Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:19:46.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Home Economics, “Handicapped Homemakers,” and Postwar America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2020

Laura Micheletti Puaca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the two decades following World War II, a loose network of home economists at colleges and universities across the United States turned their attention to homemaking methods for women with physical disabilities. Often in consultation with physically disabled homemakers, these home economists researched and designed assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and work simplification techniques for use in the home. Their efforts signaled a new field of study, “homemaker rehabilitation,” which helped to enlarge the broader vocational rehabilitation system beyond its historic focus on male veterans and wage earners while also expanding the boundaries of home economics itself. Home economists’ work with disabled homemakers both bolstered and challenged postwar domesticity, middle-class gender roles, and able-bodied normalcy. Calling attention to these contradictions reveals much about how home economists engaged with and understood disability and how their work intersected with burgeoning movements for disability rights.

Keywords

home economicswomen's educationhomemakinggenderdisabilityvocational rehabilitation
Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 60 , Special Issue 3: Disability and the History of Education , August 2020 , pp. 380 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 History of Education Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 University of Connecticut, School of Home Economics, untitled film script, ca. June 1956, 1, folder 7, box 94, MSP 7, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth Papers, Archives and Special Collections, Purdue University Libraries, West Lafayette, IN (hereafter cited as Gilbreth Papers).

2 University of Connecticut, School of Home Economics, untitled film script, 1.

3 University of Connecticut, School of Home Economics, untitled film script, 1–2. This early draft eventually evolved into Where There's a Will (University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT and John L. Schwab Associates, Management Consultants, Bridgeport, CT, released 1958 [premiered 1957]) 16mm, 28 min. Correspondence regarding the early history of the script and film can be found in folder 7, box 18, Gilbreth Papers. For more on the film's production and release, see Elizabeth Eckhardt May and Neva R. Waggoner, “Work Simplification in the Area of Child Care for Physically Handicapped Women,” progress report, June 15, 1956-June 15 1957, p. 23, folder 6, box 1; May and Waggoner, “Work Simplification in the Area of Child Care for Physically Handicapped Women,” progress report, June 15, 1957-June 15–1958, p. 25, folder 7, box 1; and May and Waggoner, “Work Simplification in the Area of Child Care for Physically Handicapped Women,” progress report, June 15, 1958-June 15, 1959, p. 4, folder 8, box 1, all in Handicapped Homemaker Project Records, Archives and Special Collections, Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Library, Storrs, CT (hereafter cited as Handicapped Homemaker Project Records). Additional materials related to UConn's study of disabled homemakers are included in the Elizabeth E. May Papers also held at Archives and Special Collections, Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Library, Storrs, CT. For a biographical treatment of Waggoner, see Betty Milburn, “Here Are Hints for Handicapped,”, Tucson (AZ) Daily Citizen, June 11, 1959, 29.

4 University of Connecticut, School of Home Economics, The Team Approach to the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped Homemaker, Workshop Proceedings, May 31-June 3, 1955 (Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 1955).

5 See, for example, Lee, Jessica, “Family Matters: Female Dynamics within Deaf Schools,” in Women and Deafness: Double Visions, ed. Brueggemann, Brenda Jo and Burch, Susan (Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2006), 5–20Google Scholar.

6 Rusk, Howard A. et al. , introduction to A Manual for Training the Disabled Homemaker (New York: New York Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1955)Google Scholar. This oft-cited statistic was based on the work of rehabilitation pioneer Howard A. Rusk, MD. According to Rusk, the disabled homemaker population consisted primarily of women with physical disabilities such as cardiovascular disease, hemiplegia, arthritis, tuberculosis, and other orthopedic disabilities.

7 For more on the history of efforts to include homemaking in the vocational rehabilitation system, see Puaca, Laura Micheletti, “The Largest Occupational Group of All the Disabled: Homemakers with Disabilities and Vocational Rehabilitation in Postwar America,” in Disabling Domesticity, ed. Rembis, Michael (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 73–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Altenbaugh, Richard J., “Where Are the Disabled in the History of Education? The Impact of Polio on Sites of Learning,” History of Education 35, no. 6 (Nov. 2006), 705–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rousmaniere, Kate, “Those Who Can't, Teach: The Disabling History of American Educators,” History of Education Quarterly 53, no. 1 (Feb. 2013), 90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See, for example, Sarah Stage and Virginia B. Vincenti, eds., Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997); Megan J. Elias, Stir It Up: Home Economics in American Culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008); Carolyn M. Goldstein, Creating Consumers: Home Economists in Twentieth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012); and Sharon Y. Nickols and Gwen Kay, eds., Remaking Home Economics: Resourcefulness and Innovation in Changing Times (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2015).

