The life course cube: A tool for studying lives

(2019) - Laura Bernardi, Johannes Huinink, Richard A. Settersten

Journal: Advances in Life Course Research
Link:: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1040260818301850
DOI:: 10.1016/j.alcr.2018.11.004
Links::
Tags:: #paper #LifeCourse #SocialTheory
Cite Key:: [@bernardiLifeCourseCube2019]

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptualization of the life course as a set of behavioral processes characterized by interdependencies that cross time, life domains, and levels of analysis. We first discuss the need for a systematized approach to life course theory that integrates parallel and partially redundant concepts developed in a variety of disciplines. We then introduce the ‘life course cube,’ which graphically defines and illustrates timedomain-level interdependencies and their multiple interactions that are central to understanding life courses. Finally, in an appendix, we offer a formal account of these interactions in a language that can be readily adopted across disciplines. Our aim is to provide a consistent and parsimonious foundation to further develop life course theories and methods and integrate life course scholarship across disciplines.

Notes

“This paper proposes a conceptualization of the life course as a set of behavioral processes characterized by interdependencies that cross time, life domains, and levels of analysis” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 1)

“We then introduce the ‘life course cube,’ which graphically defines and illustrates timedomain-level interdependencies and their multiple interactions that are central to understanding life courses” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 1)

“It was sociologists who first originated the ‘life course’ perspective and gave it conceptual structure (1975, Cain, 1964; Clausen, 1972; Elder, 1974; Riley, Johnson, & Foner, 1972” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 1)

“Sociologists would focus more on external forces, and especially social settings beyond interpersonal relationships, that regulate developmental tasks and opportunities; it would also focus on socially-structured life course inequalities related to race, class, gender, or other aspects of social life.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 1)

“Elder & O’Rand (1995, p. 454): “The life course consists of interlocking trajectories or pathways across the life span that are marked by sequences of events and social transitions.”” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“Another definition, proposed by Giele and Elder, is more specific in this regard, taking the life course to be “a sequence of socially defined events and roles that the individual enacts over time” (Giele & Elder, 1998, p. 22).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“We define the biographical state of an individual i at age x and time t – bsi(x) – as a vector of (ideally) all attributes that are part of or given to an individual, describing the individual’s states in various life domains at age x” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“Perhaps most challenging, a theory of the life course must also explicitly differentiate levels of analysis (that is, be multilevel). We distinguish three major levels of biographical state variables: inner-individual, individual, and supra-individual.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“inner-individual level comprises state variables like genetic, biological, physiological and psychological attributes” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“Second, the individual level comprises biographical state variables assigning overt behavioral outcomes of the individual’s action over the life course, which occur in different domains” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“Third, the supra-individual level of state variables includes attributes of the socio-cultural environments in which the individual’s behavior in life domain d takes place and which potentially affect individual behavior.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“It is this supra-individual level that defines the ‘external’ societal opportunity structure for individual experiences, behaviors, and actions.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“We put forward three central propositions for understanding this behavioral process. First, in anticipating consequences of their behavior or observing changes in their environments, individual actors try to achieve as much certainty as possible on what to do or look for next.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 2)

“Second, individual action is embedded in a process of decisions and behaviors that occurs over time.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“Finally, actors are influenced in their choices by the more or less uncertain expectations about the consequences of a given action – both for the future generally and as a specific condition for other future actions (e.g., anticipation processes).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“Elder’s general definition of the principle of agency establishes that “individuals construct their own life course through the choices and actions they take within the opportunities and constraints of history and social circumstances” (Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003) – what Settersten and Gannon (2006) called having “agency within structure,” or what Evans (2007) called “bounded agency.” That is, the agency of an individual (or of a group, for that matter) is not unlimited or unbridled; it is situational, bound to the ‘objective’ or perceived circumstances of a place, time, and developmental state and assessed with respect to the past and to anticipated futures” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“These represent the core axes of the cube. Continuing with our formal definitions, these are:” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“The time-related interdependence of the life course between the history of a life course” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“The interdependence between life domains, meaning that individuals’ goals, resources, and behaviors in one domain (such as work, family, education, or leisure) are interrelated with goals, resources, and behaviors in other domains.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“The multilevel interdependence of the life course, which connects individual action and behavior over the life course (‘individual action level’) with the life courses of other people, social networks, and the ‘external’ societal opportunity structure (‘supra-individual levels’) and the ‘internal’ dispositions and psycho-physiological functioning (‘inner-individual levels’).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 3)

