years of life, which shapes children’s trajectory of expectations and behavior in relationships over the life course (Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Sensitive, responsive caregiving leads children to develop a secure attachment style, indicative of a sense of predictability of the world and trust that others will meet the child’s needs and resulting in children feeling safe to explore the world around them, knowing they can return to the “safe haven” of their parent. In contrast, inconsistent or nonresponsive/neglectful parenting leads children to form an insecure attachment, characterized by either clinginess (anxious ambivalent), nonchalance and lack of comfort-seeking (avoidant; Ainsworth et al., 1978), or a third, less common category that was added later and which was typical of children from abusive homes (disorganized; Main & Solomon, 1986).

Bretherton (2010) suggested several stages of attachment research on fathers, each of which addressed different questions. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers focused on the nature of attachment, testing first whether fathers could serve as attachment figures for children. Once it had been established that they could, comparisons were then drawn between mothers and fathers to investigate whether fathers were equally important attachment figures or secondary to mothers, the comparative quality of mother versus father attachment for children, and what intergenerational relationship qualities might be passed on from mothers versus fathers. Finally, research examined whether the outcomes of attachment for children differed by parent.

In addition to these proposed stages of theorizing, fathering attachment research also has diverged in the aspects of attachment assessed. Most scholars, and especially those from a “parenting” perspective, have assessed the importance of child-father attachment for a variety of children’s outcomes, such as effortful control (Warren & Barnett, 2020), academic achievement (Chen, 2017a), suicidal ideation (Nunes & Mota, 2017), adolescent secure base use (Jones & Cassidy, 2014), and procrastination (Chen, 2017b). Recently, however, some scholars have pushed attachment research in a relatively new direction, emphasizing the “base of exploration” aspect of attachment as a unique way fathers contribute to child development via their encouragement of risk-taking, being disruptive and unpredictable, and encouraging children’s exploration of the outside world (Paquette, 2004). Paquette and Bigras (2010) expanded upon this idea, suggesting the Risky Situation as a companion assessment to the traditional Strange Situation to assess the degree that such “activation” is present in the father-child attachment relationship. They suggested that activation levels could either be optimal (leading to children’s safe exploration of their worlds), overactivated (leading children to ignore limits and boundaries placed upon them for safety reasons), or underactivated (leading children to be hesitant to explore and go beyond their comfort level). Research testing such an approach to attachment is just beginning to get underway, with promising results that support an additional way fathers influence children’s development (Lee et al., 2020a; Volling et al., 2019).

In addition to research on activation, attachment research on fathers also has been expanding via a biobehavioral approach and investigations into the neuroscience of attachment (Palm, 2014). For example, Feldman (2012) has demonstrated the differential impact of oxytocin on mothers’ versus fathers’ behaviors, with oxytocin leading mothers to demonstrate more affectionate parenting behaviors but fathers to encourage children’s exploration, stimulation, and arousal, both of which can promote children’s secure attachment. Such research could help elucidate the neurochemical mechanisms behind fathering behaviors and father-child attachment.

IPARTheory

Although a great deal of relational research has taken an attachment perspective, Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection Theory (IPARTheory; Rohner, 1975, 2021) also has researched the influence of both mothers and fathers extensively for the last 45 years. Originally focused on parents but later expanded to include all important interpersonal relationships, IPARTheory focuses on the cross-culturally universal influence of parental acceptance (warmth and supportiveness) and rejection (hostility, aggression, and neglect) on child outcomes and extending into adulthood and old age (Rohner, 2021). Unlike many theories, IPARTheory has done a great deal of research on the influence of fathers both in combination with and as unique from mothers and has found that father acceptance/rejection, over and above maternal acceptance/rejection, is strongly associated with a variety of children’s outcomes, including internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, school achievement, prosocial behavior, self-esteem, loneliness, and overall psychological adjustment (e.g., Caliendo et al., 2017; Giovazolias & Malikiosi-Loizos, 2018; Hussain & Munaf, 2012a, b; Li & Meier, 2017; Miranda et al., 2016; Putnick et al., 2015; Rohner, 2014). With an extensive international/cross-cultural research base, IPARTheory provides perhaps the best evidence of the universal impact of fathers on children via the quality of their relationships and whether their children feel “cared for,” as well as the long-lasting impacts of these relationships on the entire life course.

Although such direct associations have been well-researched and supported cross-culturally, future research using IPARTheory could benefit from the investigation of potential moderators of these associations and operationalization of the constructs of acceptance and rejection. For example, there is evidence that “parental warmth” is conceptualized and expressed differently by mothers and fathers in the USA (Adamsons & Buehler, 2007). However, such examinations have not been conducted for the constructs of acceptance and rejection across genders or cultures. Therefore, it is unknown whether acceptance or rejection might be expressed differently across genders or cultures or whether gendered or cultural expectations differ around specific forms of accepting or rejecting behaviors. For example, perhaps a lack of physical affection is perceived as more rejecting when it comes from mothers versus fathers or in more expressive versus restrictive cultures, due to higher expectations for physical affection from some groups relative to others. Most research using IPARTheory has examined the universal impact of children’s perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection rather than possible differences in the specific behaviors that created such impressions.

Developmental Theories

The primary developmental theoretical approach in fathering research has been life course theory. Life course was an early entrant to theorizing about fathering, dating back to Reuben Hill’s work and his assertion in 1970 that fathers serve as “generational bridges”. Roy (2014) built upon this, noting that fathers, and also likely mothers, “reconstruct patterns of parenting across time and maintain durable intergenerational mechanisms of socialization into parenthood” (p. 322), as fathers learn how to parent or how not to parent from their own experiences of being fathered. Key to life course theory is the idea of linked lives, that “lives cannot be defined independently; choices and chances are shared socially” (Roy, 2014, p. 325), and such interdependence has long-lasting implications for fathers and children. As noted by Roy (2014), the family and work experiences and transitions fathers experience all have implications for their children both in the immediate short term and in the long term. For example, a father losing or gaining a job could have implications for his child’s ability to attend college in the future, influencing their later employment opportunities.

