View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Growing Pains: The History of Human Development and the Future of the Field

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Growing Pains: The History of Human Development and the Future of the Field
Language: English
Authors: Kathleen C. McCormick (ORCID 0000-0002-3587-4782), Jane Mendle (ORCID 0000-0002-0038-2593)
Source: Child Development Perspectives. 2025 19(3):179-185.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Individual Development, Child Development, History, Interdisciplinary Approach, Family and Consumer Sciences, Racial Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Intellectual Disciplines
DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12541
ISSN: 1750-8592
1750-8606
Abstract: Research on child development has been advanced by the contributions of human development and human development family science (or studies) departments, which trace their origins to the land grant movement, home economics programs, and the child study movement that coalesced in the United States in the late 19th and 20th centuries. In this article, we detail the main historical influences on the field, as well as contemporary strengths and opportunities for the field. We highlight the interdisciplinarity and applied work that are uniquely inherent strengths of human development and family science/studies. We also discuss challenges that are both historic and contemporary in reviewing how experiences of racial and gender discrimination affected and affect scholars in the field, as well as issues of field identity and purpose. Finally, we recommend that the field acknowledge and publicize its past to capitalize on the strengths of its history and to address historical challenges that remain relevant to the study of human development and family science today.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1480096
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEHAyUqYj-6_KO5TdymML6FAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCkPNmBFl_BWrRV_SAIBEICBmozMzAsz2rAHtz4vRj6hV8DIAb7LpljUODsoIclvxQkuyX6vcPBWfRz44rodGOPLIgYMzbbQIa8PIiAM9ldepRXgy0Nxj_d7r0V0Lc5EKmZULX3-MfDVSgNpjLkI5K6UUhOvFhmaPH0wY1BIirp7JqlMVrHmqs35HdYn4YUfVoiFSCXhHwro-P8j6gvzGbp-fP-xFrDibAnduCw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187278093;[30rc]01sep.25;2025Aug14.03:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187278093-1">Growing Pains: The History of Human Development and the Future of the Field </title> <p>Research on child development has been advanced by the contributions of human development and human development family science (or studies) departments, which trace their origins to the land grant movement, home economics programs, and the child study movement that coalesced in the United States in the late 19th and 20th centuries. In this article, we detail the main historical influences on the field, as well as contemporary strengths and opportunities for the field. We highlight the interdisciplinarity and applied work that are uniquely inherent strengths of human development and family science/studies. We also discuss challenges that are both historic and contemporary in reviewing how experiences of racial and gender discrimination affected and affect scholars in the field, as well as issues of field identity and purpose. Finally, we recommend that the field acknowledge and publicize its past to capitalize on the strengths of its history and to address historical challenges that remain relevant to the study of human development and family science today.</p> <p>Keywords: Child Study; Home Economics; human development and family science/studies (HDFS); interdisciplinary</p> <p>In 1952, Jeanne Corcoran prepared to spend 6 weeks in a practice house at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. As students in home economics, she and her classmates were tasked with using the latest science and teachings to keep their practice house clean and stocked with food, cook nutritious meals for one another—and take care of a newborn infant named Beth (Corcoran, personal communication, September 12, 2023). Beth, who had no family to care for her, was one of many "practice babies" borrowed from orphanages to enhance the academic training of home economics students (Elias [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). Corcoran and her classmates were not merely babysitters but were charged with raising Beth according to the most recent scientific research on child development (Dyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]; Rose, Stocks, and Whittier [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref3">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Corcoran was not an anomaly. Across the United States, women in home economics programs were enrolled in similar interdisciplinary courses, where they applied scientific models to questions of childrearing, health, and nutrition. Their coursework was the product of multiple movements coalescing around the study of child development and formed the academic foundation for the field now known as human development and family science (HDFS) (the field is also frequently referred to as <emph>human development</emph> or <emph>human development and family studies</emph>. For simplicity, we use the term <emph>human development and family science</emph> or HDFS, except in cases where researchers used a different term. Later, we discuss the importance of field names).</p> <p>In this article, we synthesize the historical influences in HDFS departments in the United States and their antecedents and reflect on contemporary issues in the field. Our article is not intended to be an exhaustive review, but rather to call attention to the ways that the history of HDFS has implications for its trajectory. In evaluating the historical roots, strengths, and pitfalls of the field, researchers can chart a path for the shared goals and shared problems inherent to the study of HDFS, and form an identity and future for the field.</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-2">The History of Human Development and Family Science</hd> <p>Although there are occasional exceptions, most current HDFS departments originated in programs with names like domestic science, home economics, and child development and family studies (Dyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>]). To explore the field's history, it is necessary to trace the history of these intellectual precursors (see Figure 1), which grew from the contributions of three roughly contemporaneous historical movements in academia: the establishment of land grant universities in the United States, the burgeoning home economics movement driven by Ellen Swallow Richards, and the child studies movement (for the sociodemographic characteristics of the studies reviewed herein, please see Table S1 in online materials).