Progress has been impeded by the absence of clear theoretical perspectives to frame the conceptualisation of fathering as an activity and of fatherhood as a status. Because fathers have been studied by sociologists, lawyers, historians, anthropologists, psychologists, social policymakers and others, it is not surprising that summaries of the literature have noted (and criticised) its theoretical diversity. Day et al. (2005) identifi ed many interpretative traditions, including: n the individualism of life-course psychoanalytic theory, in which parenthood is represented as a normative life phase in individual development (e.g. Palkovitz, 1997) n the dynamic approaches of both family systems theory (Day et al., 2001) and symbolic interactionism, in which individuals are believed to draw on cultural patterns in their everyday activities (e.g. Minton and Pasley, 1996). More wide-ranging perspectives are based on: n feminism (Silverstein, 1996) n social capital theory (Furstenburg and Hughes, 1995) n anthropology (La Rossa, 1988). How do such theoretical approaches fi t together? Day et al. (2005) outlined the necessary components of any fruitful theoretical model by noting that: … any analysis of fatherhood requires awareness of the specifi c cultural, economic, and social conditions which give rise to the norms and behaviour shaping the conduct of fathers. (Day et al., 2005, p. 341) While some allude to a ‘grand unifying theory’ (Roggman et al., 2002), Day et al. (2005) point out that much contemporary research attempts to be theory free when trying to answer pressing social questions, such as the amount of contact children need with non-resident fathers. Yet it is often not diffi cult to spot theoretical assumptions just below the surface. Day et al. (2005) cite the examples of Blankenhorn (1995) and Popenoe (1993) who emphasise the ‘natural’ path to paternity (i.e. not via adoption, step-parenting, or sperm donor strategies) while proposing that non-biological fathers have diffi culty making the same connection, contribution and investment in children as biological fathers.

We need to base empirical studies of fathers on a sounder theoretical footing if we are to avoid making such assumptions, based on popular stereotypes or political orientations. There is no a priori reason for biological fathers to be the men who care for children – something that is simply assumed in many cultures. This was illustrated by the visceral reactions to Malinowski’s (1927) famous case study of Trobriand Islanders, who, he claimed, recognised the mother’s brother as the social ‘father’. Increasingly, the term ‘father’ has come to identify a form of social, rather than biological, relationship (Palkovitz, 2002). But how should we consider the social and biological aspects of fatherhood? Day et al. (2005) have depicted their intersection in relation to one level of social involvement – a man’s motivation to be involved with his children. But even this tessellation leads to four ‘types’ of fatherhood, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 The biological and social aspects of fatherhood Biological connection present Biological connection absent Motivation present 1 Motivated biofather 3 Motivated non-biofather (e.g. involved stepfather) Motivation absent 2 Unmotivated biofather 4 Unmotivated non-biofather (e.g. disengaged father) (e.g. casual, uninvolved, transitory relationship) Source: Day et al. (2005). This identifi es four types of fathers who have been the focus of recent studies. Motivated biofathers are those identifi ed as biological fathers who are also committed to social relationships with their children. They are the most easily recognised and have been the main focus of attention in fathering research, even though they are becoming less prominent in demographic terms. In the UK, 83 per cent of children lived with two parents in 1991; whereas, in 2001, the proportion had declined to 77 per cent (ONS, 2003). The unmotivated biofathers in Table 1 (such as the ‘deadbeat dads’ discussed in polemical accounts of fatherhood by Blankenhorn [1995] and Popenoe [1993]) are widely decried. But, in many cases, their non-involvement is assumed rather than documented. Indeed, Maclean and Eekelaar (1995) have showed how non-resident fathers change the nature and extent of their contact with their children over time, with many drifting back into contact after initial separation from the mothers. There are several examples of motivated non-biofathers. Stepfathers have been studied systematically (e.g. Hetherington and Clingempeel, 1992), but others, including adoptive fathers, have received less attention. Finally, there are unmotivated non-biofathers: men who have relationships with mothers, but engage in little childcare. Some men in this group have been identifi ed as potential sources of risk to children and their numbers appear to be growing (Kiernan, 2006).