A life-course approach to fathers’ influence on children has focused on a number of diverse outcomes and processes, including the intergenerational transmission of outcomes between fathers and children (e.g., Thornberry et al., 2009), “off-time” events such as adolescent fatherhood (Recto & Lesser, 2020), and the influence of fathers on maternal and child health (Lu et al., 2010) and in families that experience divorce (Ahrons, 2007; Hogendoorn et al., 2020). The role of time, whether via longitudinal or cohort studies, tends to be central to life course approaches to fathering. However, as noted by Roy (2014), there is little work done on older fathers and fathers of adult children, with most focusing on fathers of younger children or the transition to fatherhood. Further research on transitions within fathering (Palkovitz & Palm, 2009) and the latter end of the life course would be beneficial.

Essential Father Theory

One last theory that is helpful to understand as a historical note is the essential fatherhood theory. Just as it sounds, this perspective held that fathers play a unique, essential role in children’s development that cannot be filled by mothers or other individuals (e.g., Blankenhorn, 1995; Popenoe, 1996). Largely reactive to the increase in “father-absent households” due to increases in divorce and nonmarital childbearing in the 1970s and 1980s, this perspective had its roots in emphasizing the key role men, and only men, play in socializing sons and the importance of marriage for tying men to their children and convincing/requiring them to be responsible fathers (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). Such a perspective resulted in a heavy policy emphasis in the late 1990s on marriage promotion, including the Healthy Marriage Initiative of President Bush and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Unfortunately for such policies, research fails to support such a perspective unless it is oversimplified or misinterpreted (Pleck, 2007; Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). For example, single-mother households have no father present but also have a much higher likelihood of being in poverty than two-parent households, and it is poverty, not father absence per se, that is the primary mechanism by which children are adversely impacted (McLoyd, 1998; Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). And, when comparing two-parent heterosexual families with two-parent lesbian mother families so that the number of parents is held constant, research resoundingly fails to support that children without fathers suffer a universal deficit (Pleck, 2007). As noted by Silverstein and Auerbach:

In contrast to the neoconservative perspective, our data on gay fathering couples have convinced us that neither a mother nor a father is essential. Similarly, our research with divorced, never-married, and remarried fathers has taught us that a wide variety of family structures can support positive child outcomes. We have concluded that children need at least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional connection to them and with whom they have a consistent relationship. Because of the emotional and practical stress involved in childrearing, a family structure that includes more than one such adult is more likely to contribute to positive child outcomes. Neither the sex of the adult(s) nor the biological relationship to the child has emerged as a significant variable in predicting positive development. One, none, or both of those adults could be a father [or mother] (1999, p. 3).

As such, although research strongly supports the (sometimes unique) benefit that fathers can have when involved in positive ways with their children, the idea that fathers are essential to children’s development is best left as a historical footnote that is critical to understand but should not be utilized to guide research or policy on fathers and families.

Predictors of Fathering

Once the potential positive impact of fathers had been relatively well-established, scholars moved to investigate what factors encouraged or inhibited fathers’ engagement with their children. Research in this area frequently focused on maternal factors (e.g., mothers’ employment, gatekeeping), child factors (e.g., child age, gender, temperament, behavior), father factors (e.g., father age, education, employment, identity, self-efficacy, incarceration), and relational factors (e.g., mother–father relationship status and quality, co-parenting quality). As with research on the outcomes of fathering, research on predictors of fathering has used a variety of theoretical frameworks. Systemic approaches again were prominently featured, but developmental approaches shifted to focus on the internal and external factors influencing the development of fathers rather than of their children, and a particular focus could be seen on societal and cultural influences on fathering via feminist, gender, and queer theories.

Systemic Frameworks

Systemic approaches have been the most commonly used to investigate predictors of fathering, again including both family systems theory and bioecological theory, and focusing heavily on what factors promote or inhibit father involvement with children, with some focusing on the promotion of particular fathering behaviors. A great deal of family systems research has focused on the influence of the mother-father relationship, particularly with regard to co-parenting, on father engagement (Baker et al., 2018; Fagan & Palkovitz, 2019; Lee et al., 2020b; Kopystynska et al., 2020), as well as the interdependence of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting behaviors (Garrett-Peters et al., 2011; Ngu & Florsheim, 2011). Although such processes are unquestionably important to understand, additional research looking at outcomes other than father involvement and beyond the mother-father subsystem is needed.

Fathering research using a bioecological perspective has focused on a wider variety of fathering outcomes, including the involvement of gay fathers in schools (Goldberg et al., 2020), father sensitivity with infants (Goldberg et al., 2002), father–child interaction quality (Holmes & Huston, 2010), abuse (Lee et al., 2008), custodial fathering (Hamer & Marchioro, 2002), and father involvement in early childhood programs (Palm & Fagan, 2008). Such research notes the highly contextual nature of fathering and highlights the variety of factors that influence the roles, behaviors, and competence of fathers. Cabrera and colleagues’ ecological model of fathering (2014) described above also speaks to the numerous factors influencing fathering and specifically proposes father demographics, employment, social network, and history; family/household characteristics, behaviors, and relationships; and social, political, and economic climate, policies, and circumstances as factors that frequently influence fathers’ parenting. However, similar to studies of fathering outcomes, Cabrera et al. (2014) also note a lack of cross-cultural studies of predictors of fathering employing an ecological lens.

Developmental Approaches

In addition to a life course perspective, research on predictors of fathering also was used to develop multiple midrange theories of identity development from social psychological, Eriksonian/generativity, resource, and responsible fathering perspectives; midrange theories use broader theoretical frameworks to develop explanatory models of specific topics or phenomena. Research using life course theory tended to investigate the impact that cumulative risk over the life course has on fathers (Bowen, 2010; Hogendoorn et al., 2020) and the impact of policies such as parental leave (Moss & Deven, 2015) and custody policies (Roy, 2008), as well as the ways that social change and time influence cohorts of fathers (Roy, 2014). Fathering scholars also have developed numerous midrange identity development theories that examine how fathering is shaped by fathers’ desires for generativity (Mitchell & Lashewicz, 2019) and resources (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018) and by the ideals of “responsible fathering” held by the community and families (Doherty et al., 1998).

