The Groves Conference on Marriage and Family: History and Impact on Family Science

Publications and Communication

The Groves Conference has offered openings for people to present ideas and analyses in a developmental framework. One of the innovations in the programming in the 1970s was a heavy dependence on member-organized workshops with resource people not simply papers and discussants. A workshop would meet several times during the conference, and conclusions would be shared in an open session at the conclusion of the conference. A desire frequently was expressed for publication and sharing of the richness of the Groves experience. The tension between wanting to have a developmental, conversational style and producing papers that could be published has continued to be a difficult challenge. One might go to great lengths to record and transcribe a workshop and then find that no book or journal was to follow the conference. Barbara Settles discovered a 50-page record of a workshop on family formation and dissolution that she had organized for a meeting in Kansas City in 1976. The resources for the workshop included Paul Glick, of the U.S. Census and Elizabeth Cole of the North American Adoption Exchange. Judith Van Name and Barbara Settles presented research on foster care parents and support. Brooke McCauley reported research on college students’ cohabitation (Glick, Cole, McCauley et al., 1976). The papers were transcribed and made available to the conference organizers, but publication did not occur. Publishing conference proceedings was out of the question since the lag between the conference and the completed papers would be considerable.

Often any publication was dependent on the motivation and contacts of the conference chair(s). More frequently, the presentations that members gave or the contacts they developed became part of a process of giving a formal paper or symposium at another conference such as the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) or the American Sociological Association (ASA). We will note some of the major publications as we discuss the themes that have been recurrent in our work as a conference. For example, Charles Figley and Hamilton Mc Cubbin produced a two-volume set related to the conference in 1980 in Gatlinburg, Tennessee on Stress and Coping (Figley & McCubbin, 1983; McCubbin & Figley 1983). Concurrently, Page  11McCubbin, Patterson, and Sussman edited Social Stress and the Family, published in 1983. Both of these books bridged a multidisciplinary audience and have been credited with changing how quality health care is understood and how medical and nursing personal are educated. McCubbin (2000) described in his autobiographical essay how his wife Marilyn was a leader in nursing and disseminated the utility of the Stress and Coping framework to the fields of medicine and health. Figley developed a continuing publishing program in trauma stress as a founding editor of the Journal of Traumatic Stress, editor of the refereed journal Traumatology, the Brunner/Mazel book series on Psychosocial Stress (1978-2001), and the American Psychological Association book series Stress and Trauma (Figley, n.d.).

Eleanor Macklin and Roger Rubin were pioneers in developing the book Contemporary Families and Alternative Life Styles (1983) which proved so popular that a second printing was needed. Both of these book editors generously donated their royalties to the Groves Conference, as did Figley and McCubbin, and it was from this beginning that the Conference began to gain a stronger financial position (Sibbison, 2009).

It has been daunting to develop a Groves Conference publishing program. A once-a-year conference that varies widely in theme and content does not fit into many long-term publishing outlets. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Sussman was the editor of Marriage and Family Review, a journal and print publication. Since two to four issues could be themed and produced as both journals and books, several of our conferences took advantage of that opportunity (e.g., Macklin, 1989; Settles, D. Hanks, & Sussman 1993). Often, program chairs were able to find journal editors in a variety of related fields who might be willing to build an issue around the theme with the chairs as guest editor(s). For example, the 1994 Costa Rica conference papers were published in the Family Science Review as a themed issue. Settles noted,

Sometimes the Groves Conference has been able to help editors develop a book. For example, Dr. Harriette McAdoo’s book Family Ethnicity: Strength in Diversity (1993) evolved from her 1983 Bahamas conference of the same name. She was awarded a seed-money grant by the Groves board, but she needed more support than could be offered by the Conference. Dr. McAdoo contacted editors at Sage Publications who have since published many of her books. Robert A. Lewis saw his conference on men’s roles through to journal publication and then developed a book on the topic titled Men in Families, acknowledging Groves in the introduction (Lewis & Salt, 1986). He told Settles that he did not think of it as belonging to the Conference although there was a connection.

