These sources illuminate the history of Family Science — the scientific study of families and close interpersonal relationships — and its establishment and evolution as a distinct academic discipline. Also available in PDF format.

• Bailey, S. J., & Gentry, D. B. (2013). Teaching about Family Science as a discipline. Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 3, 861–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3987-5_35
• Burr, W., & Leigh, G. (1983). Famology: A new discipline. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(3), 467–480. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/351653
• Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, and education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.
• Cushman, D. (2012). If there were a Wikipedia page for famology, what would it say? NCFR Report, 57(3), 4–4. https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/2012%20Winter%20Report%20News.pdf
• Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & Demo, D. (1995). Issues in training Family Scientists. Family Relations, 44(4), 501–507. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/585004
• Gavazzi, S. M., Wilson, S. M., Ganong, L., & Zvonkovic, A. (2014). Furthering the conversation on the future of the discipline of Family Science: Comments on the articles by Hamon & Smith and Hans. Family Relations, 63(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12076
• Hans, J. D. (2014). Whither famology? Department name trends across four decades. Family Relations, 63(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12075
• Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R. (2014). The discipline of Family Science and the continuing need for innovation. Family Relations, 63(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12068
• Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R. (2017). Family Science as translational science: A history of the discipline. Family Relations, 66(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12273
• Hollinger, M. A. (2002). Family Science: Historical roots, theoretical foundations, and disciplinary identity. Journal of Teaching in Marriage & Family, 2(3), 299–328. https://doi.org/10.1300/J226v02n03_03
• Myers‐Walls, J. A., Ballard, S. M., Darling, C. A., & Myers‐Bowman, K. S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the domain and boundaries of Family Life Education. Family Relations, 60(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00659.x
• NCFR Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline. (1985). Task force for the development of a family discipline: Report from NCFR. NCFR Report, 30(4), 14–15. https://archive.ncfr.org/ncfr-newsletters/december-1985-ncfr-report
• NCFR Task Force on the Development of the Family Discipline. (1988). What is Family Science? Family Science Review, 1(2), 87–101.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z4XMW5jTK1waZY5lYMtEf9V9cLRYvlh5
• Smart, L. S. (2009). Family Science: The emergence of a new discipline. Family Science Review, 14(1), 118–128. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eRMpel3oWOepqlA9ZQjoH_H0bT2JZJoF
• Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline. (1987). A recommendation about the identity of the family discipline. Family Science Review, 1(1), 48–52. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x4llfJSfOMgKKNxhSc_a1sATR6hWVM5b