Family Science Review
Articles
Wesley R. Burr and Timothy A. Lowe
ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the literature about Olson’s Circumplex model, and attempts to resolve two problems that have been discovered by attempts to use the model. The two problems are that: (1) the model theorizes that the relationships in it are curvilinear, but some data and some other theorizing suggest that at least on of the relationships is linear; and (2) the role of communication in the model is problematic. This paper proposes that the solution to the controversy about the shape of the relationships is that the relationships probably have a different shape than previously thought. The solution to the problem of communication being generally excluded from the model about the three factors in the model. Moving to a profile system also makes it easy to expand the model to include other factors, and one way of expanding it is presented.
Patricia A. H. Dyk and Jay D. Schvanevldt
ABSTRACT: With the increased interest in stress theory, “coping” has become a popular concept in family science. Most studies have focused on individual coping behavior of family members as they deal with stressful situations ranging from normal to catastrophic. However, there is an increasing need to understand how families cope as groups. To date, there has not been an in-depth discussion or clarification of coping as a family-level construct. By reviewing the development of the concept of coping to its integration into current family studies and theory building efforts, this paper enhances clarification of family coping with encouragement that future research efforts be directed toward increased understanding of this complex, multi-dimensional concept.
Erik E. Filsinger and Mark W. Roosa
ABSTRACT: Distinctions among types of explanations of research findings are made. Four types are identified: Sticking with the data, substantiated speculation. Using a sample of 82 articles from the 1960, 1970, and 1980 issues of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, the authors found that unsubstantiated speculation is the norm in family science and that its usage has not changed over time.
Special Topic: Defining and Evaluating the Field
Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline
ABSTRACT: In 1981 there were 51 universities that offered a masters or doctoral degree in a family department (Burr & Leigh, 1982,). However, there was little consensus about what to name these programs. This can be illustrated by the following partial listing of the names that were used: family development, family ecology, family economics, family education, family environment, family interaction, family life, family living, family relation(ships), family resources, family science, family services, family social science, family studies, family therapy, and “the family.”
William H. Meredith, Douglas A. Abbott, and Mary Ann Lamanna
ABSTRACT: The testing of family theory and the generation of new concept and information is of considerable importance to our profession and to our society. Thus, research, which is the vehicle for accomplishing these task, is an important component of any academic department’s research strength is the number of professional publications. For this reason a study was undertaken of the publications frequently used by family researchers in order to determine which academic departments made major contributions to the field of family studies. This was determined by counting publications in selected journals fir the period 1980-1986.
Randal D. Day, Gary W. Peterson, and George T. Roleder
ABSTRACT: This paper is an attempt to illuminate several ideas about professional networks in family science programs. Data were gathered from faculty in a number of family science departments as part of a survey of prominent programs. It was discovered that there were few chairpersons or mentors who could be identified as having leadership for a large proportion of professionals in the field. instead, faculty members seemed to have been trained by a wide variety of individuals. Based on the connective hiring patterns of prominent family science programs, suggestions. Several implications suggested for students considering different doctoral programs in family science.
Forum Section
Randal D. Day
ABSTRACT: One of the initial purposes of creating the Family Science Review was to provide an outlet for critical essay and dialogue about issues that emerge in the field of family science. It is the feeling of the editors of this publication will be an important way to enhance the growth and development of the discipline. The Forum section will provide an outlet for such exchange.
Gregory W. Brock
ABSTRACT: The variability of undergraduate family science programs is of concern throughout higher education. Casual observation shows that the number of majors in many programs is decreasing. With this decline, faculty allocations to family science departments are being withdrawn along with other resources. Some universities no longer have a family science program or department. Other disciplines in the social sciences with student credit hour problems are stepping up turf-raiding efforts. All the social sciences are under stress. Times are hard!
