Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 117.3

&

Family conSumer ScienceS J O U R N A L O F

2025 Volume 117 Issue 3

Making Connections

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: • The "Re-Tooled" FCS BOK • Integrating Artificial Intelligence in FCS Education • The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation • Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert • Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics Trajectory • Honoring the Past Looking to the Future A M E R I C A N

A S S O C I A T I O N

O F

family & Consumer Sciences

NATIONAL

Vol. 117 - NO.3 - 2025

Table of Contents POINT OF VIEW Honoring the Past Looking to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .1 Cara Simmons, AAFCS Board President Fostering Heros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Scott Hall, JFCS Editor Supporting Food Safety Through Third-Party Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .5 Sam Cole, Food Contact Evaluation, NSF

FEATURE Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK) . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .7 Carol L. Anderson, CFCS; Lorna Saboe Wounded-Head, CFCS, CPFFE; Lori Myers, CFCS Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Melanie D. Schmitt, CFCS; Cynthia Miller, CFCS, CPFFE

SCHOLARSHIP The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (2006-2023) . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 20 Rachel Jumper; Billier Collier; Jane Opiri, CFCS; Karleah Harris Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .27 Rachel L. Vollmer; Abbi Taylor, Graduate Student

STUDENT LED SCHOLARSHIP The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .35 Lena Gan; Karleah Harris; Blake Gray; Derek Lawson; Sara Kay

PRACTICE Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Susan L. T. McGregor

1410 King Street, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314 | www.aafcs.org | 703-706-4600

Editor Scott S. Hall, PhD, CFLE Professor of Family Studies Chair, Dept. of Early Childhood, Youth, and Family Studies Ball State University Muncie,IN

Journal Reviewers For reviewer's affiliations visit our Web site at www.aafcs.org Ann Vail Axton Betz-Hamilton Barbara Stewart Caryl Johnson Detri Brech Donna Long Frances Andrews Francine Hultgren Jacqueline Holland Jana Hawley Jennifer Martin, Ph.D. Jody Roubanis Joice A. Jeffries, Ph.D. Julia Miller Arline Julia Miller Arline Kim Kamin Leigh Southward Lisa Kennon Lorna Saboe-Wounded Head

Marilyn (Marty) Martin Rossmann Mia Russell Pamela Schulze Patricia (Trish) Manfredi Rebecca Lovingood Sandra Evenson Sandra Evenson Sharon A DeVaney Sharon Hoelscher Day Tammy Kinley V. Ann Paulins Virginia Vincenti

Associate Editors Carol L.Anderson, PhD, CFCS College of Human Ecology Cornell University

Carole J.Makela, PhD, CFCS School of Education College of Health & Human Sciences Colorado State University

Kerry Renwick, PhD Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy Faculty of Education University of British Columbia

Managing Editor Debbie Johnson, CFCS

AAFCS Board of Directors

2025-2026

President 2025-2026

Cara Simmons, CFCS

President Elect 2025-2026 Gayla Randel, CFCS

The Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences: (ISSN: 1082-1651) is published four times a year (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall) by the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences (AAFCS), 1410 King Street, 2"' Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314. Member subscriptions are included in AAFCS membership dues of $150.

Advertising: Contact Toni Wiese at 703-706-4606. Advertisement of a product, service, or viewpoint should not be construed as an endorsement by the Association. The opinions expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Association, its officers, or its members.

Submissions: See Guidelines for Authors at www.aafcs.org.

Indexing/Abstracting: Family Index Dat abase, Family and Societ y St udies Worldwide. Educat ional Resources Information Center (ERIC) Membership and other inquiries: Main number (703) 706-4600; Fax: (703) 706-4663 email: staff@aafcs.org Copyright (c) by the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences, 2024. Materials may not be reproduced without written permission. Printed in the United States of America.

Treasurer 2025-2026

Menia Chester, CFCS, CNWE

Director-at-Large 2024-2026 Landon Calderwood, CFCS-HDFS

Director-at-Large 2023-2026 Margaret Jenkins

Director-at-Large 2025-2028 Carol Erwin, CFCS

Director-at-Large 2025-2028 Angela Gott

Counselor, Immediate Past President

Important Information for Readers Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences

2025-2026

Ex-Officio Barbara Stewart, CFCS

Executive Director, Ex-Officio JFCSTransitioning to Online Only

AAFCS has joined many others in academic publishing by transitioning JFCS from print to online only. This began with the I 13,3 issue in 2021. We are embracing this change as a catalyst for growth and sustainability and to disseminate information more rapidly and widely.

JFCS Online

Access is free to AAFCS members at www.aafcs.org

JFCS Main Page

, View journal themes • View Submission Guidelines and Deadlines , Subscribe to JFCS , Advertise

Karin Athanas

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.1

Point of View

Honoring the Past Looking to the Future Cara Simmons, PhD1

a

1 College of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Georgia Athens

Keywords: Foundation, Anchor, Connections, Relevance, Inclusive, Past, Present, Future

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

Ten years ago this month, I attended my very first AAFCS conference in Jacksonville, Florida. I was new to family and consumer sciences (FCS) - eager to learn, connect, and grow. I never imagined that a decade later, I’d stand before you as the 2025-2026 AAFCS President.

I’m deeply humbled and incredibly honored to serve in this role. It’s a privilege to be part of such a passionate and inspiring community of educators, leaders, and advocates who are committed to advancing the field of family and consumer sciences.

As I transition into this responsibility, I want to share a bit of the journey that brought me here.

My story begins with my maternal grandparents. My grandmother worked in a garment factory, and my grandfather - with only an eighth-grade education - built a successful painting business that served our community for years.

I was raised by parents who embodied resilience and dedication. My mother, a high school graduate, balanced work and family with quiet strength and an unwavering resolve. My father, an engineer with an associate’s degree, instilled in me a deep respect for education.

Though both of my parents have passed, their example - their fortitude - paved the way for me, a Black woman from a low-income, rural community in South Georgia, to achieve things I never imagined possible. One of those achievements is serving as your next president. Today, I’m proud to carry their legacy forward and even more grateful to pass it on to my two daughters.

My connection to family and consumer sciences began in the eighth grade, in a home economics classroom. That class was more than just an introduction to practical skills - it was one of my first experiences as a leader. I was asked to serve as the manager of our pop-up class restaurant. It sparked something in me: confidence, creativity, and a desire to serve others. What started as a class eventually became a calling.

Over the past decade, family and consumer sciences has provided me with invaluable experiences. My colleagues at the University of Georgia, the Georgia affiliate, and AAFCS have given me a deep appreciation and understanding of the field. I’m especially grateful to those who have supported and believed in me along the way. Thanks to them,

I’ve found not only professional growth but also a true sense of belonging in this field.

In 2015, I joined AAFCS and began serving as the Student Unit Advisor for the Georgia affiliate. That role expanded my view of FCS beyond the university. Five years later, I accepted the nomination to serve as President-Elect of GAFCS. That “yes” opened several opportunities for me: planning our state conference, leading the affiliate, chairing our inaugural Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, to serve on national committees, and to present at AAFCS events.

Now, a decade after joining, I prepare to lead our organization as its next president. To me, FCS is synonymous with leadership development.

As my involvement in leadership deepened, so did my desire to remain actively engaged with the profession even as my role changed at the University of Georgia.

When I transitioned out of my role in family and consumer sciences at the University of Georgia, I knew I still wanted to stay connected to the field that had shaped so much of my professional leadership journey. That’s what led me to pursue the CFCS credential. The credential is more than a certification. It’s a personal and professional affirmation of my commitment to the values and mission of FCS. It also sparked a new goal: to serve on the AAFCS Board of Directors. I wanted to give back to the community that had given so much to me.

I believe there’s always time to do what’s right and what’s necessary, and for me, that means continuing to contribute to the field in ways that support its growth, vitality, and visibility.

As I reflect on this journey, I know I didn’t do this alone.

There have been so many individuals and groups who have supported, inspired, and encouraged me along the way, and I’d like to take a moment to express my heartfelt thanks.

To UGA FACS - thank you for giving me such an extraordinary opportunity to lead, be innovative, and to serve our students.

To the Georgia affiliate Board - thank you for mentoring me and for showing me what makes this field truly extraordinary. And to past Georgia presidents like Don Bower and Jackie Ogden, whom I had the honor of serving with on the

a CFCS

AAFCS Board President

1

Honoring the Past Looking to the Future

affiliate board - your leadership and commitment continues to inspire me.

To the AAFCS staff - your responsiveness and dedication strengthen our organization every day.

To our outgoing president - Barbara Stewart - I’ve learned so much from your wisdom and grace this past year.

To the outgoing Board members - thank you for your thoughtful leadership in shaping the future of our organization.

To the incoming Board members - I’m excited to collaborate with you as we work to build momentum, strengthen our foundation, and future-proof AAFCS. I want to give a special shout-out to the undergraduate students attending this conference and to the leadership of the Student Unit - thank you for your energy, ideas, and dedication. I’m excited to get to know you and to work together in shaping the future of our field.

There are too many others to name and I don’t want to risk leaving anyone out but to the many mentors and friends I’ve met since 2015: thank you for being part of this journey with me.

And to those I’ve yet to meet - I hope we will soon. I look forward to the opportunity to connect with you and learn from you over the next year.

As I look ahead, I want to share the four guiding priorities for my presidency: Priority 1: Anchor to Our Foundation Family and consumer sciences has always been a field defined by its ability to adapt, innovate, and lead. From its earliest days, FCS has responded to the evolving needs of individuals, families, and communities translating knowledge into practical solutions that improve everyday life.

This spirit of responsiveness and resilience is woven into our identity.

Our foundation is strong because of the vision, dedication, and hard work of those who came before us. They laid the groundwork for a field that is both deeply rooted in tradition and boldly oriented toward the future. Their legacy is not just something we remember. It’s something we build upon.

Honoring that legacy means continuing to evolve. It means embracing new challenges, integrating emerging research and technologies, and expanding our reach to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. It means preparing the next generation of FCS professionals to lead with purpose, compassion, and innovation.

As we look ahead, we carry forward the values that have always defined us - education, empowerment, equity, and well-being while reimagining how we apply them in today’s context.

Priority 2: Nurture Our Connections At the heart of our field lies the transformative power of human connection. It’s through relationships - authentic, intentional, and enduring - that we find the strength to lead, the insight to serve, and the inspiration to grow.

These connections are not just a byproduct of our work; they are the foundation of it.

Whether it’s a meaningful conversation at this conference, a collaborative initiative across affiliates, or a men-

torship that bridges generations, these relationships enrich our professional lives and ground us in shared purpose.

They remind us that we are not working in isolation, but as part of a vibrant, interconnected community committed to improving the lives of individuals and families.

Strong relationships within our FCS community foster trust, spark innovation, and create a sense of belonging that fuels our collective impact. They allow us to learn from one another, support one another, and celebrate each other’s successes. In doing so, they fortify the very essence of what it means to be part of this field.

Ultimately, it is these human connections that give our work its deepest meaning. They are what transform knowledge into action, and action into lasting change. As we continue to evolve and lead, let us never lose sight of the relationships that sustain us and the power they hold to shape a better future.

I challenge each of us to leave this conference with one new connection - someone to mentor, collaborate with, or learn from. Because it’s through these connections that we continue to grow and move forward.

Priority 3: Reaffirm Our Relevance Our field has a strong legacy of innovation and continuous evolution. From its roots in home economics to its current role in addressing complex societal challenges, family and consumer sciences has consistently adapted to meet the needs of individuals, families, and communities. This adaptability is not just a hallmark of our past. It’s a defining feature of now.

Today, more than ever, it’s essential to clearly communicate the enduring relevance of our work. FCS professionals are uniquely positioned to address issues at the intersection of education, health, sustainability, and economic well-being. Whether in classrooms, community programs, research, or industry, our impact is far-reaching and deeply meaningful.

The updated Body of Knowledge is a powerful reflection of this progress. It captures the dynamic nature of our discipline, integrating emerging trends, technologies, and societal needs while staying grounded in our core values. It not only highlights how far we’ve come but also charts a path forward—reinforcing the forward momentum that defines FCS. This retooled framework serves as both a mirror and a map: a mirror that reflects our growth and resilience, and a map that guides our continued leadership in shaping healthier, more equitable, and more sustainable communities. As we move ahead, the Body of Knowledge reminds us that our work is not only relevant, it is essential.

Priority 4: Lead with Inclusive Purpose As I share my fourth and final priority for my presidency, I offer this priority as a challenge and a call to action.

I was reviewing my remarks and my conference badge was nearby. I looked at the ribbon that says “FCS for All.” Some of you may be wearing the same one.

I invite us to pause and ask ourselves - do we believe this?

Leading with inclusive purpose means making intentional decisions that center diversity, equity, access, and

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

2

Honoring the Past Looking to the Future

belonging even when it’s uncomfortable. Specifically, it means: • Valuing the unique perspectives and lived experiences of all individuals • Ensuring equitable access to opportunities and resources • Creating environments where people feel respected, heard, and empowered • Aligning our goals with inclusive practices that drive shared success and • Speaking up and asking the difficult questions Inclusive leadership means we listen especially when it’s hard.

Listening is foundational to family and consumer sciences. It’s how we serve. It’s how we grow. It’s how we lead.

The most powerful leaders I know, especially in FCS, are the ones that listen. They are the ones who make space for others to speak and lead with empathy and intention.

That’s the kind of leadership our future demands.

Leading with inclusive purpose is not about being perfect or always saying the right thing. It’s about being willing to listen, reflect, and adapt.

In today’s polarized and politicized climate, we have an opportunity to be the leaders our communities need and an obligation to reflect the full diversity of those we serve.

This is not just a moment to respond or react, it’s a moment to lead with purpose, courage, clarity, and conviction.

If we don’t, we risk becoming irrelevant.

To ensure our profession remains relevant, representative, connected, and accountable, we must continue to take intentional action together. How can we further strengthen family and consumer sciences by creating more collaboration opportunities with the National Coalition for Black Development in FCS, the Student Unit, the Diversity and Inclusion Community, the Assembly of Higher Education, and other groups that may not always be top of mind?

We’ve made tremendous strides. And while we can and should be proud of that progress, we also know there’s always more we can do to fully reflect the diversity, richness, and potential of our field.

Our commitment to inclusion is not just a value - it’s a responsibility. And it requires us to ask hard questions, examine our gaps in awareness, and commit to doing better.

We must continue to evaluate our practices, challenge our assumptions, and lead with inclusive purpose.

So I ask all of you, and myself, a difficult but necessary question: Are we truly leading for all members of AAFCS and the communities we serve? Or only for those who already feel included?

Because if the answer isn’t “all,” then we have work to do. And that work begins with listening, learning, and leading with inclusive purpose - together.

As I prepare to close and reflect on the journey of family and consumer sciences, it’s evident that our strength lies in our foundation, our connections, our relevance, and our leadership.

Together, these four priorities: anchoring to our foundation, nurturing our connections, reaffirming our relevance, and leading with inclusive purpose form the cornerstone of family and consumer sciences.

We honor the legacy of those who came before us by continuing to evolve.

By nurturing authentic relationships, we build a resilient and compassionate community that empowers individuals and families.

By reaffirming our relevance, we demonstrate that FCS is not only responsive to change but essential in shaping a healthier, more equitable world.

By leading with inclusive purpose, we strive to listen more deeply, learn from others, respect diverse perspectives, and empower those that we serve to reach their full potential.

It’s through our collective energy and shared vision that we will keep Family and consumer sciences vibrant, responsive, and relevant for generations to come. Let’s be bold, be kind, and be relentless in our pursuit of better.

I believe in family and consumer sciences.

And most of all I believe in us.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

3

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.4

Point of View

Fostering Heros Scott S. Hall, PhD, CFLE1

a

1 Early Childhood, Youth, and Family Studies, Ball State University

Keywords: Foster Care

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

The importance of foster care.

If you have been spying on me, you know that I’ve been learning more about foster care—not as a foster parent, but as a volunteer CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate), as a husband of someone who works for a non-profit organization associated with foster care, and as a researcher. I am currently conducting focus group research with foster parents to learn more about their resilience. It strikes me that what these parents are doing somewhat mirrors what Family and Consumer Science practitioners do.

One thing that drives my interest toward foster care is that it can be an opportunity to change the trajectory of multi-generational problematic patterns. Ideally, either through birth parents changing their ways, foster children being adopted into more stable homes, or pivotal experiences while in foster care, children learn new habits and perspectives that help break haunting traditions that can linger for generations. Of course, it doesn’t always happen that way. Some foster parents are abusive or understandably unable to change the tide of a collective tsunami of a traumatizing childhood history. But I choose to believe that a substantive number of children have their lives profoundly improved through foster care.

A common sentiment I’ve heard is that foster children often come from homes that lack basic stability. The children were exposed to very little structure and few household rules and have little understanding of basic hygiene, nutrition, interpersonal relations, and self-discipline. Older children sometimes lack developmentally appropriate skills in meal preparation, apparel care, and financial literacy.

The foster parents in essence can become experts in teaching the children helpful skills for everyday living. Anything about that sound familiar?

Foster homes first and foremost are intended to take care of the human needs of each child. The child’s individual well-being should be at the forefront of the foster parents’ minds, and of the minds of professionals and volunteers that are part of the community and human ecosystem surrounding the child. Ideally, the birth family and the foster family increase resilience by engaging in provided services and receiving various types of support. Such assets build capacity and develop sustained resources and are sensitive to lifespan considerations (e.g., age of the children and parents). Drawing upon useful technology and innovation can improve means of providing services and support.

Foster parents also operate within a larger, legal foster system. I’ve heard many complaints. In fairness, this system is dealing with complicated problems, complex bureaucracy, and sensitive legal considerations. In my limited digging I’ve found that foster care systems around the globe can vary considerably—when they exist. I see value in seeking insight from counterparts across the world to help find optimal ways to promote wellness in individuals, families, and communities.

It is interesting—and sometimes inspiring—to see how various knowledge bases and skill sets integrate to help children and their parents transcend unfortunate circumstances. As with any parents, foster parents are expected to be multi-talented, gifted with impressive attributes, and at least modestly self-sacrificing, but must also adapt to new faces dropping in for often unpredictable amounts of time with unclear or surprising challenges and needs that require substantive time, flexibility, and emotional investment. I am in awe of what many of these heroes are willing to embrace.

a Professor Family Studies

4

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.5

Point of View

Supporting Food Safety Through Third-Party Certifications Sam Cole1

a

1 Food Contact Evaluation, NSF

Keywords: Food Safety, Third-Party Certifications, Wellbeing, NSF

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

Food safety is key to protecting the health and wellbeing of individuals, families and communities. Health professionals are helpful resources for people to learn from a credible source on what they should be most focused on to avoid and mitigate the risks of foodborne illness and environmental pollutants.

NSF, an independent, global services organization, is dedicated to improving human and planet health by developing public health standards and providing world-class testing, inspection, certification, advisory services and digital solutions to the food, nutrition, water, life sciences and consumer goods industries. Consumers and businesses may recognize the signature NSF certification mark on products, which can indicate a validation of food or product safety.

The Problem with PFAS Environmental contaminants like (per- and polyfluoroalkyl) PFAS and Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH), are oftentimes found in food products, regardless of how healthy the actual food may be.

PFAS were developed in the 1930s, and at the time, were instrumental in manufacturing and practical uses due to their non-stick and water-resistant properties. They were popular in many products, including housing materials, firefighting foam and clothing. PFAS, specifically Teflon, or PTFE (a specific PFAS type), was particularly popular in non-stick cookware, which can leach into the food being prepared in it.

Beyond the home, the use of PFAS expanded into food manufacturing, as it was used for processing systems and food packaging materials. This increased PFAS’ prevalence in our food systems. Although PFAS use is decreasing, they are still present in our water sources and agricultural land.

This poses a significant challenge, as it is difficult to break down in both our bodies and our environment, earning their name “forever chemicals”.

The negative health effects of PFAS were not discovered until years after they had been routinely used and dispersed in our environment, making them a challenge to get rid of.

The hurdles we face with PFAS have highlighted the improvements we need to our food and water supply, creating a race for professionals to reduce or remove them entirely from our ecosystem.

Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH) Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH), are another contaminant of concern that has come about in recent years. They first garnered concerns in the 2010s, with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) alerting the public that they may be harmful. This came with the discovery that their chemical structure of three or more rings could make them genotoxic carcinogens. A decade later, the EU regulatory committee (SCoPAFF) and EFSA continued updating and alerting the public of the health risks of MOAH. MOAH are naturally derived from petroleum, and aside from entering our food supply through environmental means, are sometimes present in food packaging and lubricants. In food processing aids, they can enter our food either through cross-contamination or poor refinement. European regulations are already being put in place to limit their usage in food products, with other regions likely to follow.

