Abstract
The International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development (ISSBD) emphasizes multidisciplinarity and contextuality in studying human development across the lifespan. This article reports the oral histories of seven Past-Presidents about their accomplishments in leading ISSBD to promote these aspects using a developmental science framework. The narratives include information about motivations for activities and insights that shaped their presidency. Prominent among about a dozen such instances were endeavors to increase the worldwide representation of ISSBD, and to gain insights to improve the strengths of ISSBD. Some Past Presidents have explicitly addressed the pursuit of developmental science in ISSBD publications, and all have promoted it through programs such as regional workshops that are particularly appropriate for the next generation of developmental scientists from countries around the world living under different cultural conditions (e.g., dealing with socio-political changes, military conflicts and health risks such as COVID). All Past Presidents have worked to increase financial support from scientific foundations; additional revenue was gained by negotiating more favorable contracts with publishers and by establishing investment funds. Developmental science with its emphasis on multidisciplinary and international orientations was further promoted at the Biennial Meetings and by publications such as the International Journal of Behavioral Development.
Keywords
Introduction
For the 2024 Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development (ISSBD) in Lisbon (Portugal), Anne Petersen and Rainer Silbereisen organized an invited symposium bringing together all living ISSBD Past Presidents (Lea Pulkkinen, Kenneth Rubin, Rainer Silbereisen, Anne Petersen, Wolfgang Schneider, Xinyin Chen, Toni Antonucci). The theme of the symposium was “ISSBD’s Role in Developmental Science.” Tina Malti, the current President, served as discussant. For the purposes of the symposium and this article, developmental science was understood as a discipline that integrates various aspects of the study of human development, such as its multidisciplinarity and contextuality.
The Past Presidents were asked to describe what they did during their presidency to advance developmental science and how they did it. We recognize that this is an oral history, not a document-based history, although some referred to their records to prepare their presentations. According to our approach, subjectivity deliberately played a role in the accounts.
Developmental science brings together and seeks to integrate theories and methods for the study of human development from psychology, sociology, biology and other disciplines, such as neuroscience and economics. This multidisciplinary approach embeds biopsychosocial development in a sociocultural context, addressing complex dynamics between the individual and the many layers of the environment. Developmental science has emerged over the past few decades, bringing fresh theoretical appeal as well as practical applications to reduce difficulties in and optimize potentials of human development. In organizing the symposium and preparing this article, we assumed that engaging in and thereby promoting developmental science would guide the actions of ISSBD Presidents.
Since its establishment in 1969, ISSBD has grown in international membership (currently from over 70 countries around the world), and also in the range of disciplines involved beyond the traditional core in psychology. Behavioral development has always been viewed as rooted in the interrelationship between people and context. It has been an essential part of ISSBD’s mission to promote the study of human development and its application in a multidisciplinary manner. This programmatic focus fits well with the current understanding of developmental science as a discipline. With this in mind, we felt that ISSBD’s activities could play a prominent role in the further establishment and dissemination of developmental science as a discipline.
Why did we choose Past Presidents as sources of information about ISSBD’s role in developmental science? All organizations have a leadership structure and ISSBD is no exception. The President serves as the head of the organization. To develop and achieve the organization’s goals, this role requires both hard skills (e.g., strategic thinking) and soft skills (e.g., effective interpersonal communication). As utilizing and promoting perspectives from developmental science gradually gained ground, the President in conjunction with the Officers of ISSBD needed to communicate the new perspectives clearly, make decisions, and show adaptability to new circumstances. We were interested in those activities that stood out from the ordinary and marked their presidency in science and society. Memories of such activities and especially their motivation should be found in the reports of the Past Presidents, perhaps more than in official documents. That is the beauty of oral history.
The remainder of this article is organized so that the living Past Presidents present their views in the order of their terms in office, beginning with Lea Pulkkinen and ending with Toni Antonucci. A full list of all ISSBD Presidents since the founding of ISSBD can be found here: https://issbd.org/about-contact/history/ . In their reports, the Past Presidents typically refer, as a starting point, to their personal conception and history in dealing with developmental science. This may vary a bit from one contribution to the next, but it is interesting for the narratives in its own right.
We end with a summary and conclusion about the common denominators in the reports as well as potential future perspectives.
Reports of the Past Presidents
A Presidency at a Time of Opening Borders
Lea Pulkkinen (1991–1996)
Objectives of ISSBD. The concept of developmental science was introduced as a collaborative statement by the Carolina Consortium on Human Development as follows: Developmental science refers to a fresh synthesis that has been generated to guide research in the social, psychological, and biobehavioral disciplines—the phenomena of individual functioning are viewed at multiple levels—from the subsystems of genetics, neurobiology, and hormones to those of families, social networks, communities, and cultures—longitudinal analyses have particular value in understanding how they are coalesced over development” in conjunction with other research strategies. (Cairns et al., 1996, pp. 1–6)
The statement was presented at the time when my presidency (1991–1996) was ending. Basic ideas of developmental science were, however, present in the constitution (Article 2) of the ISSBD (1972). The founders had aimed to create a unique profile for the Society with certain objectives: “the integration of research into the behavior of the different age groups”; “the integration of methods and approaches to the study of development”; “the integration of different national research projects in one and the same area”; and “communication about and exchange of information concerning planned and current research.”
These objectives had guided the Presidents, Hans Thomae, Jan de Wit, Bill Hartup, Paul Baltes, and Harold Stevenson, who preceded me, and I was willing to continue this work. When I was invited to prepare a proposal for the 10th Biennial Meetings in Jyväskylä, Finland, in 1989, and chair it, I had attended all ISSBD Biennial Meetings since 1979, and acted as a member of the Program Committee for the 7th Meetings in Munich in 1983. In the Jyväskylä meeting, the spectrum of expertise of the keynote speakers paved the way for developmental science: infant studies (emotion), gerontology (functional capacity), cultural psychology (comparative), psychiatry (psychosocial development), ethology (brain structure), sociology (social construction), and philosophy (scientific abstraction).
There was no tradition in the ISSBD of using a Presidential Address to present a program. I nevertheless delivered a keynote address at the 11th ISSBD meetings in Minneapolis, 1991, when my tenure as President began. I described the multiple-level approach to personality by differentiating three components: a physiologically determined emotional component, an acting component modified by socio-cultural factors, and a thinking component guided by the executive functions of the brain while presenting results from a person-oriented analysis of my own longitudinal data (Pulkkinen, 2017). I stated the objectives of the ISSBD in my opening speech at the 12th Biennial Meetings in Recife, 1992: The ISSBD exists to promote the discovery, dissemination, and application of knowledge of human developmental processes at all stages of life span . . . The Society provides a unique avenue for formal and informal interaction between developmental investigators from all parts of the world and from many disciplines, including psychology, education, special education, sociology, psychiatry, pediatrics, genetics, ethology, and anthropology.