Coleman and Ganong (2004) discussed in their introduction to the Handbook of Contemporary Families how they returned to Groves books and programs, using the 2000 Groves Conference they co-chaired as a foundation for their collection in Journal of Family Issues (2001) and as the basis to develop the larger reviews that became the handbook. Judith Fischer responded to our request for publications related to Groves Conference with an eight-page document showing both the presentations she gave and the related publications, and the research projects that resulted from some of the discussions. She said about Groves, “it became a touchstone for my professional life” (Fischer, 2009).

Within the Conference several other efforts at improving communication and archiving conference results have been tried. Recorders of sessions usually reported on a single session of the conference, and program chairs or presidents might put these together to mail to the membership (Mace & Mace, 1970; Ryder, 1973; Sussman, 1978,). Groves Conference presidents often developed a newsletter which might be circulated 2 to 4 times a year in addition to the conference announcements. Brochures and materials for distribution at other conferences were developed, and a logo was designed for stationery and advertisements. Receptions were often given, and exhibition booths were staffed by members at other Page  13meetings, usually NCFR. Charles Figley, president from 1982-84, launched a more ambitious bulletin called The Family Scholar, but it was not continued as such. Roger Rubin produced a quarterly report to the members from 1987 to 1990, and Barbara Settles continued the practice from 1990 to 1993 (Rubin, 1987-1990; Settles, 1991-1993). However, since the initiation of e-mail most presidents have published either an electronic newsletter or frequent letters to the membership. Current president Christine Readdick, for example, writes and produces a full color newsletter (Readdick, 2011).

A Groves archive was begun at the University of Minnesota under Figley’s presidency, and he sent materials that are currently available. Barbara Settles sent materials there, but when we asked about them they had not been accessioned. Some conferences had many sessions audio-taped with some effort at transcription. Lots of people took pictures, and we have some of these in our personal files. Eleanor Macklin made the first major effort to have many of sessions at her 1997 conference in Nova Scotia videotaped, and copies were sold to members. More recently, Dudley Chancey has taped many of the conference sessions, and we especially appreciated access to those from the 75th anniversary conference in which many Groves members from the past returned and much reflection was generated (Chancey, 2009).

Newsletters, programs, and correspondence became easier as members had more access to computers, but still most of the work was theirs to do by themselves. In 1994 Settles was mounting a complex conference in Costa Rica. She prepared everything on her laptop and tiny HP inkjet printer and used the many copy shops in San Jose to generate the huge program with complete Spanish and English abstracts, name tags, signs, and vast amounts of correspondence and fax letters. Phone calls have been a lifeline, with conference calls crucial at many junctures. With the rise of the Internet beginning in the early 1990s, mailings became less frequent; however, dues notices and surveys still worked better by mail. The development of a web page was tried early on through the use of a university site without a distinct web address for Groves. Judith Fischer initiated the first independent Groves Conference site. She noted,

Dr. Chancey sees his role as posting whatever is wanted by the board and membership (Chancey, 2012). The site has become a repository for Groves documents, the current activities and news, as well as a way for Groves members to communicate. We also have ambitions to provide many of the records we have uncovered while writing this volume for the creation of a Groves Conference archive available to scholars and Groves members.

Handling Decision Making and Risk

At several times in its development Groves was held together by a leader—or by a small cadre of leaders—who put a considerable amount of energy and material support into the organization over many years. While the conferences have become quite complex and are often in difficult locations, structural support has remained primarily a gift from members and leaders. Program chairs must develop plans that will produce income for the meetings to be self- sustaining. Over the years a small safety net has been achieved so that a modest loss can be covered and when a “cutting edge” idea comes along, it is usually nurtured despite possible financial risk. Every year some member or members step forward to organize and facilitate the conference with the board’s approval. The chair(s) take full responsibility both for the program and physical setting Page  15and arrangements. The conferences are designed to break even, and when a surplus occurs it is put back into the fund and used to defray any future losses.

