family studies
Spicegirl1974
Citation.docx
Citation:
Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R. (2014). The Discipline of Family Science and the Continuing Need for Innovation. Family Relations, 63(3), 309–322.
The Discipline of Family Science and the Continuing Need for Innovation.
This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein.
✖
Contents
1. The Developing Field of Family Science
5. The Evaluation and Innovation Stage
6. Method
7. Participants
8. Measure
9. Procedures
10. Analysis
11. Results
12. Distinctiveness
13. Strategies for Educating/Marketing Family Science
14. Challenges for the Discipline
15. Potential Action Steps to Address Challenges
16. Discussion
17. We Need a Clear Disciplinary Identity
18. We Need Strategies and Resources to Better Market and Educate Others About the Family ...
19. We Need to Identify and Confront Challenges to the Field of Family Science
20. Future Research
21. Footnotes
22. References
Full Text
The discipline of family science is entering a new phase, the evaluation and innovation stage. With shrinking academic budgets and threats of departmental dissolution or mergers, it is imperative for administrators of family science programs to be able to articulate the distinctiveness of the discipline, the worth of the unique skills and perspectives afforded by family science programs, the challenges affecting the field, and the solutions and resources necessary to propel family science to new levels of relevance and application. This article reviews the history of the development of the field of family science and then reports survey results from representatives of family science programs related to each of these matters. Innovative strategies for advancing the field and family science programs are discussed.
family science; family science discipline; family studies; history of family science
The current economic climate, which negatively affects institutional and departmental budgets and increases scrutiny of programs and their level of efficiency, makes it increasingly imperative for administrators and faculty of family science programs to be capable of identifying the strengths and growth areas of their programs, and to be poised to make necessary changes and to adapt to new demands and conditions. Administrators must be armed with knowledge of the field and its distinctiveness, best practices within it, tactics for enhancing and strengthening its image, and strategies for aligning departmental goals with institutional missions.
Within this article, we briefly review the development of the field of family science, propose that family science has entered a new stage of evaluation and innovation, report important findings from a survey of administrators of family science programs, and offer innovative approaches for strengthening family science programs and the discipline itself.
The Developing Field of Family Science
Family science is a relatively young discipline and, as such, does not possess the same recognizability that some other social science programs like psychology, social work, or sociology enjoy. Consequently, it is imperative for those within the field to be familiar with where family science has been, where it is, and where it needs to go. Its development has been described as having evolved through three stages: the discovery stage, the pioneering stage, and the maturing stage (National Council on Family Relations [NCFR] Task Force, 1988). Results from this study offer future directions for the discipline.
The field of family science emerged in the United States during the progressive era, from 1880 to1920, when there was growing concern about the problems that families faced as a result of urbanization and industrialization and the need for social reform (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, [ 17 ] ). During the early 1900s, in particular, an interdisciplinary group of pioneer scholars – anthropologists, sociologists, home economists, theologians, psychologists, criminologists, and social workers – recognized that “family” was an important domain of inquiry. During this stage of the field of family science, these interdisciplinary scholars began conducting systematic family research on salient topics of the day (NCFR Task Force, [ 43 ] ), employing more rigorous, objective, scientific research methodologies and assuming a more holistic vision of family (Hollinger, [ 32 ] ). Adams ([ 1 ] ) suggested that a significant body of scientific knowledge about the family was produced during the 30 years between 1920 and 1950.
A number scholars concerned about the condition of marriages and families began to offer college courses and write texts on family. Professionals also organized around the topic of family. For instance, in 1934 Professor Ernest Groves cofounded the Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, an interdisciplinary think tank on theory development and empirical research in the field (Groves Conference, [ 23 ] n.d.). So, too, Paul Sayre (a law professor), Ernest Burgess (a sociologist), and Sidney Goldstein (a rabbi from New York) founded the NCFR – the premiere professional association for those interested in advancing theory, practice, and knowledge about families – in 1938, further highlighting the organization's, as well as the field's, interdisciplinary roots (Hollinger, [ 32 ] ).
The NCFR Task Force identified the second stage in the development of the field of family science as the “pioneering stage.” In a seminal paper, Groves' ([ 24 ] ) called for a family field or a science of marriage and family. Specifically, Groves noted that this field would be
carried out by specialists who will draw their data from a wide range of resources. They will not be sociologists, home economists or social workers but persons who are committed to the gathering and the giving of information that concerns marriage and the family, who have prepared themselves for such an undertaking, and have approached their task from a background shared by no other science. (p. 26)
What to name the discipline itself and what to call programs and departments in the new discipline were causes for confusion. In the early 1980s, Burr and Leigh ([ 15 ] ) noted that there were 53 different names to describe “family” departments (e.g., family studies, child and family development, family and child ecology, human development, and family ecology). Many deemed disciplinary identity ambiguity a serious problem. Thus, Burr and Leigh proposed naming the new discipline “famology” (p. 474), but that name never gained wide acceptance. Recognizing the need for concerted action, then NCFR President Bert Adams appointed a Task Force on the Development of the Family Discipline that strongly recommended using family science in reference to the emerging discipline. Its proposal was unanimously adopted with the anticipation that the new name would precipitate greater standardization relative to names of courses, majors, and departments (NCFR Task Force, 1987). Thus, for this article, we adopted family science as the recommended nomenclature for this discipline.