A large body of work also has examined fathering from an identity theory perspective, a social psychological midrange theory derived from symbolic interactionism that suggests that identities (ideals about the self in various social roles) are derived from social expectations of those roles and result in the enactment of identity-relevant behaviors (Stryker, 1968). Feedback received from others about such identity-relevant behaviors then reshapes behavior and identity until congruence is achieved between desired identity standards, behaviors, and behavioral feedback (Burke, 1991, 1997; Stryker & Burke, 2000). Ihinger-Tallman et al. (1993) first proposed that identity theory be applied to postdivorce fathering, suggesting that fathers’ identity salience (likelihood of enactment), centrality (identity importance), and commitment (relationships supporting an identity) predict the postdivorce involvement of fathers with their children. Since that time, an extensive body of work has investigated links between identity and father involvement (Adamsons, 2013a, b; Adamsons & Pasley, 2013; DeGarmo, 2010; Dyer, 2005; Fagan, 2020; Fox & Bruce, 2001; Goldberg, 2015; Maurer et al., 2003; McBride et al., 2005; Pasley et al., 2014; Rane & McBride, 2000), with the vast majority supporting the link between identity and behavior for fathers.

However, research using an identity theory perspective has multiple weaknesses. Importantly, a general lack of clarity and consistency in the conceptualization and measurement of identity concepts makes it difficult to compare findings across studies (Pasley et al., 2014). Also, although studies generally have found consistent associations between identity and behavior, the effect sizes are typically quite small and pale in comparison to more practical concerns such as residence and employment status and hours, leading some to question whether the theory is “too theoretical” and not practical enough (Pasley et al., 2014). Finally, research using an identity theory perspective has been relatively homogeneous and focused heavily on White samples and with either divorced or incarcerated fathers, contexts where disruptions to identity are most likely to occur. Greater diversity of the types of fathers (race/ethnicity, SES, gender/sexual identity, age, and ability status) and greater precision and consistency across studies in conceptualization would strongly benefit research in this area.

Social/Cultural Approaches

Feminist and Gender Theories

Research investigating the predictors and nature of fathering has frequently taken a feminist or gender theory lens. The distinction between feminist theories and gender theories is an important one in the fathering realm, as there were disputes within feminism about whether motherhood was oppressive or empowering for women and, in parallel, whether fathers were supportive or oppressive to women. As such, feminist theorists of the 1970s and 1980s were divided on the issue of whether fathering, or any men’s role, was truly a “feminist” issue. As Doucet and Lee (2014, p. 357) noted:

From the 1970s to the early 1990s, feminist theories had an ambivalent relationship with motherhood around questions of whether mothering empowered or disempowered women (for an overview, see Kinser, 2010; O’Reilly, 2008; Snitow, 1992). Part of this ambivalence was connected to feminism's complex relationship with men as fathers and parallel questions as to whether men in their roles as husbands and fathers oppressed women (see, e.g., Delphy & Leonard, 1992). By the late 1980s, however, feminist theories of care, social reproduction, and work and family issues were beginning to reconfigure theoretical relationships between feminist theories and mothering, focusing on reframing the strengths and benefits of relationships and relationalities while also being attentive to the costs of caring and the socioeconomic and political effects of different and unequal gender roles (e.g., Folbre, 1994; Ruddick, 1983). This attentiveness to both the costs and the benefits of parental caregiving spurred an interest in studying women, work, and family (e.g., Lamphere, 1987; Lewis, Porter, & Shrimpton, 1988; Zavella, 1987), which, in turn, slowly moved toward the study of men, work, and family. Specifically, there was a small chorus of feminist voices who argued that distinct gender roles for fathers and mothers would lead to adverse effects for both women and men.

Such research on men as fathers sometimes was compatible with feminist goals of equality and enhanced well-being for women and children, such as when research has focused on fathers as caregivers and the benefits of father involvement for children (Coltrane, 1996; Lamb, 1981, 2000; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). At other times, fathering research puts men in competition with women (e.g., maternal gatekeeping, postdivorce custody, and policy discussions about shared parenting versus maternal custody presumptions). As such, a feminist lens is not always appropriate for work on fathers, and broader gender theories should be employed at such times. Gender theories retain the focus on gender as a critical organizing force for the experiences of individuals and families, and as noted by Collins (2004), “talking about gender does not mean focusing solely on women’s issues. Men’s experiences are also deeply gendered” (p. 6).

Over time, both feminist and gender perspectives began considering the importance of intersectionality and the ways in which an exclusive focus on gender historically has diminished the voices and experiences of men and women of color and from various socioeconomic statuses. This has been true in the fathering realm as well, with recent research examining the important intersections of gender with race and class (Hodges & Budig, 2010; Shows & Gerstel, 2009; Williams, 2010) and particularly the ways that fathers who are unable to successfully fulfill traditional breadwinner roles seek alternative identities and roles in the family.

Also, with increased societal recognition of gender as a nonbinary construct, there have been internal debates within these perspectives and pushes made by queer theory about the best balance between a focus on the influential nature of gender norms in all societies and also acknowledging and valuing the fluid and socially constructed nature of gender. Intermingled within this is the recent emergence of greater advocacy for both transgender individuals (which reinforces the gender binary) and for those who identify as nonbinary (which rejects the gender binary), such as gender fluid, agender, or genderqueer. It is an ongoing question, therefore, of how to acknowledge both that there is no “essential gender” and yet that gender is essential to the construction of our daily lives via its influence on policies and social expectations. Doucet and Lee (2014) built upon this complexity, noting the real disadvantages imposed by gendered norms on both men and women, regardless of whether perceived gender differences are “real”:

As Joan Williams (2010, p. 128) explained, ‘People have thousands of ‘real differences’ that lack social consequences. The question is not whether physical, social, and psychological differences between men and women exist. It is why these particular differences become salient in a particular context and then are used to create and justify women’s continuing economic disadvantage.’ We would add here that we also need to consider how particular perceived differences, including embodied differences, about men are used to create and justify men’s continuing disadvantages in parental responsibilities (p. 365).

Theories of masculinity have been surprisingly limited in their applications to fathering research, perhaps due to conflicts between hegemonic ideals of disengaged and unemotional masculinity and expectations for nurturant and caring fatherhood. However, theories that highlight changing ideals and challenges to hegemonic masculinity may provide a lens whereby both traditional notions of gendered parenting and “new” discourses of involved fatherhood can intersect (e.g., Pleck, 2010b; Randles, 2018).

