The Discipline of Family Science and the Continuing Need for Innovation
Abstract
The discipline of family science is entering a new phase, the evaluation and innovation stage. With shrinking academic budgets and threats of departmental dissolution or mergers, it is imperative for administrators of family science programs to be able to articulate the distinctiveness of the discipline, the worth of the unique skills and perspectives afforded by family science programs, the challenges affecting the field, and the solutions and resources necessary to propel family science to new levels of relevance and application. This article reviews the history of the development of the field of family science and then reports survey results from representatives of family science programs related to each of these matters. Innovative strategies for advancing the field and family science programs are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The vast majority of undergraduate programs in HDFS in the United States require at least one research methods class.
“The vast majority of undergraduate programs in HDFS in the United States require at least one research methods class (Hamon & Smith, 2014).”
From Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning (2024) · cites this paper as Hamon & Smith, 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning
Dyer, K. D. (2024) · Family Relations · doi:10.1111/fare.12967 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R.
- Affiliations
- Messiah University (US)
- Washington State University Vancouver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hamon, Raeann R.
- ORCID
- Hamon, Raeann R.
- Venue
- Family Relations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-06-04
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 309-322
- ISSN
- 0197-6664 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3729
- OpenAlex
- W1520301255
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 78.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Family Relations (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Education, Sociology, Communication Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Architecture, Design, and Social History
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- family science, discipline construction, program evaluation, academic program administration, disciplinary distinctiveness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
