1 History and Philosophy of Practical Reasoning (Critical Science) in Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences
Learning Objectives
Learners will be able to:
- Recognize the evolution of practical reasoning within the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) discipline, including key historical contributions and the transition from Home Economics to a modern interdisciplinary approach.
- Analyze the contributions of Ellen Swallow Richards to the practical reasoning perspective, highlighting how her work in chemistry and domestic science addressed societal problems and set a foundation for modern FCS practices.
- Differentiate the empirical-rational science (technical) approach from practical reasoning in FCS, understanding the characteristics, advantages, and limitations of each method in addressing everyday problems.
- Explore the principles of the practical reasoning (critical science) approach, focusing on its application to complex, ethically significant problems and its role in empowering individuals and communities to enact positive change.
- Connect the practical reasoning perspective to the Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (FCS-BOK), examining how this theoretical framework supports addressing perennial and emerging problems within the discipline.
- Apply the practical reasoning perspective and the FCS-BOK to real-world problems, developing comprehensive strategies that address the underlying causes and promote sustainable solutions for individuals, families, and communities.
Human Sciences is a field of study that expands our understanding of the human world through a broad interdisciplinary approach. Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS), formerly known as Home Economics, is a discipline area within Human Sciences that empowers individuals and families throughout life to manage the challenges of living and working in a complex and diverse global society (AAFCS, 2023, para. 1). With this in mind, two FCS practitioners, Drs. Marjorie Brown and Beatrice Paolucci were instrumental in developing the perspective of practical reasoning (critical science) as a tool to help foster changes to improve the condition of individuals and families they served (McGregor, 2014). In other words, the practical reasoning perspective encouraged FCS professionals “to move from a focus on adapting to the status quo (what is) to a focus on developing a rationally and ethically justifiable ideal state (what ought to be)” (Vincenti & Smith, 2004, p. 67).
Marjorie Brown: Advocating for Critical Thinking and Change
Marjorie Brown was a visionary educator and advocate within the field of Home Economics. Her academic and professional work was marked by a strong commitment to integrating social justice issues with the practical aspects of home economics (McGregor, 2014; Brown, 1980). Brown’s work emphasized the importance of education in empowering individuals, particularly women, to critically examine and address the societal structures affecting family life (McGregor, 2014; Brown, 1980).
Key Contributions:
- Redefinition of Home Economics: Brown played a crucial role in redefining the field, moving it beyond its traditional focus on domestic skills to include critical social issues affecting families and communities (McGregor, 2014; Brown, 1980).
- Critical Pedagogy: Brown introduced and emphasized the importance of critical thinking and reflective inquiry in home economics pedagogy, encouraging learners to analyze and question societal norms and envision transformative changes (McGregor, 2014; Brown 1980).
- Empowerment through Education: Brown advocated for a curriculum that prepared learners to understand and challenge societal issues, empowering them to effect change (McGregor, 2014; Brown, 1980).
- Legacy and Impact: Her work has inspired educators to include critical thinking, social justice, and advocacy in their teaching, emphasizing individuals and families as agents of change (McGregor, 2014; Brown, 1980).
Beatrice Paolucci: Shaping Family Policy through Practical Reasoning
Beatrice Paolucci was a scholar who took a multidisciplinary approach to the study of home economics, incorporating insights from sociology, anthropology, and psychology to understand family dynamics and consumer behavior (Bubolz, 2002). 
Key Contributions:
- Holistic Approach to Family Studies: Paolucci viewed families comprehensively, considering cultural, economic, and social factors (Bubolz, 2002).
- Practical Reasoning in Education: She developed the concept of practical reasoning, emphasizing the application of theoretical knowledge to address real-world problems (Bubolz, 2002).
- Ethical Considerations in Policy Development: Paolucci emphasized ethical considerations in developing and implementing family policies, advocating for just and equitable approaches (Bubolz, 2002).
- Legacy and Impact: Her work has provided a framework for analyzing family issues ethically, inspiring educators, policymakers, and practitioners to integrate multidisciplinary perspectives (Bubolz, 2002).
Integrating the Contributions of Brown and Paolucci
Brown and Paolucci’s contributions to FCS offer a powerful framework for understanding and addressing family issues. Brown’s focus on critical pedagogy and social justice, combined with Paolucci’s emphasis on practical reasoning and ethical policy development, provides a comprehensive approach to FCS education (Brown, 1980; Bubolz, 2002). Their legacies continue to inspire efforts to empower families and individuals, promoting equitable and thoughtful engagement with societal challenges.