Opening borders
In 1991, we had high hopes for the spread of democracy in the world. The opening of the East-West borders had been foreseen in the ISSBD Meetings in Jyväskylä, 1989, which was attended by dozens of researchers from the Soviet Union and the socialist countries. Many of the attendees came without any western currency. We were able to arrange their accommodation and provide them with meal tickets. A professor from Hungary thanked me after the conference with tears in her eyes, saying that the meal tickets made it possible for them to feel a sense of equality with, and a belongingness to, the other 900 participants. Borders also continued to open due to increasing scientific interaction between African and European countries, and due to new communications technology.
Subsidized ISSBD workshops were arranged in Europe (Russia, Estonia for early career investigators, and Switzerland), Asia (Indonesia, China, Singapore, and India), and Africa (Cameroon, Ivory Coast, and Zambia), and regional meetings in Europe and South-East Asia. The participation of researchers in currency-restricted countries was supported by the Johan Jacobs Foundation. Its executive director, Laszlo Nagy attended the Jyväskylä meetings in 1989 and found it to be of high quality. His successor, Theo Brenner, attended many ISSBD events and ensured continuous support, particularly for early career researchers. Other sources of support were also identified by the organizers of the meetings.
A leading idea in arranging workshops in Africa and Asia was to offer researchers a forum to meet, rather than bring them teachers from the West. I found that they had their own problems and wisdom to address these. I attended the meetings as described in my biography (Pulkkinen, 2022). In Cameroon, I heard that the ISSBD meeting was the first time that these Francophone and Anglophone researchers from different African countries had met in Africa, as it was easier for them to travel to a meeting in Paris or London than to a neighboring country. Professor Robert Serpell was an active promoter of the workshop series and my advisor along with Professor Pierre Dasen.
Administration
My term as President lasted 5 years (instead of 4), following the decision of the Executive Committee (EC) in 1990 to change the Biennial meetings from odd- to even-numbered years. After the term of President, there were 4 additional years as Past President. The President was a member of the Program Committees, and in this position, I highlighted the objectives and traditions of the ISSBD, such as the high quality of symposia organized by two persons preferably from two continents (or countries at least). In addition to Recife, two other biennial meetings were held during my tenure: in Amsterdam in 1994, and in Quebec City in 1996. It was a pleasure to work with the organizers of these meetings. The most difficult issue facing the ISSBD was to decide on whether to cancel the Recife meeting because of the cholera epidemic that had broken out in this region one and a half years earlier.
Among the multitude of administrative duties was implementing the amendments to be made to the Society’s bylaws. They concerned changing the term of the presidency from 4 + 4 years to 2 + 4 + 2 years; elections of all officers by the membership (instead of by the members of the EC); and including nonvoting advisory members in the EC, such as the editors of publications and ad hoc advisors. The ISSBD had the local organizers of the meetings, regional officers to help with the collection of fees, and several committees, such as the Committee on Cultural Diversification and the Archives Committee. I am very grateful for that work and to all EC members and the officers, particularly Rainer Silbereisen, General Secretary. The Society had no paid executive director.
In ten columns that I established under the title Notes from the President in the bi-annually published ISSBD Newsletter, I highlighted, among others, the following points.
In 1991, I was concerned about lack of access to literature in currency-restricted countries, and my column sparked helpful ideas from members concerning the improvement of members’ access to IJBD and offering sister- or brother-mentoring in writing articles for the journal. In 1992, I proposed scientific cooperation for the study of the impetus of societal changes on individual development, and in 1993, I highlighted the importance of regional conferences that ISSBD had subsidized. These laid the foundation for the establishment of the European Association for Developmental Psychology. In the International Year of the Family (1994), I encouraged the study of the family in a changing world as the primary context of human development. In 1995, I praised the World Wide Web as a tool that facilitates contacts and the organization of meetings, and I presented plans to organize a biennial meeting outside Europe and North America. In my last column (1996), I stressed a need to expand the framework of psycho-social development from its focus on Western standards.
Moving ISSBD Into the 21st Century
Kenneth H. Rubin (1998–2002)
In 1981, I began a term as one of the three Associate Editors of Child Development. I served as Action Editor for the areas of social, social cognitive, and personality development! As a Canadian Professor (University of Waterloo), it became immediately apparent that there was a lack of non-North American scientists who were submitting manuscripts to Child Development. Consequently, one of my personal goals was to increase the number of international submissions in the topics for which I was responsible. With this in mind, I decided to attend ISSBD 1981 (Toronto) and discovered that which I had been missing in my professional career—the opportunity to interact with members of an international community of developmental scholars. I immediately joined the society!
I was elected to the ISSBD Executive Committee in 1987. The outgoing President was Paul Baltes; the incoming President was Harold Stevenson. The 1987 ISSBD biennial was held in Tokyo; it was followed by a workshop in Beijing. These ISSBD events forever altered my research and professional career. Of particular note, it was Stevenson who, in 1971 (!) began a research program in China shortly after scholarly exchange was opened between China and the United States. Eventually, he compared children’s scholastic achievement in Japan, Taiwan, and China to achievement in the United States. This focus on culture and development was all it took for Stevenson to serve as my initial “ISSBD guiding light.”
It bears noting that it was Harold Stevenson who seemed responsible for much of what followed insofar as my own ISSBD “career” advanced. For example, in 1989, just prior to the biennial meeting in Jyväskylä, I had been informed by the Co-Chairs of the Publications Committee that I had been selected as the next Editor of the International Journal of Behavioral Development (IJBD). I was absolutely delighted. However, by the time that the Jyväskylä meeting had ended, I found myself selected, by the Executive Committee, not as the IJBD editor, but rather as the incoming Secretary of the Society! And somehow, by 1992, I had also become the Treasurer of ISSBD.
I became elected President of ISSBD in 1998. Once again, this occurred in a most unusual manner. The unexpected passing of ISSBD President Harry McGurk in April 1998, created a situation that required that I assume the presidency 2 years early and with absolutely no time to prepare! I chaired my first meeting as ISSBD President at the Biennial in Bern, 1998. Thereafter, I served a 4-year term from 1998 to 2002.
Fortunately, I had served in multiple ISSBD executive capacities prior to my election as President. This allowed me to consider directions that the society might take as we entered the 21st century. Some of these new directions focused specifically on Developmental Science as a discipline. Given that one of those research directions involved the collaborative study, by the ISSBD community of scholars, of the influences of culture, internationality, and diversity, I was of the strong belief that the society required serious movement toward universal membership equity. I had long felt that our members from the majority world were being “treated” as lesser citizens in our international community of Developmental Science scholars. Moreover, I felt strongly that the President of ISSBD should present, as a personal model, leadership in cross cultural/international/Developmental Science research activities.
ISSBD Membership Equity
Almost immediately after assuming the presidency of the Society, I negotiated a new contractual agreement with the publisher Psychology Press. The new contract allowed for the following:
JBD was made available to all members of the society regardless of membership or dues paying status. Prior to my presidency, our members from low income and currency restricted countries did not receive their own personal subscription to IJBD.
The contract required that the publisher print and distribute the Newsletter to all members of the society. Prior to this contractual agreement, the Newsletter had been generously published and distributed by the Max Planck Institute (Berlin) to “full paying” members in Europe and North America. However, with the new contract, the Newsletter had a new “face,” not unlike the currently published one. In this Newsletter, I followed Lea Pulkinnen’s lead, and wrote a column Notes from the President in which I described the ongoing pursuits and plans of the Society, its committees, workshops, and biennial meetings.
