Synergies between home economics and spiritual health and well-being
Jay R. Deagon
Abstract
Spiritual health and well-being is essential for human survival and sustainable development. Home
Economics education is an ideal vehicle for delivering and promoting spiritual health and well-being
concepts. This paper offers an historical overview of influences and philosophical insights into these
interrelated concepts. A model is in development that demonstrates synergies between the
multidisciplinary curriculum subject of home economics and spiritual health and well-being. Spiritual
health and well-being in home economics contexts may be considered an umbrella concept that
unifies ideas about quality relationships with one’s self (individuals), how we relate to others (families
and communities), our care and stewardship of living creatures and non-living environments
(sustainable development) and acknowledges that humans are capable of transcendence and operate
within larger realities (local and global citizenship). My research posits that spirituality can be
observed because it is a publically expressed and socially enacted phenomenon. The frameworks
discussed in this paper were necessary so that I had clear parameters for observing spiritual health and
well-being in a virtual home economics environment and to provide a platform for the next phase of
research.
Key Words: spiritual health and well-being, home economics, sustainable development, Internetbased research.
Introduction
Spiritual health and well-being is essential for human survival and sustainable development. Home
Economics education is an ideal vehicle for delivering and promoting spiritual health and well-being
concepts. This paper offers an historical overview of influences and philosophical insights into these
interrelated concepts.
My interest in spiritual health and well-being began during my undergraduate Home Economics
teaching degree in 2005. My lecturers could not give me an adequate explanation as to how, when and
why I would, could or should “use” or “see” spirituality in a classroom setting. This paper is a workin-progress report of my doctoral study about how I have come to understand theoretical and
philosophical relationships between spiritual health and well-being and home economics.
How I view History’s role in shaping our understanding of spirituality
I argue that my small-scale research project is the product of a “grand synthesis” of philosophical
thought contributed to by cave man, Hammurabi, Aristotle and Plato, Rene Descartes and Immanuel
Kant, Carl Jung, William James, Ellen Richards and in more recent history, Abraham Mazlow, Michel
Foucault, Basil Bernstein, Nelson Mandela, Reverend Desmond Tutu, His Holiness The Dalai Lama,
John Lennon, Al Gore and Ophra Winfrey… these philosophers, theorists, linguists, religious leaders,
activists and celebrities and many more (Indigenous, Western and Eastern) have contributed to our
current understandings about the Mystery and delicate balance of human life on Earth and I am
indebted to them.
Clarifying the concepts and issues
I operate on the assumption that Home Economics is situated within the fields of health education,
health promotion and population health. Within these fields “the spiritual dimension” is considered
foundational to “health” and “well-being” (Hettler, 2010; McGregor, 2010b). In the past ‘science, as
the vehicle through which to investigate and explain existence over the last four hundred years,
disconnected humans from their natural, holistic, and spiritual belonging’ (Agnello, White, & Fryer,
2006, p. 315). It is strongly suggested that the biomedical model of health is inappropriate for
research purposes because this mode of understanding is a one-dimensional and fractured way to
approach “health” (Chuengsatiansup, 2003; Hawks et al., 2007). Crawford and Rossiter (2006, pp.
100-105) make the observation that ‘Newtonian scientific thinking’ has reduced human beings into
measurable packets of information and disconnected us from our environments to the point where we
have lost sight of natural, holistic and spiritual knowledges. In essence, social scientists are
recommending that human beings be studied within dynamic and multidimensional contexts.
Since the inception of Home Economics human spirituality, the spiritual dimension, spiritual health,
spiritual well-being and spiritual wellness have all entered home economics literature and rhetoric
(Henry, 1995; McGregor & Chesworth, 2005; Nickols et al., 2009; Rehm & Allison, 2009). Both
Henry (1995) and McGregor (2010b) believe that spiritual health and well-being is worthy of research
attention because of its implications for understanding a holistic approach to health, well-being,
wellness and the human condition. Whilst I acknowledge that the phrase “spiritual health and wellbeing” holds its own sets of preconceived ideas and authorities, it has been used in my research
because it encompasses the overarching ideologies for holistic visions of human beings interacting
within various environments. I believe this triptych phrase (spiritual + health + well-being) best
portrays a whole vision of health and education that can be applied across and within local and global
contexts.