Additional funds also have been accumulated by contributions from members or royalties from books developed from the conferences. Program chairs and local arrangements organizers have drawn upon their networks, research projects, and institutions to support the programs and involve students and colleagues. In contrast to larger professional organizations, stipends for plenary speakers are seldom offered, and usually everyone pays their own way. As in the early days of Groves, most members and the leadership are involved with other professional organizations with Groves often the one meeting they pay for themselves.

The Groves Board of Directors not only sets policy but is called upon to search out ideas and themes for meetings and to help schedule and prioritize projects and programs. The elected officers who make up the board are directly responsible for the ongoing policy and decision making and are responsible to the membership. Membership surveys have been used throughout the four decades since reorganization to test interest, gain perspectives, and decide on big-risk conferences. Robert Ryder used a member survey in 1973 in planning his conference “Letting Many Flowers Grow: Implications of Ideology for Family Research and the Profession” and structured it with many small discussion groups, meeting places and a whole-conference open-forum session from which he was able put their together a summary report (Ryder, 1973). The final conferences emerge from many suggestions and hopes which may not come to fruition. Membership business meetings at the conferences also range widely across issues of organization, policy, and priorities.

Early on in the reorganization, a consensus approach was adopted. With a small membership organization, more than a majority vote is vital to success. Board meetings include program chairpersons for three years to provide both continuity and some oversight. As part of the reorganization the Conference was incorporated as a nonprofit entity, and bylaws, officers, and the Board of Directors were established. Robert Ryder has been our Page  16corporate representative in Connecticut since the Conference was incorporated on March 24, 1982 [State of Connecticut Certificate]. A set of bylaws were included in the package; however, the board and member meetings were somewhat informal with consensus being important (Groves Conference Incorporation Documents, 1982). Later on, more emphasis was put on the bylaws, any instructions that had come with contributions, and an officers’ handbook of responsibilities. Jo Lynn Cunningham, who served on the board and was appointed parliamentarian, has put a great deal of effort into refining and updating the bylaws.

There has seldom been any paid staff unless members have loaned their own resources or brought their graduate students into the organization. Vera Mace, Karl King, and Sharon Price served as treasurers in the early years of the reorganization. Virginia Sibbison served as treasurer for over three decades and was able to manage our finances, membership, and communication with a small management fee for secretarial help. A recent development was the addition of a part-time paid executive Tammy S. Dunrud who manages many of the same functions along with the elected treasurer Sharon Seiling.

This bare-bones financial and organizational structure has allowed the Groves Conferences to be flexible and timely, to be held in interesting places, to shave expenses in hard times for members, to attack current issues, to avoid being locked into long-term schedules, to draw in new participants on interdisciplinary topics, to allow for topics to be developed in workshops and other informal presentations, to have large meetings and small ones, and even to add whole other ventures at the last moment. For example, in 1987 Groves held a pioneering family centered conference on HIV/AIDs added to the primary program on “Families on the Move: Immigration, Migration, and Mobility” (which Settles and Fischer organized). Basically, it was a conference within a conference. Eleanor Macklin initiated the proposal only a few months before the meeting dates, and the conference chairs found room and encompassed the added program sessions and attendees into the Groves conference. Her 1989 publication based on the HIV/AIDS conference presentations was a first in the field (Macklin, 1989).

It is not uncommon for a group to form during the conference to work on an idea which may become a meeting, another presentation elsewhere or a research or publishing venture. Of course, the personalities, scholarship, and resources of the program chairs shape and build each conference in an individualized way. There is always room for members to shape, present, and suggest content and process. In each of the following thematic chapters we illustrate how this process has operated and evolved.

