Unifying human development and family science: Navigating identity challenges in higher education

Co-Guest editors Ramona Faith Oswald and Anisa Zvonkovic invited us to comment on the article by Dyer (2024) in the special issue, Theorizing Academia: Critical and Futuristic Perspectives. In her article, Dyer, as a faculty member at a highly regarded teaching-focused state university, offers her perspective on how Human Development and Family Science evolved from Home Economics. We agree with many of Dyer's thoughts, but our perspective deviates from the author's in some cases, perhaps due in part to our own scholarly and institutional experiences. There are multiple commonalities amongst the co-authors of this commentary that we wish to first highlight: We are all current administrators of academic units that offer doctoral degrees at research-intensive public universities. Beyond these characteristics, we bring with us distinct personal and academic backgrounds, varied department names, diverse placements within our universities' academic structures, and different university types (see Table 1 which briefly describes our training and current institutions to see this variability). Note that although our academic units may have slightly different names, such as Family Social Science or Human Development and Family Science(s), in this commentary we refer to the field as HDFS as this is the most common program name and the explicit subject of the target article. This common language highlights a shared disciplinary identity amongst departments, even when our specific names differ. Department Head and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Connecticut (UConn). Previously, faculty at the Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, which is housed in the College of Health and Human Development We detail our own academic backgrounds and institutions to highlight one of the defining features of HDFS as a discipline – that our roots are interdisciplinary. We want to emphasize that while we have varied disciplinary training, and indeed most of us do not have degrees in HDFS, HDFS is our current academic home because of its interdisciplinary roots. Due to the expansive nature of HDFS, scholars from varied disciplines including Sociology, Developmental Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Public Health, Social Work, and Education can teach and conduct research that explores human development in the context of families, interpersonal relationships, communities, and culture. Indeed, these fields have long contributed to the interdisciplinary nature of HDFS, along with other disciplines (Hollinger, 2002). We agree with the author that it is important to focus on HDFS holistically and expansively, rather than assuming a more singular view of HDFS, but also highlight that HDFS is a discipline in itself. We suggest further that a both/and orientation is needed to recognize that we are a single discipline that is built from an interdisciplinary framework, and such an approach must necessarily counter the urge to narrowly define and silo us. Counter to the author's perspective, however, we argue that we are not in an identity crisis. In fact, as scholars we have a consensus about the defining features of the HDFS field (Hollinger, 2002). We instead suggest that we know who we are but have a PR challenge in that we need to better communicate our identity to others and increase visibility (National Council on Family Relations, 2023). This challenge has clear and significant implications for administrators and our HDFS communities. A contributing factor to this PR challenge is that some social science disciplines are more narrowly focused or align with a more clearly defined career trajectory, so it is natural for individuals from these fields to attempt to apply the same narrow focus to HDFS. However, a strength of HDFS is that we train students for a variety of career pathways, and the interdisciplinary training HDFS offers is highly valuable to students who will enter a workforce in which job and career changes are increasingly common (Lyons et al., 2015). Moreover, from our discussions as administrators, most mission statements of HDFS departments across the United States very clearly and consistently articulate their training, research, and service. To summarize these mission statements: HDFS studies human development, relationships, and families across the lifespan, or put another way, HDFS studies human development in the context of families and other interpersonal relationships, communities, policies, and culture. Although these processes in relation to the culture and experiences of marginalized group members were not addressed until recent decades, our collective research and discovery efforts are solution-based and comprehensive. They are designed to address (a) physical, cognitive/mental, social, and emotional development across the lifespan, (b) family and relationship systems, (c) health disparities, (d) social justice, (e) community engagement, (f) applied work and interventions, and (g) translation of research to policy – all with the intent to improve the health and well-being of individuals, relationships, families, and communities. We see HDFS as having a core purpose to investigate and improve lives, but our approaches (within and across departments) to research questions necessarily differ. For example, some HDFS scholars do lab-based observation work, others do community-based participatory action research, others do randomized controlled trials, and still others focus on qualitative approaches, to name just a few methodologies (Dyer, 2022). We believe this breadth is rooted in our history of grappling with complex social topics and providing tools that help individuals and families thrive. We also recognize that tackling such