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/30RC/01sep25/cdep12541-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdep12541-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Timeline of historical events related to the history of human development and family science/studies." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The Morrill Act of 1862 provided the foundations for the development and funding of land grant programs in the United States (The land given to U.S. universities was previously occupied by Indigenous peoples who were forcibly removed or dispossessed of their native lands by the U.S. government. For more information, see Nash ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>])). Established to support agricultural and industrial development, land grant schools provided opportunities for the industrial class, which included White farmers and working people who had been excluded from higher education. Beginning predominately with the wives of farmers (Miller [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]; Rose, Stocks, and Whittier [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref7">60</reflink>]), women at land grant institutions were allowed to enter into new scientific endeavors aimed at various aspects of home and family life (Grant [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]). Land grant schools emphasized applied rather than theoretical work to advance aspects of daily life (Bonnen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Also on the rise in the late 19th century in the United States was work that would later be referred to as home economics, first championed by the chemist Ellen Swallow Richards. Richards studied individual and group interactions with environments in an effort to improve living conditions for the masses (Philippy [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref10">55</reflink>]). Although Richards was unsuccessful in naming this new field human <emph>oekologie</emph> (Dyball and Carlsson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]; Tudge, Gray, and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref12">66</reflink>]), she was critical in defining the early goals of what came to be known as home economics, summarizing it as the "study of the laws, conditions, principles, and ideals which are concerned on the one hand with man's immediate physical environment and on the other hand with his nature as a social being" (Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>], p. 7).</p> <p>Although some early home economics programs already existed at land grant schools like Iowa State University and Kansas State University (Weigley [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref14">70</reflink>]), the aims and professional identity of home economists were solidified by Richards and her contemporaries at a series of conference at Lake Placid, NY, between 1899 and 1909, with the goal of improving lives through research and advocacy (McGregor [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref15">49</reflink>]). Other early home economists, such as Marion Talbot (Richards's mentee), Isabel Bevier, and Alice Norton, joined Richards in defining domestic science and establishing it as a legitimate science (Nerad [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Lake Placid conferences mirrored larger racist and antisemitic structures of the time by explicitly excluding Black and Jewish home economists from participation (Ralston [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>]). Barriers based on race and ethnicity persisted outside Lake Placid: Many early home economics programs at universities enrolled predominantly White students and limited opportunities for non‐White scholars. Facing marginalization on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender, these home economists carved out a path for themselves with others who were similarly minoritized (Harris [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref19">32</reflink>]; Jackson and Miller Arline [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]). For Black women scholars in particular, home economics programs at historically Black colleges and universities provided supportive spaces to pursue higher education and conduct their own scholarship. Yet consistent with the racist social structures of the time, the design of these programs was overwhelmingly oriented toward preparing students for presumed roles as manual laborers and domestic servants, rather than as homemakers and mothers using domestic science in their own homes (Miller [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref21">50</reflink>]; Ralston [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref22">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-4">The Child Study Movement</hd> <p>In parallel with the rise of land grant programs in the United States and Richards's work was the U.S. child study movement led by Stanley Hall (Siege and White [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref23">64</reflink>]). Hall's work brought descriptive research of children and adolescents, or natural science, to the fore, and was novel in its emphasis of both empirical and applied research (Cairns and Cairns [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]). Hall was also forward thinking in acknowledging the role of parents, teachers, and social workers as critical allies for developmental science, and sought to connect with women who met in small groups to discuss children's health and welfare (often called mothers' clubs or child study clubs; Cahan [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]; Goodchild [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]). However, Hall largely supported the common view of the time that women were not scientific leaders, but rather were suited to practical work, such as administering questionnaires and teaching kindergarten (Goodchild [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite Hall's beliefs, women quickly emerged as prominent figures in the U.S. child study movement, possibly because most aspects of child development were already considered women's issues (Cameron and Hagen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]). As early as 1926, five of the six researchers at the University of Iowa's Child Welfare Research Station were women (Cameron and Hagen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]). In contrast to the early work in home economics, child studies was firmly situated in the realm of psychology rather than the broader domain of children's health (often with a focus on nutrition). However, the disciplines began to blend as women who were trained in child studies increasingly found employment in home economics colleges; these women included Nellie Perkins and Ethel Waring (Rose, Stocks, and Whittier [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref30">60</reflink>]) at Cornell University and Nancy Bayley at the University of California, Berkeley. Home economics colleges provided opportunities for women in developmental psychology to continue their careers and collaborate with other researchers doing work on child development.</p> <p>Through the mid‐20th century, home economics, domestic science, and child development programs were led primarily by women and most students who enrolled were women. This contrasted with other university departments, which featured almost exclusively male faculty and students (Andrews and Zhao [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). Women interested in doing work on child development seemed to have to choose between marginalization in their department and marginalization of their department (Johnston and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>]). Although home economics departments provided a unique place for female scientists, these all‐women departments continued to fight perceptions that their work was not rigorous and their topic not worthy of serious study (Nerad [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]; Rossiter [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref34">62</reflink>]). In contrast, women who were able to obtain hard‐won positions in psychology departments often experienced more marginalization as the sole woman scholars in their departments. Psychology departments frequently discouraged women's participation through cultural norms or, in some instances, anti‐nepotism rules that prevented women scientists from working in the same institution as their husbands (Cameron and Hagen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-5">Postwar Tensions</hd> <p>Many scientific fields were transformed after World War II (Bonnen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]), but home economics departments and their offshoots were deeply affected by the social and political environment of the postwar period in the United States. Although the history of home economics has certainly involved a tug of war between progressive and reactionary messaging about women's roles (Dyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]; Vincenti [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref38">68</reflink>]), many initiatives during the postwar period focused on amplifying messages that women belonged in the home (Elias [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]; New York State College of Home Economics at Cornell University [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>]), and historical accounts highlight increased experiences of sexism and marginalization in academia (Cameron and Hagen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]; Johnston and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]). In conjunction with the firing of women workers in factories and the closure of free wartime public child care centers in the postwar period (Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]), home economics programs began focusing more on women's roles as homemakers and less on social reforms oriented at broader changes for family and community well‐being (Apple [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although scholars in the field still conducted rigorous empirical work, the larger reputation of the discipline became enmeshed with accusations that it limited women's agency, working against feminist and progressive movements (Elias [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref45">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]). These accusations were not meritless and reflected fundamental disconnects between the lives and goals of academic scientists in home economics and the messages they taught in classrooms (Johnston and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]; New York State College of Home Economics at Cornell University [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref48">54</reflink>]). Combined with existing biases against women in science, this reputation reduced the research conducted in home economics schools and departments to that of housewives and mothers, ignoring the field's complex history of interdisciplinary work and novel research.</p> <p>The reactionary work in home economics fostered a lasting and harmful reputation, leading universities across the United States to rename their programs in the second half of the 20th century (Rossiter [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref49">62</reflink>]). Popular choices included human development, human development and family studies, consumer sciences, and finally, adopting Richards's view, human ecology. Administrators also intentionally hired male faculty members and tried to increase the enrollment of male students in the renamed programs. Although women were still in the majority at both the graduate and professorial levels, the percentage of women faculty members dropped starkly, by 30% at The Pennsylvania State University, for example, and 20% at Cornell (Rossiter [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>The increased recruitment of male faculty led to the field often being associated with one scientist in particular: Urie Bronfenbrenner. Although trained as a psychologist, Bronfenbrenner popularized many of the core values of HDFS both in his academic research and when he cofounded Head Start. In emphasizing the importance of public policy and multiple contexts across the lifespan, Bronfenbrenner's work drew on foundational home economics principles and broke away from classic empirical methods, which he characterized as "the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time" (Bronfenbrenner [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>], p. 3). Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model was widely and swiftly recognized by psychologists, as well as education and health researchers (Eriksson, Ghazinour, and Hammarström [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]; Navarro and Tudge [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>]; Richard, Gauvin, and Raine [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]; Tudge et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref55">67</reflink>]). In the formulation of the ecological (and later biological) model, Bronfenbrenner formally and holistically took larger concerns and considerations of human ecology, unified them, and shared them within and beyond the field of HDFS. Bronfenbrenner's contributions continue to propel the contemporary study of human development and family science. Yet one consequence of his fame and acceptance was that it allowed the new members of HDFS departments to overlook the women researchers and policymakers whose seminal interdisciplinary work first expanded beyond developmental psychology (Nerad [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref56">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-6">Historical Takeaways and Strengths</hd> <p>An echoing theme of home economics in the 20th century was the push and pull in a field that sought to expand women's roles, education, and opportunity while also reinforcing, to varying degrees, gender and racial stereotypes (Duncan et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]). Coursework in home economics encompassed biology, chemistry, psychology, education, and nutrition (Rose, Stocks, and Whittier [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]) to provide students with an interdisciplinary background. Ultimately, the underlying strength of these departments was in providing a proving ground where women were given time to learn, develop and test scientific theories, and create a pathway to study subjects ignored by traditional science departments, such as how nutrition and the family environment affected children's health and well‐being (McCay, Waring, and Bull [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref59">48</reflink>]; Rose, Stocks, and Whittier [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref60">60</reflink>]). The groundbreaking nature of home economic programs and developmental departments was not just in their composition, but also in their focus on interdisciplinary and applied work (e.g., Kittrell [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]; Richardson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref62">59</reflink>]; Waring and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref63">69</reflink>]). In changing who was allowed to conduct research on development, these departments also created a space where what was studied was reconsidered (Dreilinger [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref64">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-7">Contemporary Issues and Opportunities</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187278093-8">Opportunity in Interdisciplinarity</hd> <p>Today, HDFS operates as a hub for interdisciplinary research and social science problems that require the expertise and insights of researchers from a variety of backgrounds (Damon and Lerner [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Gauvain [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref66">24</reflink>]). This interdisciplinarity aligns well with the broader move in social science away from simple explanatory variables toward an understanding that human growth is altered by complex and interconnected systems that affect and are affected by individuals (Dyer [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref67">16</reflink>]; Masten, Tyrell, and Cicchetti [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]). This move has occurred not just in developmental research (Hooper [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref69">35</reflink>]), but also in related disciplines like sociology, public health, and medicine. In capitalizing on different theoretical or methodological approaches, a variety of fields have confronted major methodological errors through collaborations with scholars outside their field. There is a growing acknowledgment that interdisciplinary research is often better research (Smye and Frangi [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref70">65</reflink>]), work that can rectify the errors created within disciplinary silos. Yet at times, HDFS's interdisciplinary roots can be undermined by attempts to separate human development from family science/studies through titles, hiring practices, and developmental and family scientists' own definitions as distinct from one another (Dyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-9">A United Name</hd> <p>A central issue for HDFS is the need for a clear, cogent name that signals the field's larger goals and provides an identity and a community for scholars. This is challenged by the variety of names used by departments (Dyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]). For example, many current human development and HDFS departments were formerly called human development and family studies, and before that were either under the umbrella of home economics or were called child development departments (Dyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref73">17</reflink>]). Name changes frequently occur at a university level and consider the effects of the name change for a specific program but overlook the larger implications for the field. Although these changes may better reflect the goals or composition of one department at one moment in time, they make it more difficult for larger cohesion. Lack of cohesion in naming creates further challenges to recruiting and retaining field members looking for academic kinship (Brody and Endsley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]; Endsley and Brody [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]; Hans [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>]). While HDFS is likely the most fitting name for the field, this name would need to be reflected in the naming of national organizations and in fellowships and opportunities for HDFS trainees (Dyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-10">Race, Gender, and Perceptions of Rigor</hd> <p>HDFS and other departmental offshoots of home economics continue to serve as hubs for interdisciplinary work characterizing development across the lifespan (Killen, Yee, and Ruck [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref78">40</reflink>]). Yet even in the 21st century, the field continues to carry the joint pride and burden of its origins in home economics. Today, most students in these programs are women (Wiersma‐Mosley and Garrison [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref79">72</reflink>]). Because domestic science has historically been a place where women were both relegated and flourished, HDFS continues to be dominated by pejorative attitudes toward students majoring or taking coursework in the field. Departments frequently retain a reputation as a "mom" major specifically geared toward women (Hagenbuch and Hamon [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>]). Bronfenbrenner once acknowledged this in a lecture for a course in human development, stating, "it is true that we shall be dealing a lot with babies and children... In that connection, I heard a student say the other day: 'You know,' he said, 'I'd get more out of that course if I were a woman'" (Bronfenbrenner [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>], n.p.).