Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Clothing and textiles research journal 2011-reeves-de armond-216-31-2(2)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Clothing and textiles research journal 2011-reeves-de armond-216-31-2(2)


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

1 Comment
1 Like
  • Hi cheerholic, Can I ask why you posted this to slideshare? I'm one of the authors and was just curious what drew you to it.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal Research and Theory Trends in Historic Dress and Textiles Research : Genna Reeves-DeArmond, Jennifer Paff Ogle and Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 2011 29: 216 originally published online 19 August 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0887302X11417617 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: On behalf of: International Textile and Apparel Association Additional services and information for Clothing and Textiles Research Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations: >> Version of Record - Sep 22, 2011 Proof - Aug 19, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 2. Clothing & Textiles Research JournalResearch and Theory 29(3) 216-231 ª 2011 International Textile & Apparel AssociationTrends in Historic Reprints and permission: and Textiles DOI: 10.1177/0887302X11417617 http://ctrj.sagepub.comResearch: An Analysisof Clothing andTextiles ResearchJournal and DressGenna Reeves-DeArmond1, Jennifer Paff Ogle2, andKenneth R. Tremblay, Jr.2AbstractHistoric dress and textiles (HDT) has been a prominent research subject during the 20th century buthas not been examined via a focused journal analysis. Thus, HDT research and theory trends wereexplored by analyzing 306 articles published in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (CTRJ) from1982-2006 and Dress from 1975-2006. A content analysis approach was adopted to examine thefollowing: quantity of HDT articles, single-multiple authorship, author affiliation, funding sources,research topic (including geography and time period), research method, and use of theory. Thetopics studied most often in CTRJ were apparel construction/production and research issues(19.5% each), and in Dress, social/psychological aspects of dress (18.3%). Most research articles(87.0%) used qualitative data to address research questions. The most frequently used researchmethod in both journals was the social/cultural history-based approach. The majority of researcharticles (86%) did not articulate a specific or ‘‘named’’ theory. The findings yield valuable insightsinto the body of HDT research published within two key journals of the clothing and textiles field,including areas of strength related to topics of study and the suggestion that an open dialogueregarding theory development be continued.Keywordshistoric dress, historic textiles, CTRJ, dress, research trends, journal analysis, theory1 Department of Design and Human Environment, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA2 Department of Design & Merchandising, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USACorresponding Author:Genna Reeves-DeArmond, Department of Design and Human Environment, 037 Milam Hall, Oregon State University, 97333Corvallis, OR 97333, USAEmail: Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 3. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 217One of the long-standing subdisciplines within the broader clothing and textiles (CT) discipline ishistoric dress and textiles (HDT), established as a subject matter area in the early 20th century (Pao-letti, 1984). HDT seeks understanding of the past and can offer insights into present and futuretrends. Through the study of HDT, one can gain understanding of collective values associated witha given cultural moment, the technological and economic patterns associated with that point in timeand space, and the varied experiences of individuals who lived in that moment and who interactedwith those objects (Paoletti, 1984). This understanding can contribute to both the CT and the historydisciplines. Relatively little is known about the body of knowledge accumulated and disseminated by CTscholars working in the HDT area. One avenue for gaining understanding about the knowledge thatconstitutes a discipline is an analysis of its academic journals. Such an analysis can reveal trendsabout the research in a field, including trends about the topics examined, the research methodsemployed, if and how theory has been used, and if and by whom the research has been funded(Chowdhary & Meacham, 1983–1984; Johnson, Yoo, Kim, & Lennon, 2008; Kang, 2009; Lennon& Burns, 2000; Lennon, Johnson, & Park, 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991; Paoletti, 1982). Theexamination of research methods used within a field may be especially telling, as research methodsinform the type of data collected, the possible analyses that can be conducted, and the implicationsthat can be drawn (Lennon et al., 2001; Paoletti, 1982). Beyond yielding insights into the past tra-jectory of a field’s knowledge, journal analyses can identify gaps in a body of knowledge and, assuch, can highlight future directions for research and graduate education (Lennon et al., 2001; Pao-letti, 1984). Although CT researchers have analyzed the field’s key journals, including Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal (CTRJ), Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences (JFCS), and Family and Con-sumer Sciences Research Journal (FCSRJ), none of these inquiries has focused specifically on theHDT subdiscipline. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze trends in HDT research articlespublished within CTRJ and Dress from the inception of each journal (1982 and 1975, respectively)through the end of 2006 with regard to the following issues: (a) quantity of HDT articles published,(b) authorship affiliation and source of funding, (c) research topics explored, (d) research methodsused, and (e) use of theory. Of interest were changes in trends across the time periods analyzed andsimilarities and differences between the two journals. CTRJ and Dress were identified as suitable journals to analyze because they have rich histories aspublication outlets for scholars of HDT. CTRJ, the official publication of the International Textileand Apparel Association (ITAA), strives to strengthen the research base in CT, facilitate scholarlyinterchange, demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of the field, and inspire further research (SagePublications Online, 2006, { 1). Dress, which is published by the Costume Society of America(CSA), publishes papers that describe and place dress in cultural or historical context (CostumeSociety of America [CSA], 2004, { 1).Literature ReviewHDT Trends Identified in Previous Journal AnalysesThe publication of HDT research began in home economics journals (Lennon et al., 2001), and find-ings from analyses of these journals provide insights relative to the prevalence of HDT scholarshipwithin the home economics and CT disciplines. Chowdhary and Meacham (1983–1984) analyzedCT articles published within the Journal of Home Economics (1911–1980) and Home EconomicsResearch Journal (1972–1980) and found that HDT has had a growing presence in the CT field sincethe 1950s. Findings indicated that HDT placed third in a ranking of subject matter areas by totalnumber of articles published since 1911, accounting for 10% of CT research articles. In a more Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 4. 