topics requires a systems lens (whether focused on family systems or larger societal systems) that is multifaceted and multidisciplinary. Certainly, the diverse naming of our academic units contributes to this PR challenge, and as Dyer (2024) notes, there is often a mismatch between our disciplinary identity and the names of our academic units. Indeed, another challenge noted by Dyer is that some HDFS units have been combined with other academic units to create departments that obscure the HDFS identity (e.g., Counseling, Human Development, and Family Science; Education and Human Development). For other units, HDFS may be a program or major within a larger academic unit. The majority of HDFS faculty views this diversity and mismatch of academic unit names as problematic (Hans, 2014). With over 100 different names for HDFS academic units, outsiders often do not understand our discipline (Hans, 2014). Through organizational efforts of the National Council on Family Relations, a number of academic units have renamed their departments from Family Studies to Family Science/s or to Human Development and Family Science/s and helped to create a unified academic identity (National Council on Family Relations, 2023). However, NCFR has mostly focused on the Family Science side of our academic departments and has not pushed for a unified name for Human Development and Family Science. Although it is difficult to create an argument for uniform academic unit names as these names often differ for good reasons, such as unit composition or location within the university's academic structure (e.g., school/college), when it fits well, we encourage departments to consider updating their names to HDFS to provide a more consistent brand to our discipline. We also advocate for departments to make the “S” stand for science, rather than studies, to reflect that HDFS is a social science discipline, a movement in the field that has been in existence since the 1980s (National Council on Family Relations, 2023). This change would be one step in decreasing the PR challenge, recognizing the academic rigor of the field, and having national and global recognition of the discipline. Moreover, we argue that we need both Human Development and Family Science to adequately capture the breadth and depth of our disciplinary identity. Although the concerted efforts of the National Council on Family Relations and individual scholars to define and promote Family Science are admirable (e.g., Gavazzi et al., 2014; Hamon & Smith, 2014; National Council on Family Relations, 2022), by only naming one half of our identity in promotional efforts and academic discussions, we potentially weaken our brand identity and omit an important focus of our discipline. We agree with Dyer (2024) who argues, “the combination of developmental science and family science seems to provide a productive and stable academic department. These two disciplines may complement one another in ways that enhance both” (p. 12). We also agree with Dyer on the value of integrating Developmental Science and Family Science in training and research, including in her own work. However, we depart from Dyer's framing of this merger as mainly one of bureaucratic solidarity. HDFS has its origins in the field of Home Economics, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Dreilinger, 2021). Home Economics focused on improving family life, nutrition, child-rearing practices, and household management, often with a strong emphasis on women's roles. Although the study of Human Development and Family Science emerged later in Home Economics programs, for over 100 years, HDFS has been part of Home Economics (Dreilinger, 2021; Ermer & Roach, 2023). Our discipline has long combined both Developmental and Family Science principles. One cannot fully understand human development without a relational lens (including family relationships), just as one cannot fully understand the family system without a developmental lens. Further, we argue that our HDFS identity is a gestalt, and thus our field is bigger and more impactful through this combination. By promoting HDFS as a discipline bigger than the sum of its parts, we acknowledge our multidisciplinary roots but are also able to move forward as one discipline that integrates the depth and breadth of these roots. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) collects and reports data about academic programs on campuses and categorizes the academic programs into a developed classification of instructional program, commonly referred to as CIP codes (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). These CIP codes are used to map programs to a shared understanding of their content, collect data from schools on programs of study offered, and create reports on educational trends for government and public use. They are intended to represent the curricular aspects of a major or degree field. There are three levels of CIP codes: 2-digit, 4-digit, and 6-digit. The 2-digit prefix represents the broadest scope of the discipline, and the 6-digit code represents the most specific (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). Each higher education institution reports data, based on the CIP, to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). CIP codes, as noted by Dyer et al. (2024), are generally invisible to faculty and students and are typically assigned by administrators, sometimes beyond department heads, who may not understand the nuances of a particular field. CIP codes have important implications not only for academic programs and institutions but also for individual students. From an institutional perspective, CIP codes standardize reporting for enrollments and degrees, enable program comparisons across institutions, assess program breadth and depth, inform accountability and performance