A new website was launched wherein all members could access the Newsletter, IJBD and the Membership Directory of the Society.
Orienting ISSBD Toward an International, Culturally Sensitive, Developmental Science Perspective
One of my primary goals during my presidency was to capitalize on the international and multicultural nature of ISSBD.
I identified four strategies: (1) exploit our developmental science focus; (2) emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of the Society; (3) more effectively engage the majority world; and (4) continue to support early career Developmental Science scholars.
With regard to the latter strategy, during my presidency, the Society, with the generous financial aid of the W. K. Kellogg and W.T. Grant Foundations, hosted Workshops for early career scholars on five continents (Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, North America) on such topics as follows:
Advanced Methods in Social, Personality, and Developmental Psychology (Keuruu, Finland, 1999)
Life course in context: The application of cross-cultural methodology (Kampala, Uganda, 2000)
Cultural and Life-Span Perspectives on Human Development (Beijing, China, 2000)
Research and Social Policy: Family, Peers, and Schools as Developmental Contexts (Lima, Peru 2001)
Observational Methodology in the Study of Human Development (Ottawa, Canada 2002)
To this day, I believe that our ongoing Workshop series clearly distinguishes ISSBD from all other professional societies pertaining to Developmental Science. The workshop series is one way that ISSBD reaches out to its members across the globe and provides substantive information in the form of lectures, seminars, and hands-on workshops that are requested and organized by local or regional constituencies.
Finally and personally, during my presidency, I initiated several international, cross-cultural, longitudinal investigations with ISSBD members in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, S. Korea, and the United States. One basic theme had much to do with cultural meanings of specific individual (e.g., personality and temperament), social interactional (e.g., child and adolescent social competence; asocial and antisocial behavior; parenting “styles”), and social relationship (e.g., attachment; friendship; peer acceptance/rejection) constructs. Drawing from the writings of Robert Hinde pertaining to his conceptual model of the relations between individual characteristics (e.g., temperament), social interactions (moving toward, against, or away from the social world), social relationships (e.g., attachment; friendship), and culture, I developed a number of international, cross-cultural collaborations with ISSBD scholars and with graduate students and postdocs across the world. The focus of much of this work was on cultural similarities and differences pertaining to the development of adaptive and maladaptive parent-child and peer interactions and relationships from infancy-to-adolescence. Oft-times, the primary method underlying the specific research program was longitudinal in nature. As an example, one central question was whether specific parenting practices or childhood social behaviors carried the same meanings across different cultures and over time. Also included in this work was a series of studies that focused on the meaning and development of psychopathology in different countries and cultures. Examples of these Developmental Science endeavors can be found in Chen et al. (1998), Rubin et al. (2006), and Rubin et al. (2011). A description of some of this work was delivered in my keynote address at the Beijing (2000) biennial on the topic of “Child temperament, parenting and psychological adaptation across cultures and over time.” It is noteworthy that this Presidential Keynote was dedicated to the memory of Jan de Wit, one of the founders, and the second President of ISSBD (1975–1979) who had passed away in May 2000.
In closing, during my tenure as President, I enjoyed the strong support and good company of a number of wonderful colleagues. Each of us served the society on a volunteer basis. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that if one is to serve the ISSBD well, one must be able to count on one’s colleagues for support. I was very fortunate that this was the case during my presidency. The Steering Committee members during my presidency included Lea Pulkkinen, Rainer Silbereisen, Brett Laursen, and Willem Koops. I am ever so grateful that during my presidency that these individuals were, and continue to be, committed to our field’s major international society of developmental scientists.
A Presidency in Times of Change
Rainer K. Silbereisen (2002–2006)
Before the election as President, I had completed other roles as a member of the Executive Committee (1991–1998), Secretary General (1992–1996), and President-Elect (2000–2002). Against this backdrop I had gained an empirical understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the Society. In my view, two major issues stood out: the far from optimal internal organization of ISSBD as a major weakness to be overcome, and new topics of scientific endeavor as an emerging strength that needed more momentum. All activities, published in the Newsletter and in the President’s Reports, I shared with the Society’s governing bodies, and received their approval. My understanding of governance was to provide opportunities for the betterment of others. I thought that an efficient organization combined with intellectual leadership here and there is what helps us all.
Internal Organization
In terms of internal organization, the ISSBD had grown in membership, and there were calls for improved services in general, especially for the next generation of scholars and for countries and regions beyond the traditional WEIRD (Heinrich et al., 2010) orientation of the groups addressed and the scientific issues studied. All of this required more resources for communication, workshops, fellowships, conferences, and many other such endeavors. The lack of these was a major weakness.
Over the years, especially in my prior role as editor of IJBD (1996–2001), and through contacts as a consultant to publishing companies, I realized that our journal was not yet providing the outreach and income for the Society that it deserved. I took advantage of the upcoming expiration of the contract with Psychology Press to invite other publishers to submit bids. After extensive discussions with all parties involved and especially knowledgeable people I knew from the publishing world, we received and accepted a contract offer from Sage (still the publisher of IJBD). The contract specified a minimum guaranteed large sum payable to ISSBD for the journal in 2006, with an increase of all payments over the years depending on subscriptions and inflation, through 2011. The reasonable editor stipend was also increasing over the years, and a substantial one-time signing fee was also provided. A new electronic system for handling the review process for manuscript submissions was provided, and extensive joint planning for the future was funded. In addition, the handling of membership and dues collection was outsourced to Sage at no additional cost, along with a number of other benefits such as journal donations and, most importantly, a new multifunctional website.
The Sage contract provided new resources for better service and new offerings to the field and to our members. Over time the ISSBD biennial meetings grew larger and the workshops grew in number and size. This required additional funding, also obtained from scientific foundations on the basis of successful applications.
All this can be seen as a gradual process of professionalization. The publication and distribution of the journal was now up to date. The improved internal organization gave the officers time to write grant proposals (Jacobs Foundation and Kellogg Foundation were the first pillars), and we began to diversify our activities in regions and topics. Our future biennial meetings were supported by a clear set of guidelines I had developed, including a profit/loss sharing scheme with seed money. Last but not least, during my presidency the income of the Society per year was more than doubled, mainly due to the Sage contract.
Developmental Science Perspective
The emerging strength I mentioned at the outset was the increased activities to focus ISSBD more on a developmental science perspective. A core aspect of this is the promotion of an interdisciplinary orientation, with psychology interacting with biology and sociology, and various other sciences that help to address the effects of changing contexts on development. Contexts refer to conditions immediately surrounding the individual, but also to contexts at the aggregate level, such as cultures, or changes in the principles of the economy or the cornerstones of a political system, in short, social change.
