Family Science: The Emergence of a New Discipline, 1982-2007

Laura S. Smart, Ph.D., CFLE

Northern Illinois University

ABSTRACT. Family science emerged as a separate social science discipline in the last quarter
of the 20th century. In the mid 1980s, two organizations gave recognition to the new discipline.
The Family Science section of National Council on Family Relations was formed, and a separate
organization, the Family Science Association, also was formed. The purpose of this article is to
describe the development of family science, with a focus on 1982-2007. Eight categories of
family science scholarship from 1987-2007 are reviewed: academic programs, curriculum
development, ethical guidelines for practice, philosophy of science, research methodologies, the
interface between research and practice, and career development.

This article is to review the development of family sciences as a separate social science
discipline, with a focus on 1982-2007, the transitional time when an interdisciplinary approach to
the study of the family became recognized as a new discipline. The interdisciplinary roots of
family science reach back to the 19th century. The emergence of family science as a discipline
occurred in the 20th century, and can be attributed in a broad sense to all of the scholars who
labored to understand families through use of the scientific method.
A few of these scholars who studied families stand out as important progenitors of the field,
because their published works conceptualized the family as requiring theories and methodologies
that are adapted to its study as an institution and as a small group. Hollinger (2002) cited Ernest
Groves’ (1946) reference to science of marriage and family as the first published use of the term
“family science.” As he mused about professionals that he identified as family life educators and
researchers, Jay Schvaneveldt (1971) also contributed to the discussion, which led to the
development of family science.
The family scholar who gave the biggest push for recognition of the study of the family as a
new discipline was Wesley R. Burr. Burr’s scholarship regarding family theory (Burr, 1973;
Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979) and his role as president of the National Council on Family
Relations (NCFR) no doubt helped him conceptualize the need for recognition of family science.
In his 1982 presidential address, which was published in 1983 in Journal of Marriage and the
Family (Burr & Leigh, 1983), Burr voiced some concerns to the organization’s membership.
Burr and Leigh argued that the study of the family had outgrown its interdisciplinary roots to
become a new discipline.
A task force was appointed in 1984 by Bert Adams, NCFR president, to examine the
“development of the family discipline” (NCFR Task Force on the Development of the Family
Discipline, 1988). The task force conducted open sessions at the 1984 and 1985 annual meetings
of NCFR (Jewson & Walters, 1988). NCFR members debated the relative merits of the terms
famology, familogy, and family science. The task force recommended the name Family Science
be adopted, “where the primary goals are the discovery, verification, and application of
knowledge about the family” (Jewson & Walters, 1988 pp. 129-130). In 1985 the NCFR board
of directors approved the change of the status of the task force to section status. At first called
the Family Discipline section, it was renamed the Family Science section in 1992. In 1988, Burr,
Day and Bahr published the preliminary edition of their introductory textbook, Family Science.

The author gratefully acknowledges Elizabeth Turner’s assistance in researching this article.
Direct correspondence to Dr. Laura S. Smart at lsmart@niu.edu.

Family Science Review, Volume 14, 2009

©2009 by the Family Science Association. All rights reserved.
 Family Science Today 119

That year, the scholarly journal Family Science Review published its first issue, and the Family
Science Association was formed. The name of the new discipline was secured. However, the
membership of NCFR did not immediately identify themselves as family scientists.
In 1993, Ingoldsby and Bowen conducted a survey of the membership of NCFR, finding that the
members identified primarily with four disciplines: Marriage and Family
Therapy (18%), Family Science (17%), Sociology (15%) and Home Economics (9%). The
remaining 41% were split among 11 other primary disciplinary affiliations.
The NCFR Task Force (1988) and Hollinger (2002) provide excellent reviews of the roots
and development of the discipline of family science. Vaines’ (1995) comparison of the
disciplines of family science and home economics provides support that scholars in a related
discipline recognized the existence of family science. In 1994, home economics scholars and
practitioners agreed to re-name their discipline family and consumer sciences. (See also Ponzetti,
1995, for a comparison of family science and home economics).