Consumer Protections While industry professionals are working tirelessly to find solutions to remove PFAS and MOAH from our food and water supplies, consumers can be proactive in safeguarding their health by looking for third-party certifications to industry standards specifically for PFAS and MOAH. For those concerned with PFAS, they can search for products certified to NSF Certification Guideline 537: PFASFree Products for Nonfood Compounds and Food Equipment Materials (NSF 537). Products that are certified to NSF 537 have undergone rigorous testing that ensures there are no PFAS intentionally added to the product, there are minimal or no detected total organic fluorine (TOF) levels over 50 ppm, and there are no PFAS additives or post-consumer recycled material are used in the products.

This guideline was launched in 2025, providing an avenue for manufacturers to demonstrate their commitment to the health and safety of their customers.

Additionally, to reduce exposure to MOAH, food manufacturers certified to NSF Certification Guideline 538, MOAH-Free Products for Nonfood Compounds and Food Equipment Materials, are contributing to increasing con-

a Sam Cole, Director, Food Contact Evaluation, NSF

5

Supporting Food Safety Through Third-Party Certifications

sumer safety. This ensures that food manufacturers have undergone rigorous testing to ensure that equipment materials or nonfood compounds do not contain high MOAH levels. Certification is not a one and done testing process.

It requires food manufactures to retest annually, ensuring that manufacturers continue to uphold their operations to the standard requirements that food processing aids do not become contaminated with MOAH. This standard is also brand new in 2025, showcasing the progress that industry professionals have already made in tackling these issues.

Food Safety Focus Beyond the contaminants of concern, improving food safety will help improve overall health by minimizing the chance of foodborne illnesses. It is important for industry professionals to educate consumers on the importance of keeping a clean workspace and kitchen during food preparation to reduce bacterial spread. They need to be knowledgeable of tips like keeping raw and cooked foods separate and sanitizing the workspace with soap. Sponges, clothes, and cutting boards should be frequently cleaned and separate ones should be used for handling raw vs cooked foods.

Additionally, leftovers are a great way to save time and money, but it is imperative for consumers to know how to properly handle them. To start, leftovers need to be put into the fridge within two hours to avoid bacterial growth.

For freezing meals, separate dishes into meal-size portions to avoid thawing and refreezing multiple times, which can lead to bacteria. As for refrigeration, air circulation is crucial, so avoid overpacking refrigerators and keep them at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Additionally, leftovers are good for up to three to four days, so either freeze them or discard them if they are over.

Beyond the actual food safety, container cleaning is equally important. Consumers need to be sure to use a different food container, certified to NSF’s Certified for Home Use standard, each time they eat leftovers, then put them back in the fridge. Certification helps ensure the quality, cleanability, and durability of products. Utilizing different containers helps reduce bacteria like Salmonella mold and yeast that can grow by using the same container repeatedly.

Additionally, the rubber seal on storage containers is a breeding ground for bacteria. They should be removed and washed separately from the container to ensure the container is fully clean. Cleaning and storage tips like these help consumers increase their food safety.

Improving Overall Health

well, some of which are out of our control. It is important for consumers to be aware of the different types of contaminants of concern we are facing when it comes to our food as they look to improve their health and wellness. This will help them better understand the proactive measures they can take to avoid them.

The good news is that industry professionals are working on some of the largest contaminants of concern we are facing health wise – PFAS and MOAH. While we can’t entirely avoid PFAS and MOAH, consumers can take some steps to reduce our exposure to them. It is important for consumers to look for products that have third-party certification to NSF 537 and MOAH free certification. This helps give consumers peace of mind that the food manufacturers are meeting strict standard requirements.

Additionally, consumers can be proactive in increasing their food safety at home by properly preparing and storing food. Things like sanitizing kitchen essentials and utilizing different workspaces for raw and cooked foods can significantly help reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses. Following best practices for storing and reheating leftovers can also safeguard health and safety.

Health and wellness encompass many different variables. It is important for consumers to be aware of the different factors that affect overall health so they can understand which factors to focus on improving. This also helps consumers be knowledgeable about the different areas where they do have control over improving, so they can worry less about the ones that are not in their control. As industry professionals, we can help health-conscious consumers by providing reliable information and peace of mind to break up health trends and myths that are not necessarily backed by science.

About the Author As Global Director of Product Certification – Equipment and Chemical Evaluation, Food Retail, Sam Cole leads NSF’s nonfood certifications and evaluations teams. His teams prevent foodborne illness by certifying and registering commercial and processing food service equipment, food contact materials, and nonfood compounds, including lubricants, greases, and other chemicals used in and around food processing areas. NSF also serves as a third-party profiler (TPP) for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Choice program.

There is more to improving overall health than simply dieting and exercising. Environmental factors play a role as

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

6

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.7

Features

Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK) a

b

Carol L. Anderson , Lorna Saboe Wounded-Head , Lori Myers

c

Keywords: Body of Knowledge, Family and Consumer Sciences, Theory, Integrating Disciplines, Empowering Practice

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

The Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (FCS-BOK) serves as the intellectual foundation for the profession. The Lake Placid conferences agreed on a focus centered on improving the everyday life of individuals and families via tackling the pressing issues of the day. In the initial years, topics including water quality and enhancements in household management were systematically examined and implemented in daily practice.

Rooted in the pioneering work of early leaders who sought to apply scientific principles to improve the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities, the BOK has provided a common language and framework to unify the profession across content areas and practice settings.

As society has advanced, so too has the FCS profession—adapting to address complex, real-world issues such as sustainability, technology, human development, global interdependence, and career development while maintaining a focus on the well-being of individuals and families across the lifespan. Thus, the intellectual foundation for the profession was initially designed to celebrate the profession’s rich heritage in home economics and highlight its growth into a dynamic, interdisciplinary field.

Over time, every profession identifies its intellectual foundation. Increasingly, this foundation is formalized in documents such as the FCS-BOK. A sample of professions that have taken this step include accounting, engineering, and medicine.

The re-tooled Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (FCS-BOK) is anchored in a unifying theme that reflects both the enduring values and the evolving scope of the field: Rooted in Theory, Integrating Disciplines, Empowering Practice. This theme captures the foundational elements that have historically defined Family and Consumer Sciences while highlighting the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of its contemporary applications. It underscores the importance of theoretical grounding—drawing from social, behavioral, and natural sciences to inform understanding and decision-making. It also recognizes the field’s integrative approach, connecting diverse disciplines such as nutrition, human development, design, textiles, consumer economics, and education to holistically address individual,

family, and community needs. Most importantly, the theme emphasizes the field’s applied purpose—to equip professionals and learners with the knowledge and tools needed to make informed, ethical, and impactful contributions across numerous practice settings. In a rapidly changing world, this unifying theme affirms the relevance and responsiveness of FCS in fostering well-being, resilience, and sustainability through a theory-informed, critical science, interdisciplinary, and practice-focused lens.

Reflecting on the History of the FCS-BOK In 1999, the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) launched the Body of Knowledge Initiative in response to a growing need for a coherent professional identity in a rapidly changing world. The first formal articulation of the FCS Body of Knowledge as a conceptual model occurred in the late 20th century, following up on the 1993 Scottsdale, Arizona meeting. At this meeting, the profession known as home economics was proposed to be renamed family and consumer sciences.

The quest to revise the body of knowledge for the field began shortly after that. At its October 1999 meeting, the AAFCS Board of Directors determined that bringing together various efforts was essential to finding common ground for establishing a forward-looking framework for the body of knowledge embedded in Family and Consumer Sciences. A beginning dialogue on the body of knowledge was held at AAFCS headquarters in January 2000. The charge to the 20 individuals representing FCS focused organizations and interests was to review the work of different groups, engage in dialogue and agree upon a philosophical framework for the FCS body of knowledge, define basic concepts and identify pervasive threads, and establish a process for sharing the framework and engaging others in refining it. Participants were challenged to think toward the year 2020 and have 20/20 vision about what elements should inform scholarship, curricula, policy, and practice. A model was first developed in 2000 to provide a visual framework for professional focus and practice within family and consumer sciences. This initiative led to the publication,

a CFCS, Professor Emeriti, Cornell University b CFCS, CPFFE, SDSU Extension c CFCS, Chief of Staff, Senior Director: Core Competency

7

Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK)

Body of Knowledge of Family and Consumer Sciences in 2001, which presented the framework as a visual model. What became known as “cross-cutting themes” solidified the FCSBOK as a living framework—flexible and adaptive to new knowledge and societal twists and turns.

Now, over twenty years later, this re-examination and update to the conceptual framework of the FCS Body of Knowledge recognizes shifting social, environmental, technological, and professional landscapes and ensures that the framework remains relevant, reflective of current and future challenges, and responsive to the diverse needs of both professionals and the communities they serve. The result of this collaborative effort is a renewed and retooled Body of Knowledge, designed to serve as a blueprint for the profession in the decades ahead.

Understanding the “Re-Tooling” Process Since its introduction in 2001, the Body of Knowledge (BOK) has been the head, heart, and soul of the profession.

Periodic reviews and updates are essential to ensure the Body of Knowledge remains relevant, forward focused, and reflective of the Family and Consumer Sciences mission, values, and goals. More than 20 years have passed since the FCS Body of Knowledge was initially developed, making it an appropriate time to revisit and reflect on this foundational framework. As communities, society, and global environments continue to evolve, so too must the profession that serves them. Recognizing this need, the AAFCS Board of Directors appointed a task force to examine the Body of Knowledge through a contemporary lens. As 2023-2024 AAFCS President Deb Andres, CFCS-HDFS stated, “I am honored and excited to propel the evolution process to our profession’s credo, the Body of Knowledge. We aren’t looking to rewrite history. Rather, we reflect on the history of FCS to make research-proven and policy-informed adjustments to the framework and anchor that guides each of our professional settings and roles” (AAFCS, 2023). The Task Force was appointed in September 2023 with the timeline of reporting to the membership during the 2025 AAFCS Annual Conference. To retool, the Task Force was asked to do four things: • Review the historical context of our profession; • Take a good look at the current Body of Knowledge and determine strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities to enhance as we look to the future; • Retool the model; and • Create resources to help students and professionals apply the Body of Knowledge to their work and areas of focus.

The Retooling the Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge Task Force divided the work into three phases: 1) Fact-Finding, 2) Synthesizing and Decision-Making, and 3) Resource Creation. Before commencing their work, the Task Force members engaged in a broad discussion that quickly centered on the significance of multidisciplinary collaboration in addressing current and future challenges and opportunities of individuals, families,

and communities. A human ecosystem approach became a framework guiding the process.

Fact Finding Most of the fact-finding phase extended from February 1 – June 30, 2024. Panels of practicing professionals interacted with the Task Force members sharing their perceptions of strengths, application, and areas for retooling during each meeting. Representation came from middle and secondary teachers, Extension professionals, research/ teaching faculty members, state Family and Consumer Sciences program supervisors, graduate students, and faculty/ staff from AAFCS accredited units.

Additional feedback on what would be of value in the retooled BOK was gathered through a survey of students and professionals who represented AAFCS members and nonmembers. This survey, conducted in the spring of 2024, was designed to seek input about their knowledge of, experience learning about, and understanding the applications of the current Body of Knowledge. Participants were asked to rate their knowledge in understanding and applying each component of the BOK (core concepts, integrative elements and cross-cutting themes). Overall, responses for a high level of knowledge ranged from 27% - 57%, indicating half to less than half of the respondents had a high level of understanding and applying components of the BOK. Figure 1 summarizes the awareness level of the survey respondents.

During the 2024 AAFCS Annual Conference, one general session was assigned to the Task Force. This session presentation was part of the fact-finding process as participants had opportunities to provide input via Mentimeter, an interactive presentation software. Session attendees (n = 184) rated their familiarity with the FCS-BOK as Not Familiar at All (14%), Somewhat Familiar (45%), and Very Familiar (41%). Attendees rated the relevance of the current cross-cutting themes on a scale of 1 Not Relevant at All to 5 Very Relevant. Ratings ranged from 4.4 to 4.9, indicating that the themes were timely for today and the future.

Members of the Task Force appreciated the input from all the individuals who shared their thoughts and ideas through engagement in stakeholder virtual focus groups.

The quantitative and qualitative data from members and non-members representing students and professionals provided a valuable contribution to the process.

Synthesizing and Decision-Making Based on the feedback received and analyzed, responses suggested that some terms might be altered and that particular components were probably still timely but could be refreshed. Furthermore, the results indicated that an increased emphasis was needed on building awareness of the Body of Knowledge and its application in professional practice.

The Task Force identified framework components: Core Principles (4), Integrative Elements (2), and Influencing Elements (5). The Core Principles included Human Needs, Individual Well-Being, Family Resilience, and Community Vitality. These Principles represent the essential and en-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

8

Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK)

Figure 1. Awareness and Understanding of the FCS Body of Knowledge Dimension of Knowledge

Mean Rating (1-5)

Knowledge of and comfort with the FCS Body of Knowledge

3.85

Understanding specifics of the Body of Knowledge

3.76

Understanding application of the Body of Knowledge

3.78

Understanding the Body of Knowledge as an assessment tool

3.39

Scale: 1 indicating little knowledge and 5 indicating high level of knowledge

during focus of the profession’s work. Two Integrative Elements, Human Ecosystem and Lifespan Progression, became bedrocks as they offer unifying frameworks that connect diverse environments and content areas. The term “lifespan progression” offers a nuanced and integrative lens that’s especially well-suited for Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), because it captures both individual development and family evolution across time. The term “crosscutting themes” was changed to Influencing Elements to more accurately reflect the key societal and dynamic forces that shape the profession’s focus and evolution. Capacity building, global interdependence, resource development and sustainability, technology and innovation, and wellness impact how Family and Consumer Sciences students and professionals prepare for practice, respond to emerging trends and needs, and design solutions that promote wellbeing in a complex and interconnected world. These elements are not static; they evolve over time and significantly impact how professionals adapt, innovate, and respond to real-world challenges, ensuring the field remains socially responsive, future-focused, and relevant. The new terminology emphasizes their active role in shaping the context, tools, and approaches used in FCS practice, education, and research.

Considering the changes in families, members of the Task Force reviewed the definition of family that had been accepted by the American Home Economics Association (AHEA) in 1975. After considerable review and discussion, members of the Task Force reaffirmed the definition: “…two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitment to one another over time. The family is that climate that one “comes home to” and it is this network of sharing and commitment that more accurately describes the family, regardless of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage.” (New Directions II, 1975)

Resource Creation Feedback provided insight into the need for resources to help professionals and students create and expand their understanding of the BOK and how to use it in courses as well as everyday practice. Additionally, definitions for each principle/element would become a resource for expanding understanding and consideration of how each contributes to the profession.

Following identification of the FCS-BOK components, Task Force members drafted definitions for each to provide a framework for what might be included as professionals

engage in their practice. A draft of the conceptual framework was shared in the bi-weekly AAFCS Matters email in March 2025 and feedback was again sought from students and professionals. Guiding statements and definitions for each of the eleven (11) principles/elements were finalized after reviewing received comments. The guiding statements summarize each principle/element: • Human Needs – Meeting Essential Physical, Social, and Emotional Needs to Empower Growth, Resilience, and Purpose • Individual Well-Being – Enhancing Life Satisfaction Through Self-Awareness, Resilience, and Purposeful Living • Family Resilience – Fortifying Families with Skills, Strength, and Resilience for Life • Community Vitality – Cultivating Vibrant Communities Through Connection, Resilience, and Shared Opportunity • Human Ecosystem – Linking People and Environments to Strengthen Families, Communities and Well-Being • Lifespan Progression – Fostering Well-Being Through Life’s Transitions, Challenges, and Milestones • Capacity Building – Empowering People and Systems to Grow, Collaborate, and Achieve Lasting Impact • Global Interdependence – Connecting People and Nations Through Cooperation, Shared Goals, and Mutual Respect • Resource Development and Sustainability – Building a Better Tomorrow by Managing Today’s Resources Wisely • Technology and Innovation – Driving Progress Through Creativity, Knowledge, and Transformative Technology • Wellness – Nurturing Health in Body, Mind, Spirit, and Community The unifying theme of the re-tooled Body of Knowledge, Rooted in Theory, Integrating Disciplines, Empowering Practice, reflects the core strengths of the FCS-BOK, emphasizes a strong theoretical foundation and the integrative, synergistic nature of the profession, and highlights how FCS prepares professionals to address complex human needs and promote the well-being of individuals, families, and communities Recognizing that the graphic developed for the 2001 FCS Body of Knowledge was dated, a new graphic (Figure 2) was re-imagined by Karin Athanas, AAFCS Executive Director, and Toni Wiese, Director of Marketing and Membership, to represent the Body of Knowledge framework.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

9

Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK)

Official Launch and Release The model and conceptual framework were released and posted on the AAFCS website for an early view of the work.

The dedicated website is available and can be accessed at www.aafcs.org/fcs-bok. During the 2025 AAFCS Annual Conference, members of the Task Force shared their work with attendees during a general session.

Following the initial release in the general session, two additional sessions were held during which attendees were invited to share their perspectives and propose various strategies for engaging both members and non-members in understanding and use.

This collaborative approach exemplified the spirit of inclusivity and continuous improvement that has long characterized the FCS community and will be relevant in moving forward. Professionals will be encouraged to share resources that have been successful, create research projects focused on one or more principle/element, and offer technology-assisted experiences. Through open dialogue, dynamic discussion, and a willingness to embrace change, the Task Force ensured that the updated Body of Knowledge would be not only a reflection of the discipline’s legacy but also a living, responsive guide for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Moving Forward The Task Force was tasked with creating resources to help FCS professionals apply the Body of Knowledge. During the Fact-Finding stage, professionals who participated in panel discussions provided suggestions for resources they felt would guide the application and teaching of the BOK. Additionally, at the 2024 Annual Conference, participants were invited to contribute suggestions for potential resources, providing a foundation for future initiatives in the coming months. The Task Force concluded that resources were needed to learn about, teach, and integrate the BOK in FCS courses and professional work.

Through the feedback gathered, it was determined that resources were needed to assist educators in teaching about the Body of Knowledge. To create a basis of knowledge for the profession, it is important that both secondary and post-secondary students learn how the FCS content is generated and how it connects to professional work. It was determined that webinars, journal manuscripts, and presen-

tations would provide a consistent platform for educators.

Such resources could connect FCS content to use in practice settings. Whether students are prepared to teach, to analyze personal diets, to design adaptable homes, or to develop activities for children, future professionals can be confident knowing there is a rationale for their work.

Another aspect of the Body of Knowledge that was determined to be important was identifying how it can be applied to the FCS content. Task Force members presented examples of ways to apply BOK concepts and elements to various content areas during the 2025 General Session to generate ideas for attendees. Lesson plans, presentations, and videos that focus on one or more components of the BOK would be valuable resources for classroom teachers, Extension professionals, administrators, and other FCS professionals. Case studies are a valuable tool that can incorporate critical thinking and problem-solving to highlight the BOK and provide examples for connecting diverse FCS disciplines.

Rather than create a variety of resources itself, members of the Task Force determined that it was important to engage the expertise and experience of professionals and students in creating a bank of resources to be juried and available on the AAFCS website. The Task Force emphasizes the need for member/professional input for the resources. Having a library of resources can assist new professionals or those learning about FCS in building their understanding and their skills in applying and integrating the BOK. An open call for resource proposals is coming; templates and rubrics will be provided. Additionally, research on specific principles/elements can be available in the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences and the Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. Manuscripts that address any component of the FCS-BOK are welcome for submission.

Members of the Task Force who provided leadership for updating the FCS Body of Knowledge include: Carol L. Anderson, CFCS, Co-Chair; Lorna Saboe-Wounded Head, CFCS, CPFFE, Co-Chair; Karen Alexander, CFCS; Ethel Jones, CFCS; Sharon Nickols; Carmen Pederson; Gayla Randel, CFCS; Susan Shockey, CFCS, CPFFE; Duane Whitbeck; and Lori Myers, CFCS (AAFCS staff).

