Furthering the Conversation on the Future of the Discipline of Family Science: Comments on the Articles by Hamon & Smith and Hans

[...]of this selection bias, almost certainly we can be less certain about the perceptions of those faculty members at institutions involved in graduate student training, the vast majority of whom are more research active and, as a result, face very different pressures to balance research, teaching, and service obligations. [...]I wish to draw some attention to the level of risk inherent to the family field's current condition.\n For example, since 1990, more than 3,000 peer-reviewed journal articles used the term family perspective to describe their work; a quick look at their abstracts reveals, however, that they generally incorporate multiple perspectives, not neces- sarily family studies expertise, though health related research (particularly nursing) do better.