218 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)recent analysis of JFCS, FCSRJ, and CTRJ, Lennon et al. (2001) found that HDT was the fifth mostprevalent topic of CT research among articles published from 1980 to 1999 (out of 10 topics),accounting for about 9% of all CT research.Methods Used in HDT ResearchResearch in HDT aims to create accounts of people, developments, and events of the past in an effortto create a foundation of knowledge for the future. Although HDT research has customarily madeuse of interpretive approaches that rely upon the analysis of qualitative data, in recent years, HDTscholars have begun to apply statistical approaches to analyze qualitative data and/or to collect andanalyze quantitative data (e.g., physical testing of artifact properties, measurement of structural fea-tures of artifacts; Lennon & Burns, 2000). Varied methodological approaches are invoked to analyzethese forms of data and are briefly described below. Taylor (2002) describes the artifact-based approach as research undertaken with the aim of iden-tifying, conserving, and interpreting HDT artifacts for the purposes of display or exhibition, primar-ily within a museum context. A common criticism of artifact-based approaches is that theirinordinate focus upon the precise analysis of the objects at hand is undertaken at the expense of aconsideration for the ‘‘lifestyles, beliefs, work, or personal interests of the wearers whose clothesare under discussion’’ (Taylor, 2002, p. 50). The historical approach (and the closely allied material culture approach [Prown, 1982]) is rootedin the humanities and casts its focus beyond the physical description of artifacts. HDT researchundertaken in this tradition is often framed around open-ended questions rather than a priori hypoth-eses (Farrell-Beck, 1998). In seeking to answer these questions, scholars locate evidence in the formof primary sources, evaluate the authenticity and credibility of each source, synthesize the informa-tion collected, and create an interpretation of the data that explains some aspect of past human expe-rience. This process includes both objectivity and imagination and often concludes with thedevelopment of arguments formulated as ‘‘theses.’’ Thus, although HDT research in this traditionmay not begin with a hypothesis, it may end with one, of sorts: the historical approach often ‘‘gen-erates a hypothesis [which historians prefer to call a thesis or argument] from the data, rather thantesting a fixed hypothesis’’ (Gunn, 1991, p. 143). Related to the traditional historical approach is a multidisciplinary approach Taylor (2002)describes as the social/cultural history-based approach. Work invoking this approach has underpin-nings in critical and cultural studies (e.g., consumption history, ethnography, feminism, semiotics)and uses primary source evidence to consider meanings of HDT as cultural constructions reflectiveof collective and individual attitudes, values, and identities. The oral history approach draws upon in-depth interviews to capture people’s recollections oflived experiences in previous historic eras (Bornat, 1998; Taylor, 2002). The interviews conductedform narratives that are interpreted in accord with what is already known about the time period,allowing for further development of social context. Because dress is such a significant part of every-day life—and thus, is likely a part of our most fundamental memories—the oral history approach iswell suited to HDT inquiries (Taylor, 2002). Content analysis involves the study of units of communication (i.e., signs and symbols) as theyrelate to an overall message (Holsti, 1969). Content analysis can be applied to either verbal (oral orwritten) or mute (unwritten) sources. When content analysis is applied to mute data, it is sometimesreferred to as ‘‘visual analysis’’ (Skjelver, 1971). Although content analysis is sometimes used torefer to the collection and analysis of qualitative data, some researchers (e.g., Paoletti, 1982) suggestthat content analysis must involve quantification of data. Seriation is a variation of the content anal-ysis approach that involves recording the frequency and lifespan of a certain trait or object itself, in achronological manner (Turnbaugh, 1979). Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 5. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 219The Use of Theory in HDT ResearchHistorically, theory has sometimes been perceived to be ‘‘at odds’’ with the intrinsic nature and pri-mary aims of HDT research. This sentiment is aptly reflected in Farrell-Beck’s 1998 observation thatbecause ‘‘particularism is inherent in history writing,’’ the sorts of abstract, theoretical generaliza-tions that may work well in other fields ‘‘often fail in history’’ (p. 5). In recent years, however, HDTscholars have reevaluated the potential value of theory to HDT research, recognizing that that thereare varied, legitimate ways of using theory to enrich HDT scholarship (see Pedersen, 2007; Peder-sen, Buckland, & Bates, 2008–2009). Perhaps the most common way in which theory has been utilized within HDT research is throughthe development of what Pedersen has called ‘‘unnamed mini theories’’ (2007; Pedersen et al.,2008–2009). Here, researchers begin with a research question and inductively develop relationalstatements or arguments that link concepts as a means by which to explain and interpret a given topicin dress or textile history. In turn, these relational statements form the basis for theory development(Pedersen, 2007; Pedersen et al., 2008–2009). According to Pedersen (2007), unnamed mini theoriesserve the same functions as named theories (e.g., description, explanation, prediction), but often gooverlooked due to the training that scholars receive to recognize and use ‘‘named’’ theories. None-theless, she maintains that developing unnamed mini theories can advance the HDT discipline by (a)answering important ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘so what’’ questions and (b) laying a foundation for the eventualdevelopment of named theories. HDT researchers also draw upon ‘‘named theories’’ to inform their understanding of a historicalevent, person, or artifact. This is not to say that HDT scholars begin their research with the aim ofdeductively testing an existing theory. Rather, HDT researchers ‘‘adduce’’ answers to their researchquestions by drawing upon existing theory as evidence to support their interpretations of their data(Pedersen et al., 2008–2009). Such an approach can advance theory development (e.g., if data sug-gest a modification to a theory) and establish connections between HDT research and that underta-ken in other disciplines (Pedersen et al., 2008–2009). Damhorst (1991) has developed a classification system for assessing the theoretical contribution ofindividual research efforts and for charting the scientific progression of a field of inquiry. Althoughnot developed for specific application to HDT research, components of Damhorst’s classification sys-tem can be useful in illuminating the specified theoretical contributions of individual HDT articles thatinvoke named theories in their interpretations. Specifically, Damhorst proposes that researchers mayuse named theories in the following ways, which reflect ‘‘incremental, although not necessarily equiv-alent, increases in level of progress in the process of scientific inquiry’’: (a) application of existingtheories from related disciplines, (b) development of existing theories, and (c) development of newtheories of dress (1991, p. 192). These various uses and applications of theory parallel the practicesadopted by HDT researchers who apply or generate named theory in their work.Research QuestionsAlthough previous analyses of home economics and CT journals have provided some insights intothe prevalence of HDT scholarship published within the CT discipline during the 20th century(Chowdhary & Meacham, 1983–1984; Lennon et al., 2001), many questions remain relative totrends in research and theory within HDT scholarship and published within CTRJ and Dress. Forinstance, to date, researchers have not yet explored author affiliations, research funding sources,HDT topics explored, research methods used, and if and how theory has been used within HDT scho-larship. Thus, the present content analysis drew upon both quantitative and qualitative data toaddress the following research questions: How has the quantity of HDT articles published in CTRJand Dress changed from1982 to 2006 (CTRJ) and from 1975 to 2006 (Dress)? What have been the Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 6. 