</p> <p>HDFS's reputation as being a field for women is not unique. Throughout academia, fields and subfields are often segregated by gender, with certain areas or topics defined as women's domain and others as men's (Gruber et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]; Liben and Bigler [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref83">45</reflink>]). Subsequently, areas in which women represent the majority often experience less prestige and more pay inequity than comparable fields where men are in the majority (Heisler et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref84">33</reflink>]). Areas in which women scholars are in the majority or studying issues typically considered women's issues tend to be less well‐funded, and researchers and practitioners are underpaid for their work in these domains (Heru [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref85">34</reflink>]; Polan and Barber [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref86">56</reflink>]). Meanwhile women have struggled to gain footing in fields (e.g., neuroscience) in which men are in the majority and funding is greater (Machlovi et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref87">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Barriers to entry and equitable pay are even greater for women of color, who deal with unique manifestations of racial and gender discrimination in science (Kozlowski et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]). Indeed, the history of home economics and HDFS is a stark example of the failures of a field that understood marginalization by gender while still marginalizing those with even less relative power due to their race or ethnicity. The specific racial and gender discrimination of women of color creates issues that make it challenging for scholars not only to ascend in their professional lives (e.g., through promotions and having their work celebrated and cited), but also to exist within systems built on the oppression of people like them (Jackson and Miller Arline [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref89">36</reflink>]). The history of HDFS provides numerous examples of scholars who were able to pursue science and careers as scientists in spite of discrimination (Duncan et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref90">13</reflink>]). Acknowledging these scholars is important for the field, and providing visible role models with shared identities can increase a sense of belonging (Shin, Levy, and London [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref91">63</reflink>]) for scholars entering the field from minoritized backgrounds.</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-11">An Accessible History</hd> <p>Tracing the roots of HDFS is a tremendous undertaking; in this article, we have not provided a complete history so much as an acknowledgement of the past and a proposal to members of the field to bolster our strengths by addressing our historic weaknesses and opportunities for change. Whereas introductory psychology courses often walk a well‐tread path of common history, HDFS coursework rarely teaches its complex and stigmatized history, despite the commonly held belief that it is worthwhile to provide students with a historical knowledge of their field or discipline (Fuchs and Viney [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref92">23</reflink>]; Lerner [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref93">44</reflink>]; Wertz [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref94">71</reflink>]). One consequence is that students or psychologists who join HDFS departments are often unclear about the history of the field and have little conception of how it differs from psychology, outside of naming conventions. Having a clear and shared history may help students and researchers promote an identity for the field, ground their knowledge base in the trailblazing work of home economists seeking to pair science with practice, and strive to move beyond disciplines to answer the clarion call of how to improve human lives. Furthermore, connecting HDFS to the funding history of home economics can also provide a clear account of what strategies led to the successful obtainment of grants and what problems may have led to the loss of funding (Elias [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>How do we create this shared history? First, we can reclaim the home economics and HDFS scholars who highlight our interdisciplinary roots and have contributed to our understanding of developmental science. Researchers who were educated or worked in home economics and HDFS departments are often claimed by discipline (e.g., Flemmie Kittrell as a nutritionist, Diana Baumrind as a psychologist), and discovering researchers' connections to HDFS takes time and careful biographical review. This information should be readily available to undergraduates taking introductory courses in the field.</p> <p>Second, our shared history is created by recognizing the major contributions of HDFS, like Head Start (Cravens [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]), the Berkeley Growth Study (Johnson and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref97">37</reflink>]), and the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (Cravens [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]), to name a few. These programs provide strong evidence for the potential of HDFS to address and ameliorate pressing societal problems.</p> <p>Finally, by understanding the gendered history of the field as well as the obstacles faced by scholars of color, we can provide strong historical evidence that perceptions of prestige are often determined by existing power structures that reify systems of oppression rather than being determined by science itself. Often, the accomplishments of many 20th‐century scientists in home economics were recognized decades after their discoveries, well after their careers could benefit from such acknowledgment (Nerad [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]; Rossiter [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187278093-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>To promote the interdisciplinary vision of HDFS for the future, researchers should address the erasure that characterizes its past. Simplistic characterizations of HDFS's origins overlook a field of study with a rich history, full of individuals devoted to the mission of the betterment of humanity mankind. It is a straightforward mission, which masks a bold, ebullient, and challenging goal. To promote and pursue this vision, the field of human development should explore opportunities to build on its existing strengths and address potential areas for improvement. It is essential to do so to address the grand vision of the field and the scientific aspirations of its members.