This chapter will discuss the historical development of the practical reasoning perspective; distinguish the differences between the empirical-rational science (technical) and the practical reasoning (critical science) perspectives in FCS; and examine the connection of the practical reasoning perspective to the FCS Body of Knowledge.
Note: McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Name changes and future-proofing the profession: Human sciences as a name? International Journal of Home Economics, 3(1), 20-27.
The Practical Reasoning Impact by Ellen Swallow Richards
The practical reasoning perspective “includes knowledge focused on human interests, communicative theory grounded in dialogue, and actions based on moral consciousness when addressing practical perennial problems” (Vincenti & Smith, 2004, p. 1). Ellen Swallow Richards (1842-1911), the founder of Home Economics, is a perfect example of integrating these aspects into all of the issues individuals and families faced during her time even though this perspective was not adopted until 1979. Ellen was a trailblazing leader and educator because she took an interest in the study of chemistry, domestic science, and the overall well-being of people. As the first woman to attend and graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), she was very active in the chemistry lab and felt more women should be involved in science (Cornell University, 2001). However, she saw and experienced the struggles women had in being able to pursue science at the college level, as well as other setbacks due to unjust hardships women faced during that time. Nonetheless, MIT opened the first laboratory of sanitary chemistry in the country in 1883, and Ellen was appointed an assistant in chemistry and later, an instructor (American Chemical Society, 2021). During this time, she was instrumental in examining water pollution issues, which ultimately led to the creation of the first modern wastewater treatment facility in Lowell, Massachusetts (American Chemical Society, 2021). This is the first example of a problem she saw that needed to be resolved because of the impact contaminated water and poor sanitation were having on people’s health.
Another example of how Ellen dealt with the problems affecting people during her time was when she turned her home into a living laboratory of study. Ellen set up model kitchens that were open to the public so they could see how to properly manage a kitchen (Science History Institute, 2021). She saw there were bad food issues that increased the number of people becoming vulnerable to diseases and illnesses, as well as hunger. She became interested in not only eliminating “altered” or “bad” food but also bringing food science into the home so that people could understand the science behind the preparation of good, nutritious food at a low cost (Levenstein, 1980). Ellen is also credited with starting the school lunch program in Boston in the late 1800s, which fed over 4,000 children a day (HaywoodWeavers, 2011). Richards said, “I believe it will be held a crime in the twentieth century to lure young bodies and minds to college [school] under the pretense of education only to poison them slowly with bad . . . food” (Clarke, 1973, p. 137). When moving forward in this book, is important to remember the societal problems Ellen took on and reflect on the practical reasoning nature of her work. More information on the societal issues Ellen tackled can be found here.
Source: The Rumford Kitchen Building [Photograph] from Report of the Massachusetts Board of World’s Fair Managers, 1894.
What is the Empirical-Rational Science (Technical) Approach?
The empirical-rational science (technical) approach aims to produce technically useful knowledge, products, and procedures that explain, describe, and predict how the world, including how humans work and/or behave (Vincenti & Smith, 2004). Traditionally in the FCS profession, this has been the most used approach for decades because it provides the same information to every individual assuming it would be helpful to all and does not require complex thinking, but instead a “quick fix” perspective (McGregor, 2003). Montgomery (1999) stated there were two types of problems we encounter in our lives: “how to” problems and “what should be done” problems. “How-to” problems are associated with the technical approach because a specific goal or product is identified, and specific steps are used to complete it (Montgomery, 1999). Examples of “how-to” problems include: how to develop a household budget, how to plan a meal, how to fill out a job application, and how to conserve energy, among others. Freire (1986) called this a “banking approach” to professional practice because it rendered individuals as empty vessels as opposed to empowering them to be critical thinkers and problem solvers.
Source: From Around the World in Academia by S. Dudani, 2020, WordPress. Used with permission.
“How-to” problems have been classified into subject matter areas such as apparel and textiles, nutrition and foods, interior design, interpersonal relationships, and child development, to name a few. For example, the problem of how to assemble a clothing item can be solved by learning sewing techniques and following the steps of a clothing pattern. When the problem is encountered repeatedly, people develop a habit in which to solve the problem in one preferred way (Montgomery, 1999). Therefore, an advantage of using the technical approach is that when techniques, instructions, rules, or steps are learned, they can be applied every time a “how-to” problem occurs (Montgomery, 1999). A concern in focusing on “how-to” problems in the technical approach is that not all problems can be best, or ethically solved, by “how-to” solutions. However, “how-to” problems within the technical approach can work in tandem with the practical reasoning approach if these problems are part of a larger concern and additional context and cultural factors are considered (Montgomery, 1999).
