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

Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal http://ctr.sagepub.com/

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:
http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/29/3/216

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Textile and Apparel Association

Additional services and information for Clothing and Textiles Research Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/29/3/216.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 22, 2011

Proof - Aug 19, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on September 26, 2011

Clothing & Textiles
Research Journal

Research and Theory 29(3) 216-231
ª 2011 International Textile &
Apparel Association
Trends in Historic Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Dress and Textiles DOI: 10.1177/0887302X11417617
http://ctrj.sagepub.com

Research: An Analysis
of Clothing and
Textiles Research
Journal and Dress

Genna Reeves-DeArmond1, Jennifer Paff Ogle2, and
Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr.2

Abstract
Historic dress and textiles (HDT) has been a prominent research subject during the 20th century but
has not been examined via a focused journal analysis. Thus, HDT research and theory trends were
explored by analyzing 306 articles published in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (CTRJ) from
1982-2006 and Dress from 1975-2006. A content analysis approach was adopted to examine the
following: quantity of HDT articles, single-multiple authorship, author affiliation, funding sources,
research topic (including geography and time period), research method, and use of theory. The
topics 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 research
method in both journals was the social/cultural history-based approach. The majority of research
articles (86%) did not articulate a specific or ‘‘named’’ theory. The findings yield valuable insights
into 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 dialogue
regarding theory development be continued.

Keywords
historic dress, historic textiles, CTRJ, dress, research trends, journal analysis, theory

1
Department of Design and Human Environment, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
2
Department of Design & Merchandising, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:
Genna Reeves-DeArmond, Department of Design and Human Environment, 037 Milam Hall, Oregon State University, 97333
Corvallis, OR 97333, USA
Email: gennareeves@yahoo.com


Reeves-DeArmond et al. 217

One of the long-standing subdisciplines within the broader clothing and textiles (CT) discipline is
historic 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 future
trends. Through the study of HDT, one can gain understanding of collective values associated with
a given cultural moment, the technological and economic patterns associated with that point in time
and space, and the varied experiences of individuals who lived in that moment and who interacted
with those objects (Paoletti, 1984). This understanding can contribute to both the CT and the history
disciplines.
Relatively little is known about the body of knowledge accumulated and disseminated by CT
scholars working in the HDT area. One avenue for gaining understanding about the knowledge that
constitutes a discipline is an analysis of its academic journals. Such an analysis can reveal trends
about the research in a field, including trends about the topics examined, the research methods
employed, 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). The
examination of research methods used within a field may be especially telling, as research methods
inform the type of data collected, the possible analyses that can be conducted, and the implications
that 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, as
such, 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 Textiles
Research 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 the
HDT subdiscipline. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze trends in HDT research articles
published 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 methods
used, and (e) use of theory. Of interest were changes in trends across the time periods analyzed and
similarities and differences between the two journals.
CTRJ and Dress were identified as suitable journals to analyze because they have rich histories as
publication outlets for scholars of HDT. CTRJ, the official publication of the International Textile
and Apparel Association (ITAA), strives to strengthen the research base in CT, facilitate scholarly
interchange, demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of the field, and inspire further research (Sage
Publications 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 (Costume
Society of America [CSA], 2004, { 1).

Literature Review
HDT Trends Identified in Previous Journal Analyses
The 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 scholarship
within the home economics and CT disciplines. Chowdhary and Meacham (1983–1984) analyzed
CT articles published within the Journal of Home Economics (1911–1980) and Home Economics
Research Journal (1972–1980) and found that HDT has had a growing presence in the CT field since
the 1950s. Findings indicated that HDT placed third in a ranking of subject matter areas by total
number of articles published since 1911, accounting for 10% of CT research articles. In a more


218 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(3)