Scholarship in Family Science

Articles reviewed herein were identified primarily by using the search term “family science”
in internet searches of scholarly articles. Scholarship published since 1987, the first year that
Family Science Review was published, was sorted into the following eight categories, which will
be discussed in turn: academic programs in family science (Burr, Schvaneveldt, Rolender &
Marshall, 1988; Day, Quick, Leigh & McKenry, 1989); curriculum development in family
science (Bean, Crane, and Lewis, 2002; Benson et al., 2006; Brock, 1987; Fang, McDowell &
Holland, 2006; Ganong, Coleman & Demo, 1995; Keim, 1990, 1993a, 1993b; Koblinsky,
Kuvalanka & McClintock-Comeaux, 2006; McAdoo, 1996; Quoss, 1993; Smart & Berke, 2004;
Smart, Keim, Pritchard & Herron-Miller, 1993; Toews & Cerny, 2006); ethical guidelines for the
practice of family science (Adams, Dollahite, Gilbert & Keim, 2001; Adams, Keim & Dollahite,
1995; Arcus, 1999; Quoss, 1993); philosophy of science and family science (Allen, 2000; Klein
& Janning, 1997; Knapp, 2002; Lavee & Dollohite, 1991; Lloyd, Few & Allen, 2007; Walker,
2000), family science research methodologies (Gilgun, 2005; Snyder & Kazak, 2005); the
interface between research and practice of family science (Doherty, 2000; Monroe, 1991; Small,
2005); and career development in family science (Endsley, 1998; Keim, 1995).

Academic Programs in Family Science

The new journal, Family Science Review, provided a forum for discussion regarding the
newly named discipline. Volume 1 (1987-88) included articles about graduate and undergraduate
family science programs (Burr, Schvaneveldt, Roleder & Marshall, 1988; Day, Quick, Leigh &
McKenry, 1988). Day and colleagues’ article reported their study of the structure, available
curricular options, course names, and program names for family science-related graduate and
undergraduate programs in the United States. Burr et al. reported data gathered from a
convenience sample of 55 family scientists at 18 graduate programs. Respondents ranked
graduate programs regarding the training of family theorists and researchers, family life
educators, and marriage and family therapists. They also ranked universities’ production of
research and theoretical publications and the creation of family life educational materials.
University of Minnesota was ranked first in four of five categories, and ranked second, after
Brigham Young University, in training family life educators.

Curriculum Development in Family Science

 Family Science 120

As Brock (1987) noted in the first issue of Family Science Review, enrollment of majors in
many family science programs (as well as social science in general) was decreasing in the late
1980s. Brock called for the development of a comprehensive family science curriculum that
would provide skills training as well as a solid background in research and theory. He
recommended a two-phase practical experience that would include an on-campus practicum and
a capstone community internship. Keim (1990) and Smart, Keim, Pritchard and Herron-Miller
(1995) described a family science program which included 100 hours of volunteer work prior to
an off-campus internship. Smart et al. found that student engagement in out-of-classroom family
science experiences was beneficial to student learning. Recent work by Toews and Cerny (2006)
confirmed this finding.
Smart and Berke (2004) surveyed undergraduate family science programs regarding types of
out-of-classroom experiences available to or required of students. They found that curricula were
designed to integrate classroom learning with skills training; however, there was considerable
variation in the number of credit hours and clock hours required, the job titles which students
gained after graduation, number of graduates produced per year, and the nomenclature used for
the out-of-classroom experiences.
Another aspect of curriculum development in family science is the development of courses
which promote student skill development, including professional practice (Keim, 1993b), group
process (Keim, 1993a), and ethics training (Quoss, 1993). The importance of educating students
regarding diversity has been described (Fang, McDowell & Holland, 2006; McAdoo, 1996).
McAdoo and Fang and associates recognized the international roots of United States’ culture.
McAdoo criticized family science for applying Eurocentric theories to American families of non-
European descent. Fang et al. described ways in which family science programs could infuse an
international multicultural approach into their curriculum. However, there remains a need for
family scientists to increase the production of family science research using diverse samples.
Bean, Crane and Lewis (2002) pointed out that culturally sensitive training of researchers and
practitioners depends upon the existence of a rich research base, which currently is lacking.
Several articles provide descriptions of graduate programs in family science. Using Boyer’s
(1990) four types of scholarship, Ganong, Coleman and Demo (1995) described the
competencies desirable in family scientists and the experiences that doctoral students need to
have in order to gain the competencies. They concluded that students need a core body of
knowledge, but they also acknowledged that work needed to be done to define core knowledge in
family science.
Doctoral students need opportunities to perform research (the scholarship of discovery, in
Boyer’s terms) and to connect knowledge across disciplines (the scholarship of integration).
Ganong et al. also recommended that students have opportunities to apply knowledge through (1)
teaching opportunities with undergraduate students and the public (through Cooperative
Extension), and (2) engagement with governmental and social service agencies. Benson et al.’s
(2006) and Koblinsky, Kuvalanka and McClintock-Comeaux’s (2006) articles describe the
transformations of a master’s program and a doctoral program, respectively. Faculty in both
programs sought and created innovations that would more adequately prepare students as family
scientists. Interestingly, the faculty noted that transformation of the master’s program (Benson, et
al.) had a salutary effect upon the doctoral program at the same institution.
Brock’s (1987) call for the vitalization of undergraduate programs in family science was an
early effort to increase the relevance of academic family science programs to students by
implementing curricula that engaged students in the application of knowledge. This type of
 Family Science Today 121