According to the NCFR Task Force, during the final, “maturing stage,” the identity of family science took shape (Hollinger, [ 32 ] ). Burr and Leigh ([ 15 ] ) measured the field against seven criteria necessary for the existence of a bona fide discipline. These criteria include ( 1 ) a distinct subject matter; ( 2 ) an expansive collection of theory and research; ( 3 ) an emphasis on select, unique methodologies; ( 4 ) supporting paraphernalia (i.e., professional associations, journals, academic departments, majors); ( 5 ) apparent utility as evident in mature applications; ( 6 ) the ability to teach or discipline a community of scholars; and ( 7 ) a consensus among professionals that the discipline exists.
Relative to the first criterion, the “family realm” affords a distinct subject matter that is unique from nonfamily domains of experience (Beutler, Burr, Bahr, & Herrin, [ 9 ] , p. 806). Seven qualities differentiate the family realm from nonfamily spheres like spiritual, economic, medical, educational, and commercial realms.
These are (a) the generational nature and permanence of family relationships, (b) concern with “total” persons, (c) the simultaneous process orientation that grows out of familial caregiving, (d) a unique and intense emotionality, (e) an emphasis on qualitative purposes and processes, (f) an altruistic orientation, and (g) a nurturing form of governance. (p. 806)
Even though the concept of family realm never took hold, families, in their many forms and with their unique characteristics from other social groups, afford a distinct subject matter.
Family science also developed its own expansive collection of theory and research. Scholars in the discipline have produced important theoretical and methodological handbooks and texts (e.g., Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth‐Anderson, & Klein, [ 6 ] ; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, [ 10 ] ; Burr, Day, & Bahr, [ 13 ] ; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, [ 14 ] ; Fine & Fincham, [ 20 ] ; Peterson & Bush, [ 44 ] ; Smith & Hamon, [ 49 ] ; White & Klein, [ 50 ] ) which instruct family science students in the distinct perspectives afforded by family science and serve as a springboard for future theorizing about the family. Methodological and theoretical work is ongoing as well, as evidenced by the NCFR's annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology (TCRM) Workshop and its latest journal, Journal of Family Theory and Review. Theory and methods are of utmost importance to family science.
Disciplinary supports provide the field “a means of professional growth, interaction, and exchanges so that the discipline can continue to develop” (Burr & Leigh, [ 15 ] , p. 469). Two organizations – the Family Science Section of the NCFR and the Family Science Association (FSA) – “gave recognition to the new discipline” (Smart, [ 48 ] , p. 118). These professional groups play critical roles in disseminating cutting‐edge family scholarship and practice via their annual conferences and premiere journals and generate a variety of important disciplinary resources (e.g., ethical guidelines, career resources, honor student awards) that sustain family science programs and the discipline itself.
Utility of the field, as witnessed in the application of family science in career options, continues to evolve. In 1985, NCFR inaugurated the Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE) designation, mandating competence in 10 specific content areas: families in society, internal dynamics of families, human growth and development over the life span, human sexuality, interpersonal relationships, family resource management, parent education and guidance, family law and public policy, ethics, and family life education methodology (Powell & Cassidy, [ 45 ] ). Recently, Myers‐Walls, Ballard, Darling, and Myers‐Bowman ([ 38 ] ) established domains and boundaries around several types of family practice: family life education, family therapy, and family case management. This work is helpful in differentiating professional roles and clarifying several career paths. Family scholars and educators have also delineated a number of competencies, skills, and experiences that family science professionals and future family science faculty should possess (Arcus, [ 3 ] ; Brock, [ 12 ] ; Ganong, Coleman, & Demo, [ 22 ] ; Koblinsky, Kuvalanka, & McClintock‐Comeaux, [ 34 ] ). Similarly, attention has been given to the vast array of professional contexts and career opportunities available to those in family science (Hollinger, [ 32 ] ; Keim, [ 33 ] ; NCFR, 2009).
Relative to the ability to teach or discipline a community of scholars, Hollinger ([ 32 ] ) notes the growth in numbers of family‐specific programs, including a number of such programs at international universities. Jason Hans' ([ 30 ] ) delineates 282 family‐focused programs in North America. As Groves ([ 24 ] ) predicted, there is a new breed of scholars on the scene who hold a unique familial perspective and define themselves as family scholars, practitioners, and educators.