recent analysis of JFCS, FCSRJ, and CTRJ, Lennon et al. (2001) found that HDT was the fifth most
prevalent 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 Research
Research in HDT aims to create accounts of people, developments, and events of the past in an effort
to create a foundation of knowledge for the future. Although HDT research has customarily made
use of interpretive approaches that rely upon the analysis of qualitative data, in recent years, HDT
scholars have begun to apply statistical approaches to analyze qualitative data and/or to collect and
analyze 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 analyze
these 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 their
inordinate focus upon the precise analysis of the objects at hand is undertaken at the expense of a
consideration for the ‘‘lifestyles, beliefs, work, or personal interests of the wearers whose clothes
are under discussion’’ (Taylor, 2002, p. 50).
The historical approach (and the closely allied material culture approach [Prown, 1982]) is rooted
in the humanities and casts its focus beyond the physical description of artifacts. HDT research
undertaken 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 form
of 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 the
development of arguments formulated as ‘‘theses.’’ Thus, although HDT research in this tradition
may 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 than
testing 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 reflective
of collective and individual attitudes, values, and identities.
The oral history approach draws upon in-depth interviews to capture people’s recollections of
lived experiences in previous historic eras (Bornat, 1998; Taylor, 2002). The interviews conducted
form 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 is
well suited to HDT inquiries (Taylor, 2002).
Content analysis involves the study of units of communication (i.e., signs and symbols) as they
relate to an overall message (Holsti, 1969). Content analysis can be applied to either verbal (oral or
written) or mute (unwritten) sources. When content analysis is applied to mute data, it is sometimes
referred to as ‘‘visual analysis’’ (Skjelver, 1971). Although content analysis is sometimes used to
refer to the collection and analysis of qualitative data, some researchers (e.g., Paoletti, 1982) suggest
that 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 a
chronological manner (Turnbaugh, 1979).



The Use of Theory in HDT Research
Historically, 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 that
because ‘‘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, HDT
scholars have reevaluated the potential value of theory to HDT research, recognizing that that there
are 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 through
the 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 relational
statements or arguments that link concepts as a means by which to explain and interpret a given topic
in 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 theories
serve the same functions as named theories (e.g., description, explanation, prediction), but often go
overlooked 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 eventual
development of named theories.
HDT researchers also draw upon ‘‘named theories’’ to inform their understanding of a historical
event, person, or artifact. This is not to say that HDT scholars begin their research with the aim of
deductively testing an existing theory. Rather, HDT researchers ‘‘adduce’’ answers to their research
questions 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 of
individual research efforts and for charting the scientific progression of a field of inquiry. Although
not 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 that
invoke named theories in their interpretations. Specifically, Damhorst proposes that researchers may
use 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 existing
theories from related disciplines, (b) development of existing theories, and (c) development of new
theories of dress (1991, p. 192). These various uses and applications of theory parallel the practices
adopted by HDT researchers who apply or generate named theory in their work.

Research Questions
Although previous analyses of home economics and CT journals have provided some insights into
the 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 to
trends in research and theory within HDT scholarship and published within CTRJ and Dress. For
instance, 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 to
address the following research questions: How has the quantity of HDT articles published in CTRJ
and Dress changed from1982 to 2006 (CTRJ) and from 1975 to 2006 (Dress)? What have been the



affiliations and funding sources of authors publishing HDT articles in CTRJ and Dress? What HDT
topics have been examined within research articles published in CTRJ and Dress from the inception
of each journal through 2006? What research methods have been employed to analyze HDT topics in
research articles published in CTRJ and Dress? How has theory been used within HDT research arti-
cles published in CTRJ and Dress?

Method
The 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 content
were 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 not
included. 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 referenced
in a past or historical context. To determine if a given journal article met this criterion, the article title
and abstract were read. If, after reading the title and abstract, there was uncertainty about the inclusion
of 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 in
the 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 categories
and 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.



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-year
intervals to simplify interpretation and to note changes over time. For CTRJ, the time periods were as
follows: no first time period (so CTRJ time periods 2–6 would approximate the years used for the
Dress time intervals, 2–6), Time 2 (1982–1986), Time 3 (1987–1991), Time 4 (1992–1996), Time
5 (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 and
unnamed 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 represent
emergent themes/categories. Then, these categories were used for coding purposes.
To increase trustworthiness and dependability of the data collection and analysis, the researchers
met throughout the coding process. An audit coder checked the identification of articles for inclusion
within 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 the
total 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 Discussion
Quantity of Published HDT Articles
A total of 306 research articles were identified for coding, including 82 articles from CTRJ and 224
articles from Dress. An average of 1.2 articles per issue was devoted to HDT-related content in
CTRJ, representing 13.0% of the CTRJ articles published. A total of 31 issues of CTRJ (36.0% of
those 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 quantity
of 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 increase
from 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



Table 1. Quantity of Articles Published, Author Affiliations, Authorship, and Funding Sources for HDT-Related
Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by 5-Year Time Periods

CTRJ Dress

Time Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Quantity of articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 34 41
Author 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 4
Authorship
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 10
Funding 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 1
No funding source reported NA 6 15 17 10 10 34 36 38 27 23 30

to HDT. After the fourth time period, the quantity of HDT articles included in CTRJ returned to what
was established as a consistent distribution in the third time period. Thus, aside from the special
issue 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 over
time 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 volumes
of Dress (16 and 17) were published in 1990 (this was the only year in the sample in which two
volumes of the journal were published).