The early Groves conferences set limits on the invitations in order to encourage discussion and informal conversations. Ernest and Gladys Groves encouraged spouses to come and assumed the conference was also a spring break to see the beautiful spring blooms and relax. Marian Hill notes that she saw herself as encouraging couples to enjoy the location and socializing (Boss, 1986). The 1986 book on Groves has many comments on the importance of conversations and informal interaction (Dail & Jewson, 1986). During the period before reorganization a couple could join with one membership; today spouses may apply for membership as an individual. Part of this emphasis on collegiality and building friendships was arranged by having open periods in the program, field trips, and informal parties and receptions. Settles noted,

Discussion groups have frequently scheduled extra time on their own to get together or begin a new project. At the meeting in Arkansas, for example, a session split into two groups, and one went out to the porch to meet because they disagreed on what the title of the session meant for the direction of discussion. Taking long walks and chatting were also common. Settles has a clear memory of Jerry Strouse driving his van with Mary Hicks and Sally Hansen-Gandy up into the mountains at Gatlinburg on a beautiful afternoon with us talking a mile a minute. Walking on the seashore at night with a group of women talking about the women’s movement is another image. Driving with Mary Lou Liprie and Paul Glick to Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone was another little seminar. Now this kind of open structure is often called networking, but it is far more than that as it also builds unity and purpose. Rubin’s view of the primacy of the socialization and building of friendships follows:

Themes and Locations

The facts that free us to be creative and timely also limit Groves’ impact and continuity. When doing a conference with one’s own resources and the limited backing of an organization, one would have to limit risk in other ways. Chairs decide to have meetings when and where they can spend the time, energy, and money needed. Often Groves piggybacks on their members’ research or teaching programs. International trips are be limited in size and scope and require early commitment and payments. Two early conferences were held in Puerto Rico, but the first international conference was held in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia in 1975. Dr. Sussman organized the whole venture—more or less limited to the airplane’s capacity which he personally chartered. His knowledge and local expertise had come from his experience with a large international research project he had directed and his participation in the Committee for Family Research of the International Sociological Association. He opened the meeting to other family scholars and was guided by the payment of registration and fees as to who was actually going to attend. He obtained co-sponsors from other mostly international organizations and drew in international participants. It was truly a ground-breaking experience focusing internationally on rapidly changing “sex roles”—as the concept was then known (Sussman & First-Dilic, 1975). It was an opportunity to shed provincialism and get in touch with the thrust of what was happening globally. Many connections people made at the conference were reflected in later working relationships.

Similarly, years later several of the Groves members had participated in university global programs which we could use to Page  20find places and activities, such as the Bahamas, England, Canada, Costa Rica, and Ireland. These programs assisted us in locating interesting local speakers and guides. In 2003, although the members’ desires to go to Cuba were frustrated by changes in U.S. policy, a fallback position had been arranged in Miami. Of course, the idea of interesting places is not simply exotic ones. We have also held conferences in Oklahoma City to discuss terror and trauma at the site of the Murray Federal Building bombing and memorial and in downtown Detroit to look at urban challenges today [Hicks & Koepke in 2004; De Reus & Blume in 2007]. Connie Steele noted the impact of the 2001 Alaska meeting:

Mary Hicks and Coco Readdick organized the trip to Ireland in which they focused on globalization and the well-being of families (2008). They built it around a case study of Ireland’s then-robust economy and included many contacts with local scholars and institutions. The conference included visits and discussions with community development projects and leaders. Another example, from Norma Burgess:

The early traditions featured staying in homes, college dorms, and, after the civil rights revolution, the Groves board selected some sites using a member survey and chose inexpensive hotels in the South, also known as the “seedy hotels” period. Since most members paid their own way most of the time, the challenge was to provide value and charm. A continuing concern has been to get members to stay at the conference hotel in order to qualify for the many rooms we use for break-out sessions and group meetings.