Additional Note The American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) leads the profession by sharing, evaluating, and updating the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) Body of Knowledge to reflect new research and trends. This knowledge base guides AAFCS accreditation, certification, and strategic initiatives. As the copyright holder for its resources, AAFCS manages current and future efforts related to the FCS Body of Knowledge.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

10

Introduction to the “Re-Tooled” Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (BOK)

Figure 2. Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge Model

2025 AAFCS Copyright Protected.

References

American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. (2019). Family and Consumer Sciences Compendium Series – Volume 1. Body of Knowledge. https://www.aafcs.org/ search?executeSearch=true&SearchTerm=Body+of+K nowledge+Compendium&l=1 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences Team. (2023, October 12). AAFCS launches Body of Knowledge Retooling Task Force. AAFCS. https:// www.aafcs.org/blogs/aafcs-team/2023/10/12/aafcslaunches-bok-retooling-task-force

American Home Economics Association. (1975). New Directions II. McGregor, S. L. T. (2024). Home Economics 5.0: In Readiness for Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0.

International Journal of Home Economics, 17(2), 110–128. https://www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/IJHEVol-17-Iss-2-A9-McGregor.pdf

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

11

Acknowledgment of FCS-BOK Focus Group Participants The FCS-BOK Task Force would like to acknowledge the input and feedback provided by panels of practicing professionals who participated in focus groups during the spring of 2024. Representation came from middle and secondary teachers, Extension professionals, research/teaching faculty members, state Family and Consumer Sciences program supervisors, graduate students, and faculty members from AAFCS-accredited units. The panelists shared their perceptions of strengths, application, and areas for retooling the FCS-BOK. Thank you to the following individuals for sharing their time and insights as part of the “fact-finding” segment of the re-tooling process.

Samii Kennedy Benson, Southern University at Baton Rouge (Louisiana) Daphnne Bonaparte, CTE Program Leader (Georgia) Sydney Cox, Texas Tech University (Texas) Michelle Dennis, Colorado Community College System (Colorado) Janine Duncan, Purdue University (Indiana) Krystle Gremaud, University of Central Missouri (Missouri) Angel Herring, University of Southern Mississippi (Mississippi) Jacqueline Holland, CFCS-HDFS, Morgan State University (Maryland) Kayla Godbey Howard, Kentucky Department of Education (Kentucky) Jean Kelleher, CFCS, Pennsylvania Department of Education (Pennsylvania) Elizabeth Kiss, Kansas State University Extension (Kansas) Cynthia Miller, CFCS, CPFFE, Texas Tech University (Texas) Jackie Ogden, CFCS, University of Georgia Extension (Georgia) Roger Rennekamp, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (Washington, DC) Kyle Roberson, Texas Tech University (Texas) Melanie Schmitt, CFCS, Texas Tech University (Texas) Sue Strutz, CFCS, Wisconsin Dells High School (Wisconsin) Margaret Viebrock, CFCS, CNWE, Washington State University Extension (Washington) Gus Vouchilas, San Francisco State University (California) Nicole Wanago, Montana State University (Montana) Cara Winston-Simmons, CFCS, University of Georgia (Georgia) DJ Youngblood, CWNE, Monroe Area High School (Georgia)

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

12

Call for Manuscripts: Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

The Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) Body of Knowledge is the foundational framework of our profession, shaping scholarship, education, practice, and innovation. Following a comprehensive two-year review led by a boardappointed task force—with input from members at key milestones, including the 2024 Annual Meeting—the Body of Knowledge has undergone revisions.

Unveiled at the 2025 Annual Meeting, the updated framework reflects the evolving discipline and addresses the changing needs of individuals, families, and communities. It encompasses the following elements: Core Principles

• • • •

Integrative Elements

• •

Influencing Elements

• • • • •

Human Needs Individual Well-Being Family Resilience Community Vitality Human Ecosystems Lifespan Progression Capacity Building Global Interdependence Resource Development and Sustainability Technology and Innovation Wellness

To advance understanding and application of these updates, the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences invites manuscripts that define, illustrate, and apply the revised Body of Knowledge. Submissions may explore its theoretical foundations, analyze implications for research, or demonstrate integration into professional practice.

We welcome contributions that further the discourse on how the revised framework strengthens the profession and informs future scholarship.

Submission guidelines for the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences are located at https://jfcs.scholasticahq.com/for-authors.

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.14

Features

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education Melanie D. Schmitt, Ph.D., CFCS1, Cynthia L. Miller, Ph.D., CFCS, CPFFE1 1 Department of Interdisciplinary Human Sciences (Family & Consumer Sciences Education Program), Texas Tech University

Keywords: Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), Personalized Learning, Ethical AI Use, Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education, Practical Applications of AI

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool that is reshaping education by offering innovative ways to enhance teaching and learning experiences. As Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) educators, we have the unique opportunity to harness AI’s capabilities to improve instructional practices, personalize learning, and prepare students for an increasingly technological world, while also addressing the practical life skills central to FCS education. This manuscript explores the potential of AI, its practical applications in the FCS classroom, the essential skills students need to navigate an AI-driven environment, and the ethical considerations that FCS educators must address to ensure responsible use.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming various fields and education is no exception. For Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) educators, AI presents a unique opportunity to enhance instructional practices and better prepare students for the challenges of the future. FCS education, which focuses on practical life skills, such as nutrition, family management, and consumer behavior, can greatly benefit from AI by integrating technology in ways that are both innovative and relevant to students’ lives. This manuscript examines how AI can be used to enrich FCS education by providing practical applications, essential skills for students, and guidelines for ethical use.

Understanding AI and Its Capabilities A related study in the Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal discusses AI-powered chatbots in the fashion sector, offering insights into user attitudes and potential educational applications (Kang et al., 2024). These findings can inspire similar AI-driven innovations in FCS education, such as personalized learning and consumer behavior analysis.

AI refers to machines’ simulation of human intelligence, particularly computer systems, enabling them to perform tasks that typically require human cognition, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and understanding natural language (OpenAI, 2024). The following are key areas where AI has made significant advancements: • Digital Assistants: Tools such as Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant can perform a range of tasks, from setting reminders to controlling smart home devices, all through voice commands.

• Facial Recognition: AI-driven facial recognition technology is used in security systems, social media tagging, and unlocking smartphones.

• Recommendation Algorithms: AI powers the recommendation engines of platforms such as Netflix,

YouTube, and Amazon, personalizing user experiences based on their preferences and behavior.

• AI in Education: AI can analyze vast amounts of data to personalize learning experiences, assist with grading, and automate administrative tasks, making education more efficient and tailored to individual student needs.

Rationale for the Incorporation of AI in the Classroom Integrating AI into FCS education is not just about keeping up with technological trends; it is about preparing students for a world where AI is an integral part of daily life.

Our current learners and young professionals include Gen Z (born between 1995 and 2009) and Gen Alpha (born between 2010-2024) (McCrindle et al., 2021). These generations are digital natives who have grown up with technology as a constant presence. They are accustomed to smart devices and expect technology to be integrated into their learning experiences.

Education 4.0 emphasizes personalized learning with AI delivering customized content, boosting engagement, and providing real-time feedback to students and teachers (McGee, 2023). In FCS education, this means creating more relevant and effective learning experiences that reflect the realities of a technology-driven society.

Practical Applications of AI in the FCS Classroom Personalized Learning AI-driven personalized learning tailors content to individual student needs, learning styles, and career aspirations. Platforms like Quizlet AI and Quizizz AI adjust content in real-time based on student performance, ensuring

14

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education

personalized learning pathways in FCS subjects such as financial literacy and nutrition (Fadel et al., 2019).

Enhanced Information Source In FCS, AI tools like ChatGPT go beyond traditional search engines by synthesizing information and presenting coherent responses to complex FCS-specific questions (Miller, 2023). For instance, rather than using Google to search for general information about “nutrition,” students can use AI to explore specific topics like “the impact of sustainable eating practices on family health,” gaining deeper insights for projects on family wellness or meal planning.

This FCS-focused exploration enables students to apply real-world skills in nutrition and family management.

Creating Leveled Texts and Assignments One of AI’s strengths is its ability to generate content at varying levels of complexity, which supports differentiated instruction (Miller, 2023). For FCS educators, AI can adapt complex topics like “metabolic pathways” in nutrition or “types of interest” in financial literacy to be accessible for students with diverse literacy levels. To illustrate, AI tools such as Diffit can adapt a scientific article on nutrition or financial management, producing versions suitable for both advanced and struggling readers, making the FCS content relevant and engaging for all learners.

Creating Interactive Presentations AI platforms, such as Curipod and Magic School, enable educators to design interactive presentations that engage students more deeply (Miller, 2023). For instance, an interactive presentation on food safety can include live quizzes to test students’ knowledge in real time, enhancing engagement and retention. These AI-driven tools can transform traditional lectures into dynamic learning experiences that support FCS education’s hands-on nature.

Redefining Feedback and Assessment with AI AI tools provide immediate feedback, assisting students with projects like nutrition plans or family budgets. Tools like Grammarly offers real-time grammar and style suggestions, helping students improve their writing before submission. In the future, traditional assessment methods may become obsolete, with AI transforming the learning process through personalized evaluation of competencies (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). AI’s real-time feedback allows educators to focus more on complex project-based tasks. Nevertheless, there will be challenges in ensuring assessments remain equitable and align with AI-enhanced learning environments.

Streamlining Administrative Tasks AI can automate many administrative tasks such as grading and attendance tracking, allowing educators to focus more on instructional activities (Fitzpatrick, 2023). For instance, AI can quickly grade multiple-choice exams and

provide immediate feedback, freeing up time for teachers to engage with students on more complex, project-based learning activities typical in an FCS classroom.

Teaching Responsible AI Use in FCS Education As AI becomes more integrated into education, teaching students how to use these tools responsibly becomes crucial. This includes understanding AI’s limitations, recognizing potential biases, and developing critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate AI-generated content.

Developing Questioning Skills The quality of AI outputs is directly related to the quality of the inputs. In FCS, students must ask targeted questions.

Instead of asking, “What is a balanced diet?” a more effective question would be, “How does a balanced diet for a family of four differ based on varying income levels and regional food availability?” This specificity helps students refine their research and decision-making skills, preparing them for real-world challenges.

Understanding AI’s Limitations Although AI can process vast amounts of data, students in FCS must understand the unique limitations of AI within the context of FCS. For instance, AI-generated recommendations for financial management might not account for the personal values, cultural factors, or family dynamics that FCS emphasizes. FCS educators must guide students in critically evaluating AI’s suggestions, ensuring these tools support—rather than replace—human judgment.

Promoting Practical Problem-Solving and Critical Thinking AI introduces new problem-solving methods, but in FCS education, students must learn to adapt these to realworld, practical problems. For example, students working on a family meal plan could use AI to generate different nutritional options based on the family’s preferences and budget. At the same time, students should be encouraged to critically evaluate AI-generated content, questioning the accuracy and relevance of AI’s suggestions while recognizing potential biases (Fitzpatrick, 2023). This combination of adaptability and critical thinking is essential in a world where AI is becoming increasingly integrated into daily life.

Ethical Considerations and Challenges in FCS The integration of AI into FCS introduces ethical complexities and challenges, particularly in areas such as home management, nutrition, and consumer behavior. As AI reshapes FCS education, it presents concerns around privacy, sustainability, and data use, which educators must address to help students understand the implications of AI in personal and domestic environments. By fostering responsible decision-making, FCS educators can ensure that students consider the ethical dimensions of AI both in the classroom and in their communities.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

15

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education

Ethical AI Use in Domestic Environments

Equity and Access

AI-powered devices, such as Alexa and other virtual assistants, play an increasing role in modern households.

While these technologies offer convenience and efficiency.

They also collect extensive amounts of sensitive data, raising critical privacy concerns. The implications of continuous data collection extend beyond security, affecting family dynamics and ethical decision-making within households (Fosch-Villaronga et al., 2020).

Key Concerns:

The digital divide remains a significant challenge in AIenhanced FCS education, as not all students have equal access to AI tools and resources. Ensuring that all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, have equitable access to AI-enhanced learning experiences is vital to preventing existing inequalities from deepening (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). FCS educators must strive to create inclusive, accessible environments where AI is used to enhance learning for all students.

• Privacy and Data Security: AI-driven devices record and store personal information, often without users fully understanding how this data is used or shared.

This raises questions about who has access to this information and the potential for misuse.

• Impact on Family Dynamics: The presence of always-listening devices can alter household interactions, creating a sense of surveillance or reducing the authenticity of communication. Families may need to navigate boundaries for technology use within their private spaces.

• Educational Implications: FCS educators have a pivotal role in preparing students to critically evaluate and responsibly use these technologies (FoschVillaronga et al., 2020). Discussions should focus on understanding the trade-offs between convenience and privacy and the ethical considerations of managing household tasks with AI. Some discussion points for FCS classrooms can include: • How can families mitigate privacy risks while using smart home technologies?

• What strategies can be employed to balance the benefits of AI-powered devices with the need for maintaining healthy family interactions?

• How do cultural, ethical, and personal values shape decisions around adopting these technologies?

By addressing these concerns, FCS educators can empower students to make informed choices about integrating AI into their lives, ensuring that technological advancements enhance, rather than disrupt, family well-being.

Sustainable Consumer Choices and AI Bias AI plays a vital role in promoting sustainable consumer behavior by helping students make informed choices regarding eco-friendly products and energy-efficient practices. AI-powered simulations can illustrate the environmental impact of various consumer behaviors, offering students a clearer understanding of the long-term outcomes of adopting sustainability practices, such as reducing food waste or minimizing energy consumption in smart homes (Nishant et al., 2020). However, addressing algorithmic bias in AI is essential, as these biases can distort recommendations and exacerbate inequality in consumer choices (Baker & Hawn, 2021).

Adapting to Rapid Technological Change AI technologies are evolving rapidly, creating both opportunities and challenges for FCS educators. As these tools advance, FCS educators must continuously update their knowledge and adapt their teaching strategies to stay current (Williamson et al., 2020). Developing a culture of lifelong learning within the field of FCS will be essential to ensuring that both students and educators can keep pace with technological advancements while also maintaining a focus on human-centered values such as empathy, cultural sensitivity, and interpersonal skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

Future Directions As we stand on the cusp of a new era in education, the integration of AI into FCS presents unprecedented opportunities for growth and innovation, reshaping how we educate and prepare students for a tech-driven world. AI technologies are poised to revolutionize FCS education in several key areas, from personalized learning ecosystems to immersive virtual experiences. This transformation extends beyond the classroom, influencing career guidance, sustainable living practices, and collaborative project-based learning. AI-enhanced tools like virtual teaching assistants and data-driven analytics will support educators in creating more responsive and customized programs, while societal changes driven by AI will require FCS to adapt to new job landscapes, lifelong learning demands, and ethical considerations. Moreover, the future of home and family life will be shaped by smart technologies, AI assistants, and evolving care dynamics—all of which FCS education must address to ensure students are prepared to navigate and thrive in these environments. As we explore these future directions, it becomes clear that AI is not just a technological advancement but a fundamental shift in how we approach teaching, learning, and living in an AI-augmented world.

Transforming FCS Education • Personalized Learning Ecosystems: AI-driven personalized learning could revolutionize FCS education by tailoring content to individual student needs, learning styles, and career aspirations. This could involve AI-powered adaptive learning platforms that adjust in real time based on student performance and engagement (Fadel et al., 2019). These systems will

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

16

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education

•

•

•

•

•

•

ensure more effective skill acquisition and provide a truly customized educational experience.

Virtual and Augmented Reality Integration: Incorporating VR and AR technologies, enhanced by AI, could provide immersive learning experiences in FCS. For example, students could practice kitchen safety in a virtual environment or use AR to visualize interior design concepts in real spaces (Makransky & Petersen, 2021). This technology could also extend to virtual kitchens where students practice cooking techniques without the need for physical ingredients or equipment (Engineering for Kids, 2024).

AI-Enhanced Career Guidance: AI could analyze labor market trends, student interests, and skills to provide personalized career guidance within FCS fields. This could help students make informed decisions about specializations and career paths (Hirschi, 2018). As the job landscape shifts due to automation, this guidance will be crucial in preparing students for emerging roles that require uniquely human skills.

Sustainable Living Simulations: AI-powered simulations could help students understand complex systems related to sustainable living, allowing them to experiment with different scenarios and see longterm outcomes of various lifestyle choices (Nishant et al., 2020). This aligns with the growing importance of sustainability in FCS curricula.

Collaborative AI in Project-Based Learning: AI could facilitate more effective group work by matching students based on complementary skills, monitoring group dynamics, and providing real-time suggestions for improving collaboration (Tissenbaum & Slotta, 2019). This approach enhances crucial teamwork skills needed today and in the future workforce.

AI Teaching Assistants: Chatbots and virtual assistants could provide 24/7 support to students, answering questions and offering guidance on coursework (Slaughter & Thompson, 2024). This constant availability of help can significantly enhance the learning experience and ease some of the burden on teachers.

Data-Driven Program Improvement: AI analytics tools will help educators track student progress and identify areas for curriculum enhancement, leading to more effective FCS programs. This data-driven approach ensures that educational content remains relevant and effective (Engineering for Kids, 2024).

Societal and Workforce Changes As AI advances, its impact will extend beyond the classroom, affecting society, the workforce, and family life. FCS education must evolve to address these broader implications: • Shifting Job Landscape: With AI automating routine tasks, FCS education will need to focus on preparing students for roles that require creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving—skills that are uniquely human (Talty, 2018).

• Lifelong Learning: The rapid pace of technological change necessitates continuous upskilling (Intel, 2024). FCS programs must continue expanding to offer more adult education and professional development courses to support lifelong learning.

• Ethical Considerations: As AI becomes more prevalent, FCS curricula will likely incorporate discussions on its ethical implications in areas like privacy, bias, and decision-making (Engineering for Kids, 2024).

The Future Home and Family The integration of AI into domestic life will also shape the future of FCS education: • Smart Home Integration: FCS education will need to cover topics like managing AI-powered smart home systems and understanding their impact on family dynamics (Engineering for Kids, 2024; Slaughter & Thompson, 2024).

• AI as a Family Co-Pilot: Students will learn how AI assistants can help families manage schedules, plan meals, and coordinate household tasks, potentially reducing stress and freeing time for meaningful interactions (Slaughter & Thompson, 2024).

• Changing Care Dynamics: As AI and robotics transform eldercare and childcare, FCS programs will need to address how to integrate these technologies while maintaining human connection and quality care (Engineering for Kids, 2024; Slaughter & Thompson, 2024).

• Work-Life Balance: With the rise of remote work, FCS education will be crucial in teaching strategies for maintaining healthy boundaries between work and family life in tech-enabled environments (Intel, 2024).

Conclusion Integrating AI into Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) education has the potential to significantly transform teaching and learning. AI provides opportunities for personalized learning, immersive experiences, and real-world applications that prepare students for a tech-driven society.

At the same time, FCS educators must address the ethical, social, and practical implications of these technologies to ensure that their integration enhances human-centered values, such as empathy, critical thinking, and cultural sensitivity.

While AI presents exciting possibilities, it also opens doors for further exploration and research in FCS education. Future studies could investigate the following topics to expand the understanding and impact of AI in this field: 1. The Impact of AI-Powered Personalized Learning Tools on Student Outcomes in FCS Education: Research could focus on how adaptive AI platforms improve learning engagement, skill acquisition, and long-term retention in diverse FCS subjects such as nutrition, financial literacy, and child development.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

17

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education

2. Ethical Implications of AI-Powered Recommendations in Consumer Decision-Making within FCS Curricula: This research could explore how algorithmic biases and ethical dilemmas influence consumer behavior and the ways FCS educators can prepare students to critically evaluate AI-driven recommendations.

3. Exploring the Use of Virtual Reality in Teaching Practical Skills like Nutrition or Interior Design in FCS Classrooms: Investigating the effectiveness of immersive VR environments could provide insights into how these technologies enhance hands-on learning, student creativity, and career readiness.

As AI technologies continue to evolve, FCS educators must engage in ongoing dialogue about their implications while remaining adaptable to rapid advancements. By integrating AI thoughtfully, FCS education can maintain its human-centered approach while equipping students with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in a digital world.

Through further research and practice, the discipline can lead the way in leveraging AI to improve the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities.

Published: September 30, 2025 EDT.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

18

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Family and Consumer Sciences Education

References

Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2021). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 1052–1092. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 Engineering for Kids. (2024, June 26). Future of AI: Opportunities and challenges ahead. Engineering for Kids. https://www.engineeringforkids.com/about/ news/2024/april/the-future-of-ai/ Fadel, C., Holmes, W., & Bialik, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Open Education Press.

Fitzpatrick, D. (2023). 13 ways ChatGPT can reduce teacher workload. The AI Educator. https:// theaieducator.io/ Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2020). Gathering expert opinions for social robots’ ethical, legal, and societal concerns: Findings from four international workshops. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(2), 441–458. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12369-019-00605-z Hirschi, A. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Issues and implications for career research and practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12142 Intel. (2024). AI for future workforce program. https:// www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate/ artificial-intelligence/digital-readiness-ai-for-futureworkforce.html Kang, J. M., Lee, J. Y., Choi, D., & Koo, S. H. (2024).

Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots in the fashion sector: The affect-behavior-cognition model of attitudes. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 53(5), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ fcsr.12521 Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10648-020-09586-2 McCrindle, M., Fell, A., & Buckerfield, S. (2021).

Generation alpha: Understanding our children and helping them thrive. Hachette Australia.

McGee, N. (2023). Exploring the lived experiences of teachers implementing or preparing to implement artificial intelligence at K-12 school in the United States: A qualitative phenomenological study [Dissertation]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12520/ 234 Miller, M. (2023). AI for educators. Ditch That Textbook.

Nishant, R., Kenney, M., & Corbett, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104 OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (4o) [Large language model].

Slaughter, A. M., & Thompson, A. P. (2024, May 29).

Can AI improve family life? Diplomatic Courier. https:/ /www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/can-ai-improvefamily-life Talty, S. (2018, April 1). What will our society look like when Artificial Intelligence is everywhere? Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ innovation/artificial-intelligence-futurescenarios-180968403/ Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. (2019). Supporting classroom orchestration with real-time feedback: A role for teacher dashboards and real-time agents.

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(3), 325–351. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09306-1 U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. Office of Educational Technology. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/aireport/ai-report.pdf Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17439884.2020.1761641

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

19

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.20

Scholarship

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (2006-2023) Rachel Jumper1, Billie Collier2, Jane Opiri3, Karleah Harris3 1 Human Sciences , Stephen F. Austin State University, 2 Florida State University, 3 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Keywords: FCS teacher preparation, Family and Consumer Science, educator preparation

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

This literature review examined articles on FCS educator preparation programs published in three family and consumer sciences (FCS) journals from 2006-2023. The aim of the review was to better understand the types of research being conducted about FCS educator preparation programs. The researchers examined trends in the research, practice, and delivery of post-secondary programs for FCS teacher preparation. An analysis of the literature revealed two overarching themes that are explored in detail: the shortage of FCS teachers and the specialized curriculum of FCS educator programs.

Focusing on these themes can help inform and concentrate efforts toward maintaining teacher education programs.

Introduction Preparing Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) secondary teachers has been a central element in the development of the FCS field. As FCS secondary education programs and courses have progressed over the years, emphases have changed and the place of home economics and then family and consumer sciences in public schools has evolved (Duncan et al., 2017). Family and Consumer Sciences developed as a “women’s field” (Werhan, 2010), focused on the home and homemaking and then broadened to include many aspects of daily living and is now part of Career and Technical Education (CTE), narrowing to training for specific careers (Duncan et al., 2017). As the field has evolved and the names of programs at the secondary and post-secondary levels have changed, professionals have recognized the importance of branding it. However, despite recognizing its importance and the efforts at branding, the field has struggled with a teacher shortage and recruitment (e.g., Bowers & Myers, 2019; Duncan et al., 2017).

The “Say Yes to FCS” campaign started as a state-level recruitment tool in Kansas and has been used by the National Association of State Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences and Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) (Randel & Spavone, 2016).

In addition, the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) noted the demand for FCS teachers at all levels and provided a resource toolkit for recruiting, preparing, and supporting educators in conjunction with the “Say Yes to FCS” campaign. As the campaign sought to show, teaching FCS at all levels teaches students various life skills in health and nutrition, raising families, financial literacy, and other areas (Family, Career and Community Leaders, 2023). The “Say Yes to FCS” campaign was a national initiative that helped market FCS, unified the branding of the field, and provided ideas for innovative recruiting

ideas to come out of post-secondary settings (Duncan et al., 2017). The current “Elevate FCS” theme of AAFCS encourages FCS professionals to celebrate the value and impact of the field (AAFCS, 2024). However, with so many competing messages in schools and other environments, the distinctiveness of FCS programming may yield to voices pushing “core” subjects, softening the appeal of FCS in teaching life skills necessary for functioning as individuals, families, and consumers. This concern is further evident through the CTE career clusters framework that includes FCS in many clusters rather than recognizing it as its own unique cluster (Advance CTE, 2024).

The shortage of FCS teachers may continue and impact the availability of higher education programs that train those teachers. It has also led some school districts to use alternative certification programs to fill positions for FCS teachers (Werhan, 2013). Teachers from alternative certification programs may lack specific holistic training on the Body of Knowledge (BOK) and co-curricular activities specific to FCS (Werhan, 2013). In addition, one study of secondary FCS nutrition teachers found that teachers with an FCS background reported significantly more confidence in their ability to teach nutrition and to influence students’ nutrition-related behavior than those with a non-FCS background (Murimi et al., 2008).

Methodology To better understand trends in the research, practice, and delivery of post-secondary programs for FCS teacher preparation, a systematic review of the literature published from the years 2006-2023 – the past 18 years of data was conducted. This review focused on articles from three journals. The journals reviewed were Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences (JFCS), Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal (FCSRJ), and Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education (JFCSE). While many journals focus on 20

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

FCS sub-areas and general teacher education, these three journals are each seminal to the overarching field of FCS, which was the focus of the current study. Researchers fully reviewed the journals identifying articles related to postsecondary FCS teaching programs.

Prior to evaluating the journals, the researchers met as a group and agreed on keywords to use in the search. This research grew out of an earlier project in which a wider group of keywords guided a review of literature on family and consumer sciences programs more generally. The present effort narrowed the focus to post-secondary teacher education programs, winnowing the keywords to those specific to the aim of examining articles on this topic. Keywords that researchers agreed to pay careful attention to as they were reviewing articles were: secondary education, teacher preparation, teacher education, education, educator preparation, post-secondary education, clinical teaching, and student teaching. While these keywords were a place for researchers to begin, any articles reviewers felt addressed post-secondary teacher education were included in the initial review.

A total of five researchers were involved in the review of literature. Each researcher reviewed articles in one journal with the exception of the lead researcher who reviewed articles from two journals. To review the articles, researchers worked in teams of two with each research pair assigned a specific journal. Researcher pairs then divided the articles in their assigned journal by years so that one researcher reviewed articles from 2006-2015 and the other reviewed articles from 2016-2023. As mentioned, this review came from a larger project in which all authors participated so for this project, researchers were assigned to review different journals from the previous project, bringing fresh eyes and an additional level of evaluation. After reviewing their assigned years, the researchers met with their partner to discuss the articles they found and the themes they believed were overarching for that journal. The full research group then met and discussed themes and any discrepancies found within the articles. A spreadsheet with all the themes was developed and researchers put article titles into the spreadsheet under the appropriate theme. Additionally, all researchers created an annotated bibliography which was compiled by the lead author into the identified themes.

The researchers engaged in three rounds of article reviews. In the initial review of journal articles, for the purpose of discovering themes found in the literature, a total of 86 articles and 10 themes were identified. The team then further refined the themes so that only those themes identified across at least two journals were included. This resulted in a total of 2 primary themes with 8 sub-themes and 76 journal articles. On the third review, only articles that fit within the identified themes and that specifically addressed post-secondary educator preparation programs were included yielding a total of 53 articles presented in this paper. The breakdown by journal was JFCS (n = 25), JFCSE (n = 21), and FCSRJ (n = 7).

Results Two main overarching themes regarding post-secondary education programs emerged across the journals, which will be discussed in detail below. These themes were: the FCS teacher shortage and the importance of FCS specific curricula which had several sub-themes (diversity and social responsibility specific to families, FCCLA, sustainability, holistic knowledge of the field, up-to-date FCS information, and the importance of service-learning/hands-on experiences). Overall, the results indicated that FCS educator preparation programs have creative approaches to recruiting and are developing and preparing FCS teachers to be well versed in the field of FCS through curricula that are up to date on issues like diversity of family forms and ethics specific to FCS.

Shortage of Teachers and Recruiting Students for FCS Teacher Preparation Programs The first theme researchers found was that an FCS teacher shortage exists, and recruitment of new students is imperative to maintain the field. While the shortage of FCS teachers is often a topic of discussion, Duncan et al. (2017) pointed out that there is confusion in the definition of a shortage and between the field’s rhetoric surrounding an FCS teacher shortage and the federal government’s information regarding a shortage. Werhan and Whitbeck (2017) highlighted the importance of having accurate data to better understand teacher shortages and recommended that, “those who would like to ensure state and national data are accurate can facilitate this by first checking the states’ OPSE’s list of teacher shortage areas” (p. 26). While there are differences in definitions and having accurate data is important, the teacher shortage is often a central idea in publications regarding recruiting and retaining students in FCS. Alexander and Davis (2011) found it to be one of the top 16 trends that FCS education should address. A variety of articles reviewed for this study focused on the teacher shortage in FCS (Godfrey et al., 2016; Rattray & Calvin, 2010; Werhan, 2013).

Although professionals generally agree that an FCS teacher shortage does exist, earlier research (prior to the dates included in this review) suggested that few solutions had been provided for how to recruit and retain more teachers (Mimbs, 2000). We found that over the 18 years reviewed, many articles addressed recruitment and retention strategies for FCS teachers. The “Say Yes to FCS” initiative encouraged research on recruitment practices and collaborative efforts to recruit students into the field were a result of that campaign (Duncan et al., 2017). In some states, universities have developed profiles of FCS teachers and teacher education students to better target recruitment and retention strategies (Arnett-Hartwick, 2017; Tripp, 2006; Tripp & Hollarn, 2016). Other articles outlined a variety of ideas for recruiting students to FCS teaching programs including research on male students (Godfrey & Manis, 2017; Werhan, 2010), innovative initiatives to educate students (Godfrey et al., 2016), recruiting tools like newsletters (Lee, 2011), collaborations with school counselors (Alexander &

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

21

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

Miller, 2017), mentoring programs with community colleges (Eastman et al., 2006) and the importance of specific FCS curriculum to help teachers feel adequately prepared for their work (Kitchel et al., 2010). Carter et al. (2015) suggested that aligning FCS more closely with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields might increase male participation in FCS programs. Positively, as the field looks at many ways to recruit students into FCS teaching, it is interesting to note that research by Pulay and Tripp (2022) asked FCS teachers about their job satisfaction and found that most teachers in the study were satisfied with their work.

Curriculum Curriculum specific to FCS was noted as a valuable reason to recruit teachers into FCS specific programs and emerged as a second theme. Teachers and professionals attending a post-secondary FCS program benefit because the curricula in these programs focus on specialized content knowledge that is important to the continuation and image of the field. These FCS educator programs teach national standards that describe the “knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of beginning FCS teachers” (Fox et al., 2007, p. 11). In addition, FCS teachers face unique challenges, over and above those of other teacher preparation disciplines, due to the diversity of content that comprises the discipline, so it is imperative that they be prepared with effective instructional methods (McCombie & Zimmer, 2007).

The theme of curriculum was the largest theme, and as the data were evaluated, we found that several of the emerging themes addressing FCS specific course content all fell under the curriculum umbrella. Because of this, the curriculum theme was divided into several sub-themes: diversity and social responsibility specific to families, holistic knowledge of the field, FCCLA, sustainability, and the importance of service-learning/hands-on experiences.

Diversity and Social Responsibility in FCS Diversity in this context was twofold: focusing on curriculum to teach content about diverse families and preparing future teachers to work with diverse populations in a culturally responsive way in their classrooms. Diversity of content included curriculum that addressed a variety of family forms (Taylor & Xia, 2018) and diversity on a larger scale, including how we address diverse families in their environment (e.g. Miller-Spillman et al., 2006; Tippitt & Roubanis, 2006) and engaging in social justice (Zygmunt & Cipollone, 2019). The importance of understanding and studying diversity was seen in various articles (Arnett, 2012; Deaton & Goering, 2020; Taylor & Xia, 2018). The articles reviewed showed that FCS post-secondary programs keep abreast of evolving family forms and ensure pre-service teachers are learning about diversity-related issues (Bartley et al., 2013; Taylor & Xia, 2018).

Research on diversity also included the importance of preparing teachers to work with students from diverse backgrounds in their own classrooms (Deaton & Goering, 2020; Rehm & Allison, 2006). Teacher candidates must be

prepared to create inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of all their students. Research showed that teacher preparedness in diverse education directly impacts students’ academic performance (Arnett, 2012). In FCS education courses, students learn to make their classrooms more inclusive and emphasize the importance of hands-on activities for diverse students (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Another important piece of the idea of diversity and post-secondary teacher education programs was the fact that research showed that including curriculum and activities regarding the multicultural makeup of present-day classrooms could lead teacher candidates to be more culturally responsive educators (Deaton & Goering, 2020). By providing realistic experiences with diverse topics, educator preparation programs can help future teachers develop the skills needed to teach effectively in diverse settings, promoting inclusivity and equity (Arnett, 2012).

Holistic knowledge of the field The theme of holistic knowledge encompassed the idea of the importance of the AAFCS Body of Knowledge (BOK) and how programs grounded in FCS help students understand the connections between all areas of the field. The BOK serves as the framework that is the foundation of the FCS field (AAFCS, 2024; Nickols et al., 2009). The BOK has been updated and changed over time to reflect the changing of the field and the current context and serves as a foundation for much of the research and curriculum in FCS programs (Nickols et al., 2009). In the literature reviewed here, there were many articles that focused on one specialization area within the BOK (e.g., nutrition, human development, interior design, etc.), but the articles that are included and coded into the theme of holistic knowledge were focused on the importance of the BOK for FCS as a whole rather than its parts.

Similarly, this theme recognized that the field provides FCS National Standards revised by FCS experts to be taught to all teacher candidates in FCS programs (Lead FCS, 2024).

These National Standards undergo updates to reflect the growth and changing needs of families (Handy et al., 2021).

In their article about the history of the national standards and explanation of the process for the most recent updates, Handy et al. (2021) provided information about how the BOK and national standards are aligned. The focus on aligned standards specific to FCS and the BOK is an important defining component of FCS teacher education programs (Handy et al., 2021). Post-secondary teaching FCS programs that use the national standards and the BOK help ensure that FCS teachers and graduates are well versed in the foundational concepts of the field. FCS education courses can also provide a place where teachers can develop FCS specific teaching and professional philosophies (McGregor, 2020, 2022).

FCCLA A third sub-theme related to curriculum was training teachers to organize and advise FCCLA chapters. In the 2020 version of the FCS National Standards, student orga-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

22

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

nization integration continued to be included (Lead FCS, 2024). Articles in the journals spoke specifically to FCCLA and the ways that post-secondary programs can help to recruit and connect high school programs with university programs. Attending a post-secondary FCS teacher preparation program better prepares teachers to teach FCS content and to lead a chapter of FCCLA (e.g., Arnett-Hartwick, 2020; Godbey, 2016; Randel & Spavone, 2016). FCCLA helps promote areas that are also taught in post-secondary FCS curricula (Shirley & Kohler, 2012) and helps teacher candidates gain practical experience implementing FCCLA programs and connecting them to FCS content (DeBates & Pickard, 2008). The articles found in the journals indicated that the relationship between post-secondary teacher educator programs and FCCLA is bidirectional. At the postsecondary level, teaching students about FCCLA programs prepares them to lead these programs as teachers (DeBates & Pickard, 2008), and other articles being published in the field showed the importance of FCCLA as a way to recruit students into FCS teaching and help reduce the teacher shortage (Bowers, 2022; Randel & Spavone, 2016).

In their article on secondary teachers’ perceptions of FCCLA, Alexander et al. (2015) recommended integrating FCCLA projects into teacher education programs to increase positive feelings of secondary teachers toward advising FCCLA chapters once they are in the classroom.

Sustainability Sustainability was another sub-theme that emerged under the umbrella of curriculum. For this theme, sustainability was addressed as a curricular idea rather than an overall idea of how to maintain the field of FCS. Studies in this area emphasized that there is a need for faculty in FCS education programs to demonstrate commitment to teaching sustainability by integrating it into their curriculum for FCS educators (Stall-Meadows, 2010). Sustainability can be utilized in a variety of ways to teach a range of FCS topics including financial literacy (White et al., 2021) and environmental sustainability (Thompson et al., 2012). With its diverse content areas, FCS is ideal for teaching sustainable practices that include developing, sourcing, producing, and consuming environmentally friendly food, furnishing, and apparel products. In addition, FCCLA can be used to bridge postsecondary educators’ knowledge of sustainability and secondary education experiences learning about sustainable practices (Thompson et al., 2012).

Service-learning/transformational/hands-on experiences The final sub-theme of curriculum that emerged from the review of literature was the use of innovative high impact practices like service-learning and hands-on classroom experiences that encourage students in FCS educator preparation programs to engage with course content and their communities. As Banerjee and Hausafus (2009) wrote, “Service learning is a form of experiential education characterized by student participation in an organized service activity that is connected to specific learning outcomes and

that meets identified community needs” (p.39). In addition, this article pointed out that FCS is suited for service-learning because the profession has an “interactive, ecological perspective” (p.40). In an analysis of a Canadian symposium on FCS teaching, transformative practice was discussed in a variety of ways and included two key meanings that aligned with the present findings which were, “…student-centered and experiential learning are transformative pedagogies; transformative practice takes time…” (McGregor, 2016, p. 27). Teacher educator programs use a variety of activities to promote transformational learning including poverty simulators (Kihm & Knapp, 2015) and field observations with reflections (Banning, 2013). In addition to in-class activities, service learning is another tool that engages students with their community. Service learning in FCS presents opportunities for students to apply theoretical knowledge in real-world settings and allows them to make meaningful impacts in their communities (Kihm & Singleton, 2012). Journal articles provided examples of various service-learning activities such as the development of lesson plans and demonstrations for preschool students (Kihm & Singleton, 2012).

Discussion/Future Research This review identified two overarching themes in the literature on FCS pos-secondary education programs published in three FCS journals: the FCS teacher shortage and the importance of FCS specific curricula for training teachers. As the articles were analyzed, sub-themes emerged that provided insight into the strengths and challenges for teacher education programs. Our compiled review showed that FCS post-secondary programs are important because they use the FCS National Standards as a foundation and they teach future FCS professionals about the holistic nature of the field, allow students service-learning opportunities, keep students connected to professional organizations like AAFCS and FCCLA, and ensure they understand and value diversity and sustainability.

We recommend a variety of future research for the journals reviewed in this paper including studies to examine the numbers of FCS secondary teachers who became teachers via post-secondary educator preparation programs and those using alternative certification programs and the outcomes and knowledge of these educators. Based on our finding that FCS specific curriculum was such an important trend in the research, we think that examining educator knowledge of the BOK, AAFCS, and FCCLA is essential for continuing the FCS field. In addition, further research is needed on the benefits of campaigns like “Say Yes to FCS” and new research that focuses on how AAFCS and state affiliates can continue to help support post-secondary education programs with recruitment, accreditation standards, and other needs to validate the importance of these postsecondary education programs. Finally, it is important that researchers in the field continue to examine the causes of FCS teacher shortages so that post-secondary programs may be able to use these data to strengthen their recruitment.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

23

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

Throughout the reviews, researchers found many articles that look at the teaching of FCS specializations rather than FCS educator preparation as a whole. While we found research being done on FCS teaching and educator preparation, much of the research being produced is content-specific (nutrition, interior design, etc.) rather than relevant to teacher preparation. These findings align with Hopfer and Lee’s (2020) review of titles in one of the journals reviewed for this study which showed that FCS teaching articles and articles from FCS education preparation programs are limited. It is important for the continuation of the field to encourage research that specifically looks at the inclusion of FCS teaching programs that bring together all the disciplines in our field. Research on FCS teacher prepara-

tion programs specifically could provide help for struggling programs and give credibility to the field as a whole.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Veronica J. Oates, PhD, at Tennessee State University, for assistance with journal reviews.

Submitted: July 14, 2024 EDT. Accepted: December 27, 2024 EDT. Published: September 30, 2025 EDT.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

24

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

References

Advance CTE. (2024, May 15). Career Clusters. https:// careertech.org/what-we-do-career-clusters/ Alexander, K., & Davis, K. (2011). Trends that FCS education should address: A Delphi study reveals top 16. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 103(4), 30–37.

Alexander, K., Davis, K., & Pierce, S. (2015). Perceptions of FCCLA as reported by advising and non-advising family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 32(1), 1–23.

Alexander, K., & Miller, C. (2017). Educators and counselors: Professional allies in addressing the national teacher shortage. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 34(2), 1–7.

Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2007). Teaching strategies for diverse learners in FCS classrooms.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 99(2), 8–10.

American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. (2024, May 28). Elevate Family and Consumer Sciences. https://www.aafcs.org/elevatefcs Arnett, S. E. (2012). Diversity needs: Preparing family and consumer sciences teachers for the 21st century classroom. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(2), 66–71.

Arnett-Hartwick, S. (2017). Profile and promotion of the family and consumer sciences teacher education student. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 3(2), 8–17.

Arnett-Hartwick, S. (2020). Challenges at different career stages among secondary family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 37(1), 2–17.

Banerjee, M., & Hausafus, C. O. (2009). Dominant teaching practices of FCS college faculty. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 101(3), 39–46.

Banning, J. (2013). Reflections on field experiences related to diversity issues: Illinois State’s undergrad FCS teaching methods course. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(4), 29–34. https://doi.org/ 10.14307/JFCS105.4.8 Bartley, S., Gilliard, J., & Montañez, M. (2013). The role of high school teachers in Hispanic students’ sense of belonging in college: Implications for family and consumer sciences educators. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 31(1), 36–49.

Bowers, J. (2022). Addressing the national shortage of FCS educators. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 114(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.14307/ JFCS114.1.6 Bowers, J., & Myers, L. A. (2019). A national collaborative approach to recruit, prepare, and support family and consumer sciences educators.

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 48(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12339 Carter, V., Beachner, M., & Daugherty, M. K. (2015).

Family and consumer sciences and STEM integration.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 107(1), 55–58.

Deaton, S., & Goering, C. Z. (2020). A case study of intercultural competence among career and technical teacher candidates. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 49(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/fcsr.12385 DeBates, D., & Pickard, M. J. (2008). Student organization integration: Comparison of two models for implementing FCCLA in teacher preparation.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 26(National Teacher Standards 3), 50–65.

Duncan, J., Werhan, C. R., & Bergh, K. (2017). All hands on deck: Research needed to examine the educator shortage in family and consumer sciences. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 46(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12239 Eastman, W. A., Cummings, M. N., Petersen, G., & VanLeeuwen, D. (2006). Recruiting and retaining students in family and consumer sciences education: El Puente para el futuro (The bridge to the future) mentoring project. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077727X06289426 Family, Career and Community Leaders. (2023, May 1).

Say Yes to FCS. https://fcclainc.org/engage/say-yesfcs Fox, W. S., Stewart, D., & Erickson, P. M. (2007).

National standards set benchmark for performance of new FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 99(1), 11–14.

Godbey, K. (2016). The development of a family and consumer sciences teacher recruitment event for secondary-level students. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 33(1), 2–7.

Godfrey, R. V., Allison, B. N., Alexander, K. L., Bergh, K., Borr, M., DeBates, D., & Moser, S. M. (2016). The Great Plains IDEA: Preparing FCS teachers through distance education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 108(1), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.14307/ JFCS108.1.48 Godfrey, R. V., & Manis, K. T. (2017). Filling the educator pipeline: Recruiting male family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 109(2), 48–53. https://doi.org/ 10.14307/JFCS109.2.48 Handy, D., Turgeson, S., & Shepherd, N. (2021).

Focusing for the future—revising the national standards for teachers of family and consumer sciences. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 49(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ fcsr.12387 Hopfer, E. N., & Lee, S. J. (2020). Trends in Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences submissions: 2009-2018. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 112(2), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS112.2.17 Kihm, H., & Knapp, S. (2015). The poverty simulator: Experiential learning for family and consumer sciences students. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 31(2), 24–28.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

25

The Importance of FCS Post-Secondary Education for Teacher Preparation: A Review of the Literature (200…

Kihm, H., & Singleton, K. (2012). Creative cooking with preschoolers: A service learning experience for FCS students. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(1), 39–43.

Kitchel, A., Arnett, S., Cannon, J., & Duncan, D. (2010).

Program management needs of family and consumer sciences teachers in Idaho. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 28(2), 48–59.

Lead FCS. (2024, May 18). Areas of study. https:// www.leadfcsed.org/national-standards.html Lee, C. L. (2011). Designing newsletters to recruit family and consumer sciences education majors, our future North Carolina FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(1), 58–61.

McCombie, S. M., & Zimmer, P. (2007). The case method: Bridging the college classroom and secondary classrooms. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 99(4), 52–54.

McGregor, S. L. (2016). Transformative table talk: Analysis of a home economics education symposium.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 33(2), 25–36.

McGregor, S. L. (2020). University-level methods courses for family and consumer sciences teacher education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 37(1), 27–41.

McGregor, S. L. (2022). How educational philosophies shape family and consumer sciences and home economics education: A commentary. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 114(2), 42–50. https:// doi.org/10.14307/JFCS114.2.40 Miller-Spillman, K. A., Jackson, V. P., & Huffman, N. (2006). Cross-cultural learning in a university-wide course. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(3), 62–67.

Mimbs, C. A. (2000). Retention of certified family and consumer sciences teachers: Implications for teacher supply and demand. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 18(1), 38–49.

Murimi, M. W., Sample, A., & Hunt, A. (2008). Nutrition instruction in seventh grade: A comparison of teachers with and without FCS background. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 100(3), 22–27.

Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., & Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266–283. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1077727X08329561 Pulay, A., & Tripp, P. J. (2022). FCS teacher recruitment and retention as related to classroom environment and teacher productivity. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 114(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/ 10.14307/JFCS114.1.20 Randel, G., & Spavone, S. (2016). Say YES to FCS: A national campaign to meet the demand for FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 33(1), 20–26.

Rattray, S. M., & Calvin, J. (2010). High school students’ perceptions of family and consumer sciences education as a career in the Jackson Purchase district of Kentucky. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 28(2), 36–47.

Rehm, M. L., & Allison, B. (2006). Positionality in teaching culturally diverse students: Implications for family and consumer sciences teacher education programs. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34(3), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077727X05283593 Shirley, L. M., & Kohler, J. (2012). Clothing and textiles: Reinforcing STEM education through family and consumer sciences curriculum. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(2), 45–56.

Stall-Meadows, C. (2010). Weaving sustainability into family and consumer sciences education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 28(1), 13–22.

Taylor, S., & Xia, Y. (2018). Teaching strategies for exposing students to culturally diverse families.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 110(2), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS110.2.57 Thompson, N. E., Harden, A. J., Clauss, B., Fox, W. S., & Wild, P. (2012). Key concepts of environmental sustainability in family and consumer sciences.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 104(1), 14–21.

Tippitt, D. T., & Roubanis, J. L. (2006). Required course gives Meredith College students global view. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(3), 45–47.

Tripp, P. J. (2006). A profile of California’s secondary family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(1), 60–64.

Tripp, P. J., & Hollarn, T. (2016). A profile of Oklahoma secondary family and consumer sciences teachers.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 108(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS108.1.21 Werhan, C. R. (2010). Men as FCS teachers: An exploration of a gendered profession. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 102(1), 27–33.

Werhan, C. R. (2013). Family and consumer sciences secondary school programs: National survey shows continued demand for FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(4), 41–45. https://doi.org/ 10.14307/JFCS105.4.10 Werhan, C. R., & Whitbeck, D. (2017). Family and consumer sciences teacher shortage inaccuracies: Collaborating to set the record straight. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 34(2), 24–28.

White, K., McCoy, M., & Watkins, K. (2021). Resource management: Environmental sustainability across the financial literacy curriculum. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 38(1), 24–40.

Zygmunt, E. M., & Cipollone, K. (2019). Communityengaged teacher education and the work of social justice. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 111(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS111.1.15

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

26

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.27

Scholarship

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert a

Rachel L. Vollmer, PH.D., RD1 , Abbi Taylor, MS, RDN1

b

1 Family and Consumer Sciences, Bradley University

Keywords: food security, food desert, qualitative, focus groups, fruits and vegetables

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

The community food environment can impact food security, diet quality, and chronic disease, therefore novel approaches to improve access are needed. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions and opinions of a nonprofit market and local food environment among shoppers. Seven audio-recorded focus groups (n=33) were conducted with nonprofit market shoppers. Participants were asked about the local food system, experiences with other food resources/programs, and their experience with the nonprofit market. Content analysis was applied to the transcripts to develop themes. Participants completed demographic and food security surveys. Most participants had experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months (63%). Five themes were discovered from the focus groups: 1) food values, 2) barriers to using other food resources, 3) higher-level changes, 4) benefits of the nonprofit market, and 5) opportunities for improvement. Participants felt that the nonprofit market improved their diet and health and allowed them to stretch their budget. Nonprofit markets are a promising intervention. Low prices and extra services such as health education and screenings are important considerations when starting new food programs in low access, low-income neighborhoods.

Introduction Basic human needs, which includes healthy food, contributes to human well-being and is central to the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) profession (Nickols et al., 2009). However, the ability of families and individuals to get enough healthy food is dependent upon the human ecosystem (Nickols et al., 2009). For example, the proximity of grocery stores, transportation, and public policy related to food assistance programs and food pricing can all affect the ability of individuals and families to meet their basic needs. Approximately 17.4% of the population lives in lowincome, low-access tracts (United States Department of Agriculture, 2019), which contributes to food insecurity (Evans et al., 2015). Individuals who are food-insecure consume less fruits and vegetables compared to food-secure counterparts (Drisdelle et al., 2020). A pilot study in food pantries showed that when healthy foods are highlighted, patrons selected more fresh fruits and vegetables, indicating that food insecure individuals want healthy foods (Grabow et al., 2020). Cost is the main barrier for purchasing fruits and vegetables (Pitt et al., 2017). When individ-

uals who are low-income do not have access to a supermarket within walking distance or transportation, they may have to rely on corner or convenience stores, which often do not carry fresh fruits and vegetables at an affordable price (Christaldi & Pazzaglia, 2020; Crowe et al., 2018). It has been suggested that food stores need to be opened in food deserts in order to improve the human ecosystem and thus, food security and diet quality of individuals and families (Evans et al., 2015).

In general, studies on the effects of opening a food store in a food desert have not shown improvements in fruit and vegetable intake (Cummins et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007; Wrigley et al., 2003). However, in one study in the United Kingdom, opening a new food store improved fruit and vegetable intake for those who had the lowest intake at baseline (Wrigley et al., 2003). If fruits and vegetables are not more affordable in the new stores, they are unlikely to make an impact on consumption (Evans et al., 2015).

Nonprofit markets may be able to offer affordable fruits and vegetables to low-income communities compared to for-profit stores; however, a nonprofit market in Chester,

a The authors would like to thank Peoria Grown volunteers for helping with recruitment. The authors would also like to thank Abby

Denucci for assisting with the focus groups.

Funding: Peoria Grown provided the funding for the participant incentives in this study.

Conflict of Interest: While Peoria Grown provided funding, they had no involvement in data collection, analysis, or the writing of this manuscript.

b Graduate Student

27

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

Pennsylvania, USA did not find any changes in food purchases (Ulrich et al., 2015). But, shoppers reported that the new store was convenient, affordable, had fresher and higher quality foods than corner/convenience stores, and had a positive impact on the community (Yao et al., 2019).

To the authors’ knowledge, no other studies on nonprofit markets have been conducted. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of shoppers of a nonprofit market in a low-access area and how the nonprofit market was used with other food resources in the community.

Methods Setting A nonprofit market was opened in Peoria, Illinois, USA in January 2021 by a nonprofit organization. It offers mostly fresh fruits and vegetables at a subsidized price (one to three dollars) that is open one time per week in a building in a public park. For example, a customer can purchase four apples for one dollar. The nonprofit organization has other initiatives including fruit stands in schools and nutrition and cooking classes.

Research Design This study utilized a qualitative, phenomenological design via focus groups to understand the lived experiences of individuals who utilized the nonprofit market.

Recruitment Strategies This study was approved by the Bradley University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects. Participants needed to be at least 18 years old, shop at the nonprofit market within the last month, and be able to speak English. Using convenience sampling, customers were asked by market volunteers during check-out or before opening if they were interested in participating in a group discussion about the nonprofit market. If interested, they provided their name and contact information on a sign-up sheet. Before the focus group, participants were sent a reminder by a researcher. Participants received a $10 voucher for the market after the focus group.

Data Collection Procedures All focus groups were moderated by one of the authors.

A notetaker was present at all focus groups. The lead author who is experienced in qualitative research moderated the first focus group while the coauthor observed and took notes. The coauthor was in a Master’s program had successfully completed a graduate research methods course. After the first focus group, the coauthor moderated all focus groups. The notetaker for the focus group was either the lead author or an undergraduate student who completed an undergraduate research methods course and was trained on notetaking skills in focus groups by the lead author.

Focus groups were held before the nonprofit market opened using a private room in the building and were au-

dio-recorded. Written informed consent was performed by the authors as participants arrived for the focus group. After consenting, participants were asked to complete a survey, which included demographics, the 6-item food security survey short-form (Blumberg et al., 1999), diagnosed chronic disease, and other food assistance programs that their household uses.

The focus group questions were based upon previous research (Yao et al., 2019; Zenk et al., 2011). Questions asked participants about how they make shopping and food decisions, what other resources they use to get food, benefits of the nonprofit market as well as weaknesses. At the end of the focus group, member checking was completed in which the notetaker would verbally summarize the responses and then ask the participants for feedback. If any changes were made, the notetaker would document these and it was captured by the audio recording.

Data Analysis All focus groups were transcribed by the coauthor. Content analysis was applied to the transcripts without qualitative analysis software. Authors developed individual codebooks from the transcripts, which included a description of the code as well as the corresponding quote. We then met to discuss our codebooks. We documented our codes on a google document and described each one. We then discussed how our codes compared by either identifying overlapping codes or unique codes using example quotes from the focus groups. From this discussion, a final codebook was created and themes were developed. It was determined that data saturation was reached as no new codes were being developed in the last focus group.

From the survey, each participant’s food security raw score was calculated and each participant was identified as food secure, low food secure, or very low food secure. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0, 2021, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 33 participants (Table 1). Most participants identified as female (76%) and white or Caucasian (61%). Approximately 63% of participants reported experiencing food insecurity during the last 12 months. Five themes were discovered from the focus group transcripts: food values, barriers to using other food resources, higher-level changes, benefits of the nonprofit market, and room for improvement (Table 2).

Theme 1: Food Values An ideal food system was fresh, healthy food at an affordable price close to home. Participants compared prices at stores in order to find the lowest price, shopped at multiple stores in order to save money, or spent time looking for coupons and sales. For example, In my case, it depends, but generally for meat or bigger parts of the meal, it’s GFS because they have the cheap-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

28

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

Table 1. Demographics and Characteristics of Focus Group Participants (n=33) Characteristic

Mean ± SD

Age

54.0 ± 16.1

Number of Adults in Household

1.8 ± 1.0

Number of Children in Household

0.6 ± 1.1 n (%)

Gender Female Male Other

25 (76) 7 (21) 1 (3)

Race White or Caucasian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino/a/x American Indian or Alaska Native Middle Eastern or Northern African

20 (61) 11 (33) 2 (6) 1 (3) 1 (3)

Education Level Less than high school High school diploma or GED Associate’s degree or some college 4-year college degree More than 4-year degree

2 (6) 6 (18) 20 (61) 3 (9) 2 (6)

Employment Status Unemployed Employed part-time Employed full-time Retired Caregiver or stay-at-home parent Other (i.e. self-employed or disabled)

4 (12) 8 (24) 7 (21) 9 (27) 2 (6) 3 (9)

Diagnosed Chronic Diseases Hypertension High Cholesterol Cardiovascular Disease Diabetes

20 (61) 7 (27) 5 (15) 12 (36)

Assistance Programs Utilized Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Medicaid Head Start

11 (33) 13 (39) 1 (3)

Food Security Status Food secure Low food secure Very-low food secure

12 (36) 12 (36) 9 (27)

est burger and a lot of good quality fresh meats. Or Raber’s because, surprisingly, they’re more competitive than the regular brand at grocery stores or per pound price. – Participant #9, Focus Group #3

Accessibility and convenience were also important to an extent. Although they preferred to go to stores close to home, they would travel a little further if it meant getting what they need or want. For example,

However, participants also cared about the quality of the foods. They wanted fresh, high quality food but these foods were often a higher price, so they had to make a choice between getting enough food or getting the foods they wanted. As one participant discussed,

Convenience. Kroger’s is closer to me because that’s where I live. I do Raber’s, but I got friends there, but I’ll only buy their chicken breasts. Otherwise, I like HyVee, even though it’s a little distance from me, but they do have what I’m looking for so convenience is a main thing too. – Participant #8, Focus Group #3

I’m more of a quality and what you get for your money.

It’s one thing if you can go get a big bunch of something and you get halfway through it and half is bad and half is good. You are not really getting what you want. I’m more of a quality. I want to know it’s good for my family. Especially, when my grandkids come over and stuff, I don’t want them to have a bunch of junk food so I have fruit and stuff for them to eat. I also want stuff that doesn’t have a bunch of pesticides on it and stuff like that. – Participant #14, Focus Group #4

Theme 2: Barriers to Using Other Food Resources While participants had interest in starting their own personal gardens, they did not use community gardens very often because they are not well-maintained or participants never knew what fruits and/or vegetables would be available in a garden and in what quantity. For example,

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

29

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

Table 2. Summary of Themes Discovered with Example Quotes from Focus Groups with Nonprofit Market Shoppers.

Theme

Summary

Quotes

Food Values

Factors that were important in food decisions were quality, price, and convenience or accessibility.

I get one day off a week, and I download all the coupons, and try to find the best deals I can. – Participant #20, Focus Group #5 Like I’m willing to pay more for food that is going to make me feel better. I can actually get a nutritional substance. Say an apple in 1976 had 26 times the iron content of an apple now. So, our soil has been reduced to pesticide foods and things like that. – Participant #16, Focus Group #4

Barriers to Using Other Food Resources

There were issues or problems with using food pantries, farmer’s markets, community gardens and other programs.

This [nonprofit market] is a source of better, healthier options than most of the free food services around Peoria. Because every food pantry you go to is predominantly cereals, which are high in sugar, and junk foods, cakes, candies, chips, chickpeas. Who the heck uses chickpeas? – Participant #2, Focus Group #1 There was a program that I was working with at the Park District. They had a lot of community gardens around, but there were not enough people, per say, that would tend to those gardens. – Participant #15, Focus Group #4 Farmer’s Markets, they’re great, like he said, some of the prices can be a little outrageous compared to the stores sometimes. – Participant #11, Focus Group #3

Higher-Level Changes

Participants felt that food was difficult to get because of issues outside of their control such as policies and the availability or viability of neighborhood stores.

There’s nothing close to here. They keep saying we are in a food desert. They aren’t lying, there’s really nothing down here. If you go to any place that’s around here and compare their prices, like to Walmart or Aldi’s, they are so much higher in these stores around here. How do you expect people to survive? – Participant #14, Focus Group #4 I started shopping at 309 [nonprofit market] because it was a program in the South End close to my home. I have lived here a long time. I have seen a lot of programs come and go. They are not supported, so they go to the wayside.

We’re not on the top of the city’s list. – Participant #27, Focus Group #6 It’s harder now because now you don’t get that extra food stamp money. – Participant #26, Focus Group #6

Benefits of the Nonprofit Market

Participants felt that the nonprofit market improved their diet quality, health conditions, sense of community, and allowed them to stretch their budget for food or other necessities.

Not only that, where else can you go to do your basic shopping for produce and refrigerated goods like milk and eggs and stuff like that, and have the availability of someone to be able to get your blood pressure checked? – Participant #2, Focus Group #1 Well, it [nonprofit market] keeps me healthy. This is what I live on. This is what I eat, and I can’t always find that good of a product in the stores. So, it makes me want to cry because they are keeping me alive here. – Participant #8, Focus Group #3 But it was one of those things that if you don’t have the money for some, for whoever’s the primary caregiver and the primary cook for the kids and family, typically they are the ones who will short change themselves on it in order to make sure the kids eat. It helps when you have extras of things or more snacks and stuff that are healthier and they eat that stuff and then there’s more. – Participant #10, Focus Group #3.

Room for Improvement

The nonprofit market could improve their organization and crowd management, offer more food, including meat products, and expand hours of operation.

I think meats and chicken or some kind of lunch meats or something like that would be good. – Participant #4, Focus Group #2 I have sent a few people here [nonprofit market], and they’ve come back to me with this: That there is no rules or guidance about shopping, and it seems like a free-for-all. So, you better bring in a tag-team to get what you need. – Participant #20, Focus Group #5 I think it would be amazing if they could do it more often and in locations that are more convenient for people that might not vehicles or the transportation to be able to come here. You know? Different days of the week or different times of the week. – Participant #22, Focus Group #5 If we could emphasize the fact that it’s [nonprofit market] for everybody. You don’t have to live in a particular area. – Participant #26, Focus Group #6

It seems like the community garden, you have to have everybody on the same page and there can’t be like two people that want to help and the other one is just wanting the free produce. That’s why there’s not as many as there could be. People don’t like to give up their free time. – Participant #6, Focus Group #2

Although some participants used farmers markets, the high prices of items or lack of variety at the markets were barriers. Participants felt that they could get similar items

at the grocery store or the nonprofit market for a lower cost.