What is the Practical Reasoning (Critical Science) Approach?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Drs. Marjorie Brown and Beatrice Paolucci, drawing upon many national and international scholars, introduced practical reasoning (critical science) as a philosophical foundation for the FCS profession. The central focus of the practical reasoning approach is for individuals, families, and communities to think about the problems or issues of everyday life and to take action toward the improvement of these problems (McGregor, 2003). In addition, it addresses complex problems that have ethical consequences and empowers people to assume agency for their own lives, families, communities, states, and countries. The main goal of the practical reasoning approach is to improve individuals’ and families’ lives by helping them see there are ways to change the discrepancies that exist between the ideal (desirable) and the reality of life situations (McGregor, 2003). If individuals and families are taught how to improve their condition, they are more likely to work together to achieve this improvement. This, in turn, reduces the number of individuals and families marginalized, oppressed, excluded, or judged, and instead helps them feel empowered to drive their thought process (McGregor, 2003).
Similarly to the technical approach, the practical reasoning approach is associated with “what should be done” problems, also known as perennial problems or continuing concerns. This type of problem “focuses on the broader underlying questions, issues, or concerns of individuals and families” (Montgomery, 1999, p. 82). Brown and Paolucci (1979) believed the focus of the FCS profession should be to examine and take action on “what should be done” problems. “What should be done” problems are normally stated as important questions that need to be addressed, such as “What should be done to reduce food insecurity?”, “What should be done to help families achieve affordable housing?,” or “What should be done to decrease the rate of child abuse in our community?” “What should be done” problems do not come with a predetermined solution like “how-to” problems because social changes are ongoing and these perennial problems need to be continuously reexamined for revised or new solutions (Montgomery,1999). “What should be done” problems have been characterized as a process an artist uses to develop and complete a sculpture: the end goal or value-end of the sculpture, the contextual factors that influence the process used in developing the sculpture, and the rational planning of the sculpture with reflective decisions to achieve the desired results (Montgomery, 1999).
With this in mind, the practical reasoning approach involves three levels of knowledge (systems of action) that are based on each other in choosing a comprehensive solution to a “what should be done” problem: (more information will be provided in Chapter 2).
- Empirical knowledge, which is technical or scientific and produces technically useful knowledge, products, and procedures that describe or explain what is;
- Interpretive/Communicative knowledge, which creates a deep understanding of subjective experiences of individuals (perceptions, interpretations, feelings) and establishes a shared understanding and mutual agreement; and
- Critical/Reflective knowledge, which is focused on liberating people from false consciousness/misinformation and understandings, unjust/harmful systems, uncaring interactions, and harmful relationships, as well as empowering people to use rational and ethical reasoning to foster a just and humane society (McGregor, 2003).
The practical reasoning approach identifies and frames problems by encouraging the sharing of perspectives of those affected by a current situation that needs to change. This is done by avoiding jumping to quick solutions to the assumed problem; asking questions of others to gain an understanding; allowing oneself to be vulnerable in sharing honest thoughts and experiences without blaming others; addressing conflicts openly and respectfully; considering influences affecting the situation; and differentiating between facts and opinions (Vincenti & Smith, 2004).
The Critical Science Approach and a Common Language
With a profession that has been around for more than a century, there have been many changes to FCS, our society, and even the language that we use in our daily lives. Each change helps current and future educators, professionals, researchers, and others propel the FCS profession forward. This ensures that FCS professionals continue to meet the needs and demands of consumers where they are in the present time. For some, this textbook will be a reminder of the past and the excitement that FCS professionals can bring through new ideas and research. Others may find reading this textbook like a new language that is full of complexities, nuances, and vocabulary that should be practiced to effectively use a practical reasoning lens. There may even be some that notice the language the authors use to write this textbook may not be exact or identical to how the critical science approach was explained or written about in previous times. This was intentional when developing this textbook for a few key reasons. The language that was previously used in the FCS profession may not accurately capture the essence of critical thinking, practical reasoning, and the overall idea of the practical reasoning approach. Some phrases and terms were not consistent throughout written FCS literature, which was evident when reviewing journal articles for this textbook. A continuation of inconsistencies does not help the profession and instead, continues to cause potential confusion surrounding this very important topic. There is a small “ask”, for those who are familiar with the Critical Science Approach, while reading this book. See if the information challenges your knowledge and validates your opinions of critical thinking. How does the information presented allow you to expand upon your prior knowledge of the topic and how might that information be used to continue the conversation of critical thinking in your daily practice setting?