curriculum is now characteristic of many family science programs (Smart & Berke, 2004). The
integration of more traditional forms of scholarship with application remains cutting edge in the
new century (Weber & Duderstadt, 2004).

Ethical Guidelines for Family Science

In 1993, Quoss published an article in Family Science Review regarding the teaching of ethics
in an undergraduate child and family services course. Concurrently, the Family Science section
of NCFR provided a forum for discussion of the discipline’s developmental needs, including
more emphasis upon ethics. The section’s members supported the need for the development of
ethical guidelines for the section (Adams, Dollahite, Gilbert & Keim, 2001). Adams, Keim, and
Dollahite (1995) published a draft of family science ethical guidelines in the NCFR Report.
Following the section’s adoption of the ethical guidelines, discussion among the general
membership of NCFR pointed to the desirability of NCFR as a whole adopting the ethical
guidelines. Deliberation by the NCFR Board of Directors and the membership-at-large led to
NCFR’s adoption of the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Family Scientists (Adams, et al.,
2001). Arcus (1999) contributed to the discussion by elaborating on key dimensions of ethics
education that were found in the scholarship of other fields. Arcus provided a coherent
discussion of ethical theories and their application to ethics education in family science.

Philosophy of Science and Family Science

Family science developed primarily from positivist science which dominated social science
throughout the 20th century. Positivism, also known as empiricism, is the belief that knowledge
obtained through the scientific method is the only authentic knowledge. Positivism rests on the
realist assumption that the world Aout there@ exists independently of the observer. For the past
20 years, post-positivism, the belief that it is not possible to make observations that are
completely objective, has been an important influence within the discipline of family science. An
example of post-positivism is constructivism, which holds that the world as perceived by an
individual is “constructed” by the mind of that person (Gilgun, 2005).
Positivist assumptions were dominant in family science in the 20th century and remain
important today. Lavee and Dollahite (1991) called for increased explicitness of theory in
empirical family science research, a point of view completely consistent with positivism. The
authors noted that the groundbreaking work of Burr and associates (1979) laid a foundation for
reciprocity of research and theory in the field. Lavee and Dollahite proposed a systems model of
scientific inquiry where theory construction and testing of theory provide feedback for each
other, with the system output of systematic explanation of phenomena related to the family.
During the last two decades of the century the constructivist viewpoint gained importance in
family science scholarship. Constructivists (also known as constructionists) assume that human
beings in general and scientists in particular interpret data. Constructivists argue that all
scientists choose topics and interpret findings through their own lenses. They believe that the
interpretive acts should be thoroughly explained by authors as they write up their scholarship.
For example, Knapp (2002) argued that scholars should make explicit the roles they play as
interpreter as they construct arguments and present their results.
Klein and Janning (1997) surveyed participants in the 1992 Research and Theory NCFR Pre-
Conference Workshop regarding their philosophies of science. Their article’s premise is that
family science is based upon assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge, which should be
 Family Science Today 122