Glocal means that local and global contexts are taken together (International Federation for Home
Economics (IFHE), 2009). The term glocal implies a co-dependency between humans and their
environments. That is, the human species lives symbiotically and unreservedly entwined with nature.
On the importance of global citizenship education, Agnello and colleagues (2006, p. 315) pointedly
argue that ‘recapturing a conservative ecological reverence for the earth and its inhabitants is of
utmost importance to the health of the planet and future generations’. Green (2001, p. 1) explains
ecology as ‘study of the organism/environment relationship’. From this perspective, an ‘ecological
approach to home economics’ is justifiable and highly recommended (McGregor, 2011).
How is Home Economics situated within global health initiatives?
The IFHE Position Statement, Home Economics in the 21st Century (IFHE, 2009, p. 1), clarifies
Home Economics into four areas of practice: 1) an academic discipline, 2) an arena for everyday
living, 3) a curriculum subject, and 4) societal arena. The Position Statement conveys that within
these four dimensions, one purpose of Home Economics is ‘to advocate for individuals, families and
communities to achieve empowerment and wellbeing, to utilise transformative practices, and to
facilitate sustainable futures’. This directive is similar to the United Nations Educational Scientific
and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiative to
‘help people to develop the attitudes, skills, perspectives and knowledge to make informed decisions
and act upon them for the benefit of themselves and others, now and in the future. ESD helps the
citizens of the world to learn their way to a more sustainable future’ (UNESCO, 2009). One may
assume that the IFHE and UNESCO are both ideologically underpinned by a desire to influence a
positive survival outcome for all of Earth’s humans, creatures, land, water and air.
In light of the realisation that we have finite resources, theory and research generated within and
external to the Home Economics profession focussed on negatively impacting consumerist
behaviours, family well-being, active citizenship and the impact of technology on globalisation
(Agnello, et al., 2006; Baldwin, 1996; Benn, 2010; Lange, 2004; Lima & Brown, 2007; Ma &
Pendergast, 2010; McGregor, 2010a; Meszaros, 2002; Preston, 2006). Furthermore, the study of
spiritual health and well-being is converging with these research fields stemming from the
possibilities of positive health outcomes and sustainable futures (De Souza, 2006; JW. Fisher, 2000;
Rehm & Allison, 2009; Young et al., 2006). As the spiritual dimension to sustainable futures is
increasingly
being
recognised,
initiatives
such
as
The
Earth
Charter
(http://www.earthcharterinaction.org) encourage ‘a new sense of global interdependence and shared
responsibility for the well-being of the whole human family, the greater community of life, and future
generations’. Some professionals may consider spirituality as “just good practice” because it is
already embedded within their personal and professional lives and manifests during the normal course
of their work (McSherry & Jamieson, 2011). For others, there is still considerable confusion as to
where spirituality “fits” and its appropriateness within education and practice.
How did spirituality enter Home Economics?
At the Third Annual Conference on Home Economics, 28 June-5 July 1901, founding Home
Economists recognised spirituality as an important aspect of family life. Recorded in the conference
proceedings, Ellen Richards and Alice Norton presented the first Home Economics syllabus
(American Home Economics Association, 1901). Under the heading ideals and standards of living
they placed a higher value on ‘an apportionment of time dedicated to studying spiritual life’ than
studying ‘food and clothing’1. At that time in history and as a consequence of colonialism and
missionary crusades, Christian religious beliefs were embedded into many peoples’ lives (HicklingHudson, 1999; Pendergast, 2001). There is evidence within the Lake Placid conference proceedings
that supports this position because teaching and learning about ‘church and charity’ is also included. A
century into the future and post separation of Church from State in most westernised societies, there
are only remnants or faint reminders about the importance of studying ‘spiritual life’ in Home
Economics.
Strengths of Home Economics
Social reform and a focus on individual, family and community empowerment are unique and
powerful strengths of Home Economics. In ‘contemporary and convergent times’, Pendergast (2008,
p. 7) states that ‘development of attributes of global citizens (pragmatic, liberal and civic) should be a
focus of the educative role of home economists’. Historically, Apple and Coleman (2003, p. 105)
believed that early leaders of the field of Home Economics
…consciously and consistently sought to infuse an ethos of social reform in all their students,
whether those women were planning for a career outside the home or for homemaking. Most
critically, these leaders believed that not only professional home economists but also
homemakers trained in home economics had a duty to work toward ameliorating social
problems.
