The Decade in Review

In an earlier editorial, I noted that good science has difficulty with compliance, in that innovation derives from noncompliance. In this volume, we have the opportunity to explore growth and innovation, to review advances of the last decade, and to move beyond this scope and consider a broader time horizon, both across the distant past and within the glimmer of the future. There have been three previous decade reviews including the initial one edited by Carlfred Broderick, which actually spanned three issues of the journal (November, 1970; February and May, 1971), one edited by Felix Berardo (November, 1980), and the most recent edited by Alan Booth (November, 1990). All have had a similar purpose and have been highly influential in guiding the next generation of scholars and their scholarship. Planning for the decade reviews began in November 1997 at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations and proceeded in several stages. I first established a purpose as noted above and identified the major topics included in the two previous decade reviews. The initial plan was presented to the editorial board and subsequently revised. In defining the scope of the project, I excluded topics better dealt with in other arenas (e.g., child development, or family therapy), as well as issues having to do with methodology or analytical procedures. Advances in the methods of family research was the subject of a recent issue of the journal (November, 1995) edited by Marilyn Coleman, and will likely form the basis of a future issue of the journal. Early in 1998, the full board was mailed a revised planning document and a questionnaire that listed the topics featured in previous decade reviews, asking members to rate each topic in terms of priority and needed coverage. Topics with the highest ratings were those that, in the opinion of the rater, saw considerable growth and investment over the previous decade. Raters were encouraged to suggest additional topics not included in the previous decade reviews or to suggest new ways of reorganizing or reconceptualizing topics, and they did so on all counts. Fifty-four board members responded to this survey (a 77% response rate), and they often provided very detailed commentary. From their ratings and suggestions I identified topics that were clearly highly rated and seen as important areas of continuing inquiry, innovation, and growth (e.g., marital quality and interaction, work and family, divorce and its consequences), as well as areas that were relatively new and rapidly advancing (e.g., fatherhood, biosocial perspectives on families). Some areas covered in past reviews received consistently low ratings, indicating they were viewed as witnessing relatively little growth over the decade. These included the areas of mate selection, religion and family life, family enrichment, power, and kinship. With the exception of religion and kinship, which seem to be neglected topics, the other areas are best viewed as areas undergoing dynamic shifts in their conceptualization. Mate selection, far from being entirely neglected, has merged into the more general field of close relationships; family power continues to be of interest to many, especially those in the field of family violence, although often under the guise of "control" (see Johnson & Ferraro, this volume). Research on kinship has certainly changed in focus, with research on caregiving among the elderly and grandparenting seeing growth (see Allen, Blieszner, & Roberto, this volume), while otherwise being largely neglected as a form of relationship or context in which families develop (see Johnson, 2000). Family enrichment is another area receiving low ratings although this probably represents the limits of the journal's purpose, rather than a comment on the area's vitality (see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, this volume). Parallel with the evaluations of the editorial board, I conducted a content analysis of articles published following the last decade review. …