220 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)affiliations and funding sources of authors publishing HDT articles in CTRJ and Dress? What HDTtopics have been examined within research articles published in CTRJ and Dress from the inceptionof each journal through 2006? What research methods have been employed to analyze HDT topics inresearch articles published in CTRJ and Dress? How has theory been used within HDT research arti-cles published in CTRJ and Dress?MethodThe sample consisted of issues of CTRJ and Dress published from inception (1982 and 1975, respec-tively) through 2006, when data collection for the study began. The following types of journal contentwere included in the sample: full-length research reports, short research reports, and grant reports (i.e.,short reports of research supported by grants awarded by CSA). Book and exhibition reviews were notincluded. Given the purpose of this study, only HDT content was analyzed. HDT content was concep-tualized to include work focused upon issues germane to dress and textiles artifacts that are referencedin a past or historical context. To determine if a given journal article met this criterion, the article titleand abstract were read. If, after reading the title and abstract, there was uncertainty about the inclusionof an article in the sample, a reading of the full article text was conducted. A coding guide was developed to record observations about each article identified for inclusion inthe sample. The coding guide included both forced-choice categories developed prior to data collec-tion as well as open-ended items that allowed for the collection of qualitative data. Coding categoriesand processes for each major variable are described below. Quantity of published HDT articles. For each journal issue, two observations were recorded: (a) the total number of articles dedicated to HDT-related content and (b) the total number of arti- cles included within the journal issue. Authorship affiliation and funding. Author affiliation was coded as land-grant university, public (nonland-grant) university, living history/public history venue, international university, art gallery/museum, independent scholar, museum, community college, private college or univer- sity, historical society, or no affiliation stated. In most cases, information about author affilia- tion was determined by author byline. When this was not possible, a search of the CSA or ITAA directories (dated as close to the publication of the article as was possible) and/or a web search were undertaken. Authorship (single vs. multiple) also was recorded. Following the work of Lennon et al. (2001), if a funding source was indicated, it was coded as internal, exter- nal, or both. If no source of funding was reported, this was recorded, as well. Topics of study. An open-ended approach was used to collect data regarding the subject matter/ general topic addressed within each research study included in the sample. Detailed notes were compiled regarding the general topic of each study as well as the geographic region and time period addressed within the work, if appropriate. These notes were analyzed for meaning and were developed into coding categories. Final coding decisions regarding the topic of the study were based upon the purpose of the study and the identification of keywords in the text. Research methods. Each article was coded as empirical or nonempirical, and articles reporting empirical findings were coded for research methods used. When possible, coding decisions were made based upon terminology used by authors to describe research methods. If no research method was stated, the researchers inferred the method through an evaluation of the purpose/focus of the work, the data collection and analysis processes described or implied, the types of evidence identified and sources cited, and the conclusions drawn. Empirical articles were classified as qua- litative, quantitative, and/or mixed. Articles reporting qualitative research were coded using the following categories: artifact-based approach, historical/material culture approach, social/cul- tural history-based approach, oral history approach, content analysis, visual analysis, and other. Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 7. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 221 Articles reporting quantitative research were coded using the following categories: physical test- ing of artifact properties, measurement of artifact structural features, content analysis, visual anal- ysis, seriation, and other. Use of multiple methods also was recorded. Use of theory. The use of theory was coded based upon the presence or absence of a named theory or theoretical framework that was used, stated, or generated. If a named theory was used or generated, the name of the theory as well as a brief description of its use was recorded. Its level of use also was recorded using the following categories based upon Damhorst’s (1991) clas- sification system for theory development: (a) application of existing theory from related dis- cipline; (b) development of existing theory from related discipline; or (c) development of new theory. A review of the sampled articles revealed that existing theory unique to the CT field also was being applied; thus, a fourth category was added: application of existing theory from the CT field. The presence of unnamed (mini) theories also was recorded. For each article in which an unnamed mini theory was developed, notes were recorded relative to the arguments made. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The data were organized into 5-yearintervals to simplify interpretation and to note changes over time. For CTRJ, the time periods were asfollows: no first time period (so CTRJ time periods 2–6 would approximate the years used for theDress time intervals, 2–6), Time 2 (1982–1986), Time 3 (1987–1991), Time 4 (1992–1996), Time5 (1997–2001), and Time 6 (2002–2006). For Dress, the time periods were as follows: Time 1(1975–1980), Time 2 (1981–1985), Time 3 (1986–1990), Time 4 (1991–1995), Time 5 (1996–2000), and Time 6 (2001–2006). Due to sparse frequency counts in many of time periods, chi-square analyses were not appropriate for comparisons between the two journals. Constant comparison was used to analyze the qualitative data related to topics of study andunnamed theory. Concepts emerging from the data were compared against one another. Similar con-cepts were collapsed into higher order, more abstract categories, which were labeled to representemergent themes/categories. Then, these categories were used for coding purposes. To increase trustworthiness and dependability of the data collection and analysis, the researchersmet throughout the coding process. An audit coder checked the identification of articles for inclusionwithin the sample and application of the coding guide to a random sample of the data. In both cases,an interrater reliability coefficient was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by thetotal number of decisions made. The interrater reliability coefficient for both identification of rele-vant articles and the application of the coding guide was 98%. Because the coefficients were so high,the audit process was suspended after the audit coder checked 10% of the initial decisions. Disagree-ments in decision making were negotiated via dialogue among the audit coder and the researchers.Results and DiscussionQuantity of Published HDT ArticlesA total of 306 research articles were identified for coding, including 82 articles from CTRJ and 224articles from Dress. An average of 1.2 articles per issue was devoted to HDT-related content inCTRJ, representing 13.0% of the CTRJ articles published. A total of 31 issues of CTRJ (36.0% ofthose analyzed) did not contain any HDT-related content. All issues of Dress contained 100%HDT-related content, with an average of 6.8 articles per issue. Change over time in the quantityof articles published in CTRJ and Dress is summarized in Table 1. The quantity of HDT-related articles published over time in CTRJ experienced a sudden increasefrom the second (1982–1986) to the third time period (1987–1991) and in the fourth time period(1992–1996). The increase in the fourth time period reflects the publication of a special issue related Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 8. 