Finally, there is relative consensus among professionals that the discipline of family science exists, though not without some controversy. Burr and Leigh ([ 15 ] ) noted that recognition of the discipline of family science is likely to be complicated because it is a discipline and “an interdisciplinary area of inquiry” (p. 470). As such, older disciplines (e.g., sociology, law, and economics) will continue to be “part of the total family scene” (p. 471), just as the family discipline is; those in traditional disciplines who study families and those who identify in the new discipline of family science will coexist together, perhaps by being organized within the same schools or colleges, by publishing in each other's journals, or through the cross‐fertilization of ideas as professionals converse at each other's conferences. However, social changes such as a greater variety of family forms, more pervasive use of technologies that alter family dynamics, and increased immigration that demands sensitivity to cultural diversity reiterate the relevance and necessity of specially trained professionals in family science (Schwenzer & Aeschlimann, [ 47 ] ). Thus, family science not only exists, but also successfully links theory, research, and practice.
The Evaluation and Innovation Stage
We propose that family science is entering a new phase, an evaluation and innovation stage. Although there are nearly 300 family science programs in the United States and other parts of the world, as university resources shrink and departmental dissolutions or mergers threaten disciplinary boundaries, departments need to make a strong case for their existence. Similarly, as jobs have become scarce, it is imperative to know the marketplace, desirable skills, and the degree to which graduates of family science programs meet the needs of the job force. With mounting emphases on assessment, higher education demands ongoing evaluation, revision, accountability, and creativity. Thus, administrators of family science programs must be able to articulate the distinctiveness of the discipline, the worth of the unique skills and perspectives offered by family science programs, the challenges affecting the field, and the adaptations and resources necessary to propel family science to new levels of relevance and application in today's economic and sociocultural climate. The need to “know thyself” and evaluate the effectiveness of our programs in preparing graduates for a variety of employment and graduate school options has never been greater. With evaluative feedback and reflexivity, innovative family academicians and practitioners will be able to continue to refine and shape the field and family science programs so they are increasingly more relevant and essential in meeting the needs of individuals and families across the globe. To assist with this evaluative process and to outline areas for future innovation, we conducted a survey of administrators of family science departments, because these are the individuals most likely to provide vision and direction for their departments, as well as need to articulate what family science is and what their curriculum has to offer to prospective students and their families, internship site supervisors, potential employers, and other constituent groups. Thus, we asked them about such things as disciplinary distinctiveness, strategies employed to educate prospective and current students about family science, challenges to the discipline, and suggested tactics to address these challenges.
In Fall 2009, we used Hans's ([ 30 ] ) guide to graduate and undergraduate programs in marriage and family, the most comprehensive and current listing of programs in this area of study within North America (excluding Mexico), to identify the chairs of 187 undergraduate family programs to which we then sent an electronic survey. Anonymous responses were received from 71 program representatives (33 department chairs, 9 directors, 24 department members, 1 support staff, and 6 program coordinators), yielding a response rate of nearly 38%. Most respondents were from public (84.5%) versus private (15.5%) institutions, and only seven of them were from Canadian institutions. The size of undergraduate family programs, indicated by the number of undergraduate majors, ranged from “less than 50” (18.3%) to “more than 500” (8.5%), with the majority (52.1%) being between 51 and 250 students: 21.1% reported 51 – 100, 12.7% reported 101 – 150, 11.3% noted 151 – 200, and 7.0% noted 201 – 250. Sixty percent of the undergraduate programs represented are approved to offer provisional CFLE upon graduation, as compared to 66% nationwide. Most (90.1%) respondents characterized their institution as “majority undergraduate (less than 50% graduate/professional students),” with 8.5% describing their institutions as “exclusively undergraduate 4‐year (bachelor's degree granting),” and 1.4% as “majority graduate/professional (50% or more graduate/professional students).”
We designed a 28‐item survey to assess what administrators of family science programs think about a variety of topics. This article focuses on responses to questions regarding how participants define family science (i.e., as being distinct from other social sciences), resources utilized to educate students about the field and the professional opportunities it affords, current challenges affecting the discipline, proposed solutions to those challenges, and most and least successful marketing/educational strategies for promoting family science programs. Sample questions included: “What knowledge or content areas are most important for your family science graduates to obtain from your undergraduate program?” “What are the biggest challenges affecting the family science field right now?” “What can be done to address these challenges?” and “What are examples of things you do to market your family science program?” The survey was administered via Survey Monkey in Fall 2009. The majority of the questions were open ended with the exception of basic demographic information as noted earlier, and a few additional items. For those questions that had a response set, participants were also allowed to select “other,” and then afforded the opportunity to elaborate on what “other” meant.
Once institutional review board approval was received for the project, an e‐mail was sent to participants. The message included a brief description of the project, the link for the 28‐item survey, and a request for participation. Chairs were asked to complete the survey within 2 weeks, if possible. An e‐mail reminder was sent to all participants, thanking those who completed and encouraging those who did not to do so.