Conceptualizations of Fathering

Finally, the ways in which we have conceptualized fathering itself have evolved over the decades. Grounded theoretical work has played a prominent role here, but so, too, have theories attending to sociocultural influences and fathers’ developmental trajectories. Generally speaking, research on conceptualizations of fathering has fallen along two paths: how researchers, policymakers, and practitioners conceptualize fathers, and how fathers conceptualize themselves. Although a less extensive body of work than in the two prior sections, research in this arena nonetheless has been influential in highlighting the diversity of fathers and the pitfalls of viewing men as simply “fathers” without an intersectional lens. Somewhat ironically, an intersectional theory has not been applied to the understanding of fatherhood and fathering, something we discuss further in our recommendations for future directions.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory (GT), or developing theory “from the ground up” by analyzing typically qualitative data for themes and connections, has been used in numerous studies of fathers. Such studies have explored how to understand fathers and how fathers understand themselves in a variety of contexts, including their roles in low-income families (Shears et al., 2006) and during meals (Jansen et al., 2020), when they have children with developmental disabilities (Ridding & Williams, 2019; Thackeray & Eatough, 2018), and in other countries/cultures (Behnke et al., 2008). Most grounded theory work, perhaps unsurprisingly with its focus on participants’ voices, has focused on how fathers see themselves and make sense of their experiences as fathers, and GT has been particularly valuable in amplifying the voices of marginalized fathers who often are invisible in large-scale quantitative studies. However, little work has built on the foundations of grounded theory studies, and as is the case with many studies claiming to use a grounded theory approach (Hardesty & Haselschwerdt, in press), most studies stopped short, simply identifying themes rather than truly developing theories or comprehensive conceptualizations of fathering. As such, the field would benefit from more actual theory development coming from participants, as the way researchers conceptualize, and therefore how they research and measure, fathers and fathering has not always matched the ways that fathers define and see themselves.

For example, over the last 30 years, fathers consistently have cited the importance of “being there” for children (Randles, 2020; Roy, 1999), which is not captured by typical measures of involvement or relationship quality. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers frequently emphasize tangible, trackable forms of fathering such as frequency of engagement in particular activities and time or dollars spent, things which are rarely cited by fathers themselves and which are unattainable by many, such as nonresident fathers, incarcerated fathers, or low-income fathers; we build further upon the problematic nature of this in our Future Directions. Despite this mismatch in conceptualizations of fathering and continued calls from researchers themselves (including two of the authors on this chapter; Adamsons & Johnson, 2013; Hawkins & Palkovitz, 1999) to move beyond “ticks and clicks,” contact, and child support as primary assessments and conceptualizations of fathering, the field of fathering has been slow to achieve these goals. It is our hope that continued work using a grounded theory approach which truly results in theorizing can help push the field of fathering in this much-needed direction.

Systemic Theories

In contrast to grounded theory work, research taking a systemic approach to conceptualize fathering has tended to focus more on external perspectives about fathers in various contexts, rather than on the views of fathers themselves, and has mostly consisted of an ecological approach. Ecological frameworks have been applied to ways of conceptualizing fathering while incarcerated (Clarke et al., 2005), the interactions between African–American fathers and institutions (McAdoo, 1993), fathering in other countries and cultures (Taylor & Behnke, 2005), and varying family structures and contexts (Hanson, 1985). Given the previously noted lack of focus on external systems and contexts in other ecological research on fathers, it is interesting that such attention has been given to the ways that external contexts influence our definitions and ideas of fathering. Harking back to the family systems focus, one study utilized a systems theory approach to examining the perceptions of adolescent mothers of father involvement and their own gatekeeping (Herzog et al., 2007). However, like earlier-mentioned research on fathering predictors and outcomes, no studies using family systems theory have examined how conceptualizations of fathering are influenced by macro systems outside the family or family subsystems other than the mother-father subsystem.

Other Approaches

Other theoretical lenses have been applied to conceptualizations of fathering, but in limited quantity for any given theory. A feminist lens was applied to examining views of fatherhood in law and policy in the UK (Busby & Weldon-Johns, 2019). A life course perspective was used to explore how Hispanic adolescent fathers view fatherhood (Recto & Lesser, 2020). Identity theory was used to frame a discussion of the possible selves of incarcerated fathers (O’Keefe, 2019), and a caring masculinities framework was the foundation for a study of stay-at-home fathers and masculine identities (Lee & Lee, 2018). As any of these perspectives would be fruitful for guiding our conceptualizations of fatherhood, much more work remains to be done in these areas. We likely do not seek to have a singular “theory of fatherhood and fathering,” but what is greatly needed is a better, more comprehensive conceptualization of fatherhood that addresses both areas of commonality and contexts that lead to distinctions.

Specific Conceptualizations of Fathering

Two additional broad conceptualizations of fathering have emerged over the years. Generative fathering was elaborated as a conceptual ethic of generative work (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997), with clear links to Snarey’s (1993) four-decade intergenerational study and Eriksonian theories of lifespan development. From an Eriksonian perspective, childrearing is perhaps the most common way of being generative and contributing to future generations in some meaningful way. These works represent rich conceptual frameworks for theoretical elaboration, although thus far they have received limited direct empirical attention.

A second conceptualization was proposed by Lamb et al. (1987) and further refined by Pleck (2010a). The initial work proposed a tripartite model of father involvement that initially focused on fathers’ engagement (direct involvement with the child), accessibility (time available to but not necessarily directly involved with the child), and responsibility (indirect care for the child, like making doctor’s appointments). This model has been and continues to be used extensively in fathering research as a way of operationalizing father involvement (e.g., Habib & Lancaster, 2005; Pilarz et al., 2020; Wray, 2020). Pleck (2010a) then refined the original model, changing the components to positive engagement, warmth and responsiveness, and control (to align fathering research more closely with traditional “parenting” research), and breaking responsibility into two components, indirect care and process responsibility. Some research has utilized this newer conceptualization (Weinshenker, 2016), but the earlier model remains more common. Given the problems created by divergent conceptualizations of fathering when wishing to compare or integrate findings, we recommend that more scholars explicitly move to the newer conceptualization proposed by Pleck (2010a).