222 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)Table 1. Quantity of Articles Published, Author Affiliations, Authorship, and Funding Sources for HDT-RelatedContent Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by 5-Year Time Periods CTRJ DressTime Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6Quantity of articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 34 41Author affiliation Land-Grant University NA 9 19 25 14 15 8 12 34 18 11 16 Public University NA 1 3 9 7 14 4 8 15 2 4 12 Independent Scholar NA 1 2 0 5 2 3 2 7 2 1 5 Private University NA 0 2 2 0 1 5 5 0 3 7 6 International University NA 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 1 7 3 1 Museum NA 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 6 4 4Authorship Single NA 4 8 14 8 5 32 34 31 27 29 31 Multiple NA 3 9 13 7 11 2 4 13 7 5 10Funding source Funding source reported NA 1 2 10 5 6 0 2 6 7 10 11 Internal funding NA 1 1 1 2 4 0 1 2 2 2 1 External funding NA 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 4 4 6 9 Internal/external funding NA 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 1No funding source reported NA 6 15 17 10 10 34 36 38 27 23 30to HDT. After the fourth time period, the quantity of HDT articles included in CTRJ returned to whatwas established as a consistent distribution in the third time period. Thus, aside from the specialissue published in 1992, the quantity of HDT articles published in CTRJ maintained an overall con-sistent frequency from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s. The quantity of HDT articles published overtime in Dress maintained a consistent frequency until 1986–1990 (Time Period 3), when the fre-quency underwent a sudden increase. This increase can be attributed to the fact that two volumesof Dress (16 and 17) were published in 1990 (this was the only year in the sample in which twovolumes of the journal were published).Authorship and Funding SourcesAs displayed in Table 1, the majority of HDT-related articles in CTRJ and Dress were authored byindividuals who cited an affiliation with a higher education institution (75.9%), including a high fre-quency of affiliation with land-grant universities (fCTRJ ¼ 82, fDress ¼ 99) and public universities(fCTRJ ¼ 34, fDress ¼ 45). These findings confirm those from previous work indicating that the major-ity of authors publishing CT scholarship have been associated with land-grant institutions (Hutton,1984; Kang, 2009; Lennon et al., 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991) and likely reflect the reality thatfor many faculty members affiliated with land-grant and public universities, publishing in peer-reviewed journals constitutes a basic job requirement. Further, and consistent with expectations,authors who published in Dress were more likely than were those who published in CTRJ to be inde-pendent scholars (fCTRJ ¼ 10, fDress ¼ 20) and to cite an affiliation with applied institutions or venues(e.g., museums or historical societies; fCTRJ ¼ 1, fDress ¼ 20). This may be explained in part by thefact that, compared to the membership of ITAA, which publishes CTRJ and comprises primarilyfaculty and graduate students with CT backgrounds, the membership of CSA is somewhat morediverse, comprising academics as well as historians, museum professionals, owners of HDT busi-nesses, and independent scholars who study HDT topics (CSA, 2006). For independent scholars Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 9. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 223or museum professionals, publishing a research article in a peer-reviewed journal may be considereda noteworthy professional achievement, but it likely does not constitute a job requirement. As presented in Table 1, analyses revealed that single and multiple authorship articles were pub-lished within CTRJ in relatively similar frequencies (47.6% single authorship vs. 52.4% multipleauthorship) for the first five time periods, with an increase in collaborative works in Time Period 6.This increase in multiple author works may reflect a recent recognition within academia of the valueof collaborative research (Wray, 2002). The majority of articles published within Dress (81.7%) werepublished by single authors, perhaps reflecting the more diverse authorship of this journal and/or apublishing culture that does not value collaboration to the same extent as does the academy. Funding sources were identified in 19.6% of the articles analyzed (f ¼ 60); 29.3% of the articlesfrom CTRJ (f ¼ 24) and 16.1% of the articles from Dress (f ¼ 36). The most frequently cited sourceof support differed in the two journals; internal funding in CTRJ (37.5%, f ¼ 9) and external fundingin Dress (66.7%, f ¼ 24). These findings are, in part, consistent with those of previous studies (Hut-ton, 1984; Kang, 2009; Lennon et al., 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991) suggesting that internal fund-ing sources are the most common source of financial support for research projects undertaken in theCT area. Within CTRJ, 20 different sources of external funding were identified. Only one source, however,was cited more than one time, the Bata Shoe Museum (f ¼ 2), suggesting that HDT scholars publish-ing with CTRJ look to a wide range of sources to fund their work. Within Dress, a total of 25 uniquesources of external funding were noted. Five sources were cited more than one time: CSA StellaBlum Research Grants (f ¼ 14), the Smithsonian Institution (f ¼ 3), Canadian Council Grants(f ¼ 3), the National Endowment for the Humanities (f ¼ 2), and the Royal Ontario Museum(f ¼ 2). Interestingly, of the most commonly cited sources across both journals, three were Canadian. In terms of trends in funding sources over time, CTRJ and Dress exhibited somewhat differentpatterns. The frequency of reported funding sources in CTRJ underwent a peak in the time periodof 1992–1996. This surge occurred in the midst of an otherwise gradual and consistent frequencyincrease, perhaps owing in part to the special issue related to HDT published in 1992 (of the 10 arti-cles in which a funding source was reported for Time Period 4, 5 were included in the special issue).In contrast, within Dress, the frequency of reported funding sources increased steadily over time.Compared to previous analyses of published CT research (Hutton, 1984; Kang, 2009; Lennonet al., 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991), however, the present findings suggest that relatively fewerarticles included within the present sample identified a source of funding (based upon a comparisonof percentages of total articles identifying a funding source). Although it is possible that articleswithout an identified source of funding were funded by sources that were not acknowledged by theirauthors, it also may be that these studies were simply not supported by funding. Thus, the researchersencourage HDT authors to consistently acknowledge their funding sources (which is now requiredby CTRJ) and propose that faculty and graduate students working in the HDT area would benefitfrom the continual development of their grant writing skills (cf. Lennon et al., 2001).Topics of StudyA unique component of the present study was that it employed an open-ended, qualitative approachto inductively identify topic of study categories represented within the HDT literature. Many of thecategories identified did not differ greatly in content from previously defined topic of study cate-gories established in the broader CT field, such as aesthetics/design, construction/production, andsocial/psychological aspects (Chowdhary & Meacham, 1983–1984; Lennon et al., 2001). However,analyses did reveal some topics not identified in previous analyses of the broader CT literature (e.g.,conservation and preservation, reproduction of HDT, garment function and use, the relationship Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 10. 