Scholar Awards

The Margaret and Harold Feldman Award and the Marvin B. Sussman Award are given in alternating years. Winners are expected to present their award-winning work at the annual meeting. Both awards carry a stipend of $1,000 and up to $1,000 reimbursement Page  22for travel and travel-related expenses (Sibbison, 2009). Table 1 summarizes the recipients of awards from the Groves Conference.

Feldman (Margaret and Harold) Award

The Feldman Award, in honor of Harold and Margaret Feldman, both outstanding and early leaders in the fields of family and policy, is given to an author or authors of a peer-reviewed journal article or book chapter published within the last 5 years that makes a significant social policy contribution related to ethnicity and/or gender, and that is also supportive of the theme of the Groves Conference annual meeting. A $2,000 Stock Dividend was generously given to Groves in 1988 by Dr. Margaret Feldman and Dr. Harold Feldman. As directed by the Groves Board at the 1992 NCFR meeting, $2,000 was transferred from the Fund Balance to the Feldman Award in the 1993 budget. Over time, additional amounts have been donated and interest income generated to the Award. It is a fiscal assumption that revenues from the Feldman Award will be utilized to cover the costs associated with advertising and awarding the Award. Since the inception of the Award, there have been 10 Feldman Award winners. The award currently focuses on race and ethnicity.

Marvin B. Sussman Award

The Sussman Award has had several purposes over the years. The first awardees were young career professionals, and the award was given to encourage an expansion of the individual’s research program. Now it seeks to recognize the best journal article or book chapter from recent years that supports the theme of the Groves Conference annual meeting. The Sussman Award was established by Dr. Marvin Sussman as a $10,600 Endowment in 1987. Over time, additional amounts have been donated, and interest income generated, to the Award. It is a fiscal assumption that revenues received from the Sussman Endowment will be utilized to cover the costs associated with advertising and presenting the Award (Sibbison, 2009).

Goebel/Macklin Award

This award was more recently founded and seeks to support a promising graduate student making a conference presentation at Groves. The purpose and promise of the Goebel-Macklin Award is Page  24to enable the Conference to continue to be a vital community for the exchange of “cutting-edge” ideas in a supportive environment and to encourage current Groves members to bring into the membership those younger students and colleagues who show promise of benefitting from, and adding to, the Groves experience.

Groves Academy and Lifetime Members

There is some evidence of the Conference making awards on an ad hoc basis. Following the 1968 reorganization, Gladys H. Groves continued to be recognized as honorary director on our letterhead and at annual meetings (Settles, 1971, 1978). A letter of recognition prepared by Dr. Sussman to Edith Grotberg for her contribution to family and child policy and programs was prepared and presented at the 1979 Washington conference on family policy (Settles, 1979). In 1980 a discussion and proposal for member recognition resulted in these two new awards: Lifetime membership and Groves Academy membership. In 1981 Harold Feldman and Marvin Sussman were given life membership, and David Mace was the first Groves Academy member. In 1984 Marie Peters was recognized posthumously. She had been our second Groves membership chair and was a leader in her commitment to diversity for the conference and used our informal format to help build relationships.

Academy membership is the highest award given by the Groves Conference, recognizing lifetime contributions and leadership in the field of marriage and family as well as service and dedication to the Groves Conference. The Groves Academy elects new members by consensus of the current Academy members; additions are made when deemed appropriate by the Academy. Lifetime membership is awarded once in the term of each Groves President. The President is allowed to nominate, and the Board elects, to Lifetime membership an individual whose service and contributions to Groves Conference objectives has been outstanding (Sibbison, 2009). Academy and Lifetime members are exempt from paying dues; nevertheless, many pay dues and/or make donations to the [Goebel/Macklin Award], Feldman Award and/or Sussman Award funds (Sibbison, 2009). Table 2 lists those who have been honored over the years.

