Secondly, I think the “success” of a theory such as Kolhberg’s or Fowler’s depends on the degree in which his less substantiated claims are meant heuristically. In other words, I find it highly problematic if his claim were, “All human beings tend to develop in these stages” (and not having read him, I’m not sure if his claim is this strong); but much less problematic if he’s saying, “We can use these stages as a way of talking about human development.” The latter I see more as a tool with which to attend to analysis. The former I see as the result of sustained analysis. Assuming that one is willing to abandon the tool if proven to be unhelpful in analysis, I see no problem with using it.

I have nothing to add, but will say I have found this subject fascinating. I thought I’d speak up by way of encouragement. Keep it coming, I say!

Why not just say we don’t know rather than developing an extensive model based upon loose rigor and then using that to make claims?

Because the social sciences deal with deeply human questions. The kinds of questions where “we don’t know” is simply not acceptable. Saying “we don’t know” to a question like, “Does the Higgs boson exist?” doesn’t affect anyone.

Saying “we don’t know” to questions like “Why is that family falling apart?” or “Why is that church growing so fast while mine is stagnant?” or “Why is my faith changing, am I in apostacy?” is simply not acceptable. They require understanding, an answer, and perhaps a solution. Saying “we don’t know” leads either to quietism or to people offering solutions based on no rigor and no models. I’d prefer at least some attempt at objectivity rather than none.

Why not just say we don’t know rather than developing an extensive model based upon loose rigor and then using that to make claims?

Sorry, I probably shouldn’t start down that road as I just don’t have time to have that argument. It’s a problem I have with some work in the social sciences though.

Do you discount the developmental theories of Kohlberg and Piaget or do you single out Fowler’s theory?

I ask because I think given the subject matter Fowler has made attempts to make it as empirical as possible, unlike say Freud or Erikson who don’t really try and make their developmental theories empirical in any way. Do you think that there is a way to make Fowler’s theory more rigorous or does it resist rigor and thus should be abandoned a priori?

Given the nature of the subject I think that clinical interviews with follow ups are the best one can hope for, which is what Fowler has done.