Advertisement

The Underrated Discipline

A Plea for Strengthening Home Economics
  • Viola MusterEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Home Economics has always been dealing with sustainable living and a responsible use of resources. Even though sustainability issues have attracted growing attention in academic research and society in recent years, home economics has hardly benefited from this increased interest. In the view of the author Home Economics is barely noticed in the international discourse on sustainability. Thus this article calls for more attention to the Home Economics discipline. At first, selected benefits of Home Economics for promoting sustainable living are illustrated. It is argued that Home Economics has distinctive qualities (e.g. its focus on resource management or on practical competences) that are missing in other disciplines. Second, the author reflects on possible reasons that might explain the scant recognition of Home Economics in the field of sustainability studies, particularly with regards to German Home Economics. At last, ideas for strengthening Home Economics are presented.

Keywords

Home economics Responsible living Scientific discipline Social recognition 

References

  1. AAFCS (American Association of Family and Consumer Science). (2011). Retrieved 25 Feb 2012 from http://www.aafcs.org/
  2. AHEA (American Home Economics Association). (1973). What Robin Morgan said at Denver. Journal of Home Economics, 65(1), 13–15.Google Scholar
  3. Boulding, K. E. (1972). The household as Achilles’ heal. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 6(2), 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CCN (Consumer Citizenship Network). (2009). Retrieved 07 Apr 2012 from http://www.hihm.no/CCN/
  5. Dewhurst, Y., & Pendergast, D. (2011). Teacher perceptions of the contribution of home economics to sustainable development education: A cross-cultural view. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, J., & Wetherell, M. (2010). On discourse and dirty nappies gender: the division of household labour and the social psychology of distributive justice. Theory & Psychology, 14(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EEA (European Environmental Agency). (2010). The European environment: State and outlook 2010. Consumption and the environment. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20(4), 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IFHE (International Federation for Home Economics). (2008). IFHE position statement. Home Economics in the 21st century. Retrieved 19 Sept 2012 from http://www.ifhe.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/user_upload/redaktion/Publications/IFHE_Position_Statement_2008.pdf&t=1348166296&hash=2e1e3a818c0504744424d35e1885071e
  10. Ironmonger, D. (2000). Household production and the household economy. Research paper. Department of economics—Working papers Series, 759. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, T. (2006). The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  12. KarmaKonsum. (2012). Retrieved 19 Sept 2012 from http://www.karmakonsum.de/
  13. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma, A., & Pendergast, D. (2011). The past, the present and the preferred future for home economics education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGregor, S. (2009). Historical presence of home economics. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan, R. (1973). What Robin Morgan said at Denver. The Journal of Home Economics, 65(1), 11–15.Google Scholar
  17. Müller, C. (Ed.). (2010). Urban gardening: Über die Rückkehr der Gärten in die Stadt. München: Oekom Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. PERL (Partnership for Education and Research about Responsible Living). (2011). Retrieved 07 Apr 2012 from http://www.perlprojects.org/
  19. Piorkowsky, M. B. (2011). Alltags- und Lebensökonomie: Erweiterte mikroökonomische Grundlagen für finanzwirtschaftliche und sozialökonomisch-ökologische Basiskompetenzen. Bonn: Bonn University Press, V & R unipress.Google Scholar
  20. Planetgreen. (2012). Retrieved 19 Sept 2012 from http://planetgreen.discovery.com/
  21. Reid, M. (1934). Economics of household production. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  22. Richarz, I. (1991). Oikos, Haus und Haushalt: Ursprung und Geschichte der Haushaltsökonomik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  23. Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. (2005). Adressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schiekiera, K. (2011). Nachhilfe am Herd. Berliner Morgenpost (19th February). Retrieved 25 Feb 2012 from http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/top-bmlive/article1550147/Nachhilfe-am-Herd.html
  25. Schweitzer, R. V. (2006). Home Economics science and arts: Managing sustainable everyday life. Zentrum für Internationale Entwicklungs- und Umweltforschung, Band 17, Frankfurt a.M., Berlin, etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Seel, B. (2006). Haushaltsökonomik: Grenzgänge zwischen Wissenschaftsparadigmen. Abschiedsvorlesung. Hauswirtschaft und Wissenschaft, 3, 112–119.Google Scholar
  27. Sinus Sociovision. (2009). LOHAS: Mehr als Green Glamour: Eine sozio-kulturelle Segmentierung. Eine Studie von Sinus Sociovision und KarmaKonsum. Heidelberg, Frankfurt a.M.: Sinus Sociovision, KarmaKonsum.Google Scholar
  28. Spargaaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stage, S., & Vincenti, V. B. (1997). Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the history of profession. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Thøgersen, J., & Schrader, U. (2012). From knowledge to action: New paths towards sustainable consumption. Editorial, Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turkki, K. (2005). Pre-professionals’ perception of home economics in Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(3), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. University of Giessen. (2011). Faculty 09: Agricultural sciences, nutritional sciences and environmental management. Retrieved 25 Feb 2012 from http://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/faculties/f09/view?set_language=en
  33. Utopia. (2012). Retrieved 19 Sept 2012 from http://www.utopia.de/
  34. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Education and Sustainable ConsumptionTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations