Dear Colleagues,

The study of fertility preferences—most often measured through quantitative survey questions— has long been central to examinations of reproductive decision making and outcomes as well as interventions aimed at decreasing unintended births. Research from across the globe has found that measurements of the number of children people want and the timing of when they want them are strong predictors of contraceptive use and pregnancy (Nitsche and Hayford 2020, Testa 2012, Yeatman, Trinitapoli and Garver 2020).

Although fertility preferences are good predictors of behaviors, this simplistic view can mask important variations and nuances. For example, most research on fertility preferences focuses on women, but past studies have shown that men’s preferences play an important role, too (Dodoo and Tempenis 2002). Further, fertility preferences alone differ by demographic characteristics, such as gender, race, religion, and socio-economic status (Hayford and Guzzo 2013, Hayford and Morgan 2008, Zheng et al. 2016).

Other nuances exist in the measurement of these preferences, with researchers exploring how to include emotion, trust in God, self-efficacy, or other aspects (Frye and Bachan 2017, Gibby and Luke 2019). Finally, a focus on fertility preferences can mask that fertility is not always controllable, with many unable to control or predict the timing of births and many experiencing infertility. In part, because of this, processes such as adoption, foster care, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are becoming relevant to studies on fertility preferences—expanding our focus to include other family-building strategies.

Although the body of literature on fertility preferences is thorough, many of these nuances remain underexplored. This Special Issue invites papers that explore diversity in family-building preferences. Possible topics include the following:  

• Men’s family-building preferences;
• Family-building preferences among understudied families, such as same-sex couples, adoptive families, and single-parent families, among others;
• Unique measurements of fertility or other family-building strategies;
• Patterns among family-building strategies like adoption, foster care, or IVF;
• The role of contraceptives across social groups.

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 400-600 words summarizing their intended contribution. Please send it to the guest editor (ashley_gibby@byu.edu) or to /Genealogy/ editorial office (genealogy@mdpi.com). Abstracts will be reviewed by the guest editors for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the Special Issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer-review.

References:

Nitsche, Natalie, and Sarah R. Hayford. 2020. Preferences, partners, and parenthood: Linking early fertility desires, marriage timing, and achieved fertility. Demography 57(6): 1975–2001.

Testa, Maria Rita. 2012. Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour.Demographic Research 26: 63–98.

Yeatman, Sara, Jenny Trinitapoli, and Sarah Garver. 2020. The enduring case for fertility desires. Demography 57(6): 2047–56.

Dodoo, F. Nii-Amoo, and Maria Tempenis. 2002. Gender, power, and reproduction: rural‐urban differences in the relationship between fertility goals and contraceptive Use in kenya. Rural Sociology 67(1): 46–70.

Hayford, Sarah R., and Karen Benjamin Guzzo. 2013. Racial and ethnic variation in unmarried young adults’ motivation to avoid pregnancy. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health 45(1): 41–51.

Hayford, Sarah R., and S. Philip Morgan. Religiosity and fertility in the United States: The role of fertility intentions. Social Forces 86(3): 1163–88.

Zheng, Yumei, Jingqin Yuan, Tan Xu, Mei Chen, Hui Liang, Donovan Connor, Yongqing Gao, Wenjie Sun, Nivedita Shankar, Chuanwen Lu, and Yan Jiang. 2016. Socioeconomic status and fertility intentions among Chinese women with one child. Human Fertility 19(1): 43–7.

Frye, Margaret, and Lauren Bachan. 2017. The demography of words: The global decline in non-numeric fertility preferences, 1993–2011. Population Studies 71(2): 187–209.

Gibby, Ashley Larsen, and Nancy Luke. 2019. Exploring multiple dimensions of young women’s fertility preferences in Malawi. Maternal and child health journal 23(11): 1508–15.

Dr. Ashley Larsen Gibby
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Genealogy is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• family
• fertility preferences
• fertility
• adoption
• IVF
• foster care
• contraceptives