224 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)Table 2. Topics of Study Explored in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by5-Year Time Periods CTRJ DressTime Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6Topics of StudyConstruction/production NA 2 1 9 0 4 2 5 3 3 2 4Researcha NA 4 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 7 9Cultural aspectsb NA 0 1 5 1 3 3 5 4 7 4 2Styles/aesthetics/design NA 1 2 1 3 2 2 7 7 4 3 3Social/psychological aspects NA 0 0 1 4 1 5 5 8 8 6 9Relationship between dress and mass fashion NA 0 4 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Reproduction of HDT NA 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0Retail/promotion/consumption NA 0 0 2 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 4Conservation/preservation NA 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 1Garment function/use NA 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 9 3 3 6Total articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41Note. In some cases, the frequency counts for the topics studied do not sum to the total number of articles published for timeperiod because only the most commonly observed topics are included in the table.a Articles focused upon ‘‘research’’ addressed the development and/or appropriate application of research methods within theHDT subdiscipline. bAlthough it could be argued that cultural aspects are inherent to many HDT topics, for the purposes ofour analyses, ‘‘cultural aspects’’ was conceptualized to include HDT articles that addressed cross-cultural comparisons or thatinvoked an ethnographic approach.Definition of the topic of study categories is available from the first author.between dress and mass fashion, research), which may reflect the specialized and applied nature ofthe HDT subdiscipline. Among the CTRJ articles analyzed, the topics studied most often were (historic) apparel construc-tion/production and research (19.5% each), followed by cultural aspects (12.2%) and styles/aes-thetics/design (11.0%). The topic studied most often in Dress was social/psychological aspects ofdress (18.3%), which is consistent with prior journal analyses of research within the general CT dis-cipline (Lennon et al., 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991). The next most frequently studied topics inDress were styles/aesthetics/design and garment function/use (11.6% each) and cultural aspects andresearch (11.2% each; see Table 2). With regard to CTRJ, a comparison across time periods revealed that research was the only topicof study that maintained a consistently high frequency over time, whereas construction and produc-tion exhibited the greatest fluctuation. With regard to Dress, research experienced an increase in fre-quency over time. This consistent and/or increasing attention dedicated to research reflects ongoingengagement among researchers with new and diverse approaches to the exploration of HDT topics.A number of articles with a focus on the social and psychological aspects of dress; retail, promotion,and consumption; styles, aesthetics, and design; and construction and production maintained a rel-atively consistent frequency over time. Dress exhibited fluctuations in the topics of garment functionand use as well as cultural aspects related to dress. That Dress exhibited a decrease in conservationand preservation topics around Time Period 4 may reflect that, during this time, several specializedconservation journals were established (e.g., Studies in Conservation, V&A Conservation Journal),(International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, n.d.; Victoria and AlbertMuseum, n.d.), offering HDT conservators alternative publication venues. Analyses also examined geographic regions and time periods that have been studied within HDTscholarship published in CTRJ and Dress. The geographic region most often studied in CTRJ andDress was North America (fCTRJ ¼ 55, fDress ¼ 142) and, specifically, the United States (fCTRJ ¼ Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 11. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 22554, fDress ¼ 132). Research inquiries related to North America were followed by those examiningEurope (fCTRJ ¼ 12, fDress ¼ 20), Asia (fCTRJ ¼ 9, fDress ¼ 7), and Africa (fCTRJ ¼ 1, fDress ¼ 5). ThatCTRJ and Dress exhibited a strong trend toward the publication of research focused upon the UnitedStates is perhaps not terribly surprising, given that these journals are published by professional orga-nizations whose members are largely from the United States. For such scholars, studying foreigncollections may involve financial resources for travel (and time, which may necessitate a coursebuyout) that are only possible within the context of grant support. As noted, however, much of theresearch published in the HDT may not be supported by grant monies. Also, because the UnitedStates typically has not encouraged second language studies, historic studies focusing upon areasoutside English language or Western European languages may be less typical. Nonetheless, thepotentially ethnocentric trend of publishing studies that emphasize geographic regions within NorthAmerica may be a call for future researchers to expand their ‘‘locus of focus’’ to include the HDT ofgeographic areas that have been given little attention to date. That ITAA is an international organi-zation makes this argument all the more compelling. The time period most often studied in CTRJ was the 19th century (f ¼ 21), followed by the 20thcentury (f ¼ 18), and a combination of the 19th and 20th centuries (f ¼ 16). The time period mostoften studied in Dress was the 20th century (f ¼ 56), followed by the 19th century (f ¼ 52), and acombination of the 19th and 20th centuries (f ¼ 48). The trend of examining more recent time peri-ods may reflect a greater availability of data sources with which to work, given that HDT scholarsoften study extant artifacts. No change over time analyses were conducted for the geographic regionor time period data. This was due to the highly particularistic nature of the data, which gave rise to acomplexity in making comparisons among the various time periods (i.e., the same time periods andgeographic regions were not consistently studied across the time periods examined, making compar-isons across time difficult).Research MethodsEmpirical research articles accounted for 95.4% (f ¼ 292) of the total coded articles. Eighty-sevenpercent of the empirical articles analyzed—including 65.8% of the articles published in CTRJ and94.4% of those published in Dress—invoked exclusively qualitative data to address their researchaims. Of the articles identified as empirical, 6.5%—including 22.4% of the articles in CTRJ and0.9% of those in