A lot of consideration was given to past research, current trends, and the society that we live in today when writing this textbook. It was also important that the history and philosophical foundations that FCS was built on were also considered and honored throughout this textbook. As mentioned earlier, change can be a positive thing for our profession. Hopefully, with this change, the textbook simplifies the language used that surrounds the Critical Science Approach and critical thinking.
The Practical Reasoning (Critical Science) Perspective and Its Connection to the Re-Tooled Family & Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge
The Re-Tooled Body of Knowledge of Family and Consumer Sciences
The Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge (FCS-BOK) serves as the intellectual foundation of the profession (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025). Rooted in the early Lake Placid conferences and later strengthened by the 1993 Scottsdale Conference, the Body of Knowledge was developed to provide a unifying framework that clarified the profession’s identity and purpose (Nickols, Ralston, Anderson, Browne, Schroeder, Thomas, & Wild, 2009).
In 2001, AAFCS formally articulated the FCS-BOK as a conceptual model (Anderson & Nickols, 2001). More than twenty years later, recognizing significant social, technological, environmental, and professional changes, AAFCS appointed a task force to “re-tool” the framework. The result, officially released in 2025, reflects a renewed and forward-focused model designed to guide scholarship, curriculum, policy, and practice in the decades ahead (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025).
The re-tooled FCS-BOK is anchored in a unifying theme (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025): Rooted in Theory, Integrating Disciplines, Empowering Practice. This theme reflects the enduring values of the profession while emphasizing its interdisciplinary and applied nature. It affirms that Family and Consumer Sciences is grounded in theory, including social, behavioral, and natural sciences, and that professional practice must be informed, ethical, integrative, and responsive.
Importantly for this textbook, the re-tooled framework explicitly affirms a theory-informed, critical science, interdisciplinary, and practice-focused lens (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025), directly aligning with the practical reasoning perspective.
Source: The Re-Tooled FCS Body of Knowledge with permission from AAFCS
Structure of the Re-Tooled FCS-BOK (2025)
The updated framework includes:
-
4 Core Principles
-
2 Integrative Elements
-
5 Influencing Elements (formerly called cross-cutting themes)
Core Principles
The Core Principles represent the essential and enduring focus of the profession ((Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025):
-
Human Needs – Meeting essential physical, social, and emotional needs
-
Individual Well-Being – Enhancing life satisfaction through resilience and purpose
-
Family Resilience – Strengthening families across transitions and challenges
-
Community Vitality – Cultivating resilient and connected communities
At the center of the model remains Human Needs, emphasizing that the profession’s work ultimately seeks to improve quality of life for individuals and families.
These principles reaffirm the Brown and Paolucci (1979) mission of home economics, which is building systems of action that enable individuals and families to mature in self-formation and contribute to society.
Integrative Elements
The two Integrative Elements serve as unifying frameworks (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025):
-
Human Ecosystem
Examines the dynamic interaction between individuals, families, and their natural, built, and social environments. -
Lifespan Progression
A refreshed term replacing “life course development,” emphasizing growth, transitions, and evolving family experiences over time.
These elements highlight that well-being does not occur in isolation. Instead, individuals and families exist within interconnected environmental systems that influence decision-making, opportunity, and resilience. The practical reasoning process becomes essential here, as individuals must continually evaluate contextual conditions and make informed, ethical decisions within those environments.
Influencing Elements (Formerly Cross-Cutting Themes)
The term “cross-cutting themes” has been replaced with Influencing Elements to emphasize their dynamic and active role in shaping the profession’s focus and evolution (Anderson, Saboe-Wounded Head, & Myers, 2025).
The five Influencing Elements are:
-
Capacity Building
-
Global Interdependence
-
Resource Development and Sustainability
-
Technology and Innovation
-
Wellness
These elements represent the societal forces that influence how professionals prepare for practice, respond to emerging trends, and design solutions that promote well-being in a complex and interconnected world. This shift in terminology is significant. Rather than being peripheral themes, these elements actively shape the context, tools, and approaches used in FCS education, research, and practice.