To promote such a perspective, I first introduced some new approaches and relevant empirical research to the discussion. A case in point is the book “Growing Points in Developmental Science” (2002), which I co-edited with Past President Willard Hartup. The book brought together the views of international experts on the biological substrates of development, the role of early experiences, personality and social development, cognition and memory, the particularities of periods of the life span, and the role of cultural contexts, always with a special eye to the future of the emerging discipline of developmental science. Second, I gave a Presidential Address at the 2004 Ghent Biennial Meetings on Human Development and Social Change, published in IJBD discussing my research team’s findings on the effects of German unification on human behavior and development (Silbereisen, 2005). The focus was on a model that explained changes at the individual level as a result of coping (engagement vs. disengagement) with new demands and adversities resulting from macro-level changes in the legal, economic, and educational systems of the former East Germany. The sociologists involved in this Collaborative Research Centre (SFB 580, “Social Developments after Structural Change—Discontinuity, Tradition, Structural Formation”) of the German National Science Foundation had developed a “challenge-response” model for the aggregate level that mirrored the psychological coping model we used, thereby enabling fruitful interdisciplinary collaboration as suggested by developmental science. The newly founded Center for Applied Developmental Science (CADS, Silbereisen) was the home of this research.
I saw the book and the address as a stimulus for further ISSBD activities to pursue and strengthen developmental science in challenging times through a series of three regional workshops with which I was involved. It should be noted that the period of my presidency was marked by the aftermath of the collapse of the socialist world order in Central and Eastern Europe, but also in many other countries. Then there were the militant conflicts in various regions of the world, such as the Middle East. In addition, sub-Saharan Africa was affected by the threat of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
The first regional workshop, organized by Bame Nsamenang and Therese Tchombe, was held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, in 2004. It was attended by about 40 senior and junior researchers from seven African countries, including Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa. The theme was “HIV/AIDS and African Youth: Theory, Research and Practice with Youth in Peer Education, Families and Communities.” The program comprised lectures, symposia, poster sessions, and various other formats. The response by government officials and representatives of NGOs was excellent. The workshop used the pandemic as a fulcrum for disseminating a multifaceted research and application perspective centered on developmental science.
The 2005 Moscow regional workshop on “Self-regulation in the Context of Social Change,” organized by Tatiana Yermolova, combined conceptual models of emotional and behavioral regulation with research on the multiple social changes in this region of the world. Note that regulation and control is a central moderator in the model of social change and human development that I brought to the discussion. The faculty consisted of about 10 renowned scholars associated with ISSBD and 70 participants at various academic levels from Russia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Belarus and some other adjacent regions. As an introduction and rationale for the workshop, I gave a presentation on social change and human development, and among the invited presentations, two others explicitly addressed this issue. For many participants from regions behind the proverbial walls of the former socialist bloc, this was their first interaction with people from the leading nations in developmental studies.
The 2005 Middle East Regional Workshop in Jerusalem, organized primarily by Avi Sagi-Schwartz, on “Chronic Exposure to Catastrophic War Experiences and Political Violence: Links to the Well-Being of Children and their Families” was special in many ways. First, it was co-hosted by the Israeli University of Haifa and the Palestinian Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem. More than 100 participants attended the workshop, one-third each from Palestine, Israel, and other violence-affected countries in Europe and Africa. Second, at the beginning of the planning I had to intervene because there were conflicts among ISSBD members reminiscent of boycott activities against Israel. The Dean of Research of Al Quds encouraged closer research cooperation, young people worked together, and all this took place in the former diplomatic quarter of East Jerusalem.
The workshop emphasized a developmental science perspective to better understand children exposed to violence, its short- and long-term consequences, and the need to develop prevention/intervention programs. Topics included the evolutionary perspective on trauma, youth experiences of military violence, and psychological responses to Israeli occupation. The results of the workshop were published as a special issue of IJBD (Sagi-Schwartz et al., 2008).
Enabling ISSBD to Make a Difference
Anne C. Petersen (2006–2010)
ISSBD has the tradition that Presidents work with those who come before and those who follow them, helping to create a coherent scientific society. So, it was with my presidency from 2006 to 2010. In one newsletter article toward the end of my presidential term, I compared the role to being in a relay race, as I prepared to “hand off the baton.” I was President-Elect during the latter part of Rainer Silbereisen’s term, whose productivity in the office provided strong leadership for collective goals. Wolfgang Schneider followed me, serving as President-Elect during the latter part of my presidential term, in a wonderfully collaborative way. This model served me well in my presidency.
At the same time, it is important to make distinctive contributions to the scientific society—namely, ISSBD—during a presidential term. I chose priorities that were important to the society, its members, and the field of developmental science. At the same time, I wanted ISSBD to play a strong role in enriching the field. Two assets of ISSBD could be capitalized on to enrich the field of developmental science: (1) our international nature, at the time much stronger than any other developmental scientific society and (2) our multidisciplinary nature, an asset that was especially strong when I first joined ISSBD and I hoped to strengthen. Diversity of membership across nations provides important contributions to contexts for development as well as the cultures that carry distinctive learning. These differences may also bring different research methods as well as perspectives. Multiple disciplines are essential to a strong developmental science, ranging from history and philosophy, sociology in all its variations, to psychology and its related fields of neuroscience, developmental linguistics, among others.
ISSBD biennial meetings are a central focus for the society. During my term, the 2008 meeting was in Wurzburg, Germany, under the leadership of Program Chair Wolfgang Schneider and the 2010 meeting was the first organized in Africa, under the leadership of Program Chair Robert Serpell; that meeting was a highlight of my Presidency.
Funding for early career scholars to attend biennial meetings has been provided for much of our history; notably, many of these scholars go on to become ISSBD leaders. For mid- to later-career scholars, attendance at ISSBD biennial meetings is beyond their reach financially unless it is held closer to home. ISSBD Regional Workshops, which started early in ISSBD’s history in the off-years from ISSBD biennials, have been an especially effective strategy for engaging ISSBD members around the world.
During my term, regional workshops were held in Gramado, Brazil in 2007 (led by Silvia Koller, Brett Laursen, and William Bukowski) as well as three in 2009: Kisumu, Kenya (led by Paul Oburu); Nanjing, China (led by Zuhong Lu, Huichen Chen, and Xinyin Chen); and Adelaide, Australia (led by Julie Robinson and Ann Sanson).
Following from the successful 2006 biennial meeting in Melbourne, Australia, led by Ann Sanson, I asked Ann to lead a Membership Committee to consider how to best serve all of our members. In considering the issues in 2006, I noted that China and India at the time were the second and third countries with the most ISSBD members (US being the first). We have had 17 regional workshops in Asia (though none since 2017). Ann and her committee made important recommendations to the ISSBD leadership in 2010, with many improvements implemented quickly. Xinyin Chen, who became the first Membership Secretary in 2008, also worked hard on these issues of membership. Retaining members recruited through meetings appears to continue to be a challenge for ISSBD.