“When our view extends back over many decades, the life course becomes an endogenous causal system that seeks to explain the present with the past” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 4)

“The matters of path dependency we have just described relate to ‘shadows of the past.’ But time interdependencies also relates to ‘shadows of the future’ (after Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). That is, what individuals anticipate in the future affects their present decisions and actions.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 4)

“Time-related interdependence includes the concept of a ‘turning point,’ which reflects a radical deviation or disruption in the trajectory an individual has been on or from one that was personally or socially expected in the future.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 4)

“Fig. 1. The Life Course Cube: Time, Domain, and Level Interdependencies.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 4)

“The interdependence of life domains is created through various kinds of interconnections between activities A and B, situated in domains dA and dB, which modify biographical state variables on the inner-individual or individual level (e.g., Diewald, 2003; Lutz, 2014).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“First, consider resources. Individuals use resources to perform activity A in domain dA (such as work) and activity B in dB (such as leisure). Activities A and B can compete for the resources needed to perform them (such as time), and A and B may be more or less reconcilable – or, to put it differently, they may bring different opportunity costs for each other. This means there are resource-related issues to reconcile regarding activities in dA and dB.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“Second, consider the outcomes of activities A and B, such as the wellbeing objectives for which individuals are striving.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“Classic sociological research has pointed to the need to identify dual mechanisms through which social structures affect individual behavior, on one hand, and those through which individual behaviors create patterns of social stability or change, on the other” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“In other words, just as phenomena occurring at the supra-individual level are taken into account by individuals when they act, phenomena at the inner-individual level also regulate action from the inside, for instance differentiated by risk-taking attitudes.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“The interplay between the micro and macro levels reveals how individual trajectories are shaped by population composition and dynamics, economic institutions and labor markets, welfare policies, and culture (e.g., Hagestad & Dykstra, 2016; Leisering, 2003; Mayer & Müller, 1986; Mayer & Huinink, 1990).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“Like demographic change, legal and policy changes have the power to structure interdependence among individuals depending on their characteristics (e.g., citizenship, age, gender, marital status). Social norms and culture, which often go hand in hand with formal legal regulations, contribute to such interdependence” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“On the inner-individual level, physiological and psychological developmental change might prompt individuals at particular ages to pursue, heighten, or relinquish certain goals (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006; Elder & Shanahan, 2006; Luhmann, Orth, Specht, Kandler, & Lucas, 2014).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 5)

“Baltes et al. (2006) emphasize the two crucial assumptions here: first, development extends across the whole life course and is not just a matter of the early years; and second and most important, individual development is greatly driven by adaptive processes and does not exactly follow a given biological program.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“Following this premise, the authors develop their “systemic and overall theory of life span development,” Selective Optimization with Compensation. The theory of developmental control has been developed with similar aims (e.g., Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“The axes of the life course cube are the three types of first-order interdependencies across time, domains, and levels. To advance theories and research, however, it is imperative to realize that, although these axes are useful analytical distinctions, they are themselves interdependent.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“As can be seen in Fig. 1, the first-order interdependencies outlined above themselves interact, creating three second-order interdependencies (Buhr & Huinink, 2014). These are: 1 The connection between time-related interdependence and the multilevel structure (first order 12). 2 The connection between the multilevel structure and multiple domains (first order 13). 3 The connection between time-related interdependence and multiple domains (first order 2*3).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“This connection infuses time into each of the levels. At the supraindividual level, it reveals changes in the institutional programs and age-specific socio-structural patterns in which individuals live (e.g., forms of social grouping and organization, living arrangements, linked lives).” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“This connection refers to the relationship between separate segments (fields) of welfare production in the life course and the functional differentiation of a society” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 6)

“This connection refers to the fact that activities in one life domain (dimensions of the state space) are influenced by earlier activities in another domain, and vice versa.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 7)

“consideration of third order interdependencies implies, for example, that patterns of combining activities in different life domains (like work and family) over time (first order 2) cannot be understood without acknowledging the relevance of actors’ expectations for the future (first order 1), given their past experiences (first order 1), and the opportunities, constraints, and composition of particular socio-structural and institutional environments (e.g., living arrangements, the gender system, the structure of the labor market, or social norms) (first order 3)” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 7)

“Life course heterogeneity should generally grow (1) if the interdependencies between supra-individual level and the individual level, and between the inner-individual level and the individual level, become less strict, (2) if improvements in technologies and practices facilitate engagement in multiple life domains and multiple spaces, and (3) if biographical states become more reversible or path dependencies weaken.” (Bernardi et al., 2019, p. 7)