Alcoholism and marriage: the argument against specialism.

OTH gains a d losses ar tobe had from e phasizing alcohol and studies as a specialty. Prominent among the losses is the danger that the alcohologist will be so much impressed by the specifics of his chosen field of study that he will neglect to draw parallels with other fields. The process of induction from observations of particular instances to the statement of general principles is thereby hindered. Perusal of the lists of references at the ends of many articles published in this Jova•AL testifies to the exclusiveness of the interests of many contributors. Nowhere is this more apparent han in the case of the subspecialty of alcoholism and marriage. In her much-quoted review Bailey (2) commented upon the absence of cross-fertilization between general research on marriage and the family on the one hand, and more specialized research on and marriage and the family on the other hand. However, she quoted only two references which were not specific to alcohol and alcoholism; and more recently Edwards et al. (27), in their review, make no mention whatsoever of general writings or research on the subject of marriage and the family.