10 Classic histories of vocational rehabilitation include C. Esco Obermann, A History of Vocational Rehabilitation in America (Minneapolis: T. S. Denison, 1965); and Edward David Berkowitz, Rehabilitation: The Federal Government's Response to Disability, 1935–1954 (New York: Arno Press, 1980). For a more recent account, see Beth Linker, War's Waste: Rehabilitation in World War I America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

11 Georgia F. McCoy and Howard A. Rusk, An Evaluation of Rehabilitation (New York: Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, New York University, Bellevue Medical Center, 1953); Edward E. Gordon, “Development of the Applied Sciences to the Handicapped Homemaker,” in Rehabilitation of the Physically Handicapped in Homemaking Activities: Proceedings of a Workshop, Highland Park, Illinois, Jan. 27–30, 1963 (Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, 1963), 166; and Aaron L. Danzig, Handbook for One-Handers: A Practical Guide for Those Who Have Lost the Functional Use of an Arm or Hand, 2nd ed. (New York: Federation of the Handicapped, 1957), 20.

12 Elizabeth Eckhardt May and Neva R. Waggoner, preface to Work Simplification in the Area of Child Care for Physically Handicapped Women: Final Report, 1961, folder 1, box 9, Handicapped Homemaker Project Records.

13 Emilie Stoltzfus, Mother Worker: Child Care After the Second World War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 4.

14 Stephanie Coontz, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 125.

15 See Elizabeth Eckhardt May, Neva R. Waggoner, and Eleanor M. Boettke, eds., Homemaking for the Handicapped (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1966). This study includes descriptions and photographs of African American homemakers, but does not provide their overall numbers or participation rates.

16 Margaret A. Nash, Women's Education in the United States, 1780–1840 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 1–14. Nash also helps to problematize the public-private distinction by demonstrating how imprecise it was and how the very meaning of these designations shifted over time and place. For more on women's education in this period, see Mary Kelley, Learning to Stand and Speak: Women, Education, and Public Life in America's Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006). For an analysis of dominant expectations for white women in the nineteenth century more generally, see Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820–1860,” American Quarterly 18, no. 2 (Summer 1966), 151–74.

17 Beecher's contributions to women's education are well-documented. See, in particular, Joan N. Burstyn, “Catharine Beecher and the Education of American Women,” New England Quarterly 47, no. 3 (Sept. 1974), 386–403 and Charlotte Elizabeth Biester, “Catharine Beecher and Her Contributions to Home Economics” (EdD diss., Colorado State College of Education, 1950). Biester published a portion of this dissertation in Charlotte E. Biester, “Catharine Beecher's Views of Home Economics,” History of Education Journal 3, no. 3 (Spring 1952), 88–91. For a broader analysis of Beecher's life and work, see Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973). For more on the evolution of the terminology used to describe the field, see Sarah Stage, “Home Economics: What's in a Name,” in Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, 1–13.

18 As Biester acknowledges, “Catharine Beecher was by no means the first person to evolve a philosophy of education in which homemakers had a part,” citing examples as far back as Aristotle and Plato. Nor did Beecher “wholly originate the idea of home economics as a subject-matter field,” noting that Emma Willard had already proposed the idea in 1819 as part of her plan for improving higher education for women in the United States. Willard realized, however, that such a program of study would be limited without a suitable textbook. Beecher remedied this problem in 1841 when she published A Treatise on Domestic Economy, which the Massachusetts Board of Education adopted, making it the “first book on home economics to be recognized officially by the education profession.” The text was in such demand that it was reprinted almost every year between 1841 and 1856. See Biester, “Catherine Beecher and Her Contributions to Home Economics,” v-viii, 68; Burstyn, “Catharine Beecher and the Education of American Women,” 391, 397–400. Beecher's most popular publications include Catharine E. Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy, for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School (Boston: Marsh, Capen, Lyon & Webb, 1841); and Catharine E. Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, The American Woman's Home: Or, Principles of Domestic Science; Being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful, and Christian Homes (New York: J. B. Ford, 1869). For a summary of reprintings, see Burstyn, “Catharine Beecher and the Education of American Women,” 391n8.

19 Beecher and Stowe, American Woman's Home, 27–29, 307–34. For more on Beecher's designs and their relation to later homes, see Dolores Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982), 55. Indeed, the few references to “disability” contained in these publications referred mainly to the need for homemaking education, such as the opening to The American Woman's Home, which attributed the “chief cause of woman's disabilities and sufferings” to the fact “that women are not trained, as men are, for their peculiar duties.” See Beecher and Stowe, American Woman's Home, i.