Future Directions

In addressing the future of theorizing fathering, it is helpful to build upon the current state of the field so that the future is both reflective of and distinct from the foundation established thus far. As such, we have organized this section to reflect the following three recommendations: (a) theoretical frameworks which continue to be relevant when theorizing fathering but that should be used in new and novel ways, (b) perspectives that need to evolve to better fit contemporary families, and (c) theories that have thus far been un- or underutilized when theorizing fathering but that hold promise and should be explored further.

Theories to Continue Utilizing

Several well-established theories, including family systems theory, feminist and gender theories, and bioecological systems theory, have previously been used as a foundation to explore various aspects of fathers, fatherhood, and fathering. We have presented the contributions these theories have thus far made to the field of fathering and use this section to offer specific suggestions on how each of these theoretical perspectives can be extended further. In addition, recent research using the father-child activation relationship from attachment theory offers a particularly novel approach to theorizing fathering, and we therefore present recommendations on new directions to explore within this framework.

Family Systems Theory

As discussed previously, Family Systems Theory (FST; Cox & Paley, 2003) has been used by scholars to investigate various fathering constructs, including the different roles enacted and rules followed by fathers (and mothers) within families, how nonresident fathers engage with their children, and how systems within families influence fathers’ relational quality with mothers, including their co-parenting relationship. We see this work as important for laying the foundation for exploring the complex ways in which the various subsystems within families influence fathers and the relationships fathers maintain with other family members.

In thinking about the future of theorizing fathering, we encourage the use of an FST perspective within co-parenting research, specifically with fathers in married families, so that greater integration of the ways in which the mother–father system interacts in families can be established. The extensive empirical literature on maternal gatekeeping and its relationship to paternal engagement may gain both explanatory and predictive utility if it is clearly articulated in central FST constructs such as family roles and rules. We also encourage scholars to extend FST research to explore a wider range of family subsystems, including how FST can serve as a theoretical grounding for work investigating fathering in multi-household families, same-sex fathers, transgender fathers, stepfamilies, kin families, and multigenerational relationships within families. Additionally, we suggest that those interested in creating future pathways of theorizing fathering explore how FST can be used to examine nuances in families that have thus far received little attention from fathering research, such as those with open adoption arrangements, the myriad of LGBTQAI+ family constellations, and the aforementioned custodial father/noncustodial mother binuclear families. Each of these families contains systems and subsystems that extend beyond those which have been explored previously and have the potential to offer valuable insights into who fathers are, how fathers interact with their children and partners, and how they impact their children. Finally, as noted earlier, extending beyond the family system to examine the role of suprasystems (e.g., policies, neighborhoods, schools, churches, government agencies, and fathering programs) can further expand our understanding and theorizing of fathering.

Bioecological Systems Theory

Similar to FST, we acknowledge the important foundation established through previous work using bioecological systems theory and, moving forward, encourage the use of novel approaches grounded in this theory. As Cabrera et al. (2014) suggest, bioecological systems theory provides an opportunity to examine the effects of macrosystem-level factors such as the economic, cultural, and political contexts on fathers and fathering, particularly in non-Western cultures. Theorizing how cultural beliefs regarding child rearing, egalitarian parenting, parental leave policies, and nontraditional family formations impact fathers and their children will provide additional understanding of fathering in varying cultural contexts. Additionally, future research could examine how fathers, fatherhood, and fathering are represented in various media outlets (macrosystems) such as television, movies, and print materials, and how these are indicative of cultural expectations of fatherhood. For example, a study currently underway by the second author uses award-winning children’s literature to theorize how fathers are portrayed as performing fatherhood.

Additionally, we encourage those interested in exploring ways in which the more contemporary iteration of bioecological systems theory, the Process-Person-Context-Time model (PPCT; Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) can be applied to the theorizing of fathers, fatherhood, and fathering. We find little to no fathering research which is explicitly grounded in the PPCT model or that utilizes all aspects of the model to guide the development of theoretical understandings of fathering. As discussed previously in this chapter, Pleck (2007) does examine the process component of the PPCT model, postulating that fathers serve as a unique microsystem partner for their children and that the concept of proximal processes can potentially be used to explore the “unique” parenting styles and behaviors enacted by fathers. However, no additional explorations of the remaining components of the PPCT model are offered, presenting an ideal opportunity for others interested in the future of theorizing fathering to utilize other aspects of this contemporary iteration of the bioecological systems theory. Moreover, the conceptual contributions and empirical findings presented in Situated Fathering (Marsiglio et al., 2005) serve as another potential avenue for integration within the PPCT perspective. We suggest further elaboration that addresses how the personal characteristics of fathers, as well as those of other family members (person) impact developmental outcomes, how each of the four interrelated systems (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem) work in conjunction to moderate familial relationships (context), and how each of the three components of time (microtime, mesotime, and macrotime) distinctly and jointly influence both how fathering is conceptualized as well as expectations and beliefs regarding fathering behaviors. In these ways, the PPCT model can be used in a truly integrated way to expand our theorizing about fathers, fatherhood, and fathering.

Another future direction that can be taken from a bioecological systems theory lens is how global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, influence, encourage, and disrupt fathers and fathering at various points across fatherhood. Thus far, these macrosystem-level and chronosystem-level factors have been an underexplored aspect of bioecological systems theory and offer a promising new direction in the future of theorizing fathering. For example, attempts at reducing the spread of the COVID-19 virus included stay-at-home orders, which resulted in work-from-home arrangements for those adults able to do so and remote learning for children of all ages. Using bioecological systems theory is a timely opportunity for exploring how these new arrangements have blended home and work spheres for numerous families across the globe, how potential subsequent changes to parental leave policies have influenced family dynamics, and how the increased focus on quality healthcare as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the overall physical and mental health of fathers (Feinberg et al., 2021). Furthermore, positioning global events within the PPCT model, with close attention to how events are relative to the features of microtime (where one is in the life course) and macrotime (the historical time point), offers another promising direction for examining how this theory can be used to further explore fatherhood and fathering.

Feminist and Gender Theories

In suggesting ways the field can theorize fathering moving forward, we are especially inspired by the work of Andrea Doucet (Doucet, 2006, 2011; Doucet & Lee, 2014), which focuses on the ways theorizing fathering can be positioned within feminist and gender theories. Although recent decades have seen increased attention to the varying roles fathers embody in families, this work has not been grounded in feminist and gender theories, creating a tremendous opportunity for future fathering research to expand into this theoretical arena.

