Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
1
Introduction
T
he American family is a complicated institution, and it is rapidly
becoming more so. Demographic changes, immigration, economic
upheavals, and changing societal mores are creating new and
altered structures, processes, and relationships in families. As a result,
the lives of infants, children, and adolescents differ in fundamental ways
from those of past generations.
As families undergo rapid change, family science is at the brink of a
new and exciting integration across methods, disciplines, and epistemo-
logical perspectives. The methods used to study families are becoming
more wide-ranging, and both senior and junior scientists are combining
approaches from a variety of disciplines. No single research method-
ology can master the complexity of the family. Demographic data are
invaluable, but they can be limited by a lack of understanding of new
family processes. Qualitative data can provide an essential complement
to quantitative data, but they can be limited in estimating large-scale pat-
terns. Assessment of physiological, biological, and epigenetic processes
are increasingly being integrated into family research, but these multi-
disciplinary and multimethod studies require greater emphasis on team-
building and long-term approaches. A strong interest in better under-
standing how scientific research on the family can be used to improve
the health and well-being of children has spawned a large and growing
body of findings from various disciplines. The science of family research
cuts across demography, anthropology, psychology, sociology, economics,
education, genetics, neuroscience, and developmental biology. Research-
1
OCR for page 2
2 TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SCIENCE OF RESEARCH ON FAMILIES
ers from these fields use case studies, ethnographies, longitudinal studies,
diary and time-use records, assessments, administrative records, biologi-
cal and genetic assessments, and many other methodologies. The results
are theories and hypotheses that reflect many different disciplinary per-
spectives. Sometimes the conclusions from this research mesh, and some-
times they conflict.
The multiplicity of approaches used to study the family offers an
opportunity for new scientific breakthroughs. Studies that combine mul-
tiple approaches can reveal fundamental relationships or interactions and
create opportunities to bridge boundaries between disciplines and meth-
ods. But this multiplicity of approaches also creates challenges. Investi-
gators can disagree on definitional issues, the best way to study families,
the most productive research topics, or even the language used to discuss
families.
The purpose of The Science of Research on Families: A Workshop,
held in Washington, DC, on July 13-14, 2010, was to examine the broad
array of methodologies used to understand the impact of families on
children’s health and development. It sought to explore individual dis-
ciplinary contributions and the ways in which different methodologies
and disciplinary perspectives could be combined in the study of families.
Specifically, the workshop was designed to investigate:
1. Recent research studies that offer significant contributions to under-
standing the social determinants of child health and developmental
outcomes and health disparities.
2. Illustrations of quantitative and qualitative methods and approaches
associated with research on the diverse structure and dynamic quali-
ties of family environments.
3. The relative contributions of selected study approaches and meth-
odologies, including studies of marriage and family structure; life-
course research studies; studies of human development; meth-
odological research involving experimental, quasi-experimental,
longitudinal, observational, survey, and time-use studies; and
studies of selected cultural, ethnic, or immigrant populations.
4. Opportunities for collaboration among federal agencies to improve
the quality of research and training in this field and the application
of this knowledge base to understanding interactions among family
environments and children’s health outcomes.
The workshop brought together about 70 researchers, funders, and
users of research results on families for a day and a half of presentations
and intensive discussions. A major subject of the workshop—and the
organizing principle behind this summary of the workshop’s presen-
OCR for page 3
3
INTRODUCTION
tations and discussions—was the integration of content and methods
in family research. How do theory, study approach, and methodology
matter from behavioral as well as biobehavioral perspectives? How are
qualitative and quantitative approaches best combined in the study of
the family? What are the challenges and advantages of a more integrated
approach to family research for training and funding?
In discussing the presentations, the planning committee identified
seven major themes. These themes—three derived from prior studies,
four looking to the future—appear in the final chapter of this summary.
Together, these themes provide both a milestone and a roadmap for the
transdisciplinary field of family research.
The organization of this summary reflects the theme of integration.
Chapter 2 sets the context for the study of the American family by sum-
marizing five studies that were presented from the demographic perspec-
tive. Both changes within families and broad population-based change are
considered in these studies, which track the leading edge of demographic
trends in the United States.
The day-to-day struggles of families with poverty and economic
stress remain central to the policy, practice, and research domains of
American life. Chapter 3 summarizes presentations from four studies
on United States families coping with poverty and economic stress as a
way of exploring how quantitative and qualitative data can be combined
in family research. Each form of research offers different contributions;
together they can present a more complete and accurate picture of family
processes.