As one participant said, “With Farmer’s Markets nowadays, they are just as pricey if not more so than the grocery store.” – Participant #12, Focus Group #4 Participants used food pantries, but sometimes, participants would receive food items they would have never picked out themselves. They also did not like that they often received processed foods, which were perceived as lower

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

30

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

quality. One of the biggest issues voiced was that many times they received expired food products, for example, You go to the food pantries, and I literally went home the other day and some of the canned goods they gave me were dated 2018. Right. So, I’m like I’m your dumpster? I mean that’s what I really felt like. I’m your personal dumpster. – Participant #20, Focus Group #5

Theme 3: Higher-level Changes Policy-level changes outside of their control made shopping in their community more difficult, including reduction in their SNAP benefits. They were not able to purchase as much food for their families or had less money for other necessities. One participant described the change in SNAP benefits, “That food stamp droppage was bad. I went from about $350 down to about $150. So, it’s oh, like okay, let me starve myself a little bit.” – Participant #25, Focus Group #6 In the community, food stores had opened in their neighborhoods in the past, but have closed down leaving community members in a food desert. Participants discussed this as something that is out of their control and did not feel like they were valued by the city. For example, Well, I really do think this community needs a grocery store, and I think it’s ridiculous that whoever decided that it was okay to take out the one grocery store they had. I think that’s just evil, in my opinion. Why would you do that? They don’t care about, they would never do that in a richer community. Middle class, upper class community, they wouldn’t do that. The only reason they are doing that is because the people can’t, they can’t do anything about it. What are they gonna do?

They just have to go to a different town to get food. – Participant #4, Focus Group #2.

Theme 4: Benefits of the Nonprofit Market The nonprofit market allowed participants to eat more fruits and vegetables. Because of the improvement in dietary intake, participants perceived improved overall health. For example, one participant described changes she had seen, It’s [nonprofit market] helped me get my vegetables better. Diabetes be better. Since I’ve been coming here getting my regular fruit from you guys, my blood sugar AC has went from 11 to 7 now. My doctor told me, he said, ‘I don’t know what you’ve been doing, but you just keep it up miss thang.’ – Participant #3, Focus Group #1.

Benefits went beyond physical health. The nonprofit market also allowed them to purchase more food because of the low prices. This helped cushion their budget to afford other food or necessities.

It’s drastically cut my grocery bill, and it’s allowed me to get more for my children who are growing and eating more and more without me having to say ‘sorry, you can’t hang out with your friends today because I don’t have money. Sorry I can’t, have to wait a couple more weeks for me to buy you shoes.’ So, my kids don’t know

about my budget issues because [nonprofit market] has helped me. They are not going to grow up and say we were super poor, we didn’t have money, or my mom couldn’t. No, they are going to say we had what we needed. – Participant #22, Focus Group #5

Participants discussed how the nonprofit market provided a sense of community and made them feel valued, not only from the nonprofit organization, but also the other shoppers. The health and nutrition education, cooking classes, and health screenings made them feel like someone cared about their well-being.

If you bring a question or if you have a situation, they [nonprofit organization] try to assist you with that as well. If there’s an agency that can help you, they don’t just say ‘here’s your food, see you next week.’ They care and they try to help as much as they can. – Participant #1, Focus Group #1.

Theme 5: Room for Improvement There were ways in which participants felt the market could be improved. Others in their communities did not know about the nonprofit market or were confused about its exclusivity, such as income or residency requirements.

Participants thought the nonprofit organization could advertise the market better. For example, I found out about it [nonprofit market] on social media, and I told my cousin who has severe anxiety, and they are really struggling financially. The first time I came down here it wasn’t necessarily for me, but it was to scope it out for her. Then I asked, ‘can I shop here?’ because I didn’t think, and they were like, ‘Yeah, shop here. Go ahead. We don’t have those stipulations here.’

It has been wonderful, but I had the same idea that I thought I was not qualified to shop here. – Participant #22, Focus Group #5

Organization and crowd management were areas for improvement. Participants felt that people rushed to the tables to shop or people were shopping for multiple families and there was a need to manage crowds and inventory so there would be enough for everyone. It was suggested that limits could be placed on items so there is enough for those at the market.

The only thing I would change is putting a limit on some. Like she said, now that there’s more people, sometimes we find that people take a whole bunch of bags full of stuff and we are left with not being able to grab anything. That’s probably one of the only things I would change. Just last week, I saw somebody take 5 boxes of blueberries and 5 boxes of strawberries.

There’s more people. – Participant #30, Focus Group #7

Participants thought that the nonprofit market was an ideal solution for individuals in their community struggling with food security, but it was not big enough to serve everyone. Participants wanted the nonprofit market to expand so it could serve more people, have more food, including meat, and have more days and hours of operation.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

31

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

I was telling you that I go to Chicago to get meat. It is ridiculously priced out here [Peoria]. You know being from a city, it’s different from being out here. I’m just like, ‘I have 3 kids, I am not going to the store 3 times a week for chicken.’ I’m going to get a 40 pound case for $40 and I notice they don’t have places like that here [Peoria]. – Participant #18, Focus Group #5

Discussion It has been proposed that opening grocery stores in food deserts is a solution in helping reduce food security and increase fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income communities (Evans et al., 2015). While participants in this study felt that their diets and health had improved since shopping at the nonprofit market because they were eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, previous research on opening food stores have not consistently shown benefits on diet quality (Cummins et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007; Wrigley et al., 2003). Accessibility may not be enough to change eating behaviors and price may be the biggest barrier (Drisdelle et al., 2020; Ulrich et al., 2015).

We are only aware of literature of one other nonprofit market located in Chester, PA in which shoppers liked the fresh, high quality items, somewhat lower costs, and the positive impact on the community. But, shoppers also reported that they went to other stores to get the food their families needed (Ulrich et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2019). This mirrors the themes found in the present study. There were no significant changes in foods purchased among shoppers at the PA nonprofit market (Ulrich et al., 2015), but some shoppers thought the prices were too high relative to other stores (Yao et al., 2019). Participants in this study were satisfied with the prices at the market, which were heavily subsidized. While this study did not measure changes in fruit and vegetable intake, participants did report that they felt their diets, and their health, improved. Just opening a grocery store may not be enough to change purchasing behaviors. Discounted prices, in-store marketing, or education may be needed in addition to opening stores (Christaldi & Pazzaglia, 2020; Evans et al., 2015; Ulrich et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2019).

Additionally, other food resources may not be enough to meet needs. While participants in this study had experience with food pantries, they discussed problems with the food such as expiration dates and not aligning with preferences, consistent with a previous study (Christaldi & Pazzaglia, 2020). Community gardens and farmers markets have also been proposed as strategies to mitigate food insecurity (Wegener & Hanning, 2010); however, participants in this study did not view either as a reliable, consistent way to get food for their families.

This study has limitations. The focus group questions were not piloted, but many questions were based on previous studies. Self-selection bias is a possibility in this study.

Generalizability of the results is limited as most participants were white females. Because focus groups were utilized, participants may not have felt comfortable with sharing their thoughts and opinions.

Applications and Conclusion Participants in this study were grateful for the prices at the market. This may be because prices were set based on feedback the nonprofit organization solicited from their target communities. When communities are opening food stores in hopes of reducing food security, advisory councils of community members, needs assessments, or feedback from community members to identify pricing, foods sold, etc. is imperative as it contributes to community vitality (Nickols et al., 2009). Additionally, to improve the human ecosystem, policies aimed at subsidizing costs of fresh fruits and vegetables can help lower costs to make them more affordable. FCS educators can be instrumental in these advisory councils and advocacy efforts.

In this study, participants emphasized human ecosystem factors that were outside of their control including lack of shopping options in their community, reduction in SNAP benefits, and feeling ignored by their city. The extra services provided by the market made participants feel valued and can contribute to capacity building, as it provided skills and knowledge that built upon the strengths of the nonprofit market (Nickols et al., 2009). Therefore, additional services such as nutrition and cooking education and health screenings may be helpful in changing behavior. FCS professionals are instrumental in delivering high quality, evidence-based education. For example, to improve diet quality, SNAP-Ed or Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Programming (EFNEP) could be provided in food stores in low-income communities (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2019). EFNEP has shown promising results as one study found that those who graduated from a nutrition education program reported more food security compared to those who did not graduate (Dollahite et al., 2003). Furthermore, the more lessons a participant attended, the more their food security improved in a dose-response relationship (Dollahite et al., 2003). This type of tested curriculum combined with low prices on healthy foods may be especially promising.

Participants in this study also discussed feeling undervalued or ignored because of their socioeconomic status.

New food stores should be welcoming, treat customers with respect, and contribute to the community (Christaldi & Pazzaglia, 2020). At the local level, FCS professionals can advocate for programs that help make healthy food more accessible and/or affordable for individuals living in lowaccess areas. During the time the focus groups were conducted, the temporary emergency SNAP benefits due to the COVID-19 pandemic ended. The emergency COVID-19 SNAP benefits increased food secure households by 8.6 percent (Brady et al., 2023). FCS professionals can advocate for increasing SNAP benefit levels to help low-income families afford healthy foods.

Participants in this study also seemed to be unsure of the rules or expectations of community gardens and did not find them to be inviting or welcoming due to maintenance and organization. They were also interested in gardening, but a previous study found that people may need education or assistance with starting costs (Crowe et al., 2018).

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

32

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

FCS professionals with an understanding of resource development and sustainability, may help communities by seeking grant funding for individuals and families to start their own gardens and providing education or assistance in starting personal gardens. For example, a previous program focused on container gardens trained participants on how to utilize found items as containers, harvest produce, and how to prepare the produce (Swafford et al., 2021). .

Overall, this study established a connection between FCS Body of Knowledge concepts of basic human needs, individual well-being, human ecosystem, wellness, and capacity building. Specifically, community members appreciated the

prices and quality of produce offered at the nonprofit market (human ecosystem) and felt that it helped them improve their diet quality and health (basic human needs, wellness, individual well-being). Additionally, the nonprofit market contributed to a positive sense of community (capacity building). However, the nonprofit market is not currently big enough to meet all of their needs or the needs of all community members.

Published: September 30, 2025 EDT.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

33

Perceptions of a Nonprofit Market in an Urban, Midwestern Food Desert

References

Blumberg, S. J., Bialostosky, K., Hamilton, W. L., & Briefel, R. R. (1999). The effectiveness of a short form of the Household Food Security Scale. American Journal of Public Health, 89(8), 1231–1234. https:// doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.8.1231 Brady, P. J., Harnack, L., Widome, R., Berry, K. M., & Valluri, S. (2023). Food security among SNAP participants 2019 to 2021: a cross-sectional analysis of current population survey food security supplement data. Journal of Nutritional Science, 12(e45), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2023.32 Christaldi, J., & Pazzaglia, G. (2020). An exploration of the influences contributing to food insecurity in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Health Promotion Practice, 21(3), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1524839918801588 Crowe, J., Lacy, C., & Columbus, Y. (2018). Barriers to food security and community stress in an urban food desert. Urban Science, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/urbansci2020046 Cummins, S., Petticrew, M., Higgins, C., Findlay, A., & Sparks, L. (2005). Large scale food retailing as an intervention for diet and health: quasi-experimental evaluation of a natural experiment. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(12), 1035–1040. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.029843 Dollahite, J., Olson, C., & Scott-Pierce, M. (2003). The impact of nutrition education on food insecurity among low-income participants in EFNEP. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X03032002003 Drisdelle, C., Kestens, Y., Hamelin, A. M., & Mercille, G. (2020). Disparities in access to healthy diets: how food security and food shopping behaviors relate to fruit and vegetable intake. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 120(11), 1847–1858. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2020.03.020 Evans, A., Banks, K., Jennings, R., Nehme, E., Nemec, C., Sharma, S., Hussaini, A., & Yaroch, A. (2015).

Increasing access to healthful foods: a qualitative study with residents of low-income communities.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/ 1479-5868-12-S1-S5 Grabow, K. N., Schumacher, J., Banning, J., & Barnes, J. L. (2020). Highlighting healthy options in a food pantry setting: a pilot study. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 48(3), 263–275. https:// doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12348 Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., & Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266–283. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1077727X08329561

Pitt, E., Gallegos, D., Comans, T., Cameron, C., & Thornton, L. (2017). Exploring the influence of local food environments on food behaviours: a systematic review of qualitative literature. Public Health Nutrition, 20(13), 2393–2405. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1368980017001069 Swafford, M., Sisk, C., Branson, J., Paradis, A., Dale, K. R., Fritts, A., & Boyer, S. C. (2021). Addressing food insecurity in food deserts for children through container gardening. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 113(4), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.14307/ JFCS113.4.16 Ulrich, V., Hillier, A., & DiSantis, K. I. (2015). The impact of a new nonprofit supermarket within an urban food desert on household food shopping.

Medical Research Archives, 3, 1–14.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2019). Food Access Research Atlas.

Wang, M. C., MacLeod, K. E., Steadman, C., Williams, L., Bowie, S. L., Herd, D., Luluquisen, M., & Woo, M. (2007). Is the opening of a neighborhood full-service grocery store followed by a change in the food behavior of residents? Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 2(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19320240802077789 Wegener, J., & Hanning, R. M. (2010). Concepts and measures of “alternative” retail food outlets: considerations for facilitating access to healthy, local food. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19320248.2010.487023 Wrigley, N., Warm, D., & Margetts, B. (2003).

Deprivation, diet, and food-retail access: Findings from the Leeds ‘food deserts’ study. Environment and Planning A, 35(1), 151–188. https://doi.org/10.1068/ a35150 Yao, M., Hillier, A., Wall, E., & DiSantis, K. I. (2019).

The impact of a non-profit market on food store choice and shopping experience: A community case study. Frontiers in Public Health, 7(78). https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00078 Zenk, S. N., Odoms-Young, A. M., Dallas, C., Hardy, E., Watkins, A., Hoskins-Wroten, J., & Holland, L. (2011). “You have to hunt for the fruits, the vegetables”: environmental barriers and adaptive strategies to acquire food in a low-income African American neighborhood. Health Education & Behavior, 38(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1090198110372877

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

34

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.35

Scholarship

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange Approach Lena Gan1, Karleah Harris2, Blake Gray1, Derek Lawson1, Sara Kay, MSc Business Analytics/Data Science3

a

1 College of Health and Human Sciences, Kansas State University, 2 Department of Human Sciences, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, 3 Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

Keywords: active engagement, AAFCS, Social Exchange Theory, perceived benefit, perceived organizational support

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

This study uses Social Exchange Theory to examine factors influencing active membership engagement in the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS). Through an online survey of 92 members, we investigated how perceived costs, benefits, and organizational support affect engagement levels, while also evaluating the impact of the AAFCS Leadership Academy initiative. Multiple regression analysis revealed that perceived benefits (β = 0.213, p < 0.02) and organizational support (β = 0.303, p < 0.001) significantly predict active engagement, while perceived costs and Leadership Academy participation showed no significant effects. These findings provide empirical evidence for focusing organizational resources on enhancing member benefits and support systems rather than cost reduction strategies. The results also suggest opportunities for strengthening leadership development programs to better align with engagement objectives. This research contributes to both theoretical understanding of professional association dynamics and practical strategies for membership enhancement in AAFCS and similar organizations.

Introduction The American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) has experienced a significant decline in membership, from over 50,000 in the mid-1960s to just 5,000 members in 2012 (Salzwedel & Leslie, 2014). This trend reflects broader challenges in membership retention and engagement that many professional organizations face (Adebo-Adelaja et al., 2019; Ki & Wang, 2016; Wang & Ki, 2018).

Active membership engagement, which includes members’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective involvement in association activities, is crucial for the sustainability of professional associations, and their members’ professional growth of their members (Ali, 2013; Clarke, 2000). In 2013, AAFCS launched the Leadership Academy with the stated goal of growing future leaders from within the organization and developing leaders who are invested in the organization and experienced in addressing issues at the state and national levels (Stewart et al., 2023). While the Academy’s primary focus was leadership development, such initiatives may also serve to bolster member engagement as participants develop stronger organizational investment and expanded professional networks within AAFCS. This exploratory study was conducted as part of the AAFCS Leadership Academy program, which is offered by

AAFCS and facilitated by the AAFCS Community for Building Leadership Capacity. As a Leadership Academy participant, the lead author was expected to complete a project demonstrating the skills learned during the academy while benefiting AAFCS and/or an AAFCS Affiliate in achieving organizational goals and mission. The study presented in this article represents the lead author’s Leadership Academy project, making AAFCS a co-collaborator in the research.

Framed by the Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), this study investigates the influence of perceived cost, perceived benefit, and perceived organizational support on active membership within AAFCS. It also examines the specific impact of participation in the Leadership Academy, providing both theoretical insights and practical implications for the organization that supported its’ development. The enduring relevance of seminal works, such as Blau’s (1964), in shaping contemporary understanding of organizational dynamics justifies their continued use in analyzing these associations.

We pose two research questions: 1. What factors are associated with active member engagement in AAFCS? 2. Does participation in the AAFCS Leadership Academy impact member engagement?

a Graduate Student

35

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

By delineating factors that enhance active engagement, this research contributes to strategic membership management, offering insights that may benefit other organizations navigating similar challenges.

Literature Review Professional Associations and Social Exchange Theory.

Professional associations are vital for advancing specific fields, serving as platforms for training, educational resources, networking opportunities, and advocacy. They unite members with shared expertise, standards, and goals, supporting professional recognition and active participation in governance (Friedman & Philips, 2004; Rusaw, 1995). Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides a framework for understanding these interactions, positing that relationships within associations are maintained through an evaluation of costs and benefits, aiming to maximize rewards and minimize costs (Blau, 1964). This theory emphasizes reciprocity and ongoing mutual support, which are crucial as members assess the net benefits of their involvement (Cook et al., 2013; deVreede et al., 2019).

Active Engagement. Active association engagement reflects members’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive involvement, which is crucial for both individual growth and organizational vitality. Members’ engagement is often measured through volunteering, participation in activities, and intellectual commitment to the association’s objectives, embodying the reciprocal nature of SET where positive exchanges foster deeper commitment (deVreede et al., 2019; Gruen et al., 2000; Hager, 2014).

Perceived Costs and Benefits. Perceived costs refer to the financial and non-financial expenditures (such as time and effort) that members associate with their participation in the association. On the other hand, perceived benefits encompass the tangible and intangible rewards members anticipate or receive from their involvement, such as professional development opportunities, access to resources, and networking (Yeager, 1981; Yeager & Kline, 1983). Social Exchange Theory posits that members evaluate their continued involvement in an association based on a cost-benefit analysis, with optimal engagement occurring when the benefits perceived significantly outweigh the associated costs. Studies indicate that while high perceived costs can deter engagement (Hager & Renfro, 2020; Tsao & Kang, 2019), the perception of substantial benefits often promotes sustained participation and mitigates the negative impact of high costs (Guite et al., 2022; Yeager, 1981).

Perceived Organizational Support. Perceived organizational support is defined as members’ beliefs about how much the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. This construct plays a crucial role in influencing member engagement and satisfaction. According to Social Exchange Theory, when organizations provide adequate support, members will likely reciprocate with loyalty and active participation, driven by a sense of being valued and supported. Empirical research supports that fair treatment and responsive organizational practices enhance this perception, fostering a more substantial commitment

to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Leadership Academy’s Role in Engagement. The AAFCS Leadership Academy, initiated to enhance professional development and support, is expected to influence members’ perceptions of benefits and organizational support. Within the framework of SET, the Academy can be viewed as an investment by the organization that should lead to increased member engagement through enhanced benefits and support. Investigating the differential impact of Academy participation on engagement addresses whether such structured professional development efforts tangibly affect members’ active involvement, aligning with the principles of reciprocity and benefit maximization in SET. Demographic and Professional Characteristics. Demographic factors such as gender, education level, and organizational tenure also significantly influence engagement by affecting members’ perceptions of costs, benefits, and organizational support. Understanding these factors helps delineate engagement patterns and tailor association strategies accordingly (Cameron, 2021; Holm et al., 2020).

Hypotheses Based on the literature, we propose the following hypotheses: H1: Perceived cost is negatively associated with active membership engagement.

