Around the NCFR office this past year we have talked a lot about the sustainability of the field of family science. Sometimes we call it family studies, sometimes we call it human development and family studies (HDFS), but the conversation is the same and revolves around: the future of the discipline, the viability of degree programs, the employability of undergraduates, and the future of NCFR.

While NCFR is a multidisciplinary professional society, over half of its members are employed by a university program, are students in a university program, or employed as family professional in some capacity. Family science/studies is the core discipline of NCFR. However, there’s a difference between a core discipline and a field of study.

Although there are over 50 different department names for family science/studies in NCFR’s membership database, there is not one single term that represents our field—a field that is at the intersection of the research and practice about which the members of NCFR are so passionate. So it was with great interest that I attended the “Famology” (Dead), “Family Science” (Life Support): How is “Family Studies” Doing? session at the 2012 annual conference in Phoenix.

Lawrence Ganong, Ph.D., Professor and Co-Chair of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, College of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Missouri, assembled a blue ribbon panel of NCFR members to discuss the very issue about which the staff and NCFR board had come to see as a great challenge. Anisa M. Zvonkovic, Ronald M. Sabatelli, Randal Day, Stephan M. Wilson and Stephen M. Gavazzi engaged a standing-room-only crowd of colleagues in a discussion about the past, present and future, about our identity or lack of it, about our relevance and irrelevance, and about whether it’s too late to lay claim to a field of study and the discipline at the nexus of which is family.

I’ve thought a great deal about that session, reviewed my notes and those of other NCFR staff, and I’ve come to see our challenge as similar to the blind men and the elephant. Six blind men; each one with his hands on a different part of an elephant. The man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. Not one of the six is able to experience all parts of the elephant and it’s only when they share their experience that they are able to determine what they have before them.

To the panel Dr. Ganong posed three questions: What makes us unique as a field? What is our core identity? What do we call it?

Dr. Zvonkovic talked about administrative structures, local politics, changes affecting all areas of social science (not just ours), the importance of maintaining positive relationships with allied disciplines, social capital, and that the future of research in this field is in “robust” good health.

Dr. Sabatelli remarked that he is “bullish” on the field as a whole—that the emphasis in the academy is on interdisciplinary work which we know well. He said the focus in today’s academic communities is on solving real problems and that, for example, 80 percent of health care costs are chronic health issues such as obesity which is a family issue. He talked about translational scholarship and suggested that the solutions are “working in the context of family.”

Dr. Day asked what happened to “Famology” and suggested that “branding” is the key to a successful discipline. He reminded us that NCFR’s Family Science Section was created to promote the study of family.

Dr. Wilson suggested that “we can no longer lay claim to family” and asked if there is a discipline. He shared his concerns about our need for clarity, our lack of identity and the challenges students, donors and others have in finding us. He called for national visibility and was the first but not the only panelist to proclaim that the opposite of a clear identity is irrelevance.

Dr. Gavazzi, the final panelist to speak, shared his vision that one solution to our challenge is through leadership. He suggested we become more intentional in developing leaders; as department chairs, deans, provosts, and university presidents. He said we either prepare our own leaders or our future will be determined for us. He reminded us that we have fewer than 30 doctoral programs and that we need to train our next generation of leaders. He asked us, “If you don’t like change, how are you going to like irrelevance?”

A lively question and answer session followed the presentation and concluded with a call for additional conversations.

Along the way the story was told how 30 years ago a prominent NCFR member proclaimed the term “famology” in a session much like this one. For whatever reason, it didn’t take hold. Now, 30 years later, Dr. Ganong, in perhaps a similar session, posed similar questions. Someone asked whether we’d be around in 30 years.

According to Wikipedia, the word “gerontology” was coined in 1903, by Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov, to describe the emerging study of aging and longevity. “Geron” is the Greek word for “old man.” “Logy” means study of.  I imagine some folks were skeptical and thought the word would never stick. Others might have questioned the scientist’s motivation. Regardless, nearly 110 years later the field of gerontology still exists, known universally as the study of the social, psychological and biological aspects of aging. The Geronological Society of America just held its 65th annual conference, in San Diego, California, where they welcomed over 4,000 attendees from multiple disciplines and from around the world. Check out “gerontology” on Wikipedia.

Are we ready to come together, behind the leadership of Dr. Ganong and other interested NCFR members, and create a term that describes the study of the social, relational, psychological, emotional, and developmental aspects of family?