examined and made explicit. Their quantitative methodology led them to the tentative conclusion
that individual family scientists are guided consistently by their philosophies of science, and that
few family scientists surveyed were strongly tied to positivism or to constructivism. The senior
author of the article, Klein, noted that he considered himself to be a positivist, albeit one who
was becoming more interested in constructivism.
Allen (2000), Walker (2000) and Knapp (2002) all identified themselves as constructivists.
Knapp argued that positivist writing conventions such as Aour findings indicate@ or “our results
showed” remove from the text an indication that authors provide interpretation when writing
their articles. Knapp noted that while positivists believe this language is “objective,”
constructivists believe that objectivity results when researchers critically self-reflect upon their
assumptions, methods, and conclusions.
Allen (2000) and Walker (2000) agreed with Knapp regarding the importance of self-
reflectivity. Allen wove her own practice of self-reflexivity throughout her essay when she
described her experiences as a family member, a group member, and as a researcher. Family
scholars, she argued, must be cognizant of the impacts of racism, sexism, classism, and
heterosexism upon the study of the family. Walker’s article is at the interface of philosophy of
science and curriculum development. Like Allen, Walker called for scholars to be mindful of the
limitations of scientific research as they practice research and pedagogy. Walker summarized
four exemplar studies of family scholarship. Each year in a graduate family science class, Walker
engages students in discussion of recent scholarship that has important implications for family
science as a discipline. Instructors of graduate courses on family science could use Walker’s
essay as a jumping-off point for their own courses when the goal is to help graduate students
understand the meaning and significance of research on families.

Research Methodologies

It is beyond the scope of this article to even scratch the surface of scholarship regarding
research methodologies in family science. However, it is significant that the March, 2005 issue
of Journal of Family Psychology, which is published by the American Psychological
Association, was entitled “Methodology in Family Science.” The introduction to the issue, by
editors Snyder and Kazak (2005) referred to “the recursive interaction of research methodology
and theories underlying family science” (p. 3).
In this issue, Gilgun (2005) explained the utility of qualitative methods for psychological
research on families. Gilgun argued that qualitative methodology is compatible with a view
which combines aspects of realism (the world exists independently of the observer) with
constructivism. In this combined view, the scientist’s observations of what is “out there” in the
world is filtered through the scientist’s perceptions, values, and prior experiences. Gilgun then
explained conventions of qualititative research and how these methodologies have been used in
the study of the family. The article would be useful to individuals trained in positivist methods
and also to advanced undergraduate and graduate students of research methods in family science.

Interface of Research and Practice of Family Science

A theme in family science scholarship is the integration of research, theory, and their
application to practice. Earlier in this essay I gave examples of scholarship in which the authors
called for a curriculum in which students would learn to apply knowledge. Family science
 Family Science Today 123

practitioners also are called upon to integrate research and theory into their practice (Doherty,
2000; Monroe, 1991; Small, 2005). In his 1999 presidential address, NCFR president Doherty
(2000) described a model of community partnership with families. The traditional model
consists of researchers providing research-based information to practitioners, who in turn pass
the knowledge on to families. Instead, Doherty conceptualizes families as the core source of
support, learning and growth for themselves and their communities. Ideally, professionals would
be available to assist as co-learners. This model allows the systemic flow of information among
the three systems (families, researchers, and practitioners).
Small (2005) confronted the problem of a lack of integration between research and practice in
family science. He examines reasons for the gap, which include different cultural contexts of
researchers and practitioners, lack of accessibility of research findings, and challenges that
researchers face when attempting to study real-world problems. He suggests strategies to bridge
the gap, including academic-community partnerships for conducting research and improvements
in the clarity and dissemination of research findings.
Monroe (1991) provided a guide for the participation of family scientists in state legislative
action. She described career possibilities related to advocacy and consulting, and also outlines
ways in which family scientists may secure sponsors for legislation, work with staffers and draft
legislation.