Dress—employed exclusively quantitative data to address the research questionsposed. Several empirical articles—30.3% of those in CTRJ and 21.3% of those in Dress—describedresearch that made use of more than one method, thereby suggesting that scholars are using a trian-gulation of methods to address their research questions (see Table 3). The most frequently used research method in CTRJ was the social/cultural history-basedapproach (31.7%), followed by a qualitative approach to content analysis (9.9%), and a quantitativeapproach to visual analysis (9.9%). The most frequently used research method in Dress was thesocial/cultural history-based approach (36.9%), followed by the historical approach (23.1%) anda qualitative approach to visual analysis (16.8%; see Table 3). That the historic method was morecommonly used within Dress as compared to CTRJ likely reflects the respective academic roots andtraditions of Dress and CTRJ (i.e., history vs. home economics and the social and natural sciences,respectively). Beyond this difference, findings revealed the tendency for scholars publishing in bothjournals to adopt approaches (such as the social/cultural history-based approach) that move beyondthe ‘‘description-focused’’ artifact-based approach. That the social/cultural history-based approachwas the most common across the two journals is perhaps not surprising, given the trend toward mul-tidisciplinary approaches in CT research and the focus upon social psychological topics within Dress(see Table 2). Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 12. 226 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)Table 3. Research Methods Used in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by5-Year Time Periods CTRJ DressTime Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6Empirical NA 4 15 27 14 16 33 37 43 33 30 40Nonempirical NA 3 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1Qualitative NA 2 6 19 10 13 31 34 39 32 28 40 Content analysis NA 1 4 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 2 1 Visual analysis NA 1 1 3 0 4 4 5 10 6 5 15 Artifact-based approach NA 0 1 3 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 0 Oral history NA 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 5 0 1 Social/cultural history-based approach NA 0 5 12 8 7 12 21 12 15 14 25 Historical approach NA 1 0 4 1 3 13 7 15 12 10 5 Other NA 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 2Quantitative NA 2 5 6 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Content analysis NA 1 5 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 Visual analysis NA 1 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Physical testing of artifacts NA 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Measurement of characteristics NA 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Other NA 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0Multiple methods NA 1 4 9 4 5 5 10 9 10 5 7 Qualitative NA 1 0 4 2 3 4 7 5 9 3 7 Quantitative NA 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Mixed NA 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 0Total articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41Note. ‘‘Qualitative’’ and ‘‘quantitative’’ coding categories reflect the number of articles in which these types of data were ana-lyzed exclusively and included articles using single as well as multiple methodological approaches. As such, there is some over-lap between these coding categories and (a) the multiple methods category, (b) the ‘‘qualitative’’ subcategory for multiplemethods, and (c) the ‘‘quantitative’’ subcategory for multiple methods. An analysis of trends over time did not provide support for a trend toward increasing use of(exclusively) quantitative data to address HDT research questions (cf., Lennon & Burns, 2000), par-ticularly among researchers publishing in Dress. Findings do, however, suggest a trend toward thecombination of multiple methods in HDT work; common combinations of methods included a qua-litative and quantitative approach to content analysis and a qualitative and quantitative approach tovisual analysis. Content analysis and visual analysis also were used together frequently as were aqualitative approach to visual analysis and the social/cultural history-based approach. Also of noteis the consistent application over time of visual analysis approaches by authors publishing withinDress.Use of TheoryAs displayed in Table 4, the majority of the research articles analyzed (85.9%) did not identify orarticulate a specific or ‘‘named’’ theory, which supports findings from analyses of research pub-lished within the broader CT discipline as well as within the dress and human behavior area ofCT (Johnson et al., 2008; Lennon et al., 2001). However, even in articles in which named theorywas not present (81.7% of the articles in CTRJ and 87.5% of the articles in Dress), there was evi-dence of what Pedersen (2007) has referred to as unnamed theory (see Table 4). In such cases,authors developed theses or arguments in narrative format through the telling of a story about a his-torical event, a person’s life, an artifact, a research method, or an educational approach. These Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 13. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 227Table 4. Use of Theory in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by 5-YearTime Periods CTRJ DressTime Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6Named theory use NA 0 4 2 6 3 3 10 1 8 2 4Applied existing theory from related discipline NA 0 1 2 2 2 1 11 0 4 2 4Applied existing theory from CT field NA 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 1Developed existing theory NA 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 1Developed new theory NA 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Unnamed theory development NA 7 13 25 9 13 31 28 43 26 31 37Number of articles using multiple theories NA 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1Total number of articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41Note. In some cases, frequency counts for the ‘‘Named Theory Use’’ columns exceed the total number of articles in whichnamed theories were used because some articles included more than one named theory.arguments often took the form of relational statements that proposed linkages between variousevents and/or justifications for the use of a given research method or educational approach, andas such, embodied characteristics commonly associated with the functions of theory (e.g., descrip-tion and explanation). Thus, these unnamed theories answered ‘‘how,’’ ‘‘why,’’ and ‘‘so what’’ ques-tions, providing the foundation for future theory development within HDT (cf. Pedersen, 2007;Pedersen et al., 2008–2009). For example, in her article on maternity dress of the 18th century,Baumgarten (1996) suggests that few maternity gowns of this era survived because clothing wornduring pregnancy was either adapted for pregnancy without modification, was altered for use afterpregnancy, or was rarely saved owing to the precarious nature of childbirth. Insomuch as Baumgarten’sargument provides an explanation of why something occurred, it constitutes an unnamed theory and sug-gests implications for future theory development relative to the role of historical, economic, and socialfactors in shaping decisions about why people reuse, repurpose, or preserve dress. In 14.1% of the articles analyzed (18.3% of the HDT articles published in CTRJ and 12.5% of thearticles published in Dress), researchers invoked a named theory to guide their work. That the use ofnamed theory was slightly more common within CTRJ (as compared to Dress) may reflect theexpectation held by some within the broader CT discipline that the advancement of the field isincumbent upon researchers’ engagement in theory