Specifically, in building on the suggestion of Doucet and Lee (2014), we encourage the use of feminist and gender theories with those groups of nontraditional fathers who have thus far been underrepresented in the field of fathering. For example, using feminist and gender theories (as well as queer theory or other critical theories; more on these below) to extend how we theorize gay, bisexual, and trans fathers, as well as “mathers” (parents who do not identify as being a father or a mother and instead use a hybrid term; Padavic & Butterfield, 2011) would not only be beneficial to the LGBTQAI+ community but to the larger fathering field as well. Such theorizing presents opportunities to explore how these fathers conceptualize their experiences and how they navigate “nontraditional fatherhood”.

Additionally, we see work specific to single fathers, including adoptive and biological fathers, as well as those who are single fathers by choice or out of necessity (e.g., spousal separation, widowers, etc.), as another future direction for theorizing fathering within feminist and gender theories. Such theorizing would expand understanding and conceptualizations of how an individual becomes a single father, how they define themselves and their roles as a father, and how they navigate parenthood as a single father.

Finally, further research regarding the theorizing of fathering from a feminist and gender theoretical perspective can explore how fathers (both traditional and nontraditional) navigate various parenting arenas, such as their children’s medical community, school settings, and their children’s extracurricular spaces and communities. Theorizing within these frameworks may also be particularly promising when exploring traditionally gendered spaces. For example, do the experiences of single fathers engaging in male-traditional activities, such as sports or Boy Scouts, with their children differ from those engaging in more female-traditional spaces, such as ballet or Girl Scouts? Furthermore, do these experiences differ for different types of nontraditional fathers based on their own fathering identities? We believe such avenues present those who theorize fathering with a particularly salient and timely opportunity to employ gender and feminist theories.

In our proposal of the future directions for theorizing fathering, we feel it is vital, once again, to bring to the forefront that the very idea of gender has continued to become more fluid in American society (Reczek, 2020). These developments must not only be acknowledged when discussing the future of theorizing fathering, but they also have the potential to significantly impact the ways fathers and fatherhood have been defined in previous decades. For example, how do fathering researchers conceptualize fathering under the traditional assumptions of gender, specifically of the male gender, when these assumptions are no longer clearly defined? How does theorizing about becoming a father change within the context of transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender fluid fathers? What other assumptions guide the theorizing of fathers and fathering, and is there room to challenge these assumptions under the direction of feminist and gender theories? We believe these considerations will continue to push the boundaries of how, not just feminist and gender theories, but all theories, are used to position fathers and fathering.

Father–Child Activation Relationship Theory

Earlier in this chapter, we discuss the ways in which attachment theory has been used to address fathering and father–child relationships. Here, we focus our attention specifically on an extension of attachment theory, father-child activation relationship theory (Paquette, 2004; Paquette et al., 2020), as a promising direction for the future of theorizing fathering.

Researchers from a variety of disciplines have begun to explore ways in which father-child activation relationship theory can be used for examining a wide range of child outcomes, such as children’s self-regulation (Bocknek et al., 2017; Stevenson & Crnic, 2013) and childhood anxiety disorders (Lazarus et al., 2016). We encourage scholars to continue this line of research and to investigate the additional ways that fathers influence their children’s development through this type of activation parenting. Recent work investigating the activation of parenting patterns of low-income, unmarried parents by Lee et al. (2020a) present an opportunity for expanding this work to a broader array of families. For example, exploring activation parenting with fathers from economically advantaged families, with highly educated fathers, with gay fathers, and with fathers from varying racial and cultural backgrounds will provide additional information about the relevance of this theory and its influence on father–child relationships across a variety of family constellations.

Additionally, we urge those interested in the future of theorizing fathers, fatherhood, and fathering to expand on this growing empirical base by using the father–child activation relationship theory to explore how this type of parenting influences not only children but also fathers (and their partners). For example, how do mothers interact with and view fathers who are more or less activating? Is there a relationship between activation fathering and fathers’ perceptions of the father–child relationship? Do fathers who engage in these types of activation behaviors with their children do so as a repetition of (or in contrast to) their experiences with their own fathers (i.e., is there a multigenerational influence for these behavioral patterns)? Are these activation-based behaviors intentional, or are they just part of “what fathers do”? Furthermore, are decisions about how to interact with their children influenced by the racial or ethnic backgrounds of fathers and their children? By the sex of their child? Moreover, we encourage those interested in exploring these lines of inquiry to move beyond traditional quantitative research methods to employ qualitative approaches which are better suited to answering these types of questions, such as in-depth interviews, case studies, and observations of father–child interactions coupled with fathers’ reflections on the experiences.

Evolving Beyond the Nurturant Father

When theorizing the future of fathering, we encourage scholars to move away from theoretical foundations which present nurturant/“new fatherhood” as the ideal fathering model. First, Paquette’s framework (2004) on the father-child activation relationship presents itself as one avenue to explore in this vein. Paquette’s framework (2004) suggests that moderate levels of directive or intrusive behaviors coupled with positive regard, sensitivity, and cognitive stimulation can be just as effective in promoting children’s development as nurturant parenting behaviors. Second, several researchers have noted that a model which encourages fathers to regularly engage in nurturing activities with their children may not be possible for some fathers, such as nonresident fathers with restricted access to their children, inner-city families with unavailable or unsafe outdoor play environments, or incarcerated fathers (Marsiglio et al., 2005; Sayers & Fox, 2005). Furthermore, this type of “ideal” nurturant fatherhood may not be desirable for some fathers (Fagan & Kaufman, 2015) or may be viewed as impossible to achieve (Palkovitz, 2014), or may not be viewed as the ideal fathering type cross-culturally (Seward & Rush, 2015). Finally, conceptualizations focused on the nurturant fathering model and ideas of “new fatherhood” as fathers who engage in domestic and childcare responsibilities and who establish highly involved and nurturing relationships with their children (Devreux, 2007; Hall, 1994; Lamb, 1986; LaRossa, 1988) have now existed for decades and therefore are not all that “new” after all.