Authorship and Funding Sources
As displayed in Table 1, the majority of HDT-related articles in CTRJ and Dress were authored by
individuals 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 that
for 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 the
fact that, compared to the membership of ITAA, which publishes CTRJ and comprises primarily
faculty and graduate students with CT backgrounds, the membership of CSA is somewhat more
diverse, 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



or museum professionals, publishing a research article in a peer-reviewed journal may be considered
a 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% multiple
authorship) 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 value
of collaborative research (Wray, 2002). The majority of articles published within Dress (81.7%) were
published by single authors, perhaps reflecting the more diverse authorship of this journal and/or a
publishing 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 articles
from CTRJ (f ¼ 24) and 16.1% of the articles from Dress (f ¼ 36). The most frequently cited source
of support differed in the two journals; internal funding in CTRJ (37.5%, f ¼ 9) and external funding
in 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 the
CT 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 unique
sources of external funding were noted. Five sources were cited more than one time: CSA Stella
Blum 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 different
patterns. The frequency of reported funding sources in CTRJ underwent a peak in the time period
of 1992–1996. This surge occurred in the midst of an otherwise gradual and consistent frequency
increase, 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; Lennon
et al., 2001; Oliver & Mahoney, 1991), however, the present findings suggest that relatively fewer
articles included within the present sample identified a source of funding (based upon a comparison
of percentages of total articles identifying a funding source). Although it is possible that articles
without an identified source of funding were funded by sources that were not acknowledged by their
authors, it also may be that these studies were simply not supported by funding. Thus, the researchers
encourage HDT authors to consistently acknowledge their funding sources (which is now required
by CTRJ) and propose that faculty and graduate students working in the HDT area would benefit
from the continual development of their grant writing skills (cf. Lennon et al., 2001).

Topics of Study
A unique component of the present study was that it employed an open-ended, qualitative approach
to inductively identify topic of study categories represented within the HDT literature. Many of the
categories 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, and
social/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



Table 2. Topics of Study Explored in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by
5-Year Time Periods

CTRJ Dress

Time Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Topics of Study
Construction/production NA 2 1 9 0 4 2 5 3 3 2 4
Researcha NA 4 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 7 9
Cultural aspectsb NA 0 1 5 1 3 3 5 4 7 4 2
Styles/aesthetics/design NA 1 2 1 3 2 2 7 7 4 3 3
Social/psychological aspects NA 0 0 1 4 1 5 5 8 8 6 9
Relationship between dress and mass fashion NA 0 4 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
Reproduction of HDT NA 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0
Retail/promotion/consumption NA 0 0 2 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 4
Conservation/preservation NA 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 1
Garment function/use NA 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 9 3 3 6
Total articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41
Note. In some cases, the frequency counts for the topics studied do not sum to the total number of articles published for time
period 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 the
HDT subdiscipline. bAlthough it could be argued that cultural aspects are inherent to many HDT topics, for the purposes of
our analyses, ‘‘cultural aspects’’ was conceptualized to include HDT articles that addressed cross-cultural comparisons or that
invoked 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 of
the 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 of
dress (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 in
Dress were styles/aesthetics/design and garment function/use (11.6% each) and cultural aspects and
research (11.2% each; see Table 2).
With regard to CTRJ, a comparison across time periods revealed that research was the only topic
of 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 ongoing
engagement 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 function
and use as well as cultural aspects related to dress. That Dress exhibited a decrease in conservation
and preservation topics around Time Period 4 may reflect that, during this time, several specialized
conservation 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 Albert
Museum, n.d.), offering HDT conservators alternative publication venues.
Analyses also examined geographic regions and time periods that have been studied within HDT
scholarship published in CTRJ and Dress. The geographic region most often studied in CTRJ and
Dress was North America (fCTRJ ¼ 55, fDress ¼ 142) and, specifically, the United States (fCTRJ ¼