development (Damhorst, 1991; Hutton, 1991).Conversely, within the HDT subdiscipline, no such directive has been made, and in fact, some HDTscholars have argued for a more flexible conception of ‘‘theory development’’ (e.g., Pedersen, 2007)than exists in the broader CT discipline and/or have questioned the fit of theorizing (which aims togeneralize) with the goals of HDT research (which aims to specify particulars; Farrell-Beck, 1998). A total of 47 named theories were identified within the data set: 14 in CTRJ and 33 in Dress. Ofthese theories, only five were used more than once across the articles analyzed: cultural authentica-tion (fCTRJ ¼ 4, nDress ¼ 2; Eicher & Erekosima, 1980), symbolic interaction theory of fashion (fCTRJ¼ 3; Kaiser, Nagasawa, & Hutton, 1995), the theoretical framework for inference of cultural contextfrom archaeological textile remains (fCTRJ ¼ 2; Sibley & Jakes, 1989), trickle-down theory (fDress ¼2; Simmel, 1904), and the theory of decorum (fDress ¼ 2; Hogarth, 1753/1997). Of interest is thatwith the exception of Cunningham’s (1981, 1984) application of the theory of decorum, each of theaforementioned uses of theory represents the work of a different author or group of authors, suggest-ing perhaps, that individual HDT scholars have not been particularly programmatic in their theore-tical undertakings. In addition to considering which theories were used within the research articles analyzed, it isinformative to consider how named theory has been used within HDT research. Two new named Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 14. 228 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)theories were developed within the articles analyzed: (a) Hillestad’s (1980) theory about the under-lying structure of appearance and (b) Sibley’s and Jakes’ (1989) theory for inferring cultural contextfrom textile remains. For the most part, however, authors used or applied existing theories they bor-rowed from related disciplines—such as anthropology, art, sociology, and psychology—or from thebroader CT discipline. That HDT scholars have frequently borrowed existing theory from allied dis-ciplines likely reflects the applied and multidisciplinary nature of the HDT enterprise and is consis-tent with findings from previous analyses of theory usage within other specific areas of CT inquiry(e.g., social cognition; Damhorst, 1991). Most commonly, authors using borrowed or existing theoryin their work did not further refine or modify the theory, but instead, applied the theory ‘‘as is’’ to theHDT topic at hand. In fewer cases, authors suggested modifications or revisions to the theory,thereby ‘‘[giving] it back to the field . . . in an advanced form’’ (Damhorst, 1991, p. 194; see Table4). For instance, authors (e.g., Arthur, 1997) have refined Eicher’s and Erekosima’s theory of cul-tural authentication (1980), further developing its terminology and broadening the contexts to whichit can be applied. Comparing across the time periods, none of the CTRJ articles published between 1982 and 1986invoked a named theoretical perspective (see Table 4). During this time period (Time 2), authorsmade greater use of unnamed approaches to theory (e.g., introduction of new method(s) in the con-text of HDT scholarship [e.g., Paoletti, 1982], explanation of changes in the function, form, and/oruse of HDT over time [e.g., Farrell-Beck, Haviland, & Harding, 1986; Richards, 1983], and com-mentary regarding the future of the subdiscipline [Paoletti, 1984]). This is perhaps not surprising,given that dialogue relative to the value of using named theory to guide CT research was only emer-ging within the field in the mid-1980s (Hutton, 1991). The frequency of named theory use in eachsuccessive time period remained relatively constant, whereas the frequency of unnamed theory fluc-tuated. By comparison, in the first time period, authors publishing in Dress used three named the-oretical perspectives. During Time Period 2, usage of named theory by authors publishing inDress increased. In the remaining time periods, the use of named theory by authors fluctuated infrequency. Unnamed theory experienced relatively constant frequencies in all time periods, but thehighest frequency of unnamed theory occurred in the same time period (1986–1990) that named the-ory use was the least common. That authors publishing in Dress consistently made use of unnamedtheory throughout the time periods analyzed likely reflects their frequent usage of the historicalmethod, which draws upon the data analyzed to form arguments or theses about the relationshipsdiscovered (Gunn, 1991).ConclusionsThe present findings yield valuable insights into the body of HDT research published within two keyjournals of the CT field—CTRJ and Dress—and offer a productive approach for strategizing aboutthe future. Findings relative to the topics of study point to some areas of strength in the body of HDTknowledge produced by scholars publishing in CTRJ and Dress (e.g., knowledge about 19th- and20th-century HDT and HDT from North America and Europe) as well as areas in which future workmay be needed to fill in gaps within the literature (e.g., research that explores non-Western HDTtopics, that considers HDT that predate the 19th century, and that builds upon previous work relatedto conservation, preservation techniques, and collections management). Findings also suggest thatalthough HDT scholars have proposed and developed a limited number of new theories for use inthe HDT subdiscipline, by and large, they have not built upon these theories in future work and havenot been very programmatic in their use of existing theory, instead drawing from a wide range oftheories in their work (as opposed to focusing upon the in-depth development of a limited numberof theories). Thus, findings suggest that the continuation of an open dialogue regarding theory devel-opment and use in HDT could be beneficial for the field, particularly relative to the value of varied Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 15. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 229types of theoretical endeavors (e.g., those involving named and unnamed theories) to building newunderstanding and to the benefits of being programmatic in the theoretical work undertaken. Movingforward in a strategic, planful manner will assist in the cultivation of a bright future for the HDTsubdiscipline and a shared understanding among scholars who conduct HDT research. Finally, find-ings draw attention to some potential funding sources for scholars working in the HDT area. In the future, it would be useful to analyze the content of other journals that publish HDT scholar-ship, such as Fashion Theory, as well as to consider the content of journals published outside theUnited States (e.g., Costume or Textile History). Additionally, it may be illuminating to conductmore focused analyses of the specific research questions addressed within the articles analyzed,which could yield more in-depth insights into gaps in the knowledge base as well as if and how scho-lars working in the HDT subdiscipline have programmatically built upon previous work within thefield. Similarly, it would be valuable to conduct a more focused, in-depth analysis of the use ofunnamed theory within HDT research published in the field’s key academic journals, consideringthe various functions or roles of unnamed theory within the literature and exploring the potentialof unnamed theory for future theory development. Finally, to gain additional insights relative to thepresent findings, it would be interesting to interview the authors of the research articles analyzed,posing questions about why they pursued the topics they did, the factors that informed their meth-odological decisions, where they perceived gaps in the knowledge base relative to their topics, and ifand how they used theory in their work.