| The objective of the study was to solicit and analyze the views of college and university administrators concerning the current status and future directions of home economics. A survey instrument was designed and mailed to the presidents of the 343 institutions where home economics units are located in the United States and its territories. Usable responses were received from 202 administrators; 116 from presidents, 66 from academic vice-presidents, and 19 from other central administrators. An additional 25 institutions reported discontinuance of the program.;However, the campus image of home economics was rated as positive. Implications are that the increasing specialization of the field has enhanced the image and clarified the mission of the program on the campuses and may be strengthening research concerns.;Most administrators displayed consistent response patterns to all questions except in terms of institutional size and gender. Regarding size, the larger public institutions were less likely to retrench home economics programs, had more specialized home economics programs, and were more likely to have AHEA accreditation than the smaller private institutions. Male administrators rated home economics faculty as lower in quality and were less likely to encourage a name change for the field than the female administrators.;Issues identified for further research include the effect of increasing specialization, improving research endeavors, and enhancing the public image of home economics, and also concerns of women's fields and emerging professions in higher education.;Home economics programs were rated as above average, but not exceptional. The mission was clearly defined by the units and important to the institutions. Quality was rated as between average and good. Administrators reported financial concerns would be relatively stable over the next five years. Internal political support was rated as very strong and external political support was perceived as low, but, according to literature, strong internal support has been known to influence external support. Accreditation from AHEA was important only to those units already accredited. Administrators felt that home economics was a specialized rather than a generalized field. Problem areas were those also identified by home economists themselves, lack of research and poor public image. |