Career Development

Implicit in the discussion of developing meaningful curricula for family science programs is
the goal of preparing students for careers. Keim’s (1995) description of careers in family science
has become a classic. A special issue of Family Science Review in 1998 focused on career
development. Endlsey (1998) called for an analysis of career development within family science
in order to strengthen undergraduate and graduate programs and maintain the vitality of the
discipline.

Family Studies as an Alternative Term

I have argued that family science has emerged as a discipline over the past 25 years.
However, because of the positivist connotation of the term family science, feminists may prefer
the use of the term family studies. The word “studies” lacks the positivist connotation of the
word “science.” The April 2007 issue of Journal of Family Issues was entitled “Feminist
Theory, Methods, and Praxis in Family Studies.” One of these articles (Few, 2007) showed in a
search on Google Scholar © using the term “family science.”

Summary

The discipline of Family Science was named in 1985, although its interdisciplinary roots
reach back to the 19th century. The Family Science (originally named Family Discipline) Section
of the National Council of Family Relations was formed in 1985. In 1987, the Family Science
Association was formed and began publishing the scholarly journal Family Science Review.
Scholarship over the past 25 years in family science has a theme of integration of research,
theory, and practice, as evidenced by work centering on family science curriculum development,
program development, and the practice of family science. Ethical guidelines for the new
discipline were developed and adopted. Family scientists moved from a strong identification
 Family Science Today 124

with positivism toward constructivism, without abandoning the more traditional philosophy of
science. Scholars in related disciplines, including family and consumer sciences and
psychology, recognize the discipline of family science. Members of both the National Council
on Family Relations and the Family Science Association can take pride in their work which has
resulted in the creation and growth of a new social science discipline. Its continued development
is now in the hands of new generations of scholars.
 Family Science Today 125

References

Adams, R.A., Dollahite, D.C., Gilbert, K.R., & Keim, R.E. (2001). The development and
teaching of the ethical principles and guidelines for family scientists. Family Relations, 50, 41-
48.

Adams, R.A., Keim, R., & Dollahite, D. (1995). Ethical principles and guidelines for family
scientists. NCFR Report, 40(4), 18-19.

Allen, K.R. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 4-17.

Arcus, M. (1999). Ethics education in family science: Strengthening programs in higher

education. Family Science Review, 12, 49-64.

Bean, R.A., Crane, D.R., & Lewis, T.L. (2002). Basic research and implications for practice in
family science: A content analysis and status report for U.S. ethnic groups. Family Relations,
51, 15-21.

Benson, M.J., Allen, K.R., Few, A.L., Roberto, K.A., Blieszner, R., Meszaros, P.S., &
Henderson, T.L. (2006). Transforming the master’s degree in human development and
family science. Family Relations, 55, 44-55.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professioriate. Lawrenceville,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brock, G.W. (1987). Family science undergraduate programs: Time for a new approach? Family
Science Review, 1, 74-78.

Burr, W.R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York: John Wiley.
Burr, W.R., Hill, R.., Nye, F.I., & Reiss, I.R. (1979). Contemporary theories about the family,
Vols. 1 & 2. New York: Free Press.

Burr, W.R., & Leigh, G. K. (1983). Famology: A new discipline. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 467-480.

Burr, W.R., Day, R.D., & Bahr, K. S. (1988). Family science. Provo, UT: Alexander’s.

Burr, W. R., Schvaneveldt, J.D., Roleder, G., & Marshall, C. (1988). Beginning the evaluation of
family science programs. Family Science Review, 1, 125-134.

Day, R.D., Quick, D.S., Leigh, G.K., & McKenry, P. C. (1989). Professional training in family
science: A review of undergraduate and graduate programs. Family Science Review, 1, 313-
347.

Doherty, W.J. (2000). Family science and family citizenship: Toward a model of community
 Family Science Today 126

partnership with families. Family Relations, 49, 319-325.

Endsley, R.C. (1998). Career development in human development and family science. Family
Science Review, 11, 84-88.