20 Nathan M. Sorber, Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt: The Origins of the Morrill Act and the Reform of Higher Education (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018), 150–71. See also Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, “Putting the ‘Co’ in Education: Timing, Reasons, and Consequences of College Coeducation from 1835 to the Present,” Journal of Human Capital 5, no. 4 (Winter 2011), 377–417. Although, as Sorber argues, debates over their purpose reflected a “gendered discourse that presupposed the land-grant idea to be inherently male and aligned with institutional practices tailored to serve class-based notions of the social, cultural, or economic needs of white men,” many “land grant” institutions admitted women over the course of their first decade. See Sorber, Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt, 150.

21 Andrea G. Radke-Moss, Bright Epoch: Women and Coeducation in the American West (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 6.

22 Nicholas A. Betts, “The Struggle Toward Equality in Higher Education: The Impact of the Morrill Acts on Race Relations in Virginia, 1872–1958” (master's thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2013), 1–3; and Peter Wallenstein, Cradle of America: Four Centuries of Virginia History (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007), 225–27. In 1872, four years after its founding, the Hampton Institute was awarded one-third of Virginia's Morrill funds, which supported vocational and agricultural education for African Americans as well as Native Americans who were later admitted in 1878. In 1890, the second Morrill Act provided additional funds for black land-grant colleges, but the resulting schools remained separate from and unequal to white ones. Virginia later transferred its Morrill funds from the Hampton Institute to the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute (now Virginia State University) in 1920. See Betts, “The Struggle Toward Equality in Higher Education,” 47. For more on the impact of the 1890 Morrill Land-Grant Act on African American education in general, see Debra A. Reid, “People's Colleges for Other Citizens: Black Land-Grant Institutions and the Politics of Educational Expansion in the Post-Civil War Era,” in Science as Service: Establishing and Reformulating Land-Grant Universities 1865–1930, ed. Alan I. Marcus (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2015), 141–71.

23 Elisa Miller, “In the Name of the Home: Women, Domestic Science, and American Higher Education, 1865–1930,” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004), 4–6, 42–56, 61. In addition to carrying out domestic chores on campus, many Native American and African American women students at the Hampton Institute also worked as domestic servants in the North. Beginning in 1879, the Institute required all Native American students to spend a semester-long internship in northern homes, whereas domestic service in the North was voluntary for African American students. In both cases, however, Hampton administrators believed that it was important for their students to encounter and emulate white northern domesticity. See Miller, “In the Name of the Home,” 53–54.

24 Miller, “In the Name of the Home,” 3; Amy Sue Bix, “Equipped for Life: Gendered Technical Training and Consumerism in Home Economics, 1920–1980,” Technology and Culture 43, no. 4 (Oct. 2002), 731; and Virginia Railsback Gunn, “Industrialists Not Butterflies: Women's Higher Education at Kansas State Agricultural College, 1873–1882,” Kansas History 18, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 11–12.

25 Shortly after being established in the 1870s and 1880s, urban cooking schools incorporated lessons in nutrition and food chemistry. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, historically black colleges such as the Hampton Institute were offering similar courses, as were women's colleges that had previously opposed domestic science instruction because they viewed it as insufficiently academic and fraught with gender stereotypes. Miller, “In the Name of the Home,” 60–61, 68–70; Nancy Tomes, “Spreading the Germ Theory: Sanitary Science and Home Economics, 1880–1930,” in Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, 39–44; and Stage, “Home Economics,” 7. As Megan J. Elias notes, however, “cooking school teachers and home economists were very different in their training and their goals, although there was sometimes overlap in culinary ideology between nutritionists and scientific cookery experts.” See Elias, “No Place Like Home: A Survey of American Home Economics History,” History Compass 9, no. 1 (Jan. 2011), 99.

26 Tomes, “Spreading the Germ Theory,” 34, 37–38; and Miller, “In the Name of the Home,” 61.

27 Rima D. Apple and Joyce Coleman, “‘As Members of the Social Whole’: A History of Social Reform as a Focus of Home Economics, 1895–1940,” Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal 32, no. 2 (Dec. 2003), 105–110; and Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 65–70.

28 Emma Seifrit Weigley, “It Might Have Been Euthenics: The Lake Placid Conferences and the Home Economics Movement,” American Quarterly 26, no. 1 (March 1974), 85–86; Stage, “Home Economics,” 5; and Elias, Stir It Up, 8. Despite the nomenclature, not all ten conferences were held in Lake Placid. For the official history of the AHEA, see Helen Marie Pundt, AHEA: A History of Excellence (Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association, 1980). For more on the chief organizer of the Lake Placid Conferences, Ellen Swallow Richards, see Sarah Stage, “Ellen Richards and the Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement,” in Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, 17–33.

29 For an excellent overview of the varied professions in which home economists were employed, see Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, which includes chapters on such wide-ranging fields as hospital work, rural electrification, and ice manufacturing.

30 Joan Jacobs