Participants' entered responses directly in the Survey Monkey surveying tool. Response length varied from one question to the next, with some questions eliciting a single sentence or list of descriptors and others having multiple paragraphs. Sandelowski and Barroso ([ 46 ] ) refer to data analysis of this nature as a topical survey. Although responses were open ended and thematically classified, data is descriptive in nature and organized around the research questions. The data were read multiple times independently by the two authors, as well as a student worker, to determine topics or core categories. If a disagreement arose, we discussed the items until consensus was reached. We then used these categories to describe the data.
We asked respondents to articulate how their “family science program differentiates itself from majors like sociology, psychology, and social work” or how they would define family science in a way that showcases its uniqueness. Participants identified three common themes regarding what makes family science unique: (a) a focus of study that concentrates on family and relationships, (b) a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to the study of families, and (c) an application‐based discipline. Related to the focus of study concentrating on family and relationships, respondents emphasized the centrality of family systems and dynamics of family interaction, as well as a family strengths philosophy as opposed to pathology, anomaly or deviance. Programs were described as being “family centered,” and were said to “offer you an opportunity to learn about family” and to “focus on education and practical services for families.” Similarly, with regard to a “multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to learning about families,” participants noted the way in which many disciplinary perspectives inform and shape the field, as well as the importance of examining individual development and family processes from a life span, ecosystem perspective. Pertaining to the application‐based nature of the discipline, respondents noted that though preparation includes intervention, there is a strong thrust toward prevention: “Students not only acquire knowledge, but also practitioner skills that can be applied in their daily lives.” So, too, family science is an applied field that emphasizes translational scholarship (research conducted with the intent of using the findings to enhance the lives of individuals and families), “internships,” “service‐learning experiences and keeping strong ties to community groups and agencies,” and the acquisition of knowledge and practical skills. As such, family science often proves to be an excellent preparation for career or advanced education.
Another way to distinguish family science from other social sciences is related to the particular content areas required of students in the major. Thus, we asked participants to identify “which of the following content areas are required of all students in your program?” We provided a list of 17 content options, 10 of which were the family life education substance areas identified by the NCFR. “Other,” with the opportunity to elaborate, was among the 17 response choices, in the event that the list did not include important content elements of their program. Table [NaN] delineates the percent of respondents mandating each of the outlined content areas within their family science programs. It is interesting to note that all but three of the categories (not including “other”) were listed by more than one half of the respondents and that many of the topics listed in the “other” category could be subsumed in one of the 10 CFLE substance areas.
Content Areas Required of All Students in Program
|
|
Response |
|
|
Content Area |
% |
n |
|
Human growth and development (child, adolescent, adult and aging) |
93.5 |
58 |
|
Families in society |
87.1 |
54 |
|
Interpersonal relationships |
82.3 |
51 |
|
Practicum or internship |
80.6 |
50 |
|
Internal dynamics of families |
79.0 |
49 |
|
Family theory |
74.2 |
46 |
|
Research methods |
74.2 |
46 |
|
Family diversity |
72.6 |
45 |
|
Family resource management |
64.5 |
40 |
|
Parent education or guidance |
59.7 |
37 |
|
Human sexuality |
59.7 |
37 |
|
Ethics |
56.5 |
35 |
|
Family law and public policy |
53.2 |
33 |
|
Family life education methodology |
45.2 |
28 |
|
Other (list all others) |
43.5 |
27 |
|
Gender studies |
32.3 |
20 |
|
Work and family |
25.8 |
16 |
1 Note: N = 62.
2 “Other” responses included career and professional development, communication, nutrition and wellness, marriage and couple relationships, personal and family finance, conflict management, grant writing, cultural and global diversity, family stress and intervention, and family assessment.
When asked “What skills do you deem most important for family science undergraduates to obtain from your program?” there were a variety of responses ranging from the need to know how to conduct and evaluate research to an understanding of and ability to apply public policy. Overwhelmingly, however, there were four responses that were given almost verbatim by the majority of participants: (a) critical thinking skills, (b) written communication skills, (c) oral communication skills, and (d) interpersonal skills with diverse individuals and families. The first three of these skills would be considered important across a variety of majors and employment contexts, but the last is paramount for family scientists.
Strategies for Educating/Marketing Family Science
Because educating prospective students about the existence of family science programs is essential for populating and ensuring the future of our programs, we asked participants to indicate at what grade level they target their marketing efforts. Marketing efforts were reported to focus on middle school (10.9%), 9th and 10th grade (11.9%), 11th and 12th grade (54.2%), first year of college (69.5%), and other (32.2%). The majority of the “other” responses were centered on targeting the community college level or those students already on their campuses.
