Whither Famology? Department Name Trends Across Four Decades

• Author: Jason D. Hans
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12075
• Published date: 01 July 2014
• Date: 01 July 2014

JASON D. HANS University of Kentucky

Whither Famology? Department Name Trends

Across Four Decades

Inconsistent naming of academic departments

has been a cause and symptom of an identity

issue that has persisted in the family field

for decades. Department name trends were

examined across nearly four decades to consider

whether the family field is beginning to converge

on a common label. Results indicate that the

problem persists – 103 different names existed

among 217 academic units examined – but that

convergence seems to be on two terms: family

studies and family science. A survey of 752

faculty members in those academic units found

that 78% believed the variation in department

names within the family field was somewhat or

very problematic. Discussion and implications

center on key issues for understanding and

addressing the problem.

Three decades ago, Burr and Leigh (1983)

attempted to address the ‘‘identity problem’’

that the family field was experiencing. They

proposed that common terminology be used

to establish the identity and facilitate the

development of the family field. Using some

compelling arguments and survey results, they

concluded that the family discipline should be

labeled famology. Academic units would use the

name Department of Famology and those who

work in the field of famology would be known

Department of Family Sciences, University of Ken-

tucky, 315 Funkhouser Building, Lexington, KY 40514

(jhans@uky.edu).

Key Words: disciplinary identity, famology, family science,

family studies.

as famologists. These labels were not adopted;

no department names have ever included the

term famology and no scholars in the family

field describe themselves as famologists. Burr

and Leigh found that family studies and family

science were the two most preferred names

among 334 colleagues surveyed and concluded

that family science was the better of the two

because family studies ‘‘cannot be used to

describe the professional identity of scholars in

the field. It does not make sense to be a ‘Family

Studiesist’ or ‘Family Studiest’’’ (p. 474).

Subsequently, the National Council on Family

Relations (NCFR) formed a Task Force on the

Development of the Family Discipline, which

ultimately led to adoption of the term family

science ‘‘to refer to the field of study where

the primary goals are the discovery, verification

and application of knowledge about the family’’

(Leigh, 1985b, p. 15). Administrators and faculty

members were encouraged to change course,

major, and department names to align with this

preferred terminology.

Burr and Leigh (1983) argued that the incon-

sistency in how departments are named within

the family field is perhaps a partial cause and

is certainly a symptom of the identity problem.

Using the 1982 edition of Guide to Graduate

Family Programs (Love, 1982), Burr and Leigh

found that the 51 departments identified by Love

as offering a graduate program in the family field

were known by 36 different department names.

The situation does not seem to have improved;

the most frequent department name in the

family field now is the ‘‘Department of Human

Family Relations 63 (July 2014): 323–332 323

DOI:10.1111/fare.12075