54, fDress ¼ 132). Research inquiries related to North America were followed by those examining
Europe (fCTRJ ¼ 12, fDress ¼ 20), Asia (fCTRJ ¼ 9, fDress ¼ 7), and Africa (fCTRJ ¼ 1, fDress ¼ 5). That
CTRJ and Dress exhibited a strong trend toward the publication of research focused upon the United
States 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 foreign
collections may involve financial resources for travel (and time, which may necessitate a course
buyout) that are only possible within the context of grant support. As noted, however, much of the
research published in the HDT may not be supported by grant monies. Also, because the United
States typically has not encouraged second language studies, historic studies focusing upon areas
outside English language or Western European languages may be less typical. Nonetheless, the
potentially ethnocentric trend of publishing studies that emphasize geographic regions within North
America may be a call for future researchers to expand their ‘‘locus of focus’’ to include the HDT of
geographic 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 20th
century (f ¼ 18), and a combination of the 19th and 20th centuries (f ¼ 16). The time period most
often studied in Dress was the 20th century (f ¼ 56), followed by the 19th century (f ¼ 52), and a
combination 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 scholars
often study extant artifacts. No change over time analyses were conducted for the geographic region
or time period data. This was due to the highly particularistic nature of the data, which gave rise to a
complexity in making comparisons among the various time periods (i.e., the same time periods and
geographic regions were not consistently studied across the time periods examined, making compar-
isons across time difficult).

Research Methods
Empirical research articles accounted for 95.4% (f ¼ 292) of the total coded articles. Eighty-seven
percent of the empirical articles analyzed—including 65.8% of the articles published in CTRJ and
94.4% of those published in Dress—invoked exclusively qualitative data to address their research
aims. Of the articles identified as empirical, 6.5%—including 22.4% of the articles in CTRJ and
0.9% of those in Dress—employed exclusively quantitative data to address the research questions
posed. Several empirical articles—30.3% of those in CTRJ and 21.3% of those in Dress—described
research 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-based
approach (31.7%), followed by a qualitative approach to content analysis (9.9%), and a quantitative
approach to visual analysis (9.9%). The most frequently used research method in Dress was the
social/cultural history-based approach (36.9%), followed by the historical approach (23.1%) and
a qualitative approach to visual analysis (16.8%; see Table 3). That the historic method was more
commonly used within Dress as compared to CTRJ likely reflects the respective academic roots and
traditions 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 both
journals to adopt approaches (such as the social/cultural history-based approach) that move beyond
the ‘‘description-focused’’ artifact-based approach. That the social/cultural history-based approach
was 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).



Table 3. Research Methods Used in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by
5-Year Time Periods

CTRJ Dress

Time Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Empirical NA 4 15 27 14 16 33 37 43 33 30 40
Nonempirical NA 3 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1
Qualitative 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 2
Quantitative 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 0
Multiple 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 0
Mixed NA 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 0
Total articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41
Note. ‘‘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 multiple
methods, 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 the
combination 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 to
visual analysis. Content analysis and visual analysis also were used together frequently as were a
qualitative approach to visual analysis and the social/cultural history-based approach. Also of note
is the consistent application over time of visual analysis approaches by authors publishing within
Dress.

Use of Theory
As displayed in Table 4, the majority of the research articles analyzed (85.9%) did not identify or
articulate 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 of
CT (Johnson et al., 2008; Lennon et al., 2001). However, even in articles in which named theory
was 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



Table 4. Use of Theory in HDT-Related Content Published in CTRJ and Dress: Frequency Counts by 5-Year
Time Periods

CTRJ Dress

Time Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Named theory use NA 0 4 2 6 3 3 10 1 8 2 4
Applied existing theory from related discipline NA 0 1 2 2 2 1 11 0 4 2 4
Applied existing theory from CT field NA 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 1
Developed existing theory NA 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 1
Developed new theory NA 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Unnamed theory development NA 7 13 25 9 13 31 28 43 26 31 37
Number of articles using multiple theories NA 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1
Total number of articles published NA 7 17 27 15 16 34 38 44 34 33 41

Note. In some cases, frequency counts for the ‘‘Named Theory Use’’ columns exceed the total number of articles in which
named theories were used because some articles included more than one named theory.