Respondents were also asked for some examples of things they do to market their family science programs. A small number of programs do nothing, either because it is handled at the college or university level or because their programs “have more students than we can accommodate.” However, respondents do mention the need to continually provide information on the major to admissions personnel and participate in open house events when prospective students and their families visit campus. Of those that do intentionally market their programs, “websites,” “word of mouth,” “brochures,” “campus events,” and “visiting local high school and community colleges” were the most frequent responses. Word of mouth was the most frequently mentioned approach, and “high school recruitment just doesn't work for us” was a common sentiment. When asked to identify the challenges that they encounter when trying to market their family science programs, the most frequent responses were establishing an identity for the program and not having adequate resources for the development of marketing material, including website development. For example, “lack of awareness that the program exists in the first place, and a lack of understanding about the types of jobs you could do with the degree” was often described as was the idea that, “we have limited resources of time and money.”
Recognizing that prepared materials often facilitate educational and marketing efforts, we asked participants to identify resources that are used to educate their students about the field of family science. Table [NaN] reports these findings. A department's alumni career data was the most frequent response at 44.8%, followed by the NCFR publication Careers in Family Science (43.1%). Several other NCFR materials were utilized, though less often. The most frequently mentioned sources that were specified in the open‐ended “other” portion of this question were “one‐on‐one conversations” with undergraduates, “college and university career centers,” “departmental websites,” and taking students to NCFR affiliate annual conferences.
Resources Used to Educate Students about Family Science
|
|
Response |
|
|
Resource |
% |
n |
|
Your own department's alumni career data |
44.8 |
26 |
|
Careers in Family Science a |
43.1 |
25 |
|
National Council on Family Relations PowerPoint on Family Life Education |
34.5 |
20 |
|
Tools for Ethical Thinking and Practice in Family Life |
32.8 |
19 |
|
Graduate and Undergraduate Study in Marriage and Family: A Guide to Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Programs in the United States and Canadab |
32.8 |
19 |
|
National Council on Family Relations Poster on Family Life Education |
29.3 |
17 |
|
Family Science: Professional Development and Career Opportunitiesc |
29.3 |
17 |
|
Hiring: What's the Most Important Question You Can Ask? (brochure)d |
17.2 |
10 |
|
Other (please specify) |
17.2 |
10 |
|
None of the above |
15.5 |
9 |
· 3 Note: N = 58.
· 4 “Other” responses included one‐on‐one advising, department website, college career services, class assignments related to professional issues including jobs and internship possibilities, National Council on Family Relations affiliate conferences.
· 5 National Council on Family Relations (2009).
· 6 Hans ( 30 ).
· 7 Eiklenborg ( 18 ).
· 8 National Council on Family Relations ( 40 ).
When asked to delineate additional materials or resources that would be helpful as faculty and department chairs attempt to educate prospective and current students, employers, and other constituent groups about family science, respondents noted two primary suggestions. First, several identified the need for a brochure and web‐based materials on what family science is, how it is unique from other social sciences, and the particular skills family professionals could provide employers. Second, participants desired job profiles and specific career information for those in the field of family science. A job bank, including “specific jobs people have obtained – not just job categories,” particularly for bachelor's level professionals, would help to identify career options for those in the field. Materials that can answer the questions, “What is family science?” and “What can I do with a bachelor's degree in family science” would be incredibly helpful.
Evaluation and assessment entails careful and thorough examination of all aspects of one's program. Although numerous challenges to the field of family science emerged from responses in the previous questions, respondents were directly asked to identify challenges currently affecting the field of family science. Responses to this open‐ended question fell into several categories. The greatest concerns were related to problems of identity and lack of recognition of family science as a distinct field of study. Identity issues are exacerbated because the field has not agreed on common nomenclature for the discipline or our departments. For example, among our respondents there were 43 different department names (e.g., Human Development and Family Studies; Child and Family Studies; Family Social Science; Family Studies; Family, Consumer and Human Development) given across 28 different colleges. In grouping college/school names by general topics rather than specific names, they fell into the areas of social work, social sciences, human ecology, agriculture, consumer sciences, arts and humanities, human sciences, education, health and human services, and liberal arts.
Relatedly, respondents noted the need to enhance public perception of the value of the field of family science. They commented on the “lack of recognition as a distinct profession, especially during times of budget cuts” as problematic. Outright “competition” with related fields like psychology and social work is also deemed a problem. “Overlap and territory” issues with related social sciences create tensions within universities. Other responses note real or perceived threats of “programs being broken up and subsumed by other disciplines” exacerbating interdisciplinary tensions. Finally, concerns abound for majors once they graduate from family science. “Low paying jobs” and “the need for information about career opportunities within family science” were cited as problematic.