To address these concerns in another way, I asked Suman Verma and Catherine Cooper to chair a committee (coordinating with the membership committee) to consider how we can best use workshops to serve our members; they produced an important report (Cooper & Verma, 2009) for ISSBD recommending more strategic use of this tool. They surveyed the membership to aid development of effective recommendations. One example of their consequential findings is the importance of recognizing the expertise of all ISSBD members, whatever their country of origin or career status (and especially to not assume that they are “blank,” which one survey respondent stated). In addition, the committee recommended that ISSBD support regional collaborations, support capacity building and mentoring of early career scholars, and create regional centers of excellence with collaborative research platforms. I implemented the middle priority on early career scholars through the Young Scholar Initiative, led by Karina Weichold and Deepali Sharma. Also, in 2009, ISSBD began a new early career fellowship program: Developing Country Fellowships, led by Peter Smith, providing an important new tool for early career scholars from the majority world.
Another special committee appointed at the outset of my presidency was a Publications Committee, led by Andy Collins. One charge was a more usual one, to identify the next Editor for IJBD (and their choice was Marcel van Aken, who went on to improve IJBD’s journal effectiveness indicators in addition to adding distinction to the journal’s status). The special charge was to consider ISSBD publications more broadly, to consider whether ISSBD has the appropriate communications tools and whether the existing ones are sufficiently effective. Of special concern in this area was the need to serve all of ISSBD’s members, including those without high speed internet access (something that remains an issue). An immediate action for communications was to name Zena Mello, then a postdoctoral fellow, to serve as web content coordinator.
A surprising result from actions during my Presidency came from an entirely different direction. When I took office in 2006, I appointed Elizabeth Susman to chair an investment committee to consider whether ISSBD should set aside some funds in an investment account. The committee recommended that we do so, and the Executive Committee voted to pursue the action, though not unanimously as some thought it was a risky diversion of funds. The rationale was to provide an additional source of income to ISSBD. At the time, income derived primarily from membership fees and journal royalties. Happily, the results speak for the wisdom of the action. Investment yield is now (2023) the largest source of ISSBD income, typically about two-thirds of the total. Journal royalties come next, with membership income a small portion, and grants variable.
In summary, the accomplishments of which I am most proud are: (1) expanding active engagement of the work of running ISSBD through the creations of four management committees (Finance, Membership, Publications, and Regional Workshops) and an expanded officer group with the division of the Treasurer/Membership Secretary role into two separate roles to advance both areas; (2) supporting early career scholars to advance the broader purpose of creating a vital, renewed group of human development researchers and ISSBD members, accomplished through travel grants to meetings and the new Developing Country Fellowships); (3) reframing ISSBD membership guidelines to update the roles of regional coordinator, update the fee structures, and target new member campaigns; and (4) studying regional workshops and other activities for the purpose of identifying the most effective ways for ISSBD to play a role in the active engagement of ISSBD members in developmental science. All of these activities were implemented by colleagues who invested enormous time and talent and who deserve primary credit for their accomplishments on behalf of ISSBD.
My primary conclusion from my Presidency is that “it takes a village”! No single person can lead a global, multidisciplinary organization alone. So many members stepped up and played crucial roles between 2006 and 2010, many more than I have named here. ISSBD has benefited richly from dedicated talent from around the world, making the organization much stronger, and serving members better.
Acting as ISSBD President: Selected Memories of an Interesting Learning Experiment
Wolfgang Schneider (2010–2014)
When my presidency began, I was already familiar with the organizational system of ISSBD given that I had been involved in various committee activities as President Elect from 2008 on. I am particularly grateful to Past President Anne Petersen who introduced me to all relevant topics. I was also familiar with the impressive history of ISSBD until the beginning of this century, documented by Hartup (1996) and Silbereisen (2003).
What were my visions of major tasks when starting my job as ISSBD President? Of course, I knew that assisting in the preparation of our ISSBD biennial meetings was a major part of the job. I began my term as President in Lusaka, Zambia, where Robert Serpell and his team had organized an impressive conference that offered an exciting, high-standard scientific program in 2010. This positive experience was repeated at the ISSBD meeting in Edmonton, Canada, held in 2012 and organized by Nancy Galambos and Jeff Bisanz, and also at the 2014 meeting in Shanghai, China, which was prepared and carried out by Biao Sang and his team. In general, it was fun cooperating with the organizers of these meetings, even though this involved a lot of work.
In the following, I will focus on three other topics in which I also invested much time during my presidency. These were (1) the membership issue, (2) activities initiated to support early career scholars and ISSBD members in currency-restricted countries, and (3) activities related to archiving ISSBD documents.
Efforts and Strategies That Aimed at Increasing the Number of ISSBD Members
Although ISSBD is a truly international and global learned society, it is obvious from membership statistics that some parts of the world are less well represented than others. I also noticed that the number of ISSBD members had stagnated for quite a while after a steep initial increase. About 140 scientists were affiliated with the Society at its foundation in 1969. Twenty years later, ISSBD counted more than 1000 members from more than 40 countries. We had not been able to increase this number during the following two decades, even though the number of membership countries had gone up to 50+.
An ISSBD member survey analysis carried out by Kerry Barner from Sage and her team in 2010 yielded interesting information on membership commitment. It was shown that membership typically declined during the years when there were no meetings, but normally bounced back during the meeting years. Moreover, we found rather stable membership numbers in some countries whereas these numbers varied considerably in others. For instance, the countries with the highest membership (30 and more members) observed during my term included the US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Canada, and Germany. Other regions had been underrepresented in ISSBD for a rather long time, such as the French-speaking European world, Eastern Europe (with the exception of Russia), Scandinavia, and most of South America.
What could we do to make ISSBD membership more attractive? Our Membership Committee chaired by Ann Sanson and the Membership Secretary Xinyin Chen recommended several new measures such as calibrating the fees with world bank categorization, allowing the payment of membership fees for up to 4 years, with discounts if fees were paid for more than 1 year. Also, we added new Early Career Scholar and Emeritus categories. Moreover, we intensified our efforts to recruit new regional coordinators in countries and areas where the loss of members had been considerable, and where the numbers were generally low. We managed to increase the number of regional representatives from 11 to a total of 17. Overall, however, the success of all these time-consuming intervention procedures was rather modest. ISSBD membership numbers remained at previous levels, even though the number of countries went up to 60+.
On a more positive side, our goal to increase diversity in ISSBD membership could be reached, at least to some extent: Whereas almost 80% of the members identified as psychologists in 2010, this number decreased to about 70% in 2014. Last, but not least, we found that the number of early career scholars had steadily increased over the year, mainly due to the actions initiated by Past Presidents Rainer Silbereisen and Anne Petersen. In particular, the Young Scholar Initiatives first introduced and established by Karina Weichold, Deepali Sharma, Zena Mello, Julie Bowker, Josefa Cunha and Jaap Denissen were effective in that increasingly more early career scholars attended our biennial meetings.
Support for Early Career Scholars and ISSBD Regional Workshops
From 2010 on, we explored ways to further support early career scholars. Past President Anne Petersen, Ulman Lindenberger and I came up with a proposal for a new “Jacobs-ISSBD Mentored Fellowship Program for Early Career Scholars” that was eventually accepted by Jacobs Foundation, resulting in a long-term support contract. This contract secured funding for a period of 6 years, including travel grants for ISSBD preconference workshops and the attendance of our ISSBD Regional Workshops. The new program included high-standard mentoring and an evaluation of its success after 2 years. After a careful selection process, the program started with a first cohort in 2012, followed by a second cohort in 2014, supervised by Toni Antonucci and Xinyin Chen. This approach turned out to be successful. We very much appreciated the generous support provided by Jacobs Foundation for this new program and also the continuous financial support for our Regional Workshops which were attended by many early career scholars. Participants not only included the Jacobs-ISSBD fellows but also early career scientists supported by the ISSBD Developmental Country Fellowship program which was organized by Peter K. Smith and activated in 2010.
