Role Problems of the College Family Life Educator and Researcher.
About: This article is published in The Family Coordinator.The article was published on 1971-01-01. It has received 10 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Genogram & Family therapy.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This paper examined some literature about the emergence of disciplines and tried to identify: (a) the processes that fields go through in becoming disciplines, and (b) the criteria for determining when an area of study is a discipline.
Abstract: ters and many thoughtful comments on the questionnaires. The response confirmed that there is an identity problem. They also convinced us that there is a more basic issue, which has implications for how we should deal with the identity problem. In this paper, therefore, we deal first with the more basic concern, then with the identity questions, and finally with some proposed solutions. The more basic issue is whether the family field is a bona fide discipline, an interdisciplinary area of study, or a unique combination of both. To try to cope with this issue, we examined some literature about the emergence of disciplines and tried to identify: (a) the processes that fields go through in becoming disciplines, and (b) the criteria for determining when an area of study is a discipline. This has been an illuminating process, and we would like to share first a portion of what we have learned about the processes. Di ciplines do not appear full-blown in a short period of time. They start out with small groups of scholars working in relative obscurity. They then grow in a gradual and uneven pattern, with some parts maturing more rapidly than others and with some developments leading to growth in other areas. It is fruitless, therefore, to try to identify a date when a discipline appears because the process is more of a chicken-and-egg pattern in which there is no single cause. This difficulty in finding causes in processes has been labeled a "punctuation" problem in the family process litrature (Watzlawick et al., 1967). The development of a discipline also takes considerable time, and disciplines are not always easily accepted in the academic community. For example, the term "sociology" was introduced in 1839 (Timasheff and Theodorson, 1976), but it was accepted only "after a severe and protracted struggle" (Branford, 1903:145). Yet, as Fletcher (1971) indicates, even though sociology is well established in the United States, it is still not viewed by many as a separate discipline in Great Britain.
45 citations
17 citations
Cites background from "Role Problems of the College Family..."
...Schvaneveldt (1971) also anticipated difficulties for the new discipline because of the overlap that existed between family science and so many professional disciplines, as well as the inclination to identify with and exhibit greater loyalty to one’s parent discipline....
[...]
TL;DR: Hans et al. as mentioned in this paper examined department name trends over nearly four decades and, more broadly, to consider the current state of the identity issue as reflected in department names, and concluded that family studies was the better of the two because family studies ''cannot be used to describe the professional identity of scholars in the field''.
Abstract: Three decades ago, Burr and Leigh (1983) attempted to address the ''identity problem'' that the family field was experiencing. They proposed that common terminology be used to establish the identity and facilitate the development of the family field. Using some compelling arguments and survey results, they concluded that the family discipline should be labeled famology. Academic units would use the name Department of Famology and those who work in the field of famology would be known as famologists. These labels were not adopted; no department names have ever included the term famology and no scholars in the family field describe themselves as famologists. Burr and Leigh found that family studies and family science were the two most preferred names among 334 colleagues surveyed and concluded that family science was the better of the two because family studies ''cannot be used to describe the professional identity of scholars in the field. It does not make sense to be a 'Family Studiesist' or 'Family Studiest''' (p. 474). Subsequently, the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) formed a Task Force on the Development of the Family Discipline, which ultimately led to adoption of the term family science ''to refer to the field of study where the primary goals are the discovery, verification and application of knowledge about the family'' (Leigh,1985b,p.15).Administratorsandfaculty members were encouraged to change course, major, and department names to align with this preferred terminology.Burr and Leigh (1983) argued that the incon- sistency in how departments are named within the family field is perhaps a partial cause and is certainly a symptom of the identity problem. Using the 1982 edition of Guide to Graduate Family Programs (Love, 1982), Burr and Leigh found that the 51 departments identified by Love as offering a graduate program in the family field were known by 36 different department names. The situation does not seem to have improved; the most frequent department name in the family field now is the ''Department of Human Development and Family Studies,'' which com- prises only 11% of departments (Hans, 2013b). By comparison, more than 60% of the depart- ments listed in Graduate Study in Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2011) are called the ''Department of Psychology.'' Consequently, as editor of the three most recent printed editions of Graduate and Undergradu- ate Study in Marriage and Family (Hans, 2002, 2005, 2008) and current editor of the online pro- gram guide on NCFR's website (Hans, 2013b), I envy at the relative simplicity that the editors of comparable guides in sociology and psychology have in locating programs for inclusion in their guides. If we have difficulty locating and labeling ourselves, it seems unrealistic to expect students to find us, scholars in other fields to understand us, and policy makers and lay people to acknowledge us. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine department name trends over nearly four decades and, more broadly, to consider the current state of the identity issue as reflected in department names.METHODS AND RESULTSThe investigation of department name trends began by replicating Burr and Leigh's (1983) approach, using academic units listed in the online program guide available on NCFR's website (Hans, 2013b). The online program guide supplanted the printed version of the guide that was last printed in 2008 under the title Graduate and Undergraduate Study in Marriage and Family (Hans, 2008) and included 300 family-related degree programs at the time of this writing in mid-2013. However, many listings were specific to family-related degree program options housed within larger academic units holding distinctly different disciplinary identities wherein family is not the primary unit of study (e.g., counseling, psychology, sociology), and the listing justly focused only on the relevant program option rather than the academic unit as a whole. …
15 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the relationship between family life education and marriage and family research is discussed, and strategies for maximizing the reciprocal benefits of family research and education are offered, as well as ways in which family life educators and researchers can join together to clarify misconceptions and correct folklore.
Abstract: Linkages between family life education and marriage and family research are discussed. Historical and current problems concerning the interface of research and education are reviewed and solutions are suggested. Ways in which family life educators and researchers can join together to clarify misconceptions and correct folklore are presented. Finally, strategies for maximizing the reciprocal benefits of family research and education are offered.
12 citations
Cites background from "Role Problems of the College Family..."
...Schvaneveldt (1971) expanded this dilemma of teaching and research in terms of...
[...]
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the ethics, theories, and methodologies that many scholars believe should be included in the study of marriage and family and provide a discourse on whether or not a separate discipline of family science exists today.
Abstract: Throughout the chapters in this Handbook, research, theory, and methodology have been presented on marriage and family. The content provides much of the background for one to understand the study of family and family science as a discipline. In this chapter, the goal is to explore ideas around teaching family science as a discipline. We will examine the terms used to describe the science and the profession, and where the field fits among social science disciplines as primary, secondary, or tertiary. We will discuss the ethics, theories, and methodologies that many scholars believe should be included in the study of marriage and family and provide a discourse on whether or not a separate discipline of family science exists today. The seven criteria for a field to become a true discipline as described by Burr and Leigh (1983) will be explored. We will examine what “teaching” about families entails as the field prepares professionals. Finally, we will identify some emerging and futuristic topics for family science educators to consider.
10 citations