Potential Action Steps to Address Challenges
Because assessments are conducted to make necessary adjustments to address deficiencies, respondents were asked “What can be done to address these challenges?” Multiple respondents indicated that they “were not sure, we've been trying for years” but were interested in suggestions. Of those who proposed ideas, however, most suggested enhanced public relations strategies and the need to increase the visibility and value of family science from the local level through the national level. Examples included launching national awareness, marketing, and public relations campaigns (e.g., educational videos and appealing recruitment materials to educate the public, employers, school counselors, and others about family science); identify[ing] nomenclature on which “we can all agree”; demonstrating the value of family science to universities and how such programs help to achieve the institution's mission; and showcasing the scholarly work of family scientists, as well as the applied contributions of the profession. Participants identified the NCFR as being the likely advocate for family science at the state and national levels by assembling professionals to craft a shared name for the field, developing career resources, and conducting a national awareness campaign “to educate the public as to our value.” Respondents also suggested collaborating and building alliances with those in related disciplines to enhance networking, to shatter stereotypes they may hold about family science, and to build learning communities and research teams. Other responses centered on “helping students learn how to market themselves,” enhancing “the value of the CFLE credential to employers,” improving our ability to educate students on the career opportunities that are available in our field, and helping students know how to better market themselves. Finally, participants believed that “having a better economy” would help to resolve some of the challenges the discipline is facing.
This study asked administrators of family science programs – who are in a unique position to assess current family science programs and offer vision for the future – to reflect on several key areas: factors that distinguish family science from other disciplines, marketing and educational strategies employed, challenges confronting the field and its programs, and potential responses for strengthening family science undergraduate programs. Although our sample is limited in size, the current findings help in assessing the discipline and outlining innovative paths forward.
We Need a Clear Disciplinary Identity
Relative to what is unique and distinctive about family science, there was a great deal of consensus among our respondents. The disciplinary identity of family science is shaped by the paradigms, curricular content, and skills that are deemed essential for family science professionals. For instance, respondents agreed that family science focuses on relationships, particularly family relationships. Systems, life span, ecosystem, and strengths‐based frameworks are particularly useful in facilitating the examination of such relationships. Like the administrators in the study by Hamon, Trask, and Hollinger (2010), our respondents generally endorsed a disciplinary mission that promotes the well‐being of individuals and families. So, too, they acknowledged that as an “interdisciplinary” discipline family science assumes an inclusive approach that integrates and synthesizes research on families from a variety of traditional fields.
Relative to curricular content, for many in this study, the NCFR's 10 substance areas in family life education have provided a helpful standard for shaping curriculum. Even though many family science programs were already in existence, the creation of the CFLE credential in 1985 helped to further refine programmatic content. The organizational structure created to support the CFLE professional designation helps to sustain the field itself, as family science now has professionals outlining standards at the national level. Family science administrators and faculty should support the CFLE designation as it provides a comprehensive and organizing force around which the discipline can coalesce.
Our respondents also stated that traditional liberal arts skills including critical thinking skills, written communication skills, oral communication skills, and interpersonal skills with diverse individuals and families are valued abilities for family science professionals. Others have also noted that these capabilities expand career options, as they are transferrable skills valued by employers in multiple contexts (Benson et al., [ 7 ] ; Boyd‐Soisson & Hamon, [ 11 ] ; National Association of Colleges and Employers, [ 39 ] ). Thus, family science faculty should be methodical and comprehensive in integrating developmental opportunities to further refine writing, speaking, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills throughout and across the family science curriculum.
Similarly, professional skills and methodologies that foster prevention are deemed as critical curricular content. Our respondents appreciated the role that timely and relevant education and skill development means for the well‐being of individuals and families. Thus, family science's unique emphasis on prevention should infiltrate family courses. Family science faculty should be sure to include opportunities for students to conduct needs assessments and to develop, deliver, and evaluate family life education programming within the curriculum such that students feel capable and confident in their abilities to offer these unique services.
In endorsing the importance of research skills, most of our respondents would likely agree with Ganong et al.'s ([ 22 ] ) assertion that “the scholarship of discovery is at the core of family science” (p. 502). The acquisition of new knowledge about families and their relationships is imperative for the discipline to thrive. However, for family science “knowing” is not enough. Our respondents also strongly emphasized the application of family scholarship, also known as translational scholarship. Family science scholars engage in scholarship with the intent of using their findings to enhance the lives of individuals and families. Family science's commitment to application and engagement in communities and larger global contexts aligns nicely with current values and trends in higher education and the mission of institutions of higher education. Efforts at promoting the discipline should emphasize this commitment to application of scholarship in service to families and communities. As we continue to articulate unique knowledge and skill sets developed in family science programs, graduates will be better able to fortify an “occupational identity” (Brock, [ 12 ] , p. 74).
Relative to defining family science, then, we assert that rather than focusing so much on disciplinary boundaries – where family science stops – it behooves us to articulate and agree upon a family science core. Based on responses from our participants and existing studies, we suggest that that the core of family science includes a focus of study that concentrates on family and relationships; emphasizes a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach; adopts a family systems, family strengths, life span, and ecosystem perspective; possesses a major thrust toward prevention; coalesces around 10 family life education substance areas; values strong written, verbal, and interpersonal skills with diverse populations and families; and embraces translational scholarship and practical application of knowledge. From this core outlined by our participants, we imagine that there can and will be variations in family science programs. For instance, some may more fully develop additional curriculum for particular career paths, like Child Life Specialist, which in addition to core family science courses would also require courses in death and grief and child life. So, too, family science programs might develop specialization or unique linkages with related areas like early childhood education in elaborating on its core in an effort to meet employment needs or student interests.