Connecting the FCS-BOK and the Practical Reasoning Perspective
Why is it essential to connect the re-tooled FCS-BOK to the practical reasoning perspective? Because the FCS-BOK provides the intellectual framework, and practical reasoning provides the decision-making process that activates that framework.
The unifying theme — Rooted in Theory, Integrating Disciplines, Empowering Practice — mirrors the structure of practical reasoning:
-
Rooted in Theory → Critical science and ethical reflection
-
Integrating Disciplines → Interdisciplinary synthesis
-
Empowering Practice → Informed, value-oriented action
For example, consider the Influencing Element of Resource Development and Sustainability. Persistent issues such as food waste or clothing overconsumption disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Applying practical reasoning would involve:
-
Clarifying the problem and contextual conditions
-
Identifying underlying structural and environmental factors
-
Determining value-ends (e.g., equity, sustainability, resilience)
-
Generating interdisciplinary solutions
-
Evaluating short- and long-term consequences
-
Taking informed, ethical action
In this way, the FCS-BOK identifies what matters, and practical reasoning guides what should be done.
Practical Reasoning Questions Grounded in the Re-Tooled BOK
Examples aligned with the updated framework:
-
What should be done to strengthen community vitality when families lack access to clean drinking water?
-
What should be done to ensure technology and innovation improve, rather than widen opportunity gaps?
-
What should be done to build family resilience during economic transitions?
-
What should be done to promote wellness across the lifespan in underserved populations?
Not all practical reasoning questions must explicitly name BOK elements, but understanding the framework enhances depth, coherence, and professional identity.
Source: Family problems affecting the home. The authors developed this image using Tagxedo.
Application of Knowledge
Purpose: To apply the re-tooled FCS Body of Knowledge using the practical reasoning perspective to address perennial or emerging problems affecting individuals, families, and communities.
Task: You will follow a structured approach to identify, analyze, and develop strategies for a perennial or emerging problem. The activity includes the following steps:
- Identify a Problem: Select a perennial or emerging issue aligned with one or more Core Principles (e.g., Human Needs, Family Resilience).
- Analyze Context Using Integrative Elements:
-
How does the Human Ecosystem influence this issue?
-
How does Lifespan Progression shape its impact?
-
- Incorporate Influencing Elements: Consider how capacity building, sustainability, technology, wellness, or global interdependence shape the problem and potential solutions.
- Develop Interdisciplinary Strategies: Use at least three FCS content areas (e.g., nutrition, consumer economics, human development, textiles, design, education).
- Apply the Practical Reasoning Process: Move from problem identification → contextual analysis → value clarification → solution development → consequence evaluation → action.
Be sure to cite credible sources when you identify and analyze the problem.
Example Problem: Technology Access Gaps in Rural Communities
Problem Identification:
Issue: Limited access to reliable broadband and digital technology in rural communities.
Many families in rural areas lack affordable, high-speed internet and up-to-date technology devices. This digital divide limits access to education, healthcare, employment opportunities, financial services, and social connection.
Analyzing the Problem Using the Re-Tooled FCS-BOK
Core Principles Involved
Human Needs
Access to technology supports essential needs such as communication, education, employment, healthcare access, and safety.
Individual Well-Being
Students and adults without digital access experience academic setbacks, limited career mobility, and increased stress.
Family Resilience
Families without connectivity struggle to adapt during emergencies (e.g., telehealth, remote learning, disaster response).
Community Vitality
Communities without broadband infrastructure face reduced economic development and weakened civic engagement.
Integrative Elements
Human Ecosystem
This issue is shaped by interactions among:
-
Built environment (infrastructure limitations)
-
Economic environment (poverty, affordability)
-
Policy environment (state and federal broadband investment)
-
Social environment (educational expectations, workforce demands)
Families may not control infrastructure availability, but they must make decisions within those constraints — making practical reasoning essential.
Lifespan Progression
Technology access affects individuals differently across the lifespan:
-
Children: academic success and digital literacy
-
Adults: workforce readiness and financial stability
-
Older adults: telehealth access and social connectedness
Digital exclusion at one life stage can create long-term disadvantage.
Influencing Elements (Formerly Cross-Cutting Themes)
Capacity Building
Digital literacy training empowers individuals and families to use technology effectively.