H2: Perceived benefits are positively associated with active membership engagement.

H3: Perceived organizational support is positively associated with active membership engagement.

H4: There is a significant difference in active membership engagement between members participating in the AAFCS Leadership Academy and those who have not.

Methods This study examined member engagement within the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS). Kansas State University’s Institutional Review Board approved the study, and data were collected through an online survey distributed via the AAFCS General Discussion Forum from January 8 to January 19, 2024, targeting members aged 18 and above. The AAFCS General Discussion Forum is accessible to all AAFCS members who register for the online platform, providing the primary means of reaching the organization’s active membership base. Follow-up reminders were sent specifically to Leadership Academy participants using contact information provided by the AAFCS Leadership Academy program, which maintains records of current and past participants. This targeted follow-up approach was implemented in addition to the general forum recruitment to ensure adequate representation from both Academy participants and non-participants for comparative analysis. However, follow-up reminders were sent to Leadership Academy participants and chapter leaders, which may have introduced response bias. To encourage participation, all respondents were offered a chance to win one of eight $25 Amazon gift cards.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

36

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

Before the primary survey, a pilot test was conducted with ten members, balanced between Leadership Academy participants and non-participants, to assess the adapted measurement scales’ clarity, relevance, and reliability.

Feedback from the pilot phase led to several refinements in the instrument. Questions regarding perceived organizational support and active engagement were modified to enhance clarity and better reflect AAFCS-specific contexts and terminology. Additionally, redundant items in the perceived benefits scale were eliminated to improve survey parsimony while maintaining the scale’s integrity. These modifications enhanced the instrument’s validity while preserving the conceptual foundation of the original scales.

The survey yielded 98 initial responses, with 92 complete responses retained for final analysis after data cleaning.

While the most recent publicly available data indicated approximately 5,000 AAFCS members in 2012 (Salzwedel & Leslie, 2014), current membership figures are not publicly reported, preventing the determination of response rate or sample representativeness. Given these constraints in determining representativeness and the modest number of respondents, findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution. The survey included measures for key variables developed from established scales: Active Engagement. Adapted from Meyer and Allen’s (1991) commitment scale, this was measured using a refined four-item scale assessing behavioral and cognitive involvement in AAFCS activities and professional identity.

The scale included two behavioral items measured on a frequency scale (1 = Always to 5 = Never): (1) “I participate in discussion forums on the AAFCS website,” and (2) “I participate in AAFCS affiliate conferences.” Two additional items assessed perceptions of organizational support and professional identity using a Likert agreement scale (1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree): (3) “I find that AAFCS provides adequate opportunities for me to network with other FCS professionals,” and (4) “The AAFCS Communities provide me with a sense of professional identity.” Items were reversecoded where necessary and summed to create the Active Engagement Scale (α = 0.76), with higher scores indicating greater active engagement.

Perceived Cost. Three items measured members’ perceptions of financial and opportunity costs associated with AAFCS membership and conference attendance, consistent with the literature (Bauman, 2008; DeLeskey, 2003; Tsao & Kang, 2019). The scale (α = 0.78) was reverse-coded where necessary, and items were rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). All items were summed to create a composite score for Perceived Cost, with higher scores indicating greater perceived cost.

Perceived Benefit. Consistent with items on perceived professional benefits (Greggs-McQuilkin, 2005; Guite et al., 2022; Holm et al., 2020; Skarlicki et al., 2000; Sullivan & Stevenson, 2009; Sun & Sun, 2024; Wan et al., 2020), the seven-item scale (α = 0.76) assessed various economic, social, and development benefits of AAFCS membership.

Items were rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived benefits.

Perceived Organizational Support. Adapted from Eisenberg et al.‘s (1986) Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, this five-item scale (α = .86) measured members’ perceptions of AAFCS’s valuation of their contributions, opinions, concerns, and well-being. Items were rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with reverse coding where necessary and summed up to create a composite score, with higher scores indicating greater perceived organizational support.

Leadership Academy. The Leadership Academy participation was coded as a binary variable (0 = No, 1 = Yes) to indicate participation.

Covariates. Sociodemographic variables included age (categorized into six groups from 18-24 to over 46 years), gender (female, male, prefer not to say), marital status (single, married, divorced, or widowed), educational background (some college, bachelors, graduate or professional, or PhD), employment status (full-time, part-time, retired, or unemployed), and number of dependents (none, one to three, or more than three). Professional characteristics included AAFCS membership tenure (ranging from less than 2 years to more than 15 years) and involvement in AAFCS projects (ranging from no involvement to participation in more than three projects).

Analysis Given the small sample size and the data being Missing Completely At Random (MCAR), pairwise deletion was utilized for data analysis. The analytical approach included using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to assess the effects of perceived cost, benefit, and organizational support on active membership engagement. Additionally, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the impact of Leadership Academy participation on engagement. All analyses were carried out using STATA 18 MP, carefully considering the influence of sociodemographic and professional characteristics on the study outcomes.

Results and Discussion The analysis of the 92 respondents provided insightful revelations into the demographic and professional characteristics of the membership, which are pivotal for shaping organizational strategies and member engagement initiatives. The respondents’ demographic profile indicated a mature, professionally established membership base, with nearly 60% of respondents over 46 years old and predominantly employed full-time (67.39%). This concentration of experienced professionals among survey respondents suggests strengths in terms of institutional knowledge and potential challenges for membership diversification and succession planning (See Tables 1a and 1b for detailed demographic and scale statistics).

Furthermore, the profile of respondents in the study revealed high academic achievement, with 94.57% holding at least a bachelor’s degree and one-third possessing doctoral degrees. Such high educational attainment might help prepare members for sophisticated professional development

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

37

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

Table 1a. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 92) Variable

%

Age Distribution 18 – 35 36 – 45 Above 46

11.96 28.26 59.78

Gender Female Male Prefer not to say

94.57 4.60 1.10

Marital Status Single Married Divorced Widowed

15.22 75.00 3.26 6.52

Educational Level Some college Bachelor’s Graduate/Professional PhD

5.43 51.09 9.78 33.70

Employment Status Full-time Part-time Retired Unemployed

67.39 3.26 28.26 1.09

Number of Dependents None 1–2 3 or more

78.26 16.30 5.43

Tenure at AAFCS Less than 5 years 6 – 15 years More than 15 years

17.39 33.70 48.91

Number of service project involvement None 1 – 2 project 3 or More

10.87 33.70 55.43

Attending Conference in 2024 in MN Definitely yes Probably yes Might/Might not Probably no Definitely no

28.26 16.30 11.96 31.52 11.96

Leadership Academy Participation Yes No

44.44 55.56

Table 1b. Descriptive Statistics of Scales (Composite Scores) Variable Scale

M

SD

Min

Max

Active Engagement

6.4

2.04

3

15

Perceived Cost

10.7

1.38

3

15

Perceived Benefits

8.6

3.15

4

20

Organizational Support

12.5

2.9

5

25

and leadership roles, reinforcing the potential for advanced engagement initiatives. Engagement patterns revealed that over half of the respondents (55.43%) were involved in multiple service projects, indicating active participation. The high score in perceived organizational support score (M = 12.5, SD = 2.9) suggested that these members generally

felt valued by AAFCS. These results align with previous research by Cameron (2021) and Holm et al. (2020) regarding engagement patterns in professional associations.

However, caution is warranted in generalizing these findings to the entire membership of AAFCS.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

38

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

Table 2. OLS Regression on Active Membership Engagement Variables

SE

Perceived Cost

-.233

.107

Perceived Benefit

.166*

.071

Perceived Organizational Support

.335***

.071

Note. All regressions control for age, gender, education, marital status, educational level, employment status, number of dependents, number of service projects, tenure at AAFCS and plan to attend conference attendance. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p <.001.

Leadership Academy participation was relatively balanced among the survey respondents, with 40 participants (43.47%) and 52 non-participants (56.52%). This distribution allowed for meaningful comparison between these groups in subsequent analyses. These descriptive patterns provide context for understanding the subsequent multivariate analyses, particularly regarding how member characteristics and organizational involvement relate to engagement levels.

The quantitative analysis began with validating our measurement scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed construct validity, with results showing standardized factor loading ranging from .41 to .90, Cronbach’s alpha values between .55 and .81, composite reliability scores from .80 to .92, and average variance explained (AVE) values between .67 and .78. Scale validity was further supported by convergent and discriminant validity tests (see Table 2), with most measures meeting established thresholds (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity, assessed by the average variance explained, was greater than .5, indicating convergent validity of the scales. Discriminant validity, assessed using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations, showed most ratios below the cut-off value of .85 (Kline, 2015), except for Active Engagement.

Our regression analysis revealed evidence for Social Exchange Theory’s primary predictions regarding benefits and support while challenging assumptions about costs (See Table 2). Perceived benefits (β = 0.213, p < 0.02) and organizational support (β = 0.303, p < 0.001) emerged as significant predictors of active membership engagement, together explaining nearly half the variance in engagement levels (adjusted R² = .474). These findings aligned with SET’s principle that favorable reciprocal exchanges enhance participation and previous research (Gruen et al., 2000; Hager, 2014). Conversely, perceived costs showed no significant effect (β = 0.017, p = 0.898), although it showed a negative relationship. These unexpected results might be due to the predominantly older, well-established membership demographic, who may be less sensitive to costs—a reflection of the distinct application of SET in real-world settings. Alternatively, the benefits of membership outweigh the perceived costs for most members, as suggested by Guite al.

(2022) and Yeager (1981). Furthermore, the mean Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value of 3.6 suggested that multicollinearity did not adversely affect the regression results (Hair et al., 2010).

Most demographic variables (age, gender, education, marital status, and number of dependents) were also not

significant predictors of active engagement, except for parttime employment compared to full-time (β = 2.46, p < 0.05).

Professional characteristics such as tenure, the number of projects, and conference attendance plans were not statistically significant. The adjusted R2 was .474, indicating that the model explained 47.4% of the variability in active membership engagement.

The ANCOVA examining Leadership Academy’s impact yielded particularly noteworthy results. Despite controlling for multiple variables and achieving good model fit (F (23, 63) = 4.16, p < 0.0001), Leadership Academy participation showed no significant effect on engagement (F (1, 63) = 0.94, p = .334, partial η² = .015), challenging SET assumptions that organizational investments directly translate into reciprocal commitment. This finding invites thoughtful consideration of other factors, such as personal motivation, or organizational culture, which significantly determine engagement levels. It also involves exploring opportunities for program enhancement and development.

Limitations Several limitations of this study warrant consideration.

First, the cross-sectional design limits our ability to establish causal relationships and understand how engagement patterns evolve over time. Second, Leadership Academy participation was determined through self-report, creating uncertainty about the accuracy of participants’ claims and the extent or nature of their involvement (e.g., whether they served as presenters, mentors, or in other capacities within the program). This self-reporting methodology may also have introduced social desirability bias, as participants might have overstated their engagement levels or Academy involvement to present themselves favorably.

Third, the overall sample size was modest (N = 92) which may limit the generalizability of findings to the broader AAFCS membership. Fourth, our targeted follow-up procedures may have influenced response patterns, as reminders were sent specifically to Leadership Academy participants and chapter leaders. Chapter leaders are individuals who hold leadership positions within AAFCS’s state or regional affiliates—the geographically-based chapters that comprise the broader AAFCS organizational structure across the United States. These leaders may differ systematically from general members in their organizational commitment and engagement patterns, potentially creating response bias that affects the representativeness of our sample. Additionally, applying SET to structured interventions like the Leadership Academy suggests opportunities for further theo-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

39

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

retical development to better understand how professional development investments translate into member engagement.

Implications and Conclusion This study contributes to understanding professional association engagement through Social Exchange Theory (SET), with findings supporting and challenging theoretical expectations, highlighting the complex interplay of factors influencing engagement. The findings underscore the critical role of perceived benefits and organizational support in fostering active membership engagement. While SET provides a valuable explanatory framework, its application might vary with specific member characteristics and organizational contexts.

For Family and Consumer Science (FCS) professionals, these results highlight the importance of leveraging the tangible and intangible benefits AAFCS offers to enhance their professional growth and engagement. AAFCS likely facilitates this process by clearly communicating and delivering value to its members while fostering a supportive organizational culture that makes members feel valued and recognized. Additionally, AAFCS might consider further tailoring its offerings and support structures to different member segments, particularly acknowledging the parttime professionals’ unique needs and engagement patterns.

Developing a multifaceted approach to evaluation could be considered to better align with members’ professional needs and expectations.

Although Leadership Academy participation did not significantly predict engagement in our study, this finding

raises important questions about how leadership development programs translate into organizational commitment.

Given that perceived benefits and organizational support emerged as the strongest predictors of engagement, future research with larger samples could explore whether specific program components (such as curriculum content, networking opportunities, or post-program support structures) influence how participants perceive the benefits and support provided by the organization. However, given our study’s limitations in sample size and cross-sectional design, any implications for program enhancement should be approached with considerable caution.

Future research could employ longitudinal designs and mixed-methods approaches to deepen understanding of engagement dynamics, particularly examining how professional development investments influence member perceptions over time. The complexity of professional association engagement suggests that while SET provides a valuable framework, its application varies with context-specific factors such as membership demographics and organizational structure. Longitudinal studies could better capture whether leadership development programs create delayed effects on engagement or influence different aspects of member involvement that our measures did not fully capture. Such research could provide more robust guidance for AAFCS’s continued efforts to foster an engaged and committed membership through strategic leadership development initiatives.

Submitted: July 18, 2024 EDT. Accepted: December 27, 2024 EDT. Published: September 30, 2025 EDT.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

40

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

References

Adebo-Adelaja, A. F., Daramola, F. A., Patrick, J., & Breckon, D. A. (2019). How does a member’s perception of value influence their decision to join a professional organization. Muma Business Review, 3(3), 29–39.

Ali, L. C. C. (2013). Your professional association: A great way to expand your skills and advance your career. Medical Writing, 22(1), 34–36. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/204748012X13560931063717 Bauman, A. E. (2008). Membership in professional associations: A means of professional development for medical librarians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(1), 48–51.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.

Wiley.

Cameron, S. (2021). Civic engagement in times of economic crisis: a cross-national comparative study of voluntary association membership. European Political Science Review, 13(3), 265–283. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1755773921000060 Clarke, M. C. (2000). AAFCS members: Our most valuable resource. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 92(1), 45–52.

Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp.

61–88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-6772-0_3 DeLeskey, K. (2003). An examination of the perceived benefits and costs of membership in professional student affairs associations [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland, College Park. deVreede, T., Andel, S. A., de Vreede, G. J., Spector, P., Singh, V., & Padmanabhan, B. (2019). What is engagement and how do we measure it? Toward a domain independent definition and scale. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.092 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 Friedman, A., & Philips, M. (2004). Continuing professional development: Developing a vision.

Journal of Education and Work, 17(3), 361–376. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/1363908042000267432 Greggs-McQuilkin, D. (2005). Why join a professional nursing organization? Nursing, 35, 19–28. https:// doi.org/10.1097/00152193-200509001-00006 Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000).

Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations.

Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 34–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1509/jmkg.64.3.34.18030

Guite, C. A., Malcolm, M. P., & Eisan, J. (2022).

Understanding member engagement, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers to membership in a Canadian professional association. Journal of Professional Communication, 7(1), 1–21.

Hager, M. A. (2014). The attraction and retention of members in voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(3), 319–335.

Hager, M. A., & Renfro, K. T. (2020). Volunteer management and the psychological contract. In The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Management (pp.

278–290). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315181011-22 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Holm, S. E., Stutz-Tanenbaum, P., & Greene, D. (2020).

What drives engagement in professional associations? A national survey of occupational therapy students. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 4(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.26681/ jote.2020.040301 Ki, E. J., & Wang, Y. (2016). Membership benefits matter: Exploring the factors influencing members’ behavioral intentions in professional associations.

Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21230 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford publications.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 Rusaw, A. C. (1995). Learning by association: Professional associations as learning agents. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2). https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hrdq.3920060209 Salzwedel, C., & Leslie, C. A. (2014). Who killed Susie Homemaker: What really happened To Home Economics. International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 71(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/ itaa_proceedings-180814-1118 Skarlicki, D. P., Lucas, C., Prociuk, T., & Latham, G. P. (2000). Factors explaining why people join, remain in, or leave a scholarly society: The Canadian Psychological Association. Canadian Psychology/ Psychologie Canadienne, 41(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0086858 Stewart, B., Roofe, N., Holden, J., Russell, M., Ravola, M., Brooks, L., & Coots, E. L. (2023). Outcomes of the AAFCS Leadership Academy to enhance professional leadership qualifications. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 115(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/ 10.14307/JFCS115.2.7

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

41

The Association of Leadership Academy Participation on AAFCS Member Engagement: A Social Exchange …

Sullivan, L. G., & Stevenson, T. H. (2009). What’s in it for me? Benefits of membership in professional associations. Marketing Health Services, 29(2), 34–37.

Sun, H., & Sun, J. (2024). A path to building the relationship between teachers and students in college english teaching from the perspective of social exchange theory. Frontiers in Educational Research, 7(6), 65–70.

Tsao, W. C., & Kang, H. R. (2019). How perceived costs and benefits affect membership continuance in professional associations: The mediating role of perceived value and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 153–163.

Wan, Y. K. P., Choi, S., & Lee, S. (2020). What makes members stay? Examining the roles of perceived benefits, satisfaction, and member identification in the context of a professional association. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(2), 318–341.

Wang, Y., & Ki, E. J. (2018). Membership matters: Why members engage with professional associations.

Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 71–82. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11266-017-9873-x Yeager, S. J. (1981). Fostering the development of professionalism: An exchange theory perspective of the decision to join a professional association.

Southern Review of Public Administration, 5, 314–338. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40860035 Yeager, S. J., & Kline, M. (1983). Professional association membership of nurses: Factors affecting membership and the decision to join an association.

Nursing Research, 32(1), 49–52.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

42

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.3.43

Practice

Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics Trajectory Susan L. T. McGregor, PH.D.1

a

1 Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University

Keywords: noetic sciences, noetic experiences, human consciousness, universal connections, intuitive inner knowing, family and consumer sciences, home economics

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 3, 2025

This opinion piece makes the case for family and consumer sciences (FCS) and home economics to bring noetic sciences and noetic experiences into their repertoire and broaden their minds about (a) human consciousness; (b) subjective, intuitive inner knowing; and (c) universal connectedness. Engaging with noetic sciences is not as anathema as it once was. Respecting noetic experiences’ influence on people’s lives could become a viable trajectory of vanguard FCS and home economics’ philosophical and theoretical musings with the potential to augment research, education, and practice I am convinced that family and consumer sciences (FCS) and home economics should be on the vanguard — a group of people leading the way to new ideas and developments.

Grounded in that conviction, I prepared this short missive (an opinion piece) on noetic sciences and noetic experiences, which I first encountered when reading Dan Brown’s (2009) novel The Lost Symbol. As a caveat, opinion pieces contain an author’s personal statement (well-reasoned argument) about a topic in anticipation of others’ consideration (McLean, 2011).

Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell (sixth person to walk on the moon) coined the term noetic sciences more than 50 years ago (in 1973). During his return to Earth from the 1971 Apollo 14 mission, he “experienced a profound sense of universal connectedness . . . We are not only in the universe but the universe is in us. I hadn’t had that experience before. It was an epiphany” (Mitchell quoted in Nicklin, 2023, last para.). Nearly 25 years later, while still processing this moment of great insight, he wrote a book, wherein he tried to reconcile science and theology to understand human consciousness and universal connectedness (Mitchell & Williams, 1996).

Shortly after the Apollo mission, Mitchell founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in 1973, so that researchers could “integrate scientific methodology with inner knowing” (Nicklin, 2023, para. 3). People needed a science that could “explain the unexplainable” (IONS, 2024, p. para. 4). Noetic sciences are considered one of many frameworks that people can use to engage with reality. In particular, noetic sciences strive to push past the long-entrenched scientific, mechanistic, and materialistic framework and bridge it with spiritual interpretations of reality

in concert with direct experiences (IONS, 2024; Mitchell & Williams, 1996).

IONS (2024) explained that “no•et•ic is Greek noesis/ noetikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding” (para. 1). Science is defined as “systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena” (para. 7). Husserl (2001) similarly distinguished between noetic and logical conditions for science.

Noetic sciences (conditions) concern the subjective act of knowing, while logical conditions concern the objective that can be studied independently of the subjective (the noetic).