We acknowledge that a sensitive, nurturing, and responsive style of parenting is beneficial for children; therefore, we are not suggesting that we abandon nurturant fatherhood altogether. In fact, future research can support this conceptualization of fatherhood by investigating how best to support fathers as they navigate potential conflict that may exist between engaging in this type of parenting style and maintaining career satisfaction (Harrington et al., 2017), for example. Rather, we recommend a broadening of our conceptualizations to include additional fathering forms and behaviors as equally desirable, beneficial, and worthwhile. It is important for the future of theorizing fathering that we continue to recognize the varying ways in which fathers positively interact with their children and that fathers’ interactions may be distinct from mothers’ interactions. Recognizing that fathers may have their own style of engagement and interaction with their children acknowledges both that our understanding of who fathers are has evolved over time and that some types of fathering behaviors may be inaccessible to some fathers. Instead of continuing to position the nurturant/new fatherhood as the ideal and only desirable type of father, we encourage those interested in pursuing the future of theorizing fathering to explore theories that have thus far been underutilized or are completely lacking in the field of fathering. We now turn our attention to such theories and offer suggestions on how they can be used to move the field forward.

Theories to Explore

Social Capital Theory

One relational approach to fathering that was suggested by Pleck (2007) addresses fathers’ contributions to children’s social capital—the intangible resources that fathers bring to children via their participation in various social networks. Social capital can stem from numerous sources, from fathers’ income, education, and occupational status, to fathers’ social and kin networks, which might provide employment, financial, or other opportunities for children. However, very limited research has investigated or supports the influence of fathers’ social capital on children’s well-being (e.g., Parcel & Bixby, 2016; Williams et al., 2012), and as such, we suggest social capital theory as another way to theoretically situate fathers, fatherhood, and fathering in the future. We believe that social capital theory is particularly salient in contemporary society because it can be used to explore how fathers’ ability to contribute to their children’s social capital potentially serves as a mechanism for the wide disparities that exist in families—both nationally and cross-culturally. For example, what opportunities are available to certain children, and not others, based on the social capital contributions of their fathers? Furthermore, in what ways do these opportunities vary, both within and across different groups of fathers such as ethnic and racial minority fathers; urban, suburban, and rural fathers; fathers with low educational levels; economically advantaged fathers; or fathers with disabilities?

Although social capital theory offers a strong theoretical orientation for exploring potential inequalities among fathers, fatherhood, and fathering, we also believe that a group of critical theories present a prime opportunity for examining both the disparities and similarities that exist among fathers. These theories—critical race theory, intersectionality, and queer theory—are specifically designed to address patterns of societal inequality. As such, we offer suggestions on how each of these critical theories can, and should, be used in future work which theorizes fathering within a larger societal context.

Critical Theories

Critical Race Theory

Thus far, little to no fathering research has been grounded in critical race theory (CRT; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Yosso, 2005). CRT posits that race is socially constructed and that race is used as a means for determining one’s value in society. As such, CRT scholars focus primarily on disparities and issues related to gender, class, and race, emphasizing the lives, histories, and experiences of people of color (Ellis & Hartlep, 2017). Furthermore, CRT addresses the intersectionality of these demographic characteristics, often exploring the ways in which these intersections contribute to the oppression experienced by people of color.

In thinking about the future of theorizing fathering, we offer CRT as one theoretical framework that can be used to explore varying aspects of fatherhood and fathers’ experiences, particularly with fathers of color. CRT provides an opportunity to delve deeper into the unique experiences of fathers of color and to examine how systemic racism, patterns of disadvantage, and perpetual inequalities have influenced fathering among families of color. Additionally, CRT allows for a theoretical exploration of similarities and differences across various intersections of fatherhood as a means for better understanding the lived experiences of fathers from varying racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. This work is especially salient as a recent resurgence of racial tensions in America, combined with a global pandemic, has crystallized the vast divisions in economic and educational opportunities in American society and the intersecting struggles faced by many people of color. Given recent events and the ways in which they will continue to alter life for families across the globe, we believe that CRT presents a particularly promising future direction for theorizing fathering.

Intersectionality

Similar to CRT, intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991, 1993) is a critical theory that examines how various factors intertwine to construct individuals’ identities and subsequently influence how they experience and navigate day-to-day life. Threads of intersectionality can also be found in feminist and gender theories (Collins, 2009; Few-Demo, 2014); however, the key to positioning intersectional theory is conceptualizing the various attributes of a person (i.e., race, sex, gender, disability status, socioeconomic status, etc.) as not merely nested or additive, but instead, when combined, as serving to establish unique social identities which create varying experiences for individuals.

It has been well established through fathering scholarship, as well as through simply understanding the lived experiences of individuals, that fathers also have various social identities that influence their own fathering experiences; however, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, we see no evidence that intersectional theory has been used as a foundation for examining fathers, fatherhood, and fathering. As such, we propose the use of intersectional theory as another future direction for theorizing fathering. Similar to how CRT can be used to address various aspects of fatherhood, particularly for fathers of color, intersectionality can serve as a theoretical foundation for examining a broad range of intersecting identities. Few-Demo (2014) presents various points in support of the rationale for using an intersectional approach among family science scholars, many of which have implications for those specifically interested in fathers, fatherhood, and fathering. For example, she posits that intersectionality can offer “rich, complex information about how people “do” or perform close relationships and roles within multiple systems, identity development, family processes, and generativity” (Few-Demo, 2014, p. 180). Accordingly, using an intersectional lens to position fathering research presents an opportunity to explore fathering relationships and roles across these varying systems, identities, and familial processes. Furthermore, such an approach allows for exploration of the intersections that result when a range of community processes, services, and institutions interact with various groups of fathers and families. Finally, in suggesting ways that intersectional theory can be used in theorizing fathering, we again echo Few-Demo (2014), by proposing it be used as a means for understanding how fathers interact with various social structures (e.g., culture, religion, laws) at different points across the life course, across generations, and across time.

Queer Theory

A debate that persists within fathering scholarship is whether fathers should strive to live up to maternal norms, or whether a better goal would be to “subvert heteronormativity” and create new norms that are either unique to fathers or more gender neutral (Doucet & Lee, 2014). Queer theory (QT; de Lauretis, 1991; Foucault & Hurley, 1990; Rubin, 2011) addresses this concern with its focus on challenging and “queering” the dichotomous nature of a variety of realms, including sexuality, gender, and race. However, as is the case with CRT and intersectionality, relatively little research has looked at fathers from a QT perspective, with the exception of two studies on gay fathers (Berkowitz & Maura, 2011; Leland, 2017). We, therefore, suggest that additional research on fathering in a variety of contexts using a QT perspective would be beneficial.