We Need Strategies and Resources to Better Market and Educate Others About the Family ...
Marketing is also of concern for family science. Rather than being a destination degree, family science tends to be a “discovery major” (Hagenbuch & Hamon, [ 26 ] ). It is often not until students arrive on campus and are exposed to our students and programs or take a course in family science (often to fulfill a general education requirement) that they are exposed to family science and appreciate what it has to offer professionally. Ultimately, our hope is that educational efforts at the local, state, and national levels will yield a growing number of student recruits, community partners, and potential employers who are excited about what family science has to offer. When administrators perceive of our programs as capable of recruiting new students to our campuses rather than “stealing” them from existing programs, they are likely to deem our programs as more valuable.
Energies need to be devoted to better educating prospective students, their parents, and employers about family science. Although a few departments represented in this study were not directly involved in marketing their family science programs, more are actively engaged in strategies to better educate prospective students about the field and boost enrollments. As resources become more limited, departmental administrators need to identify those efforts that will yield greatest outcomes. Our respondents reiterated some of the same “best practices” identified by Hamon et al.'s (2010) sample of administrators of family programs in North America. Respondents recommend ongoing education of admissions staff, active participation in campus open house programs, close partnerships with high school counselors and family and consumer sciences teachers, the maintenance of robust and engaging websites, relationship building with advisors of undeclared undergraduates, the creation of attractive and informative department‐specific brochures, and assigning best instructors in introductory courses within the department. Like Hagenbuch and Hamon ([ 26 ] ), our respondents also suggest capitalizing on introductory courses in Human Development and Family Science, which might also meet a general education requirement, as a means of introducing students to family science, its distinct content and skills, and its psychologically rewarding career possibilities. Hamon and Schvaneveldt ([ 27 ] ) suggest intentionally targeting undeclared students with information about the major. More specifically, chairs might have an introductory letter waiting in undeclared students' campus mailboxes upon their arrival to campus and invite them to departmental events where they can interact with current students in the department. Faculty in programs that are at capacity might devote more energy to marketing their students to organizations and agencies that provide internships for current students or hire family science graduates.
This study reveals that word of mouth is one of the most successful means for disseminating information about family science programs, particularly from current students and graduates of family science programs. Hagenbuch and Hamon ([ 26 ] ) discovered that Human Development and Family Science majors and minors possessed significantly more accurate information about the content of the major than nonmajors and held significantly more positive attitudes towards those areas of study. Thus, though genuine interest in the subject plays a critical role in choosing a major (Beggs, Bantham, & Taylor, [ 5 ] ; Malgwi, Howe, & Burnaby, [ 37 ] ), enthusiasm for one's discipline is potentially contagious when shared with others, suggesting that current students should play a central role in educating others about family science. Thus, faculty should be challenged to generate ways to foster student enthusiasm for their discipline. This might be done by modeling disciplinary excitement, inviting students to be energized by attending family science conferences, helping students to better understand the relevance and application of what they are learning in the classroom, and nurturing strong and engaged student affiliated councils of the NCFR. This might also be done by offering students a deeper understanding of the origins and milestones of their discipline via supplemental readings. Hollinger ([ 32 ] ), Hamon and Smith ([ 28 ] ), and Bailey and Gentry ([ 4 ] ) offer more recent reviews of the development of the field. Alexander and Hamon ([ 2 ] ) also created an engaging visual of the family science milestones.
Even though 44% of our respondents noted that they used NCFR's Careers in Family Science booklet to educate students about family science (Table [NaN] ), our respondents suggested the need for job profiles and career information for those in undergraduate family science programs. Because some research studies suggest that availability and appeal of prospective job options, ability to advance in one's career, and compensation are significant factors in selecting a major (Beggs et al., [ 5 ] ; Crampton, Walstrom, & Schambach, [ 16 ] ; Galotti & Kozberg, [ 21 ] ; Malgwi et al., [ 37 ] ), resources providing information on career possibilities and benefits of personal application of content are essential. Our participants recommend that departments track and report alumni job information to share with prospective and current students. Alumni career panels or roundtables are also effective strategies for educating current students about career possibilities (Hamon & Schvaneveldt, 2006). No matter what the context, alumni should be encouraged to show how specific skills and information obtained in the family science curriculum are uniquely helpful within their particular employment context, as well as their own family life. Such data would be valuable to share with current students. Because parents have a strong influence on their offspring's choice of a major (Beggs et al., [ 5 ] ; Esters, [ 19 ] ; Hagenbuch & Hamon, [ 26 ] ), such programs and materials might also help to convince parents there are meaningful career options and personal benefits available for graduates of family science.