metrics, and determine the applicability of federal regulations to programs. From a student's perspective CIP codes impact eligibility for some state and federal financial aid programs, student loan forgiveness programs, and may impact visa eligibility and extensions for certain international students. From a faculty perspective, CIP codes are sometimes used to determine eligibility for special programs or grant funding. In addition, funding and resource allocation may vary by institution, state, or federal funding. CIP codes are also examined in reference to graduation rates or job placement and are often linked to CIP codes for accountability reporting to state and federal agencies, ultimately potentially impacting enrollment in programs with high demand CIP codes. We provide this background to explain why the use of inconsistent CIP codes in HDFS is highly significant for our discipline and for students and Dyer (2024) and Dyer et al. (2024) both the CIP codes to HDFS programs. In their article, Dyer and used CIP code data to programs in the U.S. the data, the that there between the name of the degrees and the CIP codes to CIP codes do not to specific However, even with this of specific to degrees, the that the CIP codes were generally of a and diverse of academic programs with and thus of the identity of HDFS et al., Dyer (2024) the CIP code to state that the CIP as Home Economics, is Family and to align with the change in name of the disciplinary of Family and In addition, HDFS have a specific 6-digit CIP code – but often the code is only a we this of the CIP code as it our roots but more the interdisciplinary nature of our work and the changes to our field. We also argue for departments to recognize and the code of We also suggest that the why HDFS departments have or have not the CIP code be by multiple it is that when HDFS departments have been into other units or from one to CIP codes were based on the larger academic unit as a to align academic CIP code or the of some HDFS departments to their CIP code may be at in changes to and to students both and their academic as a of HDFS departments have from the CIP code and that a more science CIP code (e.g., CIP code would be more valuable to students. science CIP codes are as and programs, is Although the origins of Home Economics, not part of its roots and significant with in the of applied such as HDFS programs. a program is as the to students can (a) of career (b) higher (c) to more funding and (d) an of training This is in in the U.S. Department of the fields of study that it as and this to the program Department of n.d.). This on to apply for in their fields for to in the U.S. more than their to the National of and and work as the factor when between two for a job By part in international students can work in the U.S. that will for in their HDFS administrators, we have a not only to our students but also to our field and to our of programs from the CIP we instead that (a) HDFS programs recognize and the code of and that (b) we to the CIP the as a discipline. This is to and highlight our disciplinary for the and of national data and trends in the across our departments thus impacting student and career as as to our to social science and while also recognizing the and of HDFS, which we will further HDFS departments have been or Social but there is a to be for recognizing as part of the in with other disciplines that are to HDFS (e.g., Public Health, We that as a discipline not that we change or narrow HDFS, but rather that we an CIP code to the that is as part of HDFS across the are the argument that HDFS programs the based on their interdisciplinary and to societal through research and many HDFS programs of Sciences (e.g., developmental science, of a of in their study of human and family at the core of fields is the to the and the use of both of which are to research and in HDFS programs. HDFS scholars conduct studies to human development and over which data and to research in or HDFS departments controlled interventions, and randomized to that can improve developmental and family (Dyer, 2022). These are of the that are often in core HDFS have and to use data and to better understand complex human and family and social the of tools for research, and in HDFS tools used in science, and data science, of HDFS are increasingly tools from (e.g., and (e.g., and to better understand the and of nature and on human important are the of qualitative and scholars amongst other the of marginalized communities. of HDFS as a discipline would not from such approaches but instead make HDFS even more our diversity and rigor in HDFS to and development through and of a of the we argue that HDFS programs have contributed to mission of societal by to address public health and social Home Economics, a field often to have been focused on from its a discipline rooted in (Dreilinger, 2021). The and to improve the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, it clear that Home Economics with disciplines long the of education By integrating and into life, Home Economics the for a and The of HDFS into a discipline that studies human and family systems through diverse that from fields and highlights its interdisciplinary nature and and recognition as a discipline. This is by our as a more and capture of the HDFS discipline and better describes the work and from many HDFS without scholars who would not see as part of The to have the CIP code as while not represents a forward that our and the diverse of study within HDFS but also the work of that within our discipline. is also an important to increase the visibility of HDFS to administrators, the and most to career for HDFS We acknowledge that our for having the CIP code as may be in part by our administrators at and argue the of this unified our and students at institutions as we that