Home Economics education can directly influence outcomes on contemporary “social problems” such
as sustainable development and lifestyle diseases such as obesity (Dewhurst & Pendergast, 2011;
1 This was established using the discourse analysis technique of ‘textual ordering’ (Gee, 2005). This
means that important concepts are presented first and in a hierarchical order of importance. This is
similar to presenting “the dimensions of health” as physical, social, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual. It can be interpreted that the people who wrote this phrase (and others who reproduce it)
place a higher importance on physical health than spiritual health; a necessary concept to include
but not important to place first in this juxtaposed list.
Pendergast, Garvis, & Kanasa, 2011). Therefore, if school is considered “the best” institution to take
on the initiative of linking disconnected, isolated and compartmentalised children in a holistic manner
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986), then Home Economics is the ideal subject in which praxis can take place.
Home Economics enacts “real world” knowledge with practical “real world” skills and experiences.
To illustrate the breadth and depth of Home Economics education, Smith and de Zwart (2010)
reviewed the reasons why home economics education is important:
•
Home Economics Foods and Nutrition courses provide the only opportunity for students to
learn about nutrition and healthy eating through the ‘hands-on’ food preparation that is
recognized as more effective in changing behaviour than knowledge transmission.
•
Home Economics Family Studies courses are the only provincial curriculum that offers
parenting education.
•
Home Economics courses provide many opportunities for students to practice and gain
competency in making financial decisions that apply to food, clothing, shelter and family
living choices that people must make over the life-span.
•
Home economics is the only school subject that addresses work and family life balance.
•
All home economics courses provide opportunities for students to develop a sense of global
citizenship in the wise use of human and material resources.
On a daily basis, variations of this “grassroots” education are provided by thousands of Home
Economics teachers, lecturers, academics and industry professionals in many countries around the
world. At the heart of many Home Economists and their governing Associations there is an
undercurrent of a ‘higher mission of social reform’ that underpins practice but unfortunately, this may
not always reflect Home Economics practices in reality.
Assumptions and Barriers about Home Economics and spirituality
The value of Home Economics education is barely recognised and frequently overlooked.
Furthermore, persisting dominant ideologies such as patriarchy, consumerism, scientific, empirical
and capitalistic paradigms keep home economics and spiritual health and well-being marginalised
(Pendergast, 2003; Roehlkepartain, Benson, King, & Wagener, 2009). Despite difficulties with
legitimisation and tensions within the field (Green, 2001; McGregor, Pendergast, Seniuk, Eghan, &
Engberg, 2008; Schneider, 2000), through dedication to the discipline, the Home Economics
movement has grown into a global community of practitioners. From this new globalised perspective,
exclusively religious understandings of spirituality seem no longer applicable or appropriate. For
example, the first Home economics syllabus stemmed from Christian beliefs and no longer reflects
global realities. Another problem is that the Internet has opened a wider variety of public opinions and
perpetuates negative assumptions about home economics (Deagon, In Press 2012). Furthermore, the
Internet has facilitated greater awareness of the diversity of belief systems of the world.
Addressing spirituality in the health and education professions is now a matter of “cultural
competence” and inclusivity (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2006). The inclusion of
spirituality as a subject for research has been a ‘taboo topic’ (Hawks, 1994; Tacey, 2003); not only
because of its relationship with religion, but is also hindered by perceived difficulties with observation
and measurement of the “unknown” (Blake, 1996; Radford, 2006). These equate to arguments for the
exclusion of religion and the existence (or not) of “God”. Historically “God” has been excluded from
scientific research. As an alternative, authors such as Radford (2006) suggest ‘we might adopt a
sociocentric perspective in which the supremacy of the ego is dissolved in favour of an understanding
in which we see ourselves as part of the social and natural outer world in which we exist’. Coming
full circle from the philosophical ponderings of Rene Descartes, and many Indigenous belief systems,
the “unknown”, “Transcendental” or “God” component is a necessary factor for the human race to
become balanced with its self, realities and environments (Fisher, 2011). There is sufficient evidence
that human spirituality is a real phenomenon and an acceptable candidate for research investigations.
Lens for observing spiritual health and well-being in Home Economics contexts
My research seeks to investigate Home Economics digital artefacts that reveal signs and symbols of
spiritual health and well-being. That is, semiotics and discourse generated within the Internet as a
socially constructed environment “looking for” public expressions of spirituality. In order to study the
ways people communicate socially constructed notions of home economics and spiritual health and
well-being I had to take these concepts from a ‘cognitive reality’ and bring them into a ‘physical’,
‘sensory’ or observable reality (Denscombe, 2007). To achieve this, I applied a poststructural
constructivist perspective for observing these subjects as publically expressed phenomena. A social
semiotic approach also enables the coming together of multidisciplinary bodies of knowledge through
the understanding that societies communicate through systems of signs and symbols.
Michel Foucault and Basil Bernstein also helped me understand how knowledge and language is
structured, recontextualised and politicised and this is an unavoidable consequence of socialisation.
Recontextualisation is a complex process whereby ‘spiritual concepts produced in ‘the real world’ (for
example, dominant discourses on religion, or nursing terminally ill cancer patients or “new aged”
spirituality) are altered for specific purposes by specific audiences’ (Deagon, 2009). Deagon and
Pendergast (2012) explain that ‘recontextualised knowledge is synthesised, manipulated, politically
compromised and individually expressed until it has been altered from its original source and possible
meaning or intent’. I ask, how is spiritual health and well-being and home economics recontextualised
within a digital world?
Synergies between Home Economics and spiritual health and well-being
As previously established, Home Economics is concerned with individuals, families and communities
in glocal contexts. As a product of my literature reviews, I found Fisher’s multidimensional model of
spiritual health and well-being “best fit” with Home Economics philosophies. Context is crucial.
Specifically, Fisher’s four domains model is useful because, like Home Economics, it considers
human beings in an ecological and holistic manner. Fisher’s conceptual framework for spiritual health
and well-being is
A, if not the, fundamental dimension of people’s overall health and well-being, permeating
and integrating all the other dimensions of health (i.e., physical, mental, emotional, social
and vocational). Spiritual health is a dynamic state of being, shown by the extent to which
people live in harmony within relationships in the following domains of spiritual well-being:
Personal domain: wherein one intra-relates with oneself with regards to meaning,
purpose and values in life. Self-awareness is the driving force or transcendent aspect
of the human spirit in its search for identity and self-worth.
Communal domain: as shown in the quality and depth of interpersonal relationships,
between self and others, relating to morality, culture and religion. These are
expressed in love, forgiveness, trust, hope and faith in humanity.
Environmental domain: beyond care and nurture for the physical and biological, to
a sense of awe and wonder; for some, the notion of unity with the environment.
Transcendental domain: relationship of self with some-thing or some-One beyond
the human level (i.e., ultimate concern, cosmic force, transcendent reality or God).
This involves faith towards, adoration and worship of, the source of Mystery of the
universe.
Synergies
QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
Figure 1: Synergies between core home economics concerns juxtaposed with Fisher's four domains
model of spiritual health and well-being expressing the ideal of balanced quality relationships
My model presented above was developed through a process of inductive reasoning. I intuitively
juxtaposed Home Economics’ core concerns for individuals, families, communities as having
synergies with Fisher’s personal, communal, environmental and transcendental domains. I propose
that spiritual health and well-being be considered in home economics contexts as an umbrella concept
unifying ideas about the importance of quality relationships with one’s self (individuals), how we
relate to others (families and communities), our care and stewardship of living creatures and nonliving environments (sustainable development) and acknowledges that humans are capable of
transcendence and operate within larger realities (local and global [glocal] citizenship).
Explaining Transcendental
Most people can recognise the personal, communal and environmental domains as important to the
health and well-being of humans. However, it is the transcendental domain where most disagreement
occurs. My interpretation of the transcendental domain specific for home economics contexts is the
understanding that individuals operate within larger realities. That is, aware and active glocal citizens
who participate within an ultimate concern. The transcendental domain is an acknowledgement that
local actions have global consequences. This interpretation attempts a paradigm shift away from
individualism and narcissism (McGregor, 2008, 2010a) that moves toward acknowledging that the
human race is only one part of a larger reality. This model is also an attempt to unite the vast
possibilities for explaining the “unknown” whether from religious, atheistic, matter and energy or
agnostic perspectives. Regardless of what people call this source of Mystery that binds us and
everything together, I posit that within the Transcendental domain there is scope for an
acknowledgement about the interconnectedness of everything. The Transcendental domain is an
essential aspect of spiritual health and well-being. “Scientific” ideology, personalities, opinions,
fundamentalism, extremism and agendas make the Transcendental domain so difficult. For the sake of
humanity and survival on Earth, it is time to move forward.
Conclusion
This research posits that spirituality can be observed because it is a publically expressed and socially
enacted phenomenon. From this perspective, I have proposed a model for exploring Home Economics
and spiritual health and well-being framed by historical contexts as well as global health and
education initiatives. Spiritual health and well-being is considered an umbrella concept that unifies
ideas about quality relationships with one’s self (individuals), how we relate to others (families and
communities), our care and stewardship of living creatures and non-living environments (sustainable
development) and acknowledges that humans are capable of transcendence and operate within larger
realities (local and global citizenship). This model is balanced on the requirement of quality
relationships in and between each of these domains. The presented model represents an “ideal” and
may not reflect reality. It is time for a vision of humanity based on the everyday actions of
individuals, families and communities. Home Economics provides an ideal curriculum subject for
delivering these spiritual health and well-being concepts. However, considerable research and
dialogue is still required to enable an accord of this vision.
References
Agnello, M. F., White, D. R., & Fryer, W. (2006). Toward Twenty-First Century Global Citizenship: A
Teacher Education Curriculum. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1(3), pp. 312-326.
American Home Economics Association. (1901). Lake Placid Conference proceedings: Volume 1-3,
Ithaca, New York.
Apple, R. D., & Coleman, J. (2003). “As Members of the Social Whole”: A History of Social Reform
as a Focus of Home Economics, 1895–1940. Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 32(2), 104-126. doi: 10.1177/1077727x03032002002
Baldwin, E. (1996). Family well-being: a conceptualization guide to professional practice. Paper
presented at the Toward a Theory of Family Well–Being, Nashville, Tennessee.
Benn, J. (2010). Home Economics in development through action research. International Journal of
Home Economics, 3(1), 2-19.
Blake, N. (1996). Against Spiritual Education. Oxford Review of Education, 22(4), 443-456.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Alienation and the Four Worlds of Childhood. The Phi Delta Kappan,
67(6), 430-436.
Chuengsatiansup, K. (2003). Spirituality and health: an initial proposal to incorporate spiritual health
in health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(1), pp. 3-15.
Crawford, M., & Rossiter, G. (2006). Reasons for Living: Education and Young People’s Search for
Meaning, Identity and Spirituality: A Handbook
De Souza, M. (2006). Educating for hope, compassion and meaning in a divisive and intolerant world.
International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 11(1), pp. 165–175.
Deagon, J. (2009). ‘Spiritual' Discourse models at work in Queensland Studies Authority curriculum
documents: a content and discourse analysis of the middle phase of learning syllabuses and
support material. unpublished Master of Education thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast.
Deagon, J. (In Press). Deaths, disasters and tasty treats: challenging public perceptions of Home
Economics. In D. Pendergast, S. McGregor & K. Turkki (Eds.), The Next 100 Years –
Creating Home Economics futures. Brisbane: Post Pressed.
Deagon, J., & Pendergast, D. (2012). A framework for investigating spiritual health and wellbeing in
home economics. International Journal of Home Economics
Denscombe, M. (2007). The Good Research Guide for small-scale research projects (Third ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Dewhurst, Y., & Pendergast, D. (2011). Teacher perceptions of the contribution of Home Economics
to sustainable development education: a cross-cultural view. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 35(5), 569-577. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01029.x
Fisher, J. (2000). Being human, becoming whole: understanding spiritual health and wellbeing
Journal of Christian Education, 43(3), 37-52.
Fisher, J. (2011). The Four Domains Model: Connecting Spirituality, Health and Well-Being.
Religions, 2(1), 17-28.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (2nd ed.). New York,
USA: Routledge.
Green, K. (2001). Our Intellectual Ecology: A treatise on Home Economics. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 93(3).
Hawks, S. (1994). Spiritual health: definition and theory. Wellness Perspectives, 10(4), pp. 3-13.
Hawks, S., Smith, T., Thomas, H. G., Christley, H. S., Meinzer, N., & Pyne, A. (2007). The forgotten
dimensions in health education research Health Education Research, 23(2), pp. 319-324.
Henry, M. (1995). Well-being, the focus of home economics: an Australian perspective. Doctoral
dissertation, University of New England.
