The study of the consumer interest in higher education is currently represented by departments, program areas, and curricula with a wide variety of titles (e.g., “consumer economics” and “consumer affairs”) and emphases (e.g., consumer purchase decisions and public policy formulation. This diversity of titles and emphases is indicative of the current lack of agreement concerning the focus, scope and direction of the field as a whole. The authors propose a disciplinary rationale which integrates the many approaches to consumer‐interest study while distinguishing it from the traditional disciplines to which it is most closely related: economics, home economics, and marketing. It is argued that consumer‐interest study has a distinct content focus and distinct dimensional properties which qualify it for separate disciplinary status. The authors further propose that the emerging discipline be known as “consumer science” since that title appropriately encompasses both the field's current characteristics and its anticipated development.

Some past studies concerning attitudes toward consumer public policy issues have attempted to distinguish characteristics of consumerism sup porters from those of nonsupporters. Results to date have been largely inconsistent. This study incorporates a solution preference dimension into the supporterlnonsupporter analysis in order to help resolve past identification anomalies and to suggest a theoretical explanation for diverse orientations. More specifically, a two-dimensional theory of consumerism orientations is developed and tested as a special case of Rokeach's broader Two-Value Theory of Political Orientations. The survey data presented tend to general support the hypothesized theoretical structure.Consumerism research has not been very successful in either identifying consumerism orientations (i.e., consistent approaches toward consumer public policy issues) or theoretically explaining those that have been identified. In its simplest and, perhaps, most common form, it has treated consumers as a monolithic group which is either concerned or not so concerned about specific perceived inequities between consumers and other marketplace participants (particularly business organizations).When subgroups have been analyzed, they usually have consisted of those who are relatively more concerned about such inequities (i.e., consumerism supporters) and those who are relatively less concerned (i.e., consumer nonsupporters). Furthermore, although such studies have differentiated supporters from nonsupporters across specific issues, they have not offered theoretical explanations for such orientations. Even demographic identification of these groups has been inexplicably variable from study to study.'

The purpose of this case study was to examine the effect the flexible modular schedule had on student achievement, student behavior, and student development. This study contained three questions that evaluated the effect flexible modular scheduling had upon academic [standardized testing analysis] and student behavior [student suspension analysis] as well as the developmental impact [faculty interviews] the schedule had on students within a particular school. A mixed methods approach was used to conduct a case study that allowed an in-depth analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative findings of significance provide answers to the research questions as well as qualitative themes such as inconsistent stakeholder buy-in, student access: opportunities and challenges, and developmental outcomes, which offer insight into the impact the flexible modular schedule has had on student development. This study sought to examine the necessity for educational leaders to consider the developmental needs of students ahead of the allocation of time when structuring the school day. Recommendations for practice are presented to both the school district and high school employing the flexible modular schedule.

No abstract