by our perspective as HDFS department administrators, we a We see to be by recognizing the of HDFS, with to we to our applied roots and of a variety of and research We also have programs move to CIP codes in to these such further bureaucratic our current PR crisis. Dyer (2024) the we faculty with HDFS degrees rather than developmental or other (p. academic administrators of HDFS units from a of disciplinary backgrounds we argue that only faculty with HDFS degrees is not as we would the of interdisciplinary. we agree that when without an HDFS we need to their understanding of the core of HDFS. be about HDFS HDFS and the and between HDFS and their own disciplinary By our interdisciplinary we necessarily the training of our and our research and our community By individuals with different disciplinary training, we also the of that are sometimes in other For example, it is not for departments, due to their by to be as a group of units rather than an interdisciplinary These can in over the allocation of and processes of students or We do not argue that HDFS these but such are in our some noted the of a for faculty is and has for our own students. We would be to the this for our own HDFS in because other disciplines are to that many academic units with degrees from their own academic HDFS doctoral are to study complex processes by interdisciplinary on diverse or implications of social and context on development and relationships, may not align with By the visibility of HDFS, other disciplines may recognize and the training and our and perhaps this of faculty may more a we with the that as other disciplines distinct from Home Economics, HDFS “the of the disciplinary (Dyer, or not a Home Economics evolved into an HDFS unit on history and context to HDFS as a or the institutional location of an HDFS academic unit within a university's academic structure (e.g., the name of the department and focus of that the the of our HDFS units are still in larger academic in which other Home Economics disciplines (e.g., Family and Sciences are still and as We understand the disciplinary but it is not to all and we believe many of Dyer's (2024) may be to her own institutional experiences and the noted how we view this is highly to our and their to Dyer et al. (2024), of HDFS programs, of HDFS departments are in Home Economics that such schools still with many and et al., over half of HDFS programs are in Education and about are in Health that the field is than some would Dyer et (2024) to of Health from Home Economics schools is also an one as many and schools as and Human The of Health from Human Sciences by Dyer et al. (2024) the schools in which Health and Human Sciences are and this combination is one of the ways in which our field is et al., Indeed, in the Human Sciences of the of Public and as Health and Human The focus on improving the health and well-being of individuals, families, relationships, and is consistent with both our Home Economics and our HDFS although not to the discipline of HDFS. We agree with Dyer (2024) that has contributed to the and of Home Economics within our larger Home Economics with an applied the social of the with to work to improve the health and well-being of individuals and (Dreilinger, 2021). This history early Home as of interdisciplinary applied and and also Home Economics to the of the due to the of in higher education and for and an emerged between the more developed a as and the more of the social (p. Home Economics a emerged in which the discipline while also for in higher within and to advocate for social (Dreilinger, 2021; & 2022). from the early of Home Economics, our discipline and many of our administrators, and the public our Home Economics roots because of its with and of our with in higher Home Economics evolved and in higher education it seems that the value of Home Economics and our Although we are from the of to the of we still must with the of with & 2023). is that as HDFS scholars we challenge these institutional systems of as as promote the value and of our work. our own within our will be to the discipline and our students. In Dyer (2024) some and questions in her article. We believe one of her is the most There is a need to increase the visibility of HDFS to administrators, and the We a certain of in this as HDFS administrators, but we cannot this Our HDFS and must an in for and promoting our HDFS disciplinary identity within our and in our communities. The we move from this about who we are and we from and instead focus on who we the better for our discipline. HDFS in schools and high schools will us to and define rather than others define HDFS. can in and high Psychology, Development, or Family and Sciences Education as as have current and faculty with We can provide of our as enrollment in high We also need to on important work that HDFS with (National Council on Family Relations, & the CIP code as a discipline may also help to make these for our and the We also need further recognition as a discipline. For example, HDFS is not as a discipline in U.S. and and the not recognize of the of our as highly We argue that these to action – a common Human Development and Family the use of CIP and a of as a field – can help HDFS be as a discipline by the public and our long national HDFS, and the Health and Human Sciences field in which HDFS programs are often also have to promote through our applied and work. HDFS is a science & Smith, and our work has Our science on improving the of and this requires interdisciplinary approaches and one discipline can to this of improving the human we in HDFS are at the of work that more value on public and and and as more science, HDFS is to train the of impactful research, and with the is to promote this perspective, in interdisciplinary and emphasize the of HDFS in complex societal through We have of to