Adapting the Ideas of Translational Science for Translational Family Science
| Author | Joseph G. Grzywacz,Jeffrey W. Allen |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12284 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
J G. G J W. A Florida State University
Adapting the Ideas of Translational Science for
Translational Family Science
Family science has been doing translational sci-
ence since before it came into vogue. Neverthe-
less, the eld has been subjected to the same
forces in the broader academy that have created
a widening chasm between discovery and prac-
tice. Thus, the primary objective of this article is
to translate the principles, concepts, and models
of translational science to solidify an identity for
family science and help the eld move forward
in broader academic, care delivery, and pol-
icy arenas. Alternative models of translational
science, primarily from biomedicine but also
from other disciplines, are reviewed and criti-
cally analyzed, and core concepts and principles
are isolated, elaborated, and applied to family
science. Familyscience’s long-standing commit-
ment to the doctrine of evidence-based practice,
and its ongoing endorsement of the principles
of scientic duality and multidisciplinary util-
ity, places it in a preeminent position for using
the zeitgeist of translational science to move for-
ward. Nonetheless, the eld has important epis-
temological, practical, professional, and curric-
ular steps to complete to better position itself
as a distinct and valued body of scientists. Ulti-
mately, we argue that embracing the principles,
concepts, and models of translational science
should be leveraged by family science to help
brand itself as a unique and essential social sci-
ence eld for enhancing the human condition.
Department of Family and Child Sciences, 225 Sandals
Bldg., Florida State University,Tallahassee, FL 32306-1491
(jgrzywacz@fsu.edu).
Key Words: Evidence-based practice, family science, re-
search-to-practice, translational science.
Translational science is a dominant feature of
the contemporary scientic and academic land-
scape. Its entry into the spotlight was driven
by several converging factors, not least of
which was the widening gap between research
undertaken by the academy and the everyday
needs of practitioners in the eld (Butler, 2008).
Indeed, the reality that it takes 17 years to move
a scientic nding into evidence-based practice
(Morris, Wooding, & Grant, 2011) suggests that
many individuals have sufferedneedlessly while
waiting for the process to unfold. Some in the
biomedical eld have referred to the temporal
gap between a research nding and its imple-
mentation as the “valley of death” (Butler,2008).
But what does translational science mean to fam-
ily science? Family scientists do not engage in
drug development research with its layers of
administrative and regulatory oversight, nor is
family science driven by prot motives attached
to patent or device development. Nevertheless,
quality-of-life enhancements and associated
protections to health and well-being run deep
into the disciplinary roots of family science,
suggesting that family science needs to attend to
the 17-year lag between scientic discovery and
the systematic implementation of that discovery
to enhance quality of life.
Consistent with the spirit of this special
issue, we contend that translational science
is at the very core of family science’s profes-
sional identity. Indeed, under the organizational
guidance of the National Council on Family
Relations (NCFR), family scientists have been
doing translational science since before the term
came into vogue in the early 2000s. However,
568 Family Relations 66 (October 2017): 568–583
DOI:10.1111/fare.12284
Translational Family Science 569
family science has also fallen victim to the
same widening research–application gap expe-
rienced by other disciplines, wherein research
advancements have outpaced the transfer and
translation of that knowledge into real-world
impacts. Given the translational nature of family
science, we agree with Zvonkovic’s view (see
Gavazzi, Wilson, Ganong, & Zvonkovic, 2014)
that the ascension of translational science can
help address family science’s identity problem.
More specically, we believe the theoretical
ideas underlying translational science and its
developing models and methods can be used to
help family scientists navigate the discipline’s
interdisciplinary nature and its relationships
with other disciplines. Further, consistent with
Gavazzi et al.’s (2014) recommendations, we
believe that the rapidly evolving domain of
translational science can provide frameworks,
nomenclature, and manners of doing business
and branding to strategically guide how family
science can move forward in broader academic,
care delivery, and policy arenas.
The goal of this article is to translate the
principles, concepts, and models of translational
science for family science. To achieve this goal,
we rst provide an overviewof how translational
science ascended to its current position as a phi-
losophy of science. This historical overview is
instructive because it foreshadows key ideas
underlying translational science, and it shows
how challenges experienced in other disciplines
parallel those of family science. Next, we out-
line the foundational meaning of translational
science. Specically, we isolate the key con-
cepts and principles of translational science,
and we exposit the meaning of translational
science by outlining alternative models. The key
reasons for covering this material are to dismiss
the overly simplistic view that translational
science is merely repackaging of applied sci-
ence, to replace the false researcher–practitioner
dichotomy with a more nuanced appreciation
for different types of science, and to clarify that
translational science is not simply translating
scientic results into interventions. In the third
and major section of this article, we translate the
ideas of translational science for family science.
Finally, we conclude with a high-priority set
of activities to operationalize these ideas with
the hope of dawning a new era of family sci-
ence that celebrates and leverages all forms of
knowledge to enable greater ability to under-
stand and strengthen families.
T A T S
Translational science began entering the scien-
tic lexicon in the 1990s but did not become
a commonly used term until after the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented its
Roadmap (see Zerhouni, 2003). The Roadmap
was a strategic plan intended to overcome vex-
ing challenges that impeded science’s ability to
understand and promote human health through
three primary strategies: creating new pathways
to discovery, developing research teams of the
future, and reengineering the clinical research
enterprise (Zerhouni, 2003). A key impetus con-
tributing to the development of the Roadmap
was the gap between basic research ndings of
biomedical researchers and the tools used by
biomedical clinicians to treat human disease
and alleviate human suffering. As Butler (2008)
summarized, with substantially more grant
funding available for basic research, academic
researchers were incentivized through standard
promotion and tenure requirements to focus
their efforts toward going increasingly deeper
into the realm of discovery. One consequence of
increased specialization of basic research is that
the audience for research results increasingly
became other researchers, rather than clinicians
who would apply those ndings in everyday
practice.
The scenery in the social sciences more
broadly, and family science more specically,
is not dissimilar to what Butler described as
the “valley of death.” Communication between
researchers who study basic family structure
and processes through observational and exper-
imental research designs are often far removed
from clinicians. Just as individuals who provide
direct care in the biomedical realm (e.g., physi-
cians, nurses, physical therapists) are referred
to as clinical scientists, we contend that clinical
scientist is the appropriate term for those who
provide care (e.g., marriage and family thera-
pists, family life educators, parent educators,
family service agents) to children and families to
promote quality of life through direct and indi-
rect mediums such as educational programs and
policy initiatives, respectively. Indeed, there are
few places family practitioners can obtain sound
research designed with sufcient specicity
to inform the applied issues they encounter.
When a plausibly relevant study is located,
the content is likely conveyed using the jargon
of theoretically based research because most
journals are designed primarily for researchers
To continue reading
Request your trial