Fang, S-R. S., McDowell, T., & Holland, C. (2006). Internationalizing family science programs:
A spherical expansion of inclusive perspectives. In R. R. Hamon, (Ed.), International family
studies: Developing curricula and teaching tools (1-20). New York: Haworth.

Few, A.L. (2007). Integrating black consciousness and critical race feminism into family studies
research. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 452-473.

Ganong, L.H., Coleman, M., & Demo, D.H. (1995). Issues in training family scientists. Family
Relations, 44, 501-507.

Gilgun, J.F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of Family Psychology,
19, 40-50.

Groves, E.R. (1946). Professional training for family life educators. Marriage and Family Living,
8, 25-26.

Hollinger, M.A. (2002). Family science: Historical roots, theoretical foundations, and
disciplinary identity. Journal of Teaching in Marriage and Family, 2, 299-328.

Ingoldsby, B.B., & Bowen, G.L. (1993). The significance of professional identity: Diversity
within the National Council on Family Relations. Family Science Review, 6, 81-90.

Jewson, R., & Walters, J. (1988). The National Council on Family Relations: A fifty year history
1938-1987. St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.

Keim, R.E. (1990). Internships in family services: A model of development. Family Science
Review, 3, 115-128.

Keim, R.E. (1993a). Group process skills: A professional training need in family science. Family
Science Review, 6, 57-71.

Keim, R.E. (1993b). Professional practices in family science: Essentials for an undergraduate
course. Family Science Review, 6, 73-79.

Keim, R. (1995). Careers in family science. In R.D. Day, K.R. Gilbert, B.H. Settles, & W.R.

Burr, (Eds.), Research and theory in family science (pp. 334-347). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Klein, D.M., & Janning, M.Y. (1997). Philosophies of family scientists. Family Perspective, 30,
483-502.
 Family Science Today 127

Knapp, S.J. (2002). Authorizing family science: An analysis of the objectifying practices of
family science discourse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 1038-1048.

Koblinsky, S.A., Kuvalanka, K.A., & McClintock-Comeaux, M. (2006). Preparing future faculty
and family professionals. Family Relations, 55, 29-43.

Lavee, Y., & Dollahite, D.C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361-373.

Lloyd, S.A., Few, A.L., & Allen, K.R. (2007). Feminist theory, methods, and praxis in family
studies: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 447-451.

McAdoo, H. (1996). The challenge of diversity for the field of family studies. Family Science
Review, 9, 69-76.

Monroe, P.A. (1991). Participation in state legislative activities: A practical guide for family
scientists. Family Relations, 43, 324-331.

NCFR Task Force on the Development of the Family Discipline. (1988). What is family science?
Family Science Review, 1, 87-101.

Ponzetti, J. (1995). An examination of certification in family science and home economics. Family
Science Review, 8, 41-47.

Quoss, B. (1993). Ethical training in undergraduate family science programs. Family Science Review,
6, 105-113.

Schvaneveldt, J.D. (1971). Role problems of the college family life educator and researcher. The
Family Coordinator, 20, 3-10.

Small, S.A. (2005). Bridging research and practice in the family and human sciences. Family
Relations, 54, 320-334.

Smart, L.S., & Berke, D.L. (2004). Future of internships in family science: Developing
professional standards. Journal of Teaching in Marriage and Family, 4(1), 101-126.

Smart, L.S., Keim, R.E., Pritchard, M.E., & Herron-Miller, A.C. (1995). Professional
development during college: A comparison of out-of-class experiences in two majors. Family
Science Review, 8, 129-141.

Snyder, D.K., & Kazak, A.E. (2005). Methodology in family science: Introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 3-5.

Toews, M.L., & Cerny, J.M. (2005). The impact of service-learning on student development:
Students reflections in a family diversity course. Marriage and Family Review, 38(4), 79-96.
 Family Science Today 128

Vaines, E. (1995). Family science and home economics: Companion communities in search of
meaning. Family Science Review, 8, 1-16.

Walker, A.J. (2000). Refracted knowledge: Viewing families through the prism of social science.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62I, 595-608.

Weber, L.E., & Duderstadt, J.J. (Eds). (2004). Reinventing the research university. London:
Economica.