Noetic sciences combine the two. It is “a multidisciplinary field of study that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the nature of reality” (IONS, 2024, p. para. 12). Its practice is based on the notion of consciousness (to be discussed) especially how human consciousness is more than a product of the brain; it is part of the fabric of the universe (Mitchell & Williams, 1996; Nicklin, 2023). IONS (2024) envisioned a nexus of outer investigation (science) and inner knowing (noetics) where people can “discover entirely new ways of being and of doing that uplift humanity and advance thriving for all” (para. 11). “A nexus is more than an intersection. It is an important connection between a series of elements comprising a system of thought. Its role is to bind things together in a chain of causation” (Gibbs & McGregor, 2023, p. 1).

The notion of a science that uplifts humanity should resonate with FCS and home economics, which is ideally (i.e., what one hopes to attain) a profession and discipline “focused on the home in order to improve humanity” (East,

a Professor Emerita

43

Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics…

1979, p. 141). Home economists might be interested to know that noetic sciences strive to enhance (a) humanity’s promise and potential, (b) people’s well-being and their quality of life, (c) their transformation and (d) their human experiences by valuing noetic experiences that amount to more than mere coincidence (i.e., an occurrence of events with no apparent causal connection).

Examples of noetic experiences include unexplainable encounters (e.g., extraterrestrial life), insights that come in a dream, hunches or intuitions that come out of nowhere, gut feelings without rational support that cannot be explained, thinking of someone who subsequently reaches out or shows up, and premonitions that something is going to happen (IONS, 2024; Vleten, 2011). Except for an alien encounter, I have experienced all these paranormal noetic experiences (i.e., supposedly beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding). I am not alone in this as noetic experiences are prevalent worldwide and have gained the attention of normal science (Kuhn, 2024; Wahbeh & Kriegsman, 2023).

Consider that some modern-day quantum physicists and philosophers refer to some of these experiences as the imaginal — thinking without words — that lead to sudden enlightenment or illumination (Corbin, 1964; Gibbs & McGregor, 2023; Nicolescu, 2014). Corbin (1964, 1979) coined the term mundus imaginal to capture the separate world that people experience internally. Mundus is Latin, ‘universe, world’ (Harper, 2024). In effect, mundus imaginal names people’s inner experiences inside their mind (own world) that lead to unexpected, often unexplainable, insights into reality. Noetic sciences call this “subjective inner knowing” (IONS, 2024, p. para. 7) or “intuitive inner knowing” (Wahbeh & Kriegsman, 2023, p. 5).

In more detail, mundus imaginalis is an “intermediate world whose ontological level is above the world of the senses and below the pure intelligible world; it is more immaterial than the former and less immaterial than the latter” (Corbin, 1964, p. 6). Noetic scientists are convinced that “there may be some ontological reality to subjective experiences of interconnectedness” (Vleten, 2011, para. 19; see also Kuhn, 2024). For that reason, noetic scientists consider noetic experiences, which are ubiquitous worldwide, very real (Wahbeh & Kriegsman, 2023). They have their own ontology (i.e., they exist; are a form of being) and metaphysics (i.e., a set of operating rules). These experiences influence people’s behavior, health, and life choices (IONS, 2024; Vleten, 2011).

Noetic scientists posit that just because normal science cannot explain noetic experiences, does not make them insignificant. On the contrary, these nonphysical phenomena are orienting life events that merit critical inquiry and intellectual investigation (IONS, 2024). They are “illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance” (James, 1902/2015, p. 533). Nonetheless, “noetic science often finds itself at the intersection of support and skepticism” (Nicklin, 2023, p. para. 6). Skeptics vigorously assert that noetic sciences are concerned with topics that are taboo to academia and respectable professions — the paranormal (Novella, 2023).

The paranormal includes but is not limited to telepathy; psychic abilities; extrasensory perception (ESP, sixth sense); knowing the future (precognition); death-related experiences; and the possibility of extraterrestrial life (IONS, 2024; Novella, 2023; Wahbeh & Kriegsman, 2023).

Not to be sidetracked by the tabooic nature of noetic sciences’ bailiwick, its most significant contribution is its interest in human consciousness. Other sciences are also intrigued with human consciousness (Kuhn, 2024) including quantum physics (Nicolescu, 2014). Noetic sciences are interested in paranormal phenomena because they reflect consciousness as well as invisible but very real and influential interconnections — harken astronaut Mitchell’s universal connection.

The Institute for Noetic Sciences’ mission is thus to “‘advance the science of consciousness and human experience to serve individual and collective transformation.’ Therefore, our research focuses on the fundamental nature of consciousness, its interaction with the physical world, and how the human experience of consciousness can dramatically transform” (Vleten, 2011, para. 13). The intent is to conduct basic science and laboratory research on and advance the study of human consciousness to gain a more complete understanding of its nature and thus enhance quality of life and achieve human potential (Vleten, 2011).

Noetic sciences assume that human consciousness has four characteristics (Popova, 2018). (a) Consciousness is ineffable. It is so profound that people cannot adequately express it in words; instead, consciousness must be directly experienced. (b) It also has a noetic quality in that it is both a state of feeling and a state of knowledge (insight into depths of truth). (c) Consciousness is transient, meaning it cannot be sustained for long. When gone, people have a hard time reproducing it. Yet memory of it lingers as does the sense of importance to one’s life. (d) People passively experience the oncoming of consciousness; their will is temporarily in abeyance. A feeling overcomes them or comes over them (James, 1902/2015).

Although people tend to agree that a widely accepted scientific explanation for the origins of noetic consciousness is lacking, there is growing evidence that consciousness is important. For noetic scientists, consciousness truly matters whether at the individual, collective, or universal level. Respectively, it can be (a) individual awareness affecting perceptions, interpretations, and intentions; (b) how a group makes sense and meaning of the world; and (c) “the shared ground of being from which all experiences and phenomena arise and eventually return . . . a ‘milieu of [human] potential’” (Vleten, 2011, para. 10).

I suggest that FCS and home economics practitioners have an opportunity to broaden their perspective on what constitutes science. Nearly 50 years ago, Brown and Paolucci (1979) guided the profession along a similar trajectory with their notion of three metascientific perspectives to conceptualize the theory and practice aspects of home economics: analytical/empirical science, interpretive science, and critical science. It is not such a stretch to embrace the idea of noetic sciences: human consciousness, interconnectedness, spirituality balanced with science, and a

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

44

Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics…

respect for many ways of knowing including wisdom, intuition, and the Sacred (IONS, 2024).

Without using the term noetic sciences, theoretical quantum physicist Nicolescu (2014) espoused the same message in his transdisciplinary methodology, which has been introduced to FCS and home economics practitioners (M. M. Brown, 1993; McGregor, 2011b). Furthermore, the profession has long been interested in global education, a global perspective, consumer citizenship, and education for sustainable development (IFHE, 2008; McGregor, 2002; Williams et al., 1990). By association, they have inherently embraced key aspects of noetic sciences if not for the same reason: universal interconnectedness, human consciousness, spirituality, many ways of knowing, and an appreciation for the unknown and unknowable. This might predispose some practitioners to noetic sciences.

Whether scientifically proven or not, noetic experiences and ways of knowing can deeply affect people (Vleten, 2011). In a personal example, I once struggled with understanding and making sense of Bubolz and Sontag’s (1988, 1993) conceptualization of home economics as human ecology. One morning just before I woke up, I experienced a liminal (waking threshold) moment when it all coalesced — thinking without words (Corbin, 1969). My consciousness had the epiphany of a spider plant metaphor (noetic experience), which I subsequently published (McGregor, 2011a).

Nicolescu (2014) acknowledged the significance of “the very short intermediate period between sleep and waking up . . . the sudden and immediate appearance of a solution at the very moment of awakening” (p. 180). After a long period of preparation, revelations (i.e., noetic experiences) manifest “without the slightest participation of ordinary logical thinking” (p. 180), but previous “logic effort paves the way for the information to pop up” (p. 179). I now wonder if my paper would have been published, if I had presented it as a noetic experience. Because of the taboo nature of noetic sciences (i.e., to study these phenomena is to cross the academic, rational line), they have detractors and skeptics (Nicklin, 2023; Novella, 2023).

Novella (2023) characterized noetic sciences as pseudoscience, which is a collection of theories, assumptions, methods, beliefs, assertions, explanations, or practices that are presented as scientific but are not compatible with the scientific method (Bell, 2012). For Novella, pseudoscience is “performing research to show that the phenomenon is true, or perhaps how it works, but not doing research capable of determine [sic] if it is true” (para. 4). In effect, he criticized noetic sciences for assuming that particular phenomena are real, when it has not been scientifically established. He also described noetic sciences as fringe science.

Unlike pseudoscience, which is incorrectly framed as science, ideas on the fringe of science are considered rational but not likely to produce good results due to contradictory or incomplete evidence (Dutch, 1982; Friedlander, 2018).

Conclusion Skirting the pseudoscience/fringe science rabbit hole, I invite FCS and home economics practitioners to critically reflect on noetic sciences, which explicitly challenge deeply

entrenched normal science and call for their integration, so a more balanced explanation of reality is available. The profession has already been taken to task for uncritically embracing the scientific paradigm to the exclusion of other sciences (M. M. Brown, 1993; M. M. Brown & Paolucci, 1979). We could acknowledge the potential of valuing a science that concerns the power of wisdom, intuition, aha moments, liminal threshold crossings, unexplainable phenomena, and so on. Although lacking logical rationale, many people consider these noetic experiences significant, important, and worthy of critical intellectual and scientific inquiry (James, 1902/2015; Kuhn, 2024; Vleten, 2011; Wahbeh et al., 2021; Wahbeh & Kriegsman, 2023). FCS and home economics practitioners could consider joining their ranks.

Noetic scientists maintain that noetic experiences (with their anchor in human consciousness) have their own ontology (unique existence) and metaphysics (their own set of operating rules) (Vleten, 2011). “Ontology and metaphysics have gained some new energy lately, thanks to the mystifying implications of quantum physics and the science of consciousness, which are turning many scientists into philosophers, and vice-versa” (Ontology, n.d., Controversies section). But “strong cultural taboos exist about sharing [noetic] experiences. Thus, many may not feel comfortable transparently discussing or researching these topics, despite growing evidence that these experiences may be real” (Wahbeh et al., 2021, p. 1).

“As long as the [noetic experience] remains an outcast from the halls of science and scholarship, the taboo will persist” (Radin, 2009, p. 27). That said, although skeptics consider noetic sciences’ foci taboo (Novella, 2023), its interest in human consciousness is not taboo. In fact, Kuhn (2024, p. 156) very recently acknowledged the “greater interest in consciousness among scientists [and claimed that this interest is] no longer [a] risky . . . scientific endeavour.”

To affirm this assertion, he mapped the research landscape of consciousness with the intent of “distinguish[ing] what consciousness is ontologically from how consciousness happens operationally” (Kuhn, 2024, p. 5). His taxonomy contained 209 consciousness-related theories (loosely used description) organized into 10 categories or types.

Noetic experiences are acknowledged in his taxonomy, although IONS is not. He said that his “Landscape of Consciousness is a work-in-process — permanently” (Kuhn, 2024, p. 156). This sentiment intimates broad, established comfort with scientific research around human consciousness.

FCS and home economics practitioners are encouraged to consider these concluding thoughts. Engaging with noetic sciences is not as anathema as it once was (Kuhn, 2024). Indeed, noetic experiences are ubiquitous worldwide and considered very real (i.e., their own unique ontology and metaphysics). Bringing noetic sciences into our professional and disciplinary repertoire could broaden our minds about human consciousness; subjective, intuitive inner knowing; and universal connectedness. Respecting their influence on people’s lives could become a viable trajectory of vanguard FCS and home economics’ philosophical and the-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

45

Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics…

oretical musings with the potential to augment research, education, and practice.

Published: September 30, 2025 EDT.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

46

Universal Connectedness, Human Consciousness, and Noetic Sciences: Potential FCS and Home Economics…

References

Bell, S. (2012). A dictionary of forensic science. Oxford University Press.

Brown, D. (2009). The lost symbol. Anchor Books.

Brown, M. M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States (Vol. 3). Michigan State University.

Brown, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, S. (1988). Integration in home economics and human ecology. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1470-6431.1988.tb00462.x Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Source book for family theories and methods (pp. 419–450). Plenum. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_17 Corbin, H. (1964). Mundus Imaginalis or the Imaginary and the Imaginal. de l’Association des amis de Henry et Stella Corbin. https://www.amiscorbin.com/ bibliographie/mundus-imaginalis-or-the-imaginaryand-the-imaginal/ Corbin, H. (1979). Pour une charte de l’Imaginal [Charter of the Imaginal]. Buchet-Chastel.

Dutch, S. (1982). Notes on the nature of fringe science.

Journal of Geological Education, 30(1), 6–13. https:// doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6 East, M. (1979). Comments on the paper, ‘Home Economics: A Definition.’ In M. Brown & B. Paolucci (Eds.), Home economics: A definition (pp. 136–142).

American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Friedlander, M. W. (2018). At the fringes of science (Rev. ed.). Routledge.

Gibbs, P., & McGregor, S. L. T. (2023). Conceptualizing a transdisciplinary nexus for addressing complex problems. Futures, 154, Article 103261. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103261 Harper, D. (2024). Online etymology dictionary. https:// www.etymonline.com/ Husserl, E. (2001). Prolegomena to pure logic. In M. Dermot (Ed.), Logical investigations (Vol. 1, pp.

9–161). Routledge.

Institute of Noetic Sciences. (2024). The interconnected nature of reality: Defining noetic science. https:// noetic.org/about/noetic-sciences/ James, W. (2015). The varieties of religious experience: A study of human nature. Routledge. (Original work published 1902) Kuhn, R. L. (2024). A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications.

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 190, 26–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003

McGregor, S. L. T. (2002). Consumer citizenship: A pathway to sustainable development? [Keynote address]. International Conference on Developing Consumer Citizenship, Hamar, Norway.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2011a). Home economics as an integrated, holistic system: Revisiting Bubolz and Sontag’s 1988 human ecology approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(1), 26–34. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00920.x McGregor, S. L. T. (2011b). Transdisciplinary methodology in home economics. International Journal of Home Economics, 4(2), 104–122. https:// www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/e_Journal/ IJHE_Volume_4.pdf McLean, G. N. (2011). Writing theory, conceptual, and position articles for publication. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 209–221). Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, E., & Williams, D. (1996). The way of the explorer: An Apollo astronauts’ journey through the material and mystical worlds (1st ed.). G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Nicklin, H. (2023, October 11). Noetic science. Flock and Hive Blog. https://flockandhive.com/noetic-science/ Nicolescu, B. (2014). From modernity to cosmodernity.

SUNY Press.

Novella, S. (2023, May 1). Problems with the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Neurologica Blog. https:// theness.com/neurologicablog/problems-with-theinstitute-for-noetic-sciences/ Ontology. (n.d.). Philosophy Terms. https:// philosophyterms.com/ontology/ Popova, M. (2018, June 4). William James on consciousness and the four features of transcendent experiences. The Marginalian. https:// www.themarginalian.org/2018/06/04/william-jamesvarieties-consciousness/ Radin, D. (2009). The enduring enigma of the UFO. Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness, 21, 22–27. https://noetic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ S21_Shift_RADIN_EnduringEnigmaOfUFO.pdf Vleten, C. (2011, May 10). What are noetic sciences?

Psychology Today Blog. https:// www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/consciousnessmatters/201105/what-are-noetic-sciences-0 Wahbeh, H., Fry, N., Speirn, P., Hrnjic, L., Ancel, E., & Niebauer, E. (2021). Qualitative analysis of firstperson accounts of noetic experiences.

F1000Research, 10, Article 832. https://doi.org/ 10.12688/f1000research.52957.3 Wahbeh, H., & Kriegsman, M. (2023). The Noetic Signature Inventory: 12-factor confirmatory analysis.

F1000Research, 12, Article 828. https://doi.org/ 10.12688/f1000research.134481.1 Williams, S. K., West, D. L., & Murray, E. C. (Eds.).

(1990). Looking toward the 21st century: Home economics and the global community: Home economics education yearbook 10. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

47

RESOURCES To Bring Research & Scholarship in JFCS to YOUR program or classroom

AAFCS MEMBER BENEFIT AAFCS has launched a NEW online resource designed to bring JFCS content to life.

FCS educators will have opportunities to pursue further thought and action on selected topics presented in the JFCS through activities, discussions, and readings cross-walked to the: FCS Body of Knowledge; Family & Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Standards; and Family & Consumer Sciences National Standards 3.0.

FOR FURTHER ACTION

This segment provides supplemental resources to help educators further explore selected JFCS topics through lesson plans; online resources/links with additional information; and/or potential community outreach projects.

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT This segment provides questions and/or statements to serve as discussion starters for students, colleagues, or groups. Educators are invited to use this segment to: engage in discussion with fellow FCS professionals in the AAFCS Member Open Forum; lead a discussion in the community; or facilitate student discussions in the secondary or postsecondary classroom.

FOR FURTHER READING

This segment provides a list of additional readings from AAFCS publications that relate to the current issue's selected topics.

Access these FREE resources at: https://www.aafcs.org/JFCS-action

Turn Nutrition Knowledge into Healthy Behaviors with Guide to Good Food!

Now organized in shorter, flexible lessons!

Resources include:

NEW!

• Textbook • Workbook • More Than 75 New Recipes • Study Tools • Video Clip Library • Online Instructor Resources

To request a FREE Preview, scan the code or visit www.g-w.com/preview and use Promo Code GTGF24

Louisville, Kentucky

Join AAFCS for our upcoming events!

2025 Leadership Summit September 26-28, 2025

Experience Louisville, Kentucky and join AAFCS as we elevate the profession by inspiring research, leadership, and service to empower individuals, families and communities.

More information: www.aafcs.org/conferences

2026 Annual Conference June 19-21, 2026

IN MEMORY OF

Members and staff of AAFCS extend their deepest sympathies to the families and friends of these FCS professionals. We are grateful for their years of dedication to our association.

AAFCS was notified of the passing of these members from August 1, 2024 – July 31, 2025.

Kinsey Green, OR Peggy Berger, VA* Catherine King, NC Jean Bardonner, IN Barbara Woods, IA Judith Breland, MS Katherine Brophy, CT Judith Hetherly, TX Eleanor Collins, MN Rosemary Hedlund, IA Cecile Hoffman, WI Mary Lee Wood, ID Dominique Montgomery, SC *Co-Creator for the Wiley-Berger Service Award

CONGRATULATIONS THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONALS HAVE RECENTLY EARNED AAFCS CREDENTIALS (May 01, 2024 to May 31, 2025) Shandi Andres, CFCS Leigh Baker, CNWE Tabitha Barnes, CFCS Mia Battistone, CFCS Ines Beltran, CNWE Marissa Canty, CFCS-HDFS Ana Luisa Aguilar Carrasco, CFCS-HDFS Kathy Enyart, CFCS Erin Fogg, CFCS Beverly Froud, CFCS Djidjoho C. Y. Akloubou Gnonhossou, CFCS-HDFS Channing Harrison, CFCSHDFS Tyler Henderson, CFCS Jessica Hess, CFCS Kayla Howard, CFCS

Gretchen Jackson, CFCS-HDFS Shadarra James, CFCS Erin Johnson, CPFFE Piper Johnson, CFCS-HDFS Charlene Kelley, CFCS Kevin Kennington, CPFFE Cheryl Lynn Lively, CFCS Amanda Martin, CFCS Chelsea Milks, CFCS Withrow Newell, CFCS Jane Opiri, CFCS Julie Patterson, CFCS Clinton Daniel Redfern, CFCS Carmela Ross Leith, CFCS-HDFS Jennifer Savage, CFCS-HDFS Melanie Schmitt, CFCS Nicola Smith, CFCS-HDFS Christy Swann, CFCS Katharine Wolfe, CFCS-HDFS Kelly Yeakey, CFCS

FEATURE FRIDAY

FEATURE FRID AYS! Join AAFCS on our social media channels as we Feature FCS on Fridays!

Highlighting programs, services, members, conferences, and much more!

View and download all the graphics on the AAFCS website! https://aafcs.org/aafcs-events/campaigns/feature-friday

#FCSFRIDAY #ELEVATEFCS #FCSsuccess

ACCESS VIRTUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE THINK FCS PLATFORM

On-demand recordings available now! https://www.pathlms.com/aafcs

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

ONLY $45 70% SAVINGS COMPARED TO NONMEMBER RATES RELEASED QUARTERLY MARCH, JUNE, SEPTEMBER, DECEMBER ONLINE ONLY VIA WILEY CONTACT US

research@aafcs.org

NEW Platform Alert Check out our New JFCS Manuscript Platform