The ISSBD Regional Workshops were very helpful in achieving ISSBD’s goal to build capacity for the study of human development. These conferences provided opportunities for our members from currency-restricted countries as well as from parts of the world that were not well represented in ISSBD to become acquainted with recent trends concerning research on behavioral development. In my view, these efforts have been very successful. During my presidency, regional workshops were held in Chandigarh, India; in Lagos, Nigeria; Moscow, Russia; Budapest, Hungary; and Pretoria, South Africa. I attended most of these events and was always impressed by the careful organization, the high quality of scientific lectures, and last but not least the motivation and commitment of the participants.
ISSBD Archives
Another issue that I pursued together with Marcel van Aken concerned the archiving of important ISSBD documents. In 1995, our Past Presidents Bill Hartup and Jan de Wit had signed a contract with North Holland Archives in Haarlem, The Netherlands, to house the ISSBD documents. The agreement was that ISSBD would provide all records in boxes, and that electronic archiving options should be used to make core documents available for further use.
When Marcel van Aken and I first visited the Archives in 2011, we found that the ISSBD materials were still stored in about 130 boxes which waited for further treatment. Marcel and I tried hard to change this suboptimal situation during the following years, but we were only partially successful. We hired a librarian at the Archives who went through most boxes, categorized the materials, and identified core documents. We eventually achieved a subgoal in that we managed to collect all decisions and actions included in the EC minutes from 1986 on. Information on previous actions and decisions is based on a large number of relevant keywords which are listed in an alphabetical order. Marcel and I still believe that this information can be useful in the future, and we hope that it will be considered by subsequent ECs and Steering Committees.
Final Remarks
As indicated in the title of my presentation, I learned a lot about the infrastructure of ISSBD and the potential of our Society during my term as President. The times were favorable in that ISSBD was in good shape when I took over. The Society had continued to be an important player in the field of developmental science. Our flagship journal flourished, both the ISSBD Bulletin and the E-Newsletter continued to be important sources of information for our members. The financial situation was solid, and my predecessors had managed to establish a well-organized network of committees that operated effectively.
I strongly believe that ISSBD’s success is mainly due to its active members and its hard-working executive. It was real fun for me to cooperate with this stimulating international group of distinguished scientists. I still have very good memories of a rewarding experience as ISSBD President, and I am fully convinced that we then had and still have a terrific organization.
Promoting Developmental Science From Cultural and International Perspectives
Xinyin Chen (2014–2018)
During my Presidency, a major goal of my tasks was to promote research and application of developmental science from cultural and international perspectives, mainly through organizing a series of activities for early career scholars across countries. Whereas my interest in cultural and international research was based on my beliefs about the nature of developmental science, my efforts to promote activities for early career scholars in the pursuit of understanding of cultural and international issues were related to my personal experiences with ISSBD. ISSBD had a satellite conference in Beijing in 1987 after the biennial meeting in Tokyo. For the first international conference in psychology in the country, the organizing committee only invited senior scholars (many over 70 years) from China. I was one of two young scholars who were allowed to attend the conference for some unusual reasons (making a presentation on behalf of Professor Boshu Li, the advisor of my Master’s study). During the conference, I had opportunities to learn and interact extensively with distinguished scholars in the field from other countries, including Ross Parke, Harold Stevenson, Bill Hartup, and Ken Rubin (who became my PhD mentor in the following year at the University of Waterloo). This experience affected what I did in ISSBD in my various roles including a co-editor of ISSBD Newsletter (now Bulletin), an EC member, and the Membership Secretary before my presidency (2014–2018).
In my roles in ISSBD, particularly when I was the President, I paid particular attention to (1) organizing activities through programs for junior scholars, and (2) promoting research and application of developmental science from a cultural and international perspective. Working with the Executive Committee (EC), particularly the Steering Committee consisting of Karina Weichold (Secretary General), Tina Malti (Membership Secretary), Nancy L. Galambos (Treasurer), and Toni Antonucci (President-Elect), I achieved most of the goals. Some of the activities were as follows. First, I negotiated with the organizers of biennial meetings (Shanghai, Australia, Lithuania) to reduce registration fees for delegates from developing countries and for early career scholars. Due to the model that ISSBD established for the biennial meetings, the organizers are often highly concerned about financial responsibilities, which resulted in substantial increases in the registration fees over the years. The agreement I made with the organizers, which has been largely followed afterwards, helped reduce the pressure for early career scholars. Second, I worked with the Executive Committee to reduce the membership fees for all members, particularly members from low and low-to middle income countries and early career scholars, allowing for multiyear membership. Third, I worked with the EC and foundations to secure funds for early career scholars to attend preconference workshops and conferences, through the establishment and maintenance of early career scholars’ programs, such as the Developing Country Fellowship (DCF) and the ISSBD-Jacobs Fellowship.
The preconference workshops of ISSBD biennial meetings and regional workshops appear to be particularly effective in training early career scholars to conduct scientific research on human development and applied work in cultural and international contexts. Both the preconference workshops and regional workshops focus on specific topics that are relevant to the goals and interests of ISSBD, particularly methodological issues, such as advanced statistical analysis of cross-cultural longitudinal data.
During my presidency, I worked with ISSBD regional coordinators and other members to organize two or more regional workshops each year in different regions, which provided funding for virtually all participants including early career scholars and students. I attended some of them. For example, a workshop in Bandung, Indonesia, focused on “Values and the development of Southeast Asian youth.” The organizers, Doran French, Charissa Cheah, and Urip Purwono, invited Heidi Fung, Jennifer Lansford, Nancy Eisenberg, and Junsheng Liu to provide training on conducting research using qualitative and quantitative methods. Another workshop in Hong Kong focused on culture and parenting. The organizers, Florrie Ng and Qian Wang, invited Pamela Cole, Eva Pomerantz, Michael Bond, Marc Bornstein, Charlie Super and Sara Harkness, Gisela Trommsdorff, Qi Wang, Charissa Cheah, and Patricia Greenfield to help with the workshop. The organizer also invited Michael Bond, who is a well-known cross-cultural social psychologist, to give a talk about cultural influence on human development. In his talk, he argued that every psychologist should be a cultural psychologist—a perspective recently elaborated and promoted by Qi Wang in an important article “Why should we all be cultural psychologists? Lessons from the study of social cognition” in Perspectives on Psychological Science (Wang, 2016).
During these workshops, the participating scholars had extensive opportunities to interact with the speakers and peers from different regions within their countries and across different countries. The scholars also presented their research and received feedback from others. In addition, some of them made connections with each other and started to collaborate on research projects. In short, the workshops helped early career scholars at the workshops develop interests and skills in conducting developmental research from cultural and international perspectives.
My view on culture and human development was systematically presented in my Presidential Address (2018) and then published in an invited article “Exploring cultural meanings of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in children and adolescents: A contextual-developmental perspective” in the International Journal of Behavioral Development (Chen, 2020). In my presentation and the article, I focused on major theoretical and methodological issues in the study of cultural meanings of children’s and adolescents’ behaviors with a focus on a contextual-developmental perspective. According to this perspective, it is important to examine the cultural meanings of behaviors among children and youth in the social interaction context and in development. As cultural norms and values guide peers and adults to interpret, evaluate, and respond to children’s behaviors during social interactions, information on adults’ and peers’ attitudes and reactions to the behaviors and relationships with children who display the behaviors helps understand their social relevance or significance that is ascribed by the culture. Moreover, social evaluations in interactions and associated social-cognitive processes are likely to regulate individual behaviors and their development. As such, the social evaluation and regulation processes in the context of interactions serve as an important mediator of cultural influence on the developmental patterns and outcomes of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in children and adolescents.
A Pandemic Presidency—Planning, Adjusting, Accommodating Behind the Scenes
Toni Antonucci (2018–2022)
I was thrilled to have been elected President of ISSBD. Xinyin Chen was the President before me and while I did not know him well, he was always pleasant and welcoming. I knew several other Past Presidents. They all seemed normal and to have survived their presidency, so I was both anxious but also hopeful. There is an ISSBD tradition that the current President invites the President-elect and all the Past Presidents attending the biennial meeting to dinner. I remember being invited to that dinner in Shanghai by Xinyin and feeling honored to be among this elite group of international scholars. The site for the meeting I would preside over was Rhodes, Greece, a spectacularly beautiful island in the Mediterranean. This was going to be a simply magnificent meeting! The meeting was scheduled for summer 2020. We were on track for a record setting meeting.
Then COVID happened. As many will remember, it started small—as an illness ostensibly from an open-air market in a small relatively unknown part of China. It seemed hardly relevant to ISSBD and our planned meeting many thousands of miles away but the reach of the pandemic steadily grew until it seemed to be essentially affecting all parts of the world. I began to worry about whether encouraging people to attend an international meeting was prudent. Would such a meeting be putting our members at risk?
After days of worrying I remember going to bed just before April 1, 2020, with the realization that after much anticipation, near perfect preconference planning, record numbers of submissions, wonderful accommodations on a world heritage island, that there was no way the 2020 ISSBD biennial conference was going to proceed as planned—at least not until we had more official word from the World Health Organization (WHO). What was I to tell our members? The deadline for early registration was fast approaching. and I knew that many of our members (myself included) wanted to benefit from the considerable cost savings associated with early registration. I also knew that we had signed a contract several years earlier (for those of you who have never been in this position—you have to sign hotel and venue contracts well ahead of the actual meeting). The penalty for canceling was significant. . . by significant I mean many thousands of dollars. At the same time, I knew there was no way we could, in good conscience and in recognition of the world health crises, place our members at risk by proceeding with the ISSBD conference we had planned. I was worried and knew we would not want our members to put themselves at risk by traveling under those circumstances as proceeding with the conference would seem to imply that we perceived little risk.
Overnight I remembered that there was a clause in our contract that outlined all the penalties for canceling (they were enormous) except in the case of a force major. At the time, I skimmed over the phrase not really sure what exactly the phrase meant but knowing full well that it would never\could never apply to anything we were doing. Now, recognizing that we were going to have to cancel or at least postpone our meeting, I wondered if a worldwide pandemic qualified as a force major. After researching the meaning of the term, I decided it did.
However, we were in a catch twenty-two: the worldwide pandemic had not yet been officially declared but the early bird registration deadline was fast approaching. At the same time, if we postponed or canceled the meeting before a force major was officially declared, we would not benefit from the exception outlined in the clause. We could not declare a force major but if we postponed or canceled the conference before the pandemic was declared we would lose the “protection” of the force major in the contract. So, after much contemplation, I drafted a somewhat mysterious, memo to the membership saying in as vague a way as possible that we were waiting for word from the WHO and would not make a decision before that. At the same time, we were in touch with the hotel, who of course were anxious about the effect of the pandemic on their business. Concerned but polite. We were all in a nervous, wait and see state. In the end, we did postpone the meeting.
The pandemic taught us a lot or perhaps simply highlighted things we already knew. We watched as some survived the pandemic relatively unscathed while others have suffered through extremely difficult times. We saw food insecurity, unemployment, illness, deaths, and untold repercussions of the global pandemic. It was clear that the pandemic was certainly experienced differently by people in different parts of the world. Even as we prepared for ISSBD 2022 and circumstances improved dramatically for some, in other places things remained extremely difficult. I felt deep sympathy and concern for all as some continued to struggle while others endeavored to recover from the difficult experiences we had.
One thing we learned from this pandemic is that human behavior is critical to human survival. The virus spread because people and governments refused to recognize it and/or take the necessary steps to thwart it. But we also saw wonderful examples of people reaching out to others to help them cope with difficult circumstances. We have seen government policy that reached out to help people who were experiencing the most difficult times of their lives. In short, it’s been the worst of times; it’s been the best of times.
At the same time, if ever we could feel the pull and importance of what we do, that is, seek to study, understand, intervene and optimize human behavior, I would argue that it was over that year. We learned just how critical it is that we bring what we know and identify what we do not yet know to help our families, societies and the world recover and thrive in the difficult times we were facing and would continue to face.
Summary and Conclusion
All Past Presidents had a long history of ISSBD activities and roles prior to their presidency, documented extensively in their sections by some, less so by others. For example, many served on ISSBD committees and boards, often in leadership roles, or as editors of IJBD, the ISSBD journal. In some cases, previous experience as President of other professional societies was reported. All acknowledged that these experiences were important in understanding the priorities and objectives of ISSBD. It was also a source of knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of the internal organization and the specific activities of ISSBD.
Reading the reports, one gets the impression that our focus on developmental science has worked, although in slightly different ways. In all of the Past Presidents’ contributions, developmental science, with its emphasis on the broader contexts and biological underpinnings of human behavior and development, provides a backdrop to the report. Some of our group had published under this rubric before, during, and after their presidencies, had established research centers under this name, had published in journals devoted to developmental science, or had conducted extensive relevant research programs. For most of the Past Presidents, however, developmental science was a guiding principle that integrated their many activities bringing together different views of human development in a unique way. Most importantly, promoting developmental science served as the focus for workshops and other capacity-building programs, especially for early career scholars from around the world. Many were a response to the growing expectations of the membership in learned societies for better service in their own improvement. This is especially true for ISSBD with its traditional commitment to serve members globally through many programs beyond the Biennial Meeting. ISSBD’s focus on the broader contexts of human development, inherent in the developmental science perspective, fostered a response to global societal challenges with implications for human development. This focus has continued through all presidencies. Examples include the political and economic changes in the former Soviet Union, including the formation of new nations in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the conflicts with civil unrest and war in the Middle East, or the HIV/AIDS and COVID pandemics. Taken together, these activities helped to advance developmental science.
