The Current Period (1985–Present) 215on behalf of children. As our culture becomes increasingly
diverse, it is important that we begin to make a serious com-
mitment to an exploration of this diversity, both theoretically
and through systematic empirical inquiry. The search for a
balance between processes that are universal and those that
are particular to racial, and ethnic, and socioeconomic groups
probably represents one of the greatest challenges of the new
century.
Appraisal of the Current Era
The current era represents significant continuity with the
prior period and can best be characterized as eclectic in
terms of theoretical models, developmental assumptions, and
methodological approaches. As is characteristic of a more
mature science, methods and models are not perceived as
dogmatic dicta but instead are flexible guides to help formu-
late and answer new questions and address new issues as they
arise.
The retreat from grand theory that began in the 1980s has
continued, and in its place, a variety of minitheories aimed at
limited and specific aspects of development has emerged.
However, there is evidence of an attempt to link together
these minitheories. The idea of general processes as explana-
tions of development has been given up because we have
learned that they are not so general; instead, it is increasingly
evident that processes depend on the specifics of the situa-
tion, the task, and the subjects’ understanding of the task or
situation (Flavell, 1985, 1999; Siegler, 1991). It is now rec-
ognized that the domains of childhood—social, emotional,
physical, and cognitive—are interdependent and that they
overlap and influence each other mutually.
Attention to secular trends and historical contexts has ac-
celerated as the social contexts of children’s lives come under
increased scrutiny (Elder, Modell, & Parke, 1994). Shifts in
medical practices, employment patterns, and child-care
arrangements are all issues of lively debate and vigorous re-
search activity (Clarke-Stewart, 1992a, 1992b; Conger &
Elder, 1994). Moreover, researchers are giving serious con-
sideration to the role that shifts in technology (e.g., comput-
ers) have on children’s development; part of the puzzle is to
determine whether secular trends produce changes in the
timing of onset of developmental phenomena or whether de-
velopmental processes themselves are significantly altered.
Current thinking suggests that certain behavioral characteris-
tics are relatively independent of historical variations, while
others are more susceptible to these influences (Horowitz,
1987).
Collaboration between disciplines is increasingly com-
mon as the multidetermined nature of development is
increasingly appreciated. Not only are sociologists, anthro-
pologists, and historians part of new developmental research
teams, but so are neurologists, geneticists, lawyers, and epi-
demiologists. It is likely that the interesting issues and ques-
tions of the new century will arise at the boundaries between
disciplines. The dichotomy between applied and basic re-
search is fading rapidly, and child developmentalists are re-
turning in increasingly large numbers to their applied roots.
For example, research on mental-health issues among chil-
dren is prominent, and work on how to improve children’s
early development through intervention programs continues
to flourish (Coie & Jacobs, 1993).
In terms of developmental assumptions, developmental-
ists have become less interested in strong forms of disconti-
nuity organized around stage constructs. Rather, there is
growing recognition that the course of development may
vary markedly even for presumably related concepts. But
there is also recognition that the entire issues of qualitative or
quantitative change may depend on one’s point of observa-
tion. As Siegler indicated, “When viewed from afar, many
changes in children’s thinking appear discontinuous; when
viewed from close-up, the same changes often appear as part
of a continuous, gradual progression” (1991, p. 50).
Researchers in the 1980s and 1990s have taken seriously a
life-span developmental perspective (Baltes, 1987). In part,
this view emerges from a recognition that the social context
provided by caregivers varies as a function of the location
of the adults along their own life-course trajectory (Parke,
1988). The earlier view was that variations in parenting
behavior were relatively independent of adult development.
Evidence of this shift comes from a variety of sources, in-
cluding studies of the impact of the timing of parenthood and
the effects of maternal (and paternal) employment, job satis-
faction, and work involvement on children’s development
(Parke & Buriel, 1998). In addition, there is a serious return
to the study of aging (Baltes, 1987; Salthouse, 1985), espe-
cially the study of speed of processing, memory, and intel-
ligence (e.g., Hertzog, 1989) and social behavior (e.g.,
Brubaker, 1990; Hanson & Carpenter, 1994).
Consistent with the shift toward a life-span view is the
reevaluation of the role of critical periods in development.
Recent evidence suggests that a modified version of sensi-
tive, if not critical, periods is likely to emerge in contrast to a
view of unlimited plasticity across development (Bornstein,
1989). For example, Rieser, Hill, Talor, Bradfield, and Rosen
(1992) have demonstrated that adult skill in spatial represen-
tation seems to require early perceptual learning experiences
that involve self-produced movement. Johnson and Newport
(1989) found evidence for a sensitive period in grammatical
mastery in acquiring a second language. The question for this