Hettler, B. (2010). Origins of the Hetler 6 dimentional model Retrieved 9 December 2010, 2010,
from http://www.hettler.com/OriginsoftheHettler6DimensionalModel.mht
Hickling-Hudson, A. (1999). Globalisation, postcolonialism and educational change. In D.
Meadmore, B. Burnett & P. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding education: contexts and agendas
for the new millennium. (pp. 82-90 ). Australia: Prentice Hill.
International Federation for Home Economics. (2009). Home Economics in the 21st century: position
statement. Retrieved from http://www.ifhe.org/
Lange, E. A. (2004). Transformative and Restorative Learning: A Vital Dialectic for Sustainable
Societies. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2), 121-139. doi: 10.1177/0741713603260276
Lima, C. O., & Brown, S. W. (2007). Global citizenship and new literacies providing new ways for
social inclusion. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 11, 13-20.
Ma, A., & Pendergast, D. (2010). Innovative Pedagogies for Family and Consumer Science/Home
Economics Education—Utilizing Computer-Based Collaborative Learning to Foster Lifelong
Learning Attributes. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38(3), 273-288. doi:
10.1111/j.1552-3934.2009.00018.x
McGregor, S. (2008). Conceptualising Immoral and Unethical Consumption Using Neutralization
Theory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 36(3), 261-276. doi:
10.1177/1077727X07312190
McGregor, S. (2010a). Consumer moral leadership. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
McGregor, S. (2010b). Well-being, wellness and Basic Human Needs in Home Economics. McGregor
Monograph Series No. 201003. Retrieved from
McGregor, S. (2011). 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00920.x
McGregor, S., & Chesworth, N. (2005). Positioning human spirituality in home economics. Journal
of the HEIA, 12(3), pp. 27-44.
McGregor, S., Pendergast, D., Seniuk, E., Eghan, F., & Engberg, L. (2008). Choosing our future:
Ideologies matter in the home economics profession. International Journal of Home
Economics, 1(1), 43-62.
McSherry, W., & Jamieson, S. (2011). An online survey of nurses’ perceptions of spirituality and
spiritual care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(11-12), 1757-1767. doi: 10.1111/j.13652702.2010.03547.x
Meszaros, P. S. (2002). The appropriate use of technology: Our commitment to families and
communities. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 94(2), 13-13.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2006). Cultural competency in health:A guide for
policy, partnerships and participation. In C. o. Australia (Ed.). Canberra, ACT.
Nickols, S. Y., Ralson, 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), pp.
266-283. doi: 10.1177/1077727X08329561
Pendergast, D. (2001). Virginal Mothers, Groovy Chicks & Blokey Blokes: Re-thinking Home
Economics (and) Teaching Bodies. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd.
Pendergast, D. (2003). From the margins: globalization with(out) home economics. [Article].
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(4), 331-334. doi: 10.1046/j.14706431.2003.00326.x
Pendergast, D. (2008). Sustaining the Home Economics profession in contemporary, convergent times
M. O’Donoghue (Ed.) E-Book - Global Sustainable Development: A Challenge for Consumer
Citizens
Retrieved
from
http://www.educationforsustainabledevelopment.org/introduction.html
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Kanasa, H. (2011). Insight from the Public on Home Economics and
Formal Food Literacy. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(4), 415-430. doi:
10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02079.x
Preston, N. (2006). Ethics Sans Frontieres: The Vocation of Global Citizenship. Australian EJournal
of Theology.
Radford, M. (2006). Spirituality and education; inner and outer realities. International Journal of
Children's Spirituality, 11(3), 385-396.
Rehm, M., & Allison, B. (2009). Exploring Spirituality of University FCS Students: A Resource for
Resiliency. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 101(4), 12-17.
Roehlkepartain, E., Benson, P., King, P., & Wagener, L. (2009). Spiritual Development in childhood
and adolescence: moving to the scientific mainstream. In E. Roehlkepartain, P. King, L.
Wagener & P. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and
adolescence (pp. 1-15). London: Sage Publications.
Schneider, A. (2000). It's not your mother's home economics. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
47(7), A18-A20.
Tacey, D. (2003). The spirituality revolution: the emergence of contemporary spirituality. Australia:
HarperCollinsPublishers.
UNESCO. (2009). Learning our way to sustainability Retrieved August 29, 2009, 2010, from
http://www.unesco.org/en/esd/
Young, O. R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G. C., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E., & van der Leeuw, S. (2006).
The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), 304-316. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, USA:
Routledge.