Global Interdependence
Technology connects rural communities to national and global economies.
Resource Development and Sustainability
Infrastructure investment must be economically viable and environmentally sustainable.
Technology and Innovation
Innovative solutions (mobile hotspots, satellite internet, community tech hubs) can reduce inequities.
Wellness
Access to telehealth, mental health services, and online support improves holistic wellness.
Applying the Practical Reasoning Process
Step 1: Clarify the Problem
Why does limited broadband persist in rural areas?
-
Infrastructure cost
-
Low population density
-
Policy gaps
-
Economic inequities
Step 2: Examine Contextual Conditions
-
State and federal funding policies
-
Local economic base
-
Educational system expectations
-
Household income levels
Step 3: Identify Value-Ends
What should be achieved?
-
Equity
-
Educational opportunity
-
Economic mobility
-
Community sustainability
-
Human dignity
Step 4: Generate Interdisciplinary FCS Strategies
Consumer Economics
-
Develop workshops on comparing broadband plans and avoiding predatory contracts.
-
Teach families budgeting strategies for technology expenses.
Human Development
-
Provide digital literacy programs for parents and older adults.
-
Support youth technology skill-building for workforce readiness.
Education
-
Partner with schools to create device-lending programs.
-
Develop community-based digital learning centers.
Community Development
-
Collaborate with local governments to apply for broadband grants.
-
Build public–private partnerships for infrastructure expansion.
Wellness
-
Educate families about telehealth resources.
-
Promote safe and balanced technology use.
Step 5: Evaluate Consequences
Short-Term
-
Increased connectivity
-
Improved academic engagement
-
Greater employment access
Long-Term
-
Stronger family resilience
-
Enhanced community vitality
-
Sustainable economic growth
Step 6: Take Action
Implement pilot programs, evaluate outcomes, refine strategies, and advocate for policy changes aligned with the FCS-BOK framework.
References
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS). (2023). What is FCS? https://aafcs.org/about/about-us/what-is-fcs
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences Council for Accreditation. (2010). Accreditation documents for undergraduate programs in family and consumer sciences (2010 edition). https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AAFCS/1c95de14-d78f-40b8-a6ef-a1fb628c68fe/UploadedImages/CredentialingCenter/AAFCS_Accreditation_Standards.pdf
American Chemical Society. (2021). Ellen H. Swallow Richards (1842-1911). https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/women-scientists/ellen-h-swallow-richards.html
Anderson, C. L., & Nickols, S. Y. (2001). The essence of our being: A synopsis of the 2001 Commemorative Lecture. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(5), 15-18.
Brown, M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. American Home Economics Association.
Brown, Marjorie M. (1980). What is home economics education? Educational Resources Information Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED199546
Bubolz, M. M. (2002). Beatrice Paolucci: Shaping destiny through everyday life. Kappa Omicron Nu.
Clarke, R. (1973). Ellen Swallow: The woman who founded ecology. Follett Publishing Company, 1-276.
Cornell University. (2001). Ellen Swallow Richards: What was Home Economics? https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/homeEc/bios/ellenrichards.html
Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. Continuum International Publishing.
HaywoodWeavers. (2011, January). Ellen Swallow Richards [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEI_l61eOzY
Levenstein, H. (1980). The New England kitchen and the origins of modern American eating habits. American Quarterly, 32(4), 369-386.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. D. Van Nostrand.
McGregor, S. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. A primer. Kappa Omicron Nu, 15(1). https://publications.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcs.html
McGregor, S. (2014). Marjorie Brown’s philosophical legacy: Contemporary relevance. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 19(1), 1-11.
Montgomery, B. (2008). Curriculum development: A critical Science perspective. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 26(National Teacher Standards 3), 1-16.
Montgomery, B. (2003). The critical science approach to reasoning for action in consumer education. The Journal of Consumer Education, 21, 1-11.
Montgomery. B. (1999). Chapter 7: Continuing concerns of individuals and families. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.). Family and consumer sciences teacher education yearbook 19. Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 80-90). Glencoe/McGraw Hill.
Nickols, S., Ralston, P., 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
Science History Institute. (2021). Ellen H. Swallow Richards. https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/ellen-h-swallow-richards
Vincenti, V., & Smith, F. (2004). Critical science: What it could offer all family and consumer sciences professionals. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 96(1), 63-70.
