Transitions are associated with changes in various domains of life, thus, can show a picture of the life courses of vulnerable youth that is rather incomplete. In consequence, it can be difficult to determine a clear line of development in the fluxes and flows of human growth and change. However, in accordance with the ambitions of modern life course theory (cf. Dijwald & Mayer 2009), research on transitions invites researchers to study single transitions, but also to analyse interrelated trajectories from adolescence to adulthood. Patterns of cumulative advantage and disadvantage may then be revealed.

Analyses of transitions are frequently inspired by two complementary fields of knowledge: life span psychology and life course sociology. The first of these includes the proximal context (e.g., family and social relationships), whereas the second approach includes more distal features (e.g., structural and cultural context) in addition to the study of historical change as manifested through cohort shifts over time. The combination of proximal and distal contexts supplies a set of space­time coordinates, which differently shape the timing and sequences of the transitions through which the life course is constructed (Bynner 2008). Convincing arguments for closer integration or cross­fertilisation between these two theoretical orientations are found in studies by Diewald and Mayer (2009) and by Elder and Giele (2009).

The lifespan view of development recognises that the potential for development is constant throughout our lives and that ageing is not necessarily accompanied by decline and deterioration (Dacey & Travers, 1994; Boyd & Bee, 2009). What is more, important changes occur at all stages in the lifespan and they can be similar in magnitude to those of early developmental periods (Boyd & Bee, 2009).

An alternative view is more in accordance with the life course sociological perspective. According to Cohen and Ainley (2000) transitions are typically seen in economic terms, the starting point being the immature unemployable child and the end point the independent employable adult. This denies the socio-cultural construction of stages in the life course and bypasses its cultural expression in response to social and political change (Cohen & Ainley, 2000). When groups such as young people with special educational needs, marginalised communities and people with disabilities are taken into account, there are normally additional factors impacting on and shaping this period. Lack of preparation, information or support, few opportunities to develop skills needed for adult roles, and disjoined services unable to meet the needs of disabled adults are only some examples (Stewart et al., 2006).

Boyd, D., & Bee, H. (2009). Lifespan Development (Fifth ed.). Boston: Pearson International Edition.

Bynner, J. (2008). Developmental Science in the Melting Pot. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 219-225.

Cohen P., & Ainley P. (2000). In the Country of the Blind?: Youth Studies and Cultural Studies in Britain. JournalofYouthStudies,3(1), 79-95.

Dacey, J., & Travers, J. (1994). Human Development Across the Lifespan (Second ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc.

Diewald, M., & Mayer, K.U. (2009). The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Integrated paradigm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course research, 14, 5–14.

Elder, G.H., & Giele, J.Z. (2009). Life Course Studies: An Evolving Field. In: G.H., Elder and J.Z. Giele (eds.): The Craft of Life Curse Research. New York: The Guilford Press.

Stewart, D. A., Law, M. C., Rosenbaum, P., & Willms, D. G. (2001). A qualitative study of the transition to adulthood for youth with physical disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 21(4), 3-21.

Stewart, D. (2006). Evidence to Support a Positive Transition into Adulthood for Youth with Disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 26(4), 1-24.