Managing Risk and Financial Security

During the early years of the Groves Conference, most activities (including financial management) were conducted informally. For example, it was not until the Presidential tenure of Robert Ryder (1978-1980) that bylaws were written and approved; the Lifetime and Academy membership categories were created; and the organization was formally incorporated in the State of Connecticut in 1982 (Sibbison, 2009; Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, 1982). With regard to finances, Dr. Ryder wrote:

Detailed financial records, based on standard bookkeeping practices, began to be compiled for Groves in 1984 and have grown in comprehensiveness over the years. Copies of these financial reports have been kept since that time, and are held by the Groves Treasurer. [These practices include segregating funds that are for specific purposes from the ongoing budget, which gives the board a clearer picture of what is being spent and why, author note]. It should be noted that the Groves Board of Directors enacted several fiscal modifications in 1990 in order to more carefully exercise its fiduciary responsibilities. The most important developments were (a) the creation of an annual operating budget based on projected revenues from the membership dues, interest income, and miscellaneous income; and (b) creation of the fund balance as a “snapshot” of the revenues and expenses which occur over the course of the fiscal year in the annual operating budget, the annual conference, and the next-year’s conference. These two fiscal mechanisms facilitate longitudinal tracking of changes in Groves’ fiscal “health” over time (Sibbison, 2009).

It is a fiscal assumption that the annual conferences are to be self-supporting. Hence, there are neither revenues nor expenses included in the annual operating budget for the annual conference. It is expected, however, that Groves remains the “resource of last resort” if conference expenses exceed revenue; in turn, any excess revenue from conferences is added to the Groves fund balance. As reflected in annual conference revenue and expenses since 1989, nine conferences have generated surpluses. Conversely, ten conferences suffered deficits with a net loss of $7972 (Sibbison, 2009). This loss overall is in the range of a budget for an annual meeting and has been absorbed by dues to date. Groves has been exceedingly fortunate to be the beneficiary of royalties from four publications (Macklin & Rubin, 1983; McCubbin & Figley, 1983; Figley & McCubbin, 1983; Macklin, 1989; Settles, D. Hanks, & Sussman, 1993), with the largest contribution coming from the McCubbin and Figley volumes (Sibbison, 2009). This income is Groves’ major source of stability.

As determined by the Board in 1987, the Groves fiscal year is the calendar year. Annual operating budgets have been kept since 1991. The proposed annual operating budget is prepared toward the end of the current fiscal year and presented to the Groves board at its meeting during the annual NCFR Conference. At that time the board may make modifications and then approve the annual operating budget for the next fiscal year. This is the appropriate time to propose special projects, such as the President’s retreat (Sibbison, 2009).

The fund balance is determined on January 1st of each fiscal year and is primarily affected by the surpluses or deficits generated by the annual operating budget and the yearly conferences. The fund balance does not include the Feldman and Sussman awards funds or the publications royalties fund. In 2008 the fund balance reached a new low, resulting from significant deficits (in the 2006 and 2007 annual operating budgets and significant losses from the 2003 and 2004 conferences. As a result, the 2008 board voted to increase 2009 annual dues from $60.00 to $85.00 (dues were last raised in 2000) and to create an ad hoc Development Fund Committee to explore additional avenues of funding (foundations, individual donors, etc.) for the organization and for individual conferences (Sibbison, 2009).

As mentioned earlier, the use of member surveys on issues related to commitments on conference themes, locations, and prices has been a valuable tool in avoiding high-risk ventures that did not have deep support. On occasion, the Conference has opened attendance more broadly in order to do a more challenging event, such as the conference in Yugoslavia which included both European and American scholars invited to that conference. In Costa Rica, local and regional scholars were invited to be part of the program and to attend, paying only for their additional costs. In the early days of the Conference both sponsors and a waiting list allowed conferences expenses to be met. Many expenses have been absorbed by members, departments, and organizations over the years. Finding pleasant, reasonable, and related accommodations and travel connections has been the mark of a successful conference chair. Sharing closely with the board the plans as they are developed has been essential to managing risk.

