Family Science as Translational Science: A History of the Discipline
| Author | Suzanne R. Smith,Raeann R. Hamon |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12273 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
R R. H Messiah College
S R. S Washington State University Vancouver
Family Science as Translational Science: A History
of the Discipline
Family science has been a translational science
since its inception. The history of family science
began with an interdisciplinary group of schol-
ars who came together to explore the complex
nature of families during the discovery phase,
paying particular attention to applying informa-
tion to resolve family challenges. In the pioneer-
ing stage, family professionals struggled with
naming the discipline and assembled profes-
sional groups that collected and applied infor-
mation to benet families. In the maturing stage,
disciplinary leaders deemed that family science
met the criteria of a bona de discipline and the
eld’s identity became more pronounced, with a
great deal of translational work occurring. Dur-
ing the current stage, evaluation and innovation,
family science professionals need to assess pro-
grams and practices to rene and better artic-
ulate and distinguish the eld. This historical
account accentuates the central importance of
the translational nature of family science to the
discipline’s identity.
Family science has a long history of being a
translational science. In this article, we begin by
providing a denition of translational science.
We then provide a history of family science in
Department of Human Development and Family Science,
Messiah College, One College AvenueSuite 3047, Mechan-
icsburg, PA17055 (rhamon@messiah.edu).
Key Words: Development of a discipline, family science,
translational research.
which we draw connections with the transla-
tional identity that has long been at the core of
the discipline, drawing attention to the thread of
translational work throughout each period of the
discipline’s development.
T S
Phrases such as mission-oriented research,
directed research,use-inspired basic research,
and strategic research have long been used
to describe scholarship that attempts to link
discovery with practice or utility (Lander &
Atkinson-Grosjean, 2011, p. 538). Beginning
in the 1990s, phrases such as translational sci-
ence,translational research, and translational
medicine were adopted as the practice of linking
fundamental discoveries with application utility
became increasingly popular, both in health
sciences and nonmedical elds (for an example
of teen drug resistance strategies in the commu-
nications eld, see Hecht & Miller-Day, 2007;
for application in social work, see Palinkas &
Soydan, 2012).
Translational research links “scientic nd-
ings with programs and policies that improve
human health and well-being” (Wethington,
Herman, & Pillemer, 2012, p. 4). In other words,
the end goal is to translate scientic research
discoveries into meaningful applications that
make a difference in people’s lives (Lander &
Atkinson-Grosjean, 2011). However, there is a
“dynamic and recursive nature” to translational
science as “questions and hypotheses are con-
stantly reformulated to align with knowledge
550 Family Relations 66 (October 2017): 550–567
DOI:10.1111/fare.12273
Family Science as Translational Science 551
gained in the processes of translation” (Lander
& Atkinson-Grosjean, p. 538). Translational
research in the social and behavioral sciences
is “iterative rather than linear” (Lemon et al.,
2013, p. 491). Research agendas are shaped
by those who will ultimately benet from the
application of these scientic discoveries (Ofce
of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research,
2007).
Although the concept of translational sci-
ence was evident in medical journals since the
1970s, it was initially only applied to biomed-
ical research, given the incentive to translate
research ndings into practices and policies
that would prevent and treat diseases (Wething-
ton et al., 2012). In other words, when sci-
entists discover new research knowledge and
medical treatments, they need to deliver them
to the patients or populations for whom they
are intended (Woolf, 2008). Wethington et al.
(2012) argued that the denition of transla-
tional science has more recently expanded to
include research in the social and behavioral sci-
ences. There is a push to see that research actu-
ally makes a positive contribution to people’s
lives and that it does so in a timely manner.
Family science maintains the same desire for
movement from basic to applied science, as is
demonstrated in this special issue. To effectively
conduct translational research, family scientists
need to be aware of community needs and prac-
titioners need to employ evidence-based preven-
tion and intervention programs (Wandersmann
& Lesesne, 2012). This interface between basic
discovery research informing applied science
and applied science informing basic research is a
distinct strength of family science and is evident
throughout its history.
T H F S
Family science is a relatively young discipline
compared with other social sciences such as
psychology, social work, and sociology. The
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR)
Task Force (1988) described the discipline’s
development in three stages: the discovery stage,
the pioneering stage, and the maturing stage.
More recently, we suggested that the discipline
has moved into a stage of evaluation and innova-
tion (Hamon & Smith, 2014). What is apparent
from reviewing each phase in the maturation of
family science is the way in which scholarship
and practice have been intertwined. Compared
with other social science disciplines that were
discovery oriented for decades, family science’s
evolution and continuing identity is marked by
its focus on application. As we review the his-
torical development of the eld of family sci-
ence, we highlight how family science has been
a translational science all along.
The Discovery Stage
Accounts vary as to the actual date of origin, but
scholars consider the development of the eld
of family science to be gradual. Many believe
that family science emerged in the United States
between 1880 and 1920, when interdisciplinary
scholars became increasingly concerned about
the difculties that families encountered, largely
as a result of urbanization and industrializa-
tion, and the need for social change (Chris-
tensen, 1964; Doherty,Boss, LaRossa, Schumm,
& Steinmetz, 1993). The early phase of the
eld was purely interdisciplinary, as a group of
pioneer scholars—anthropologists, sociologists,
home economists, theologians, psychologists,
criminologists, and social workers—recognized
that family was an important domain of inquiry
(NCFR Task Force, 1988). Before this time,
these individual disciplines “conveyed a limited
and fragmented vision of the scope and complex-
ity of family life” (Hollinger,2002, p. 300). They
focused on varying parts of families, but there
was no one disciplinary eld to “put it all togeth-
er” and for which the study of family was its core
(NCFR Task Force, 1985, p. 3).
During this discovery stage of the eld of
family science, these interdisciplinary scholars
began conducting systematic family research
on topics of concern (NCFR Task Force, 1988),
employing more rigorous, objective, scientic
research methodologies and assuming a holistic
vision of family (Hollinger, 2002). A substantial
body of scientic knowledge about families was
produced between 1920 and 1950 (B. N. Adams,
1986). For example, the NCFR Task Force
(1988) noted research done on the impact of the
Great Depression on families (Angell, 1936),
work devoted to better understanding factors
that predict marital success and failure (Burgess
& Cottrell, 1939; Terman, 1938), and numer-
ous other scholarly efforts focused on families
(Becker & Hill, 1939; Waller, 1938). The inter-
disciplinary roots of family science supported its
translational nature as scholars and practitioners
worked together in their attempt to understand
To continue reading
Request your trial