Administrators of family science programs in another study also noted the need to create “buzz” about the department by sharing departmental good news and accomplishments (Hamon et al., [ 29 ] ) as a way of educating others about the possibilities of family science. We recommend regularly updating dynamic department websites, using social media, maintaining close relationships with the public relations offices on campus, inviting local media to special departmental events, sponsoring regional or national conferences, and providing annual reports to university administrators about departmental accomplishments as effective strategies for educating others about what family science means.
We Need to Identify and Confront Challenges to the Field of Family Science
When it comes to the challenges confronting the field, the data in this study point to the fact that the diversity in names of our programs and departments continues to plague the field. Not only do departments have different names, but so do the schools and divisions in which family science programs are located. Recently, Hans, Smith, and Kimberly (2010) examined trends in the naming of family departments. They noted that of the 154 departments that currently include family in the title, 54 different department names exist. However, between 1976 and 2008, there was a clear trend toward the use of three terms – science, studies, and therapy – accounting for 86% of all such departments. In fact, of the two most popular terms, family “studies” (60%) maintained a lead over family “science” (40%). Despite the gravitation toward the adoption of family “studies” or “science” during the last three decades, the majority of the 752 faculty in family departments in the survey deemed “the variation in department names within the family field” as either “very problematic” (19%) or “somewhat problematic” (59%). This lack of a cohesive nomenclature and consistent placement within our university structures is likely affecting other aspects of programmatic development (i.e., marketing, recruiting students to family science programs, establishing national visibility), suggesting that the discipline might be best served by continuing to expend efforts in debating common nomenclature for the field. We recommend that family departments try to integrate family science (preferred) or family studies within their department names as an important first step in resolving diverse nomenclature of our programs. To us, science better represents a unique discipline, whereas studies denotes a collection of disparate groups that assemble around a topic. Science also better reflects the rigorous methods employed in discovering and applying new knowledge.
Respondents were helpful in identifying strategies and action steps for strengthening family science programs and the discipline. Given that the NCFR was the professional organization cited as the one in which most departmental members affiliated (85.7%), NCFR has the capacity to play a critical role in advancing the discipline. NCFR has produced a number of worthwhile and high‐quality publications and also maintains a strong website that includes a great deal of information about family science and family life education. It also maintains a comprehensive online list of accredited institutions in the United States and Canada that offer programs in family science. Because the Internet is a primary source of information for many young people, NCFR should further develop its web materials to include information about family science as a field, what makes it unique from other social sciences, and where graduates work. Profiles of graduates should include not only their job descriptions, but also how a preparation in family science has uniquely equipped them for the specific work they do. Such sketches might also include how family science content is personally valuable and relevant in their own family experiences. We also call upon NCFR to continue to assemble groups of family science administrators and educators at its annual conference and to generate an action plan for promoting the discipline. One example might include advocating to make “family science” visible in computer‐assisted career guidance systems. Because many high school students complete computerized self‐assessment inventories (which can be related to different dimensions of self – personality, values, interests, skills, etc.) as part of their major exploration when considering college, NCFR could help to ensure that family science pops up as a major option for students to consider when their interests and career aspirations align.
Family science is at a unique juncture in its historical development. Within the current context of economic strain, shrinking institutional resources, growing accountability, and increasing competition, family science departments will continue to benefit from careful and thorough assessment, as well as creative thinking and innovative action. Evaluation processes – which begin when prospective students meet an admissions counselor in their high school or visit our campuses or departmental websites and end when students graduate, explore employment opportunities, and secure positions – are critical if we are to continually improve our programs and advance the discipline (Berke & Hamon, [ 8 ] ; Kopera‐Frye, Hilton, & Cavote, [ 35 ] ; Leite & Landry‐Meyer, [ 36 ] ). According to Hamon et al. (2010), administrators and faculty need to assess family science programs horizontally: How does our family science department compare with similar programs at benchmark institutions? They also need to evaluate vertically: How do our programs compare with other social science departments on our own campus? In addition to these questions, we might also ask, What does the family science department offer the university that would not otherwise be provided without family science? How do family science programs advance institutional missions? From an ecological perspective, how are students, the university, the community and the state benefitting from family science programs? Such evaluation is essential in an ever‐changing, increasingly competitive climate to become even more relevant for the future.
Although studies like this one reveal a great deal about family science and family science programs, future research might also survey faculty in related disciplines and departments (e.g., sociology, social work, psychology, criminal justice, anthropology, family and consumer sciences) to assess their perception of the family science field, any unique contributions the discipline might make to the social sciences, the extent to which they can envision their students benefiting from family science courses, how our disciplines might collaborate with one another, and related matters. Such work might further enhance our understanding of others' perceptions of the family science identity. Future projects might also explore employers' perceptions of family science graduates and the knowledge and skills they most value in family science professionals.
With careful assessment, effective problem solving, reflexivity, and creative thinking, the discipline of family science and family science programs have the potential to emerge stronger than ever. Family science is certain to benefit from this stage of evaluation and innovation.
