See all articles from this issue

As you are reading this column, many of you may be looking forward to a little slower pace in the summer. For many of us in academia, we have just ended one of the most unusual semesters we have ever experienced; as I write this in March, universities across the country are moving to online instruction. Despite the very abnormal times and the fact that we’ve all been adjusting to a new public health reality, I ask your indulgence as I reflect on both my career and the growth of Family Science over the past four decades. As you read this, I will have just retired from the University of Maryland, ending a 38-year academic career. As I look back on my career as a Family Science professor, I am struck by two opposing realities: the ongoing struggle for recognition of the field and the immeasurable contribution the field has made to family well-being through our research, services, and policy work.

In the mid-1970s I entered graduate school, proud to proclaim the interdisciplinary nature of my chosen field of Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS), as it was commonly called then. Likewise, we pointed with pride to the cross-fertilization of ideas that was evident in the formation of NCFR, our professional association, by an attorney, a sociologist, and a rabbi. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, programs identifying themselves as HDFS, Family and Consumer Science, Family Science, and various similar names proliferated on college campuses. Graduates and faculty of these programs, myself included, continued to argue that a perspective that integrated a multidisciplinary lens was the best for understanding and working with families. Yet our influence in higher education seemed muted, and our students sometimes had difficulty competing in the job market against more recognizable disciplines. We remained optimistic, thinking that our approach was new and, with time, would become more highly valued and respected. And still, with time the problems have continued. Over the years, NCFR has worked tirelessly to address this issue through such efforts as developing the Certified Family Life Educator credential, rebranding, convening a Future of Family Science task force, and far too many other endeavors to list here (see the NCFR History Book at history.ncfr.org).

Perhaps as a field and as an organization it is time for us consider what it means for us to fully claim a disciplinary mantle and decrease our emphasis on being interdisciplinary

Over my decades in Family Science, I have witnessed how we have been at the forefront of furthering the understanding and definition of families, providing evidence-based treatments and services to strengthen families, and promoting policies that benefit families. I must admit that over the years at NCFR there have been internal struggles as to whether our primary focus as an organization was on family research, family intervention, or family policy. Likewise, there have been painful debates on how inclusive we are in our definition of family. But today, I believe we have realized that as a field and as an organization we must serve all families on all our expertise fronts. Families are better served because of the work of Family Science. The knowledge we have generated with our research, the programs we have developed, the policies we have helped craft and advocate to benefit families, particularly vulnerable families.

Thus, I reach the endpoint in my academic career wondering why the invaluable work we do is not fully recognized by our academic institutions or the social services community; why Family Science and Family Scientists are not widely considered the go-to experts on all things family related. In my pondering, I find myself wondering if our ongoing interdisciplinary identity has hindered us from making the case of our being the experts on families. While at my core I value an integrative perspective, I wonder if it is time we focus more on Family Science as a unique and distinctive discipline. I am not sure what fully implementing that would look like, but it is where my reflections have led me. I hasten to add that I am in no way suggesting that scholars trained in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, law, and many others don’t have important things to say about families. Many NCFR members trained in other disciplines have contributed greatly to our field and our organization. I am not arguing for disciplinary isolation or discontinuation of intellectual and empirical cross-fertilization. However, I do wonder if our interdisciplinary mantle is often read by the world as “a little bit of this and a little bit of that,” and nothing distinct. Perhaps as a field and as an organization it is time for us consider what it means for us to fully claim a disciplinary mantle and decrease our emphasis on being interdisciplinary. As the NCFR Board of Directors tackles the question of strategic planning in the months to come, this will be on my mind. I welcome your thoughts and reactions. My final career reflection is that I am delighted that in my current role I can continue to think about how to grow and strengthen our discipline even as my academic career ends.