We believe QT can be used in future fathering work by examining how fathers who identify as transgender, gender fluid, gender-queer, or gender nonbinary conceptualize their fathering identity and if/how this intersects with their gender identity, as well as how they conceptualize their relationships with their partners and other family members, with other fathers, and with society at large. Additionally, QT’s appreciation for the anti-dichotomy of gender makes it an ideal theoretical foundation to use when exploring how fathers “perform” the various roles, responsibilities, and expectations of fatherhood and how these performances play out for those who do not subscribe to the gendered nature of parenting. Finally, grounding theoretical work in QT will help to provide additional depth and breadth to the current field of fathering and provide opportunities for scholars and practitioners from various disciplines (e.g., health sciences, gender studies, media studies) to collaborate in new and exciting ways. For additional information, see chapter “Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Fatherhood” of this volume, which focused on fathering and fatherhood within the LGBT community.

Disability Theories

We also find little to no research focused on the theorizing of fathers, fatherhood, and fathering that is grounded in disability theories and focused on fathers with disabilities rather than on fathers who have children with disabilities. In the past 50 years, two prominent models of disability discourse have been presented: the medical model and the social model (Haegele & Hodge, 2016; LoBianco & Sheppard-Jones, 2008). The medical model positions disability as a result of impairment of body structures and functions and as a problem that needs to be cured through medical intervention and support (Haegele & Hodge, 2016; LoBianco & Sheppard-Jones, 2008). Within the medical model, one’s disability serves as the defining characteristic that determines how others interact with them. In contrast to the medical model of disability, the more contemporary social model positions disability as the result of society’s limitations placed on individuals with impairments (Goodley, 2001; Palmer & Harley, 2012). Within the social model, the terms impairment and disability are distinct, with impairment defined as an abnormality of the body/mind and disability defined as the activity restriction experienced by individuals with disabilities as a result of societal organization that does not take into account those with varying abilities (Bingham et al., 2013; Goodley, 2001). As such, the social model of disability suggests that it is society, rather than an individual’s impairment, that creates limitations. Therefore, in contrast to the medical model, the social model does not view disability as an individual problem that needs to be cured but instead focuses its response on the need to remove environmental and systemic barriers that serve to limit the ways individuals with disabilities participate in society (LoBianco & Sheppard-Jones, 2008; Palmer & Harley, 2012).

Out of critiques of both the medical and the social model, a third model has been developed, which focuses on disability from an embodiment perspective (Haegele & Hodge, 2016; Marks, 1999). Marks’ (1999) definition of the embodiment model suggests that “disability does not reside either in the body or society, but rather in an embodied relationship” (p. 11). In regard to exploring fathers with disabilities, we find this particular discourse relevant as it focuses on the personal, lived experience of the individual with the disability (Marks, 1999). We see this conceptualization applied to fathers with disabilities as another potential future direction to explore when theorizing fathering. Such theorizing extends beyond examining the experiences of fathers who have children with disabilities, and instead, focuses on fathers who have disabilities themselves, viewing disability as one of many identities fathers embody. Theorizing the fathering experience from a disability lens not only acknowledges and celebrates this unique subset of fathers but also has the potential to provide additional information regarding how having a disability may impact one’s decisions related to entering into fatherhood, fathering practices, and any additional challenges they may experience in their fathering role as a result of having a disability. In particular, theorizing fathers from within the framework of disability theories counters the earlier-mentioned view that the well-being of fathers as individuals is secondary to their influence on the well-being of children. Employing disability theories in the future theorizing of fathers, fatherhood, and fathering provides the opportunity to center fathers’ identities, including their dis/ability and health status, as primary areas of importance.

Furthermore, positioning fathering and fatherhood within a disability framework offers many potential benefits not only to fathers but also to the larger scholarly community. Primarily, using disability theory to explore the experiences of fathers with disabilities brings to the forefront this understudied population and ensures that their experiences are also used to inform the general field of fathering. Additionally, theorizing about fathering from a disability lens may also offer new insights on how best to support fathers with disabilities in their fathering and familial roles, including how best to recruit fathers with disabilities into research, how to develop programs and policies that are responsive to the needs of this specific group of fathers, and how fathering scholars can collaborate with the disability community and with disability scholars to bring attention to the lived experiences of fathers with disabilities.

As we think about the future of theorizing fathers, fatherhood, and fathering, we have identified multiple opportunities to expand existing theories as well as explore those theories which have thus far been un- or under-utilized by fathering scholars. We see tremendous potential to position fathering in a way that represents contemporary families from a global perspective and that reflects the various roles enacted by modern-day fathers. We are optimistic that scholars will take up the work of the future of theorizing fathers, fatherhood, and fathering and believe their contributions will continue to move the field forward in ways that help us to better conceptualize, appreciate, and understand fathers.

Conclusion

The boom in fathering research and scholarship that has occurred since the 1970s has generated data describing diverse patterns of fathers’ engagement with children, developmental and relational outcomes for children, and transactional developmental and relationship consequences for fathers. Though a majority of empirical studies have utilized one of a few common conceptualizations (e.g., father involvement as consisting of engagement, accessibility, and responsibility) or focused on particular constructs (e.g., fathering as situated in a context), there is currently neither a grand theory of fathering nor is there one on the horizon. In fact, we do not believe that a grand theory of fathering is necessary to create a useful fathering scholarship.

Yet, we highly value the integral role that theory plays in the significant conduct of all scientific work. When data and findings are examined apart from articulated fathering theories, they do not provide a meaningful understanding of lived experiences of family members or processes of development or targeted support strategies to facilitate opportunities. Much fathering scholarship has been conducted without explicit theoretical foundations as a starting point to shape measures, focus analyses, or interpret findings, making comparisons and accumulations of knowledge across studies difficult. Though multiple conceptualizations of fathering have emerged in the past half-century to provide a watershed of data, this review reflects an ongoing need for research that originates from and prioritizes explicit theoretical foundations to develop key measures of fathering and test theoretically based explicit hypotheses. It is only through such theoretically grounded work that we will truly move the field of fathering forward.