Beginning with the presidency of Roger Rubin in 1987, and in recognition of the increased fiduciary responsibilities of the Groves Board of Directors, presidential retreats have been held at the beginning of new presidential terms to plan for the subsequent three years of activity. Expenses for the president’s retreat are carried in the annual operating budget and accounted for over the three years. Retreats have been held by presidents Roger Rubin [1987, Annapolis, Maryland]; Barbara Settles [1990, Greenville, New York]; Mary Hicks [1993, Monticello, Florida]; Judith Fischer [1996, Annapolis, Maryland]; Connie Steele [1999, Asheville, North Carolina]; Roma Hanks [2002, Atlanta, Georgia]; Leslie Koepke [2005, Washington, D.C.]; Coco Readdick [2008, Hot Springs, Arkansas]; and Anisa Zvonkovic [2012, Annapolis, Maryland].

Membership and Networks

The membership process that was suggested in the 1968 reorganization was not easy to implement since it was based on continuous attendance at meetings and payment of dues. The new treasurer, Vera Mace, was able to assemble a list of the “grandfathered” long-time members which was the base line after a period of time; the fact that one conference, 1969, had been canceled meant that the attendance record could not start until the 1970 meeting. The new process required monitoring to see that annual dues were being paid and that the members were attending. The intention of the attendance requirement was that there would be some building of momentum from one conference to the next and a core of colleagues would emerge. However, this was not yet the time of computers, and Groves’ secretarial support was nil. Vera Mace was the first treasurer-membership chair in the new regime and with her husband David and Marvin Sussman organized a very successful conference in 1970 that had good attendance and provided strong momentum. In 1974 the Conference simplified dues to $25.00, dropped a sustaining rate and the husband/wife rate, and retained a student and emeritus rate of $10.00 (V. Mace, 1974). In 1973, Dr. Sussman conducted a membership analysis of the disciplines and interests of the current members and noted that sociology was the largest sector. He suggested broadening the recruitment of members. As president, Dr. Feldman’s letters to members were quite gentle in reminding Page  29them of the necessity of attending regularly. Dr. Karl King, the next treasurer-membership chair, began to receive correspondence as the new members found that they could not, in fact, attend every year (King, 1976). For a Conference centered on marriage and family to ignore the simple fact of individual, family, and work stresses was, in retrospect, rather silly.

Members did not always send their changes of addresses, and Groves would appeal to the members to help find these lost ones. Being treasurer became a huge responsibility, not only for the yearly conference but also for the continuity of the organization. All of the applications and recommendations for new members were sent to the treasurer who then consulted the board. Eventually an invitation letter was sent—often many months after the process began. As a result, the board decided to add a membership chair and committee with the goal of clarifying the membership list and speeding the process of membership selection. In 1974, Barbara H. Settles was the first membership chair in the reorganization, with a membership committee consisting of Marvin Sussman and Karl King. Dr. King estimated that there were 265 members in May, 1975. In correspondence to the co-chair of the 1976 meeting Paul Glasser, Dr. King (1975) noted “This membership list is a kind of “inside joke” in some ways because I am not certain we will ever know who the members are for 1975.” He described how the summer’s conference in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia had many invited new affiliates to make it work out financially. This international conference was quite confusing for both members and the board, who did not think that missing this expensive and specialized conference should justify dropping a member. Of course, these affiliates were all interesting family scholars and practitioners, and Dr. Sussman helped identify many who he was willing to sponsor for membership. Dr. Settles suggested three proposals to the board:

1. We move from rolling admission to twice or four times a year.
2. We ask students to write an essay on their interests in research, action, and evaluation with families upon their request for permanent membership.
Page  30
3. We engage in active recruitment, with the membership committee being asked to identify and seek out possible members.

