Daniel Levinson's stage theory of adult development

Levinson, Part Two

Examination of Levinson's Developmental Stage Model

Ontological assumption of epistemological paradigm

The ontological basis of Levinson's model is fundamentally a social constructivist model because he focuses on the ability (and even the necessity) that individuals have to make meaningful their own experiences. It is not a purely constructivist model because he posits some external basis to his schema. However, realistically, if any theorist intends to stop short of pure solipsism, such a marriage of realism and constructivism must be assayed.

An important aspect of the ontological assumptions of this model -- and in this it falls very much within the mainstream of both clinical and research psychology -- is that humans are essentially independent of their social and cultural context. They are (contrary to John Donne) very much islands. This is as aspect of the purely constructivist aspect of his model because it is based on the idea that people have the individual (essentially atomistic) ability to construct their own meaning.

Axiological assumptions of this epistemological paradigm

2.

The axiological assumptions of a model are very closely intertwined with the epistemological perspective (or assumptions) listed above. The axiological assumptions have to do with the values inherent in or embedded in a model. These values are not exactly moral values, but they border on this. Another way of understanding this question is to ask what values shape a model, if one assumes that all models having to do with human nature or behavior have values about what is "right" (or "healthy" etc.) about different manifestations of human nature.

The key axiological assumptions about this model are that human nature is realized through developmental stages. Humans enter the world with a series of stages pre-programmed into them. We are not a blank slate, but nor are we fully formed. We (as humans) are born with a program to fulfill along a well-articulated pathway.

Another axiological assumption of this model is that humans can legitimately consider themselves as fundamentally separate from all other individuals. This perspective privileges individualism as a philosophy, assuming that the value of each person and that person's development over the course of a lifetime is more important than that individual as embedded in their family and their community.

Tenet of the theory

1. A major tenet of this theory is that human development can best be conceived of as a unilinear vector, going in a single direction and without the possibility of any detours or circling back. The rate of development along with the extent of development will vary from individual to individual, but the basic contours are the same for everyone.

Tenet of the theory

2. Another tenet of this theory (and one that is connected to certain clinical practices such as those of Rogerian therapy) is that humans are generally inclined to try to achieve greater levels of self-fulfillment, which in turn is linked to greater levels of insight and self-awareness.

Methodological assumptions of this model

3. This question is a little more difficult to answer since a model or epistemological framework since the methodological connections to a theoretical framework are strong but not absolute. Any methodological approach to test the validity of Levinson's developmental framework would have to be qualitative since the model reflects complex, subjective states that are not discernible through statistical analyses.

Some of the most interesting potential research topics that could be devised around Levinson's model would be how subjects interpret their own status in terms of where a researcher assesses them to be. Levinson's model is based on his own clinical experience as well as research, but this does not mean that it matches individuals' perception of how their own lives are proceeding. It would be interesting for a researcher to determine how this theoretical model matches up with people's perceived subjective understanding of how their own life path has developed.

Tenet of the theory

3. The theory is based on the tenet that individuals, when given an overview of the model, will be able to determine for themselves with accuracy (that is, they would be in agreement with an external observer) where they are positioned in terms of their development.

One study that examines Levinson's model is Dannefer (1984, Feb.) "Adult Development and Social Theory: A Paradigmatic Reappraisal" (American Sociological Review 49(1): 100-116). Dannefer's work, which reflects on theoretical and clinical work produced in a range of fields, argues that Levinson's model is deeply flawed because it ignores the primacy of social relationships as primary influences on an individual's development.