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1.</p> <ref id="AN0187278093-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, M., and Y. Zhao. 2024. Home Economics and Women's Gateway to Science. SSRN 4708155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref44" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, R. D. 2015. " Home Economics in the Twentieth Century." In Remaking Home Economics, edited by S. Y. Nichols and G. Kay, 54 – 69. Athens, Georgia : University of Georgia Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bonnen, J. T. 1998. " The Land Grant Idea and the Evolving Outreach University." In University‐Community Collaborations for the Twenty‐First Century, edited by R. M. Lerner and L. A. K. Simon, 25 – 70. New York, NY : Garland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref74" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brody, G. H., and R. C. Endsley. 1981. " Researching Children and Families: Differences in Approaches of Child and Family Specialists." Family Relations 30 : 275 – 280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref81" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. 1971. [Introductory Lecture HD 115]. Cornell University Archives (Box 1, Folder 43), Ithaca, NY, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref51" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. 1976. " The Experimental Ecology of Education." Teachers College Record 78, no. 2 : 1 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146817607800201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cahan, E. D. 2022. 14 Science, Practice, and Gender Roles in Early American Child Psychology. Contemporary Constructions of the Child: Essays in Honor of William Kessen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cairns, R. B., and B. D. Cairns. 2006. " The Making of Developmental Psychology." In Handbook of Child Psychology, Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited by W. Damon and R. M. Lerner. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cameron, C. E., and J. W. Hagen. 2005. " Women in Child Development: Themes From the SRCD Oral History Project." History of Psychology 8, no. 3 : 289 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cravens, H. 2002. Before Head Start: The Iowa Station and America's Children. Chapel Hill, North Carolina : University of North Carolina Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon, W., and R. M. Lerner, eds. 2006. Handbook of Child Psychology, Theoretical Models of Human Development. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreilinger, D. 2021. The Secret History of Home Economics: How Trailblazing Women Harnessed the Power of Home and Changed the Way We Live. New York, NY : WW Norton & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, J., J. M. Holland, M. B. Russell, L. Saboe‐Wounded, and A. Spangler. 2022. " Truth or Consequences: Advancing Equity in Family and Consumer Sciences in the United States." International Journal of Home Economics 15, no. 1 : 70 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyball, R., and L. Carlsson. 2017. " Ellen Swallow Richards: Mother of Human Ecology? " Human Ecology Review 23, no. 2 : 17 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyer, K., S. Black, G. Quitorio, E. Linneman, and M. Vang. 2024. " Overview of Undergraduate Degree Programs Related to Human Development and Family Science." Family Relations 73, no. 1 : 399 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyer, K. D. 2024a. " Lessons From the Field: Isn't It Just Common Sense? Naïve Realism as a Barrier to Learning." Family Relations 73 : 2064 – 2078.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyer, K. D. 2024b. " Human Development and Family Science: A Story of Disciplinary Fragmentation and Kinship." Journal of Family Theory and Review : 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias, M. 2006. " 'Model Mamas': The Domestic Partnership of Home Economics Pioneers Flora Rose and Martha Van Rensselaer." Journal of the History of Sexuality 15 : 65 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias, M. J. 2010. Stir It Up: Home Economics in American Culture. Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias, M. J. 2011. " No Place Like Home: A Survey of American Home Economics History." History Compass 9, no. 1 : 97 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Endsley, R. C., and G. H. Brody. 1981. " Professional Isolation of Child and Family Specialists as Revealed in a Time Series Analysis of Parent‐Child Relations Research Methods." Family Relations 30 : 5 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eriksson, M., M. Ghazinour, and A. Hammarström. 2018. " Different Uses of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory in Public Mental Health Research: What Is Their Value for Guiding Public Mental Health Policy and Practice? " Social Theory & Health 16, no. 4 : 414 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, A. H., and W. Viney. 2002. " The Course in the History of Psychology: Present Status and Future Concerns." History of Psychology 5, no. 1 : 3 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gauvain, M. 2018. " From Developmental Psychologist to Water Scientist and Back Again: The Role of Interdisciplinary Research in Developmental Science." Child Development Perspectives 12, no. 1 : 45 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodchild, L. F. 2012. " G. Stanley Hall and an American Social Darwinist Pedagogy: His Progressive Educational Ideas on Gender and Race." History of Education Quarterly 52, no. 1 : 62 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, D. K. 2013. No Ordinary Time: Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. New York, NY : Simon and Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, J. 1997. " Modernizing Mothers: Home Economics and the Parent Education Movement." In Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, edited by S. Stage and V. B. Vincenti. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, J., J. Mendle, K. A. Lindquist, et al. 2021. " The Future of Women in Psychological Science." Perspectives on Psychological Science 16, no. 3 : 483 – 516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagenbuch, D. J., and R. R. Hamon. 2011. " Understanding Student Attitudes Toward Majoring in Human Development and Family Science." Family Science Review 16, no. 1 : 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hans, J. D. 2014. " Whither Famology? Department Name Trends Across Four Decades." Family Relations 63, no. 3 : 323 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, C. 1997. " Grace Under Pressure: The Black Home Extension Service in South Carolina." In Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, edited by S. Stage and V. B. Vincenti, 1919 – 1966. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, C. V. 2009. " 'Well I Just Generally Bes the President of Everything': Rural Black Women's Empowerment Through South Carolina Home Demonstration Activities." Black Women, Gender & Families 3, no. 1 : 91 – 112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heisler, C. A., K. Mark, J. Ton, P. Miller, and S. M. Temkin. 2020. " Has a Critical Mass of Women Resulted in Gender Equity in Gynecologic Surgery? " American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 223, no. 5 : 665 – 673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heru, A. M. 2005. " Pink‐Collar Medicine: Women and the Future of Medicine." Gender Issues 22, no. 1 : 20 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147‐005‐0008‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper, F. H. 1988. " The History of Child Psychology as Seen Through Handbook Analysis." Human Development 31, no. 3 : 176 – 184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, V. P., and J. R. M. Miller Arline. 2021. " Getting and Staying in the Mainstream." In African Americans in the Human Sciences: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by D. Mayfield, W. H. Whittaker, N. L. Bennett, et al., 67, Lanham, Maryland : Lexington Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A., and E. Johnston. 2020. " Studying Development in Mid‐20th Century America." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, E., and A. Johnson. 2008. " Searching for the Second Generation of American Women Psychologists." History of Psychology 11, no. 1 : 40 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, E., and A. Johnson. 2017. " Balancing Life and Work by Unbending Gender: Early American Women Psychologists' Struggles and Contributions." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 53, no. 3 : 246 – 264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killen, M., K. M. Yee, and M. D. Ruck. 2021. " Social and Racial Justice as Fundamental Goals for the Field of Human Development." Human Development 65, no. 5–6 : 257 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519698.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kittrell, F. P. 1949. " The Negro Family as a Health Agency." Journal of Negro Education 18, no. 3 : 422 – 428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozlowski, D., V. Larivière, C. R. Sugimoto, and T. Monroe‐White. 2022. " Intersectional Inequalities in Science." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 2 : e2113067119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. 1902. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University. https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/hearth6060826_5315_001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner, R. M. 2018. Concepts and Theories of Human Development. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liben, L. S., and R. S. Bigler. 2002. " The Developmental Course of Gender Differentiation: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Constructs and Pathways." Monographs of the Society for Research in Development 67, no. 2 : 1 – 183. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3181530">www.jstor.org/stable/3181530</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machlovi, S., A. Pero, S. Ng, M. Zhong, and D. Cai. 2021. " Women in Neuroscience: Where Are We in 2019? " Journal of Neuroscience Research 99, no. 1 : 9 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S., F. A. Tyrell, and D. Cicchetti. 2023. " Resilience in Development: Pathways to Multisystem Integration." Development and Psychopathology 35, no. 5 : 2103 – 2112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCay, J. B., E. B. Waring, and H. D. Bull. 1940. " Health and Development of a Group of Nursery School Children." Child Development 11 : 127 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGregor, S. L. 2020. " Home Ecology to Home Economics and Beyond: Ellen Swallow Richards' Disciplinary Contributions." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 112, no. 2 : 28 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, E. 2004. In the Name of the Home: Women, Domestic Science, and American Higher Education, 1865–1930. Champaign, IL : University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nash, M. A. 2019. " Entangled Pasts: Land‐Grant Colleges and American Indian Dispossession." History of Education Quarterly 59, no. 4 : 437 – 467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Navarro, J. L., and J. R. Tudge. 2023. " Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo‐Ecological Theory." Current Psychology 42, no. 22 : 19338 – 19354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nerad, M. 1999. The Academic Kitchen: A Social History of Gender Stratification at the University of California. Berkeley : SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New York State College of Home Economics at Cornell University. 1950. " New York State College of Home Economics Council Meeting." In College of Home Economics Annual Reports (23‐7‐2829). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Archives.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philippy, D. 2021. " Ellen Richards's Home Economics Movement and the Birth of the Economics of Consumption." Journal of the History of Economic Thought 43, no. 3 : 378 – 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polan, R. M., and E. L. Barber. 2021. " Reimbursement for Female‐Specific Compared With Male‐Specific Procedures Over Time." Obstetrics & Gynecology 138, no. 6 : 878 – 883.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ralston, P. A. 1978. " Black Participation in Home Economics: A Partial Account." Journal of Home Economics 70, no. 5 : 34 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richard, L., L. Gauvin, and K. Raine. 