Forecasting the Future of Consumer Programs in Higher Education

Are academic programs with a consumer emphasis soon to be a thing of the past? Conversations with colleagues around the country certainly lead one to be pessimistic about the future of the field. Yet, this sense of impending doom is based primarily on anecdotal data regarding reductions, mergers, and outright program eliminations (Bryant 1992; Dardis 1992; Dolan 1992). In this research note, the authors use data from a recent survey of department chairpersons to gauge the future of consumer programs in a more systematic fashion. To set the stage for the analysis, the authors briefly review recent commentaries that have speculated on the factors that may affect the future of consumer programs. This review is followed by a description of the survey and findings of the analysis. In the final section, implications of the findings for academic programs in the field are discussed. RECENT DIALOGUE The catalyst for much of the recent discussion regarding the health of consumer programs (e.g., enrollment, faculty size, budget, mergers, employment of graduates, support from administrators) was a communication article in Advancing the Consumer Interest by Bryant and Metzen (1991) entitled "Is the Crack Closing?" The "crack" in question was the niche between academic disciplines in which consumer programs are located. The authors conclude that some programs were being eliminated and others were being merged because of government budget reductions and because of a lack of appreciation among administrators for consumer research and/or undergraduate curricula. They recommended departments educate both internal and external constituencies about the value of consumer programs in the hope this would lead to improved political support. They also lamented the fact that consumer programs were under siege, "despite the fact that enrollments in our majors have increased over the decade. . ." (Bryant and Metzen 1991, 5). The issue of enrollments was examined more closely by Zick and Widdows (1992, 1994) who pointed out that programs under siege may be able to defend their position better if they have large and/or increasing student numbers. They examined data on enrollment trends and numbers of degrees awarded and found the average undergraduate program is quite small and the trend is toward declining enrollments. Widdows and Bryant (1993) noted that the academic programs in question typically house two subfields: consumer economics and family economics. They went on to articulate the relevance of college-level consumer and family economics programs in the hopes that such material could be used to defend "at risk" programs. Their efforts to define the field and justify its existence were expanded and to some degree modified by Metzen (1993a), who "[urged] all who are stakeholders in the field to join ranks against forces that would diminish it, particularly at a time when it is needed more than ever" (Metzen 1993a, 39). Running parallel to this discussion of academic programs in consumer and family economics was another set of papers expressing concern about enrollment numbers and survival in the field known as family resource management. As family resource management is often taught within the same departments as consumer and family economics, it is inevitable that some of the same concerns would be expressed about downsizing, mergers, and program closures. The focus of the discussion, as it emerged at a forum at the 1992 Southeast Regional Home Management/Family Economics Conference was if the discipline should go in new directions to attract more students (Deacon 1992; Garman 1992; Hanna 1992). It was concluded that the risk of moving away from disciplinary roots was that the field would become more fragmented and therefore more vulnerable during times of shrinking college and university budgets. While there appears to be consensus that many consumer and family economics programs have struggled in recent years, the future may be brighter. …