A new protocol on membership was developed by the membership committee of Barbara H. Settles, Betty Cogswell, Karl King, Robert Ryder, and Catherine Chilman and adopted in 1976. In addition to the process of nomination and review, the president and board were allowed to issue direct invitations (Settles, 1976). When Dr. Karl King was stricken by a heart attack and died in 1977, Sharon Price was asked to serve as treasurer pro-tem and later elected to the office:

These policies had reduced Groves’ membership to 130 members. There were many discussions about the nature of the membership process. Should distinguished members of a limited-membership organization be asked to provide excuses for not coming to meetings? It seemed rather demeaning and nonproductive, especially as such a major reorganization was going on. However, the only money the group had were dues and annual conference fees, and maintaining a long mailing list of people who were no longer active made no sense.

The fact that the board met only twice a year and that the membership committee was conducting its work by regular mail also was problematic; not responding quickly enough left prospective members feeling insulted before they were asked to join. In 1980 another revised bylaws document was passed by the membership, and the criteria and processes fine-tuned. Judy Hooper, the new membership chairperson, and the board decided to admit new members once a year in December. At the request of the board and president, Charles Figley, a study of membership composition and diversity was done by David Baptiste, chair, Wilhelmina Manns, Earl Merritt, Joy Schulterbrandt, Laura Smart, and David Weis (1984, in Page  31Settles, n.d.). Their findings addressed the limited diversity of the membership and a perception that the culture of the Conference was not as open as it might be. Especially since nominations stemmed from the members’ own networks, access may have been limited.

In the years that followed the reorganization, there were many tensions around the issue of membership. The culture of the Groves Conference had always included inviting people who would be helpful on programs, and it was common that program chairs invited many new people to be resources. Members had also suggested new members and encouraged their best students to come. At least three times in the 1970s, large numbers of affiliates or guests were invited and at one point documents suggest that the board wanted those nonmembers to be limited usually to 15. The idea of the close-knit core group who continued over many years was also part of the Groves heritage.

In 1984 Marie Peters was elected membership chair. Barbara Settles wrote to congratulate her and suggest that she have a new smaller membership committee. Setting up criteria for joining and continuing membership was much easier to propose than to implement. The recruitment of new members easily became problematic as those who were willing to spend energy and reach out to potential members might also be insulted if their candidates were turned down. Just keeping membership records was an uphill struggle for membership chairs and treasurers to accomplish. In the record there are a few computer-generated documents by the early 1980s, but the files are full of ditto and mimeographed lists and letters, often with extra entries pasted in later. Frequently a letter would come back with a hand-written note written on it as the answer. Throughout the development of Groves it has been difficult to obtain an up-to-date accurate list of members’ contact information—one of the membership perks. Emphasis was put both on recruiting and retaining permanent long-term members and on bringing in new and different voices at various points. In reality the Groves dynamic involved many important people when their issues and concerns fit well into the small conference opportunities and their careers allowed attendance at a spring or summer meeting that was not organized very far in advance. Members were often active Page  32until they became major players in other national and international organizations or they launched big research or development projects. Some returned after these ventures, but it was always awkward to make this return simple. Treasurer Virginia Sibbison designed a “pay back two years” dues and return to-membership policy, which has been useful.

In the latter part of the 20th century, many other small specialized conferences also began to be developed. For example, college teachers in family studies wanted to discuss issues in changing pedagogy, technology, and family studies. Groves had some meetings that included parent, sex, and family life education—usually in the small workshops, but talk about the everyday scholarship of teaching and learning was not regularly featured. The National Council on Family Relations sections on education and on family science sponsored a summer conference. It was enthusiastically received by the attendees, but it soon became clear that the small conference became too expensive when a large, staffed agency like NCFR added its overhead. Therefore, the Family Science Association arose as a new organization to advance this agenda. This process happened in many other specialties as well—just as it had happened when Ernest Groves was active. For example, gender, sexuality, and alternative family issues had been extremely important in Groves before these areas of study became institutionalized in disciplinary organization as sections and action groups. Multidisciplinary groups like Groves have a significant challenge in holding the attention of members who have to meet disciplinary and agency standards for their careers. When such topics and research are included in the larger professional meetings, some scholars move their activities to these groups.