2011. " Ecological Models Revisited: Their Uses and Evolution in Health Promotion Over Two Decades." Annual Review of Public Health 32 : 307 – 326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, B. 2002. " Ellen Swallow Richards: "Humanistic Oekologist,""Applied Sociologist," and the Founding of Sociology." American Sociologist 33, no. 3 : 21 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, F., E. H. Stocks, and M. W. Whittier. 1969. A Growing College: Home Economics at Cornell University. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossiter, M. W. 1993. " The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science." Social Studies of Science 23, no. 2 : 325 – 341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossiter, M. W. 1997. The Men Move in: Home Economics, 1950–1970. Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, J. E. L., S. R. Levy, and B. London. 2016. " Effects of Role Model Exposure on STEM and Non‐STEM Student Engagement." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 46, no. 7 : 410 – 427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siege, A. W., and S. H. White. 1982. " The Child Study Movement: Early Growth and Development of the Symbolized Child." In Advances in Child Development and Behavior, vol. 17, 233 – 285. New York, NY : Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2407(08)60361‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smye, S. W., and A. F. Frangi. 2021. " Interdisciplinary Research: Shaping the Healthcare of the Future." Future Healthcare Journal 8, no. 2 : 218 – 223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tudge, J., J. Gray, and D. M. Hogan. 1997. " Ecological Perspectives in Human Development: A Comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner." Comparisons in Human Development: Understanding Time and Context 72 : 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tudge, J. R., E. A. Merçon‐Vargas, Y. Liang, and A. Payir. 2017. " The Importance of Urie Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory for Early Childhood Education." In Theories of Early Childhood Education, 45 – 57. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vincenti, V. B. 1997. " 14 Home Economics Moves Into the Twenty‐First Century." In Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, edited by S. Stage and V. B. Vincenti. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waring, E. B., and M. W. Johnson. 1941. Helping Children Learn Child Rearing. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weigley, E. S. 1974. " It Might Have Been Euthenics: The Lake Placid Conferences and the Home Economics Movement." American Quarterly 26, no. 1 : 79 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wertz, F. J. 2014. " Qualitative Inquiry in the History of Psychology." Qualitative Psychology 1, no. 1 : 4 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiersma‐Mosley, J. D., and M. B. Garrison. 2022. " Developing Intercultural Competence Among Students in Family Science: The Importance of Service Learning Experiences." Family Relations 71, no. 5 : 2070 – 2083.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kathleen C. McCormick and Jane Mendle</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref100"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1480096
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Growing Pains: The History of Human Development and the Future of the Field
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathleen+C%2E+McCormick%22">Kathleen C. McCormick</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3587-4782">0000-0002-3587-4782</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jane+Mendle%22">Jane Mendle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0038-2593">0000-0002-0038-2593</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development+Perspectives%22"><i>Child Development Perspectives</i></searchLink>. 2025 19(3):179-185.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Development%22">Individual Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22History%22">History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+and+Consumer+Sciences%22">Family and Consumer Sciences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Discrimination%22">Racial Discrimination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Discrimination%22">Gender Discrimination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdep.12541
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1750-8592<br />1750-8606
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research on child development has been advanced by the contributions of human development and human development family science (or studies) departments, which trace their origins to the land grant movement, home economics programs, and the child study movement that coalesced in the United States in the late 19th and 20th centuries. In this article, we detail the main historical influences on the field, as well as contemporary strengths and opportunities for the field. We highlight the interdisciplinarity and applied work that are uniquely inherent strengths of human development and family science/studies. We also discuss challenges that are both historic and contemporary in reviewing how experiences of racial and gender discrimination affected and affect scholars in the field, as well as issues of field identity and purpose. Finally, we recommend that the field acknowledge and publicize its past to capitalize on the strengths of its history and to address historical challenges that remain relevant to the study of human development and family science today.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1480096
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1480096
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdep.12541
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 179
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Individual Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: History
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family and Consumer Sciences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Discrimination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Discrimination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Growing Pains: The History of Human Development and the Future of the Field
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathleen C. McCormick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jane Mendle
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1750-8592
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1750-8606
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development Perspectives
              Type: main
ResultId 1