arguments often took the form of relational statements that proposed linkages between various
events and/or justifications for the use of a given research method or educational approach, and
as 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 worn
during pregnancy was either adapted for pregnancy without modification, was altered for use after
pregnancy, or was rarely saved owing to the precarious nature of childbirth. Insomuch as Baumgarten’s
argument 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 social
factors 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 the
articles published in Dress), researchers invoked a named theory to guide their work. That the use of
named theory was slightly more common within CTRJ (as compared to Dress) may reflect the
expectation held by some within the broader CT discipline that the advancement of the field is
incumbent 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 HDT
scholars 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 to
generalize) 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. Of
these 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 (fCTRJ
¼ 3; Kaiser, Nagasawa, & Hutton, 1995), the theoretical framework for inference of cultural context
from archaeological textile remains (fCTRJ ¼ 2; Sibley & Jakes, 1989), trickle-down theory (fDress ¼
2; Simmel, 1904), and the theory of decorum (fDress ¼ 2; Hogarth, 1753/1997). Of interest is that
with the exception of Cunningham’s (1981, 1984) application of the theory of decorum, each of the
aforementioned 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 is
informative to consider how named theory has been used within HDT research. Two new named



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 context
from 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 the
broader 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 theory
in their work did not further refine or modify the theory, but instead, applied the theory ‘‘as is’’ to the
HDT 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 Table
4). 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 which
it can be applied.
Comparing across the time periods, none of the CTRJ articles published between 1982 and 1986
invoked a named theoretical perspective (see Table 4). During this time period (Time 2), authors
made 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/or
use 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 each
successive 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 in
Dress increased. In the remaining time periods, the use of named theory by authors fluctuated in
frequency. Unnamed theory experienced relatively constant frequencies in all time periods, but the
highest 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 unnamed
theory throughout the time periods analyzed likely reflects their frequent usage of the historical
method, which draws upon the data analyzed to form arguments or theses about the relationships
discovered (Gunn, 1991).

Conclusions
The present findings yield valuable insights into the body of HDT research published within two key
journals of the CT field—CTRJ and Dress—and offer a productive approach for strategizing about
the future. Findings relative to the topics of study point to some areas of strength in the body of HDT
knowledge produced by scholars publishing in CTRJ and Dress (e.g., knowledge about 19th- and
20th-century HDT and HDT from North America and Europe) as well as areas in which future work
may be needed to fill in gaps within the literature (e.g., research that explores non-Western HDT
topics, that considers HDT that predate the 19th century, and that builds upon previous work related
to conservation, preservation techniques, and collections management). Findings also suggest that
although HDT scholars have proposed and developed a limited number of new theories for use in
the HDT subdiscipline, by and large, they have not built upon these theories in future work and have
not been very programmatic in their use of existing theory, instead drawing from a wide range of
theories in their work (as opposed to focusing upon the in-depth development of a limited number
of 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



types of theoretical endeavors (e.g., those involving named and unnamed theories) to building new
understanding and to the benefits of being programmatic in the theoretical work undertaken. Moving
forward in a strategic, planful manner will assist in the cultivation of a bright future for the HDT
subdiscipline 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 the
United States (e.g., Costume or Textile History). Additionally, it may be illuminating to conduct
more 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 the
field. Similarly, it would be valuable to conduct a more focused, in-depth analysis of the use of
unnamed theory within HDT research published in the field’s key academic journals, considering
the various functions or roles of unnamed theory within the literature and exploring the potential
of unnamed theory for future theory development. Finally, to gain additional insights relative to the
present 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 if
and how they used theory in their work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Arthur, 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 http://www.costumesocietyamerica.com/dress.
htm
Costume 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



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 http://www.iiconservation.org/publications/sic/sic.php
Johnson, 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
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
Sage Publications Online. (2006). Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. Retrieved from http://ctr.sagepub.com/
Sibley, 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.



Simmel, 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 http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_
cons/conservation/journal/
Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69, 150-168.

Bios
Genna 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 Fashion
Merchandising from New Mexico State University and her MS in Historic Costume and Textiles from Colorado
State 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 and
perception of living history costumes, the visual rhetoric of historic dress and textiles display, and historic and
cross-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’s
Interdisciplinary Studies at Colorado State University. Her research examines how meanings about appearances
and bodies form within sociocultural contexts and through interpersonal interactions. She teaches courses in the
social psychology of appearance, historic costume, and research/theory.

Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr., is a professor of Design and Merchandising at Colorado State University. His
research and teaching interests are housing and research methods.


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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Último

Último (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

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