The regional workshops were developed with the support and participation of the Past Presidents and involved a wide range of international experts from within and outside the region. In most cases, civil society organizations and governmental agencies participated as observers, thus contributing to the dissemination of developmental science. Over the three decades under review, during which the Past Presidents served (1991–2022), 13 workshops were held in Africa, 14 in Asia, two in Australia, 16 in Europe, one in the Middle East, four in Latin America, and three in North America. These are impressive numbers that show the variation in locations. In general, the Americas were less represented. All Past Presidents have encouraged and supported the organizers. The local organizers were also a source of knowledge and wisdom. We note especially that the regional workshops in Africa have been established as a biennial expectation, given that members on the African continent are unlikely to afford attendance at the biennial meeting. This precedent for continent-wide regional workshops should also be considered elsewhere in our view.
ISSBD’s Biennial Meetings now represent the major meeting for ISSBD business. To date, 17 have been held, four in North America, one in Latin America, seven in Europe, two in China (the only Asian location, though we note that the next ISSBD meeting in 2026 will be held in South Korea), two in Australia, and one in Africa. The data cited by many Past Presidents in this article suggest that while holding a Biennial Meeting in a new location draws many new participants, they do not necessarily continue on as ISSBD members.
For ISSBD, its outreach was significantly increased by these major scientific activities. Substantial support from science foundations and global philanthropies also played a role in the organization’s successes. Some Past Presidents were particularly involved in securing funding for longer-term programs. Over the years, there has been a shift from support for building an effective organization to targeted programs providing mentorship for the career as developmental scientists, particularly of the younger generation, from less affluent regions.
All Past Presidents were concerned about the resources of the ISSBD through membership dues and journal income. During one presidency, additional revenue from investments was secured, an action that has now become the major source of income. We believe that future Presidents should use this additional income prudently as a way to expand and especially stabilize membership at higher levels.
As for journal income, the continued attention by Presidents throughout the history of the ISSBD to negotiate contracts resulting in new and more advantageous publishing arrangements has yielded benefit. A special opportunity arose in the early 2000s, a time of radical change and increased competition in the publishing industry, when publishers began to think about new publishing models and revenue streams, such as services for societies and individual scientists. It was possible to increase, and in one case even double, ISSBD’s income from IJBD. In addition, substantial one-time subscription fees were offered, the website was redesigned in a more active way, and the membership administration was taken over by the publisher for the next several years. The stipend for the editorial team was increased and the entire review process was professionalized. The publishing business is in continual flux, with big changes (e.g., with everything moving online) occurring at the present time as well. ISSBD will need to continue to be in the forefront of opportunities to serve members in new ways.
All Past Presidents took the opportunity to promote their programmatic views and to communicate them to the various bodies of the ISSBD. Over the years this became more organized and diversified. The custom of giving a Presidential Address was not yet established at the beginning, but quickly gained ground. Some chose this form to communicate their views on the development of ISSBD, using their own scientific work as an illustration. Others were more interested in increasing knowledge about their research, but in all cases ISSBD was more important than the person. This is also true in cases where entire research programs were initiated by Past Presidents from within ISSBD. For example, Ken Rubin reported that during his presidency he initiated collaborations with several ISSBD scholars on the question of the universality or cultural specificity of parenting practices on social behavior in childhood.
In general, communication with the membership was accomplished through a variety of means, such as Notes from the President, Reports of the President, and contributions to the Newsletter. In retrospect, it is these documents that provide the most vivid picture of the work of Past Presidents. Of course, some of the information conveyed in this article relates to issues that were not the subject of these reports.
This all sounds like a great success story. But not every venture was a success, some were real failures. The most important one is ISSBD’s archives. All learned societies share an understanding of where they have come from and where they are going. Organized archives including documents of activities over the past decades provide a major way to capture history. ISSBD Officers thought they had made a good start by delivering many boxes of files to a repository in the Netherlands (where ISSBD is incorporated). Unfortunately, nothing was organized as promised and paid for. To this day, the lack of an archive is a hurdle to overcome and requires new financial and human investment. Hopefully it will be done soon. The year 2029 will be the 60th anniversary of the founding of ISSBD—a good opportunity to organize its history.
Another shortcoming seen in ISSBD’s history is our goal for multidisciplinarity. From early on, presidents emphasized the importance of engaging all relevant disciplines: sociology, political science, biology, neurology, or educational science, along with psychology as part of developmental science. Many Past Presidents used invited addresses to draw in these additional perspectives, usually accompanied by intense recruitment of these speakers as members. Considering the members and the programs of the Biennial Meetings during the reporting period, we have not fully succeeded in creating a multidisciplinary membership, though. It is likely that one problem is the much greater size of psychology as a field, at least in WEIRD countries. Perhaps rather than recruiting members and presenters from these disciplines, we might first seek collaborative agreements with other relevant societies, with mutual benefits to the membership.
Unfortunately, the explicit activities of several Past Presidents to increase membership have not been realized. For example, several workshops in countries and regions like Africa did not result in increased membership. This was partly solved by adjusting the membership fees to the regional economic status.
Finally, the ISSBD has a life-span approach in its constitution, but it cannot compete with societies specializing in older and younger life-span periods. But we are better than one might think, as evidenced by a gerontologist (Antonucci) among the Past Presidents. In addition, several Past Presidents brought in their profile as childhood and adolescence researchers.
Overall, ISSBD has been fortunate to attract an excellent cadre of Presidents. They had prior experience in such roles, were familiar with the principles of governance in scientific organizations, and had a very good track record as developmental scientists themselves. All this must be maintained. In contrast to other international societies, there was no tendency to form relatively independent regional divisions. Apparently, the many regional workshops around the globe and the regional membership offices served the membership well.
A major strength of ISSBD over the years has been its truly international membership. What began as a transatlantic collaboration between scientists from North America and (Western) Europe grew into a broader representation of the globe, North and South, East and West. In part, this was driven by the tremendous socio-political changes taking place around the world, and in part by the special emphasis that the pursuit of developmental science brought to the agenda. Research on the mutual relationship between dynamics of human development and changing socio-cultural contexts is at the heart of developmental science. It provides new theoretical insights and new approaches for improving adaptation and correcting maladaptation.
Another strength was ISSBD’s multidisciplinary research focus that permitted addressing pressing societal challenges and a variety of cultural contexts that affect human development in all its facets and scientific approaches. Certainly, there is room for further improvement through increased collaboration with other disciplines.
Over the years, beyond the Biennial Meetings the various regional workshops became an important driver of ISSBD’s mission around the globe. The strength gained from their success helped to attract new cohorts to developmental science and should be intensified and enlarged. Finally, with regard to scientific communication on human development more generally, promoting open access to its journal IJBD is a requirement that can still be improved.
Overall, as the Past Presidents’ reports show, the ISSBD has become a leading organization in improving the scientific worldview on human development-in-context. Our effectiveness as a scientific society is even greater in the context of the period covered: 1991–2022. During this period, we have especially advanced technologically, from rudimentary email to Zoom! Our communications now are much better than were available at the outset, and we have capitalized on these to be an effective international society.