Researchers in the clinical and prevention sciences, no less than oth-
ers who study normative processes, are increasingly relying on multiple
methods and disciplines to enrich their work on reducing and prevent-
ing psychopathology. Chapter 4 features three presentations that looked
at specific clinical or problem areas in family research: trauma in young
children and its clinical consequences, trauma and depression in parents,
and substance abuse among fathers. The integration of disciplinary and
methodological approaches in the study of psychopathology and its pre-
vention has much to offer the clinical sciences. Family research draws
from many different disciplines, each with its own conceptual models and
methodological approaches, and the combination of disciplines can yield
results that could not be achieved within a single disciplinary tradition.
Some single research approaches were presented in depth at the work-
shop. For example, although the full range of biobehavioral approaches
was beyond the scope of a workshop of this length (e.g., recent develop-
ments in gene-environment interaction or developmental neuroscience
were not represented), one presentation focused in depth on biomarker
methods related to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, as this
OCR for page 4
4 TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SCIENCE OF RESEARCH ON FAMILIES
area of work has transformed family research in particular. Chapter 5 thus
has a methodological orientation, examining three studies from the work-
shop with distinct research methodologies, using examples from research
on biomarkers, child health, and econometric methods. The presenta-
tions delved deeply into the strengths and limitations of particular dis-
ciplinary and methodological approaches. These studies share concerns
and approaches that can form the basis for valuable multidisciplinary
initiatives.
The next generation of scientists in family research will have a wider
arsenal of methods to bring to bear on the study of children and families.
The greater interest in diverse and integrated research strategies will also
require innovation in the funding and training institutions for family sci-
ence in the United States. Chapter 6 addresses the challenges of integra-
tion of funding and training opportunities in the new science of family
research. It points to the great potential available to funding and research
organizations in supporting and conducting research on how families
influence child development.
Family research is both basic and applied. It offers opportunities
for learning as well as intervention. As several workshop participants
pointed out, it is most successful when organized around particular prob-
lems. In that sense, the approach taken in the workshop could be applied
to the role of family structures, processes, and relationships in address-
ing a range of difficult issues, such as obesity or injury prevention. This
problem-oriented approach could guide a broad-based research program
that extends across funders, institutions, and scientific disciplines.
The workshop and this publication were sponsored by the Office
of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of
Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Administration for
Children and Families. Many of the workshop participants were people
with experience combining multiple disciplines to study complex family
processes. The workshop thus offered an opportunity for researchers and
funders to talk together about the most productive approaches and about
needed changes. Although the workshop was a self-contained activity, the
hope is that it will lead to further initiatives to improve the infrastructure
of family research.
The workshop was organized and hosted by the Institute of Medicine
(IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) through the Committee
on the Science of Research on Families within the IOM-NRC Board on
Children, Youth, and Families. The board brings the multidisciplinary
knowledge and analytic tools of the behavioral, health, and social sci-
ences to bear on the development of policies, programs, and services for
children, youth, and families. It informs deliberations about some of the
most critical issues facing communities, states, and the nation, including
OCR for page 5
5
INTRODUCTION
child health and health care services, family support, child care, and early
child development; biological and behavioral changes among children
and youth; preschool education, school engagement, and youth develop-
ment; child abuse, family violence, and child welfare; and the prevention
of underage drinking and other risky and dangerous behaviors. Many
of these topics arose over the course of the workshop, and workshop
speakers and participants commented frequently on the potential of fam-
ily research to make contributions to many of the topics of interest to the
Board.
It is important to be specific about the nature of this report, which
documents the information presented in the workshop presentations and
discussions. Its purpose is to lay out the key ideas that emerged from
the workshop and should be viewed as an initial step in examining the
research and applying it in specific policy circumstances. The report is
confined to the material presented by the workshop speakers and par-
ticipants. The presentations and discussions were limited by the time
available for the workshop. Neither the workshop nor this summary is
intended as a comprehensive review of what is known about the topic,
although it is a general reflection of the field. Given the constraints of a
two-day meeting, the presentations and discussions of the workshop were
illustrative rather than definitive. For example, research on family sys-
tems was not explored within the workshop, and most of the presentations
focused on dyadic relationships
This report was prepared by a rapporteur and summarizes views
expressed by workshop participants. The committee reviewed key high-
lights from the presentations and synthesized discussions for the sum-
mary report but the report does not represent findings or recommen-
dations that can be attributed to the planning committee. Indeed, the
committee is responsible only for its overall quality and accuracy as a
record of what transpired at the workshop. Also, the workshop was not
designed to generate consensus conclusions or recommendations but
focused instead on the identification of ideas, themes, and considerations
that contribute to understanding the topic. Despite these restrictions, the
material summarized here points to productive directions. A more compre-
hensive review and synthesis of relevant research knowledge will have to
await further development.
OCR for page 6