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/orpublication of this article.FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of thisarticle.ReferencesArthur, L. B. (1997). Cultural authentication refined: The case of the Hawaiian holoku. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15, 129-139.Baumgarten, L. (1996). Dressing for pregnancy: A maternity gown of 1780–1795. Dress, 23, 16-24.Bornat, J. (1998). Oral history as a social movement: Reminiscence and older people. In R. Perks & A. Thomson (Eds.), The oral history reader (pp. 189-205). London, England: Routledge.Chowdhary, U., & Meacham, E. (1983–1984). Changing focus of clothing and textiles within home economics: An analysis of two professional journals. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 15-18.Costume Society of America. (2004). Dress. Retrieved from htmCostume Society of America. (2006). CSA membership directory. Minster, OH: Post.Cunningham, P. (1981). The theoretical bases of William Hogarth’s depiction of dress. Dress, 7, 52-68.Cunningham, P. (1984). Eighteenth century nightgowns: The gentleman’s robe in art and fashion. Dress, 10, 2-11.Damhorst, M. L. (1991). Relation of clothing and textiles research to scientific inquiry in social cognition. In S. B. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical linkages in clothing and textiles subject matter: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 191-202). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.Eicher, J. B., & Erekosima, T. V. (1980). Distinguishing non-western from western dress: The concept of cul- tural authentication [Abstract]. In P. Tortora (Chair) (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1980 national meeting of the Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 16. 230 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3) Association of College Professors of Clothing and Textiles (pp. 83-84). Burke, VA: Association of College Professors of Clothing and Textiles.Farrell-Beck, J. (1998). Distinguished scholar lecture. Research in history: A humanities approach to inquiry. In N. J. Owens (Ed.), Proceedings from the Fifty-fifth Annual Conference of the International Textile and Apparel Association (pp. 4-8). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.Farrell-Beck, J., Haviland, P., & Harding, T. (1986). Sewing techniques in women’s outerwear, 1800-1869. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4, 20-29.Gunn, V. (1991). A case for the historical method in clothing and textiles research. In S. B. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical linkages in clothing and textiles subject matter: Theory, method, and prac- tice (pp. 139-149). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.Hillestad, R. (1980). The underlying structure of appearance. Dress, 6, 117-125.Hogarth, W. (1997). The analysis of beauty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1753).Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and the humanities. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.Hutton, S. S. (1984). State of the art: Clothing as a form of human behavior. Home Economics Research Journal, 12, 340-353.Hutton, S. S. (1991). Concept clarification in textiles and clothing: A continuing agenda. In S. B. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical linkages in clothing and textiles subject matter: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 49-54). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. (n.d.). Studies in Conservation. Retrieved from, K. K. P., Yoo, J. J., Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2008). Dress and human behavior: A review and critique. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26, 3-22.Kaiser, S. B., Nagasawa, R. H., & Hutton, S. S. (1995). Construction of an SI theory of fashion: Part I. Ambiva- lence and change. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13, 172-183.Kang, B. W. (2009). Research and theory trends in clothing and textiles, 2000-2007 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Lennon, S. J., & Burns, L. D. (2000). Diversity of research in textiles, clothing, and human behavior: The rela- tionship between what we know and how we know. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18, 213-226.Lennon, S. J., Johnson, K. P., & Park, J. H. (2001). Research trends in clothing and textiles: An analysis of three journals, 1980-1999. Family and Consumer Science Research Journal, 30, 117-139.Oliver, B., & Mahoney, M. (1991). The Clothing and Textiles Research Journal: An empirical examination. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 22-27.Paoletti, J. B. (1982). Content analysis: Its application to the study of the history of costume. Clothing and Tex- tiles Research Journal, 1, 14-17.Paoletti, J. B. (1984). Does the costume and textile historian have a place in the future? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 33-36.Pedersen, E. L. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 106-128.Pedersen, E. L., Buckland, S. S., & Bates, C. (2008–2009). Theory and dress scholarship: A discussion on developing and applying theory. Dress, 35, 71-85.Prown, J. D. (1982). Mind in matter: An introduction to material culture theory and method. Winterthur Portfolio, 17, 1-19.Richards, L. (1983). The rise and fall of it all: The hemlines and hiplines of the 1920s. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2, 42-48.Sage Publications Online. (2006). Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. Retrieved from, L. R., & Jakes, K. A. (1989). Etowah textile remains and cultural context: A model for inference. Cloth- ing and Textiles Research Journal, 7, 37-45. Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011
  • 17. Reeves-DeArmond et al. 231Simmel, G. (1904). Fashion. International Quarterly, 10, 130-150.Skjelver, M. R. (1971). The historical method for research in home economics. Journal of Home Economics, 63, 107-112.Taylor, L. (2002). The study of dress history. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Turnbaugh, S. P. (1979). The seriation of fashion. Home Economics Research Journal, 7, 241-248.Victoria and Albert Museum. (n.d.). Conservation Journal Online. Retrieved from cons/conservation/journal/Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69, 150-168.BiosGenna Reeves-DeArmond is a doctoral candidate and graduate teaching assistant at Oregon State University,specializing in Historic and Cultural Dress and Textiles. She received her BS in Clothing, Textiles, and FashionMerchandising from New Mexico State University and her MS in Historic Costume and Textiles from ColoradoState University. Her forthcoming dissertation research will address the role of film dress iconography in his-toric learning within Titanic interactive attractions. Her research interests include material culture, the use andperception of living history costumes, the visual rhetoric of historic dress and textiles display, and historic andcross-cultural dress instructional techniques. She teaches courses in cross-cultural aspects of dress/textiles/interiors/built structures and historic costume.Jennifer Paff Ogle is an associate professor of Design and Merchandising and a Faculty Affiliate of Women’sInterdisciplinary Studies at Colorado State University. Her research examines how meanings about appearancesand bodies form within sociocultural contexts and through interpersonal interactions. She teaches courses in thesocial psychology of appearance, historic costume, and research/theory.Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr., is a professor of Design and Merchandising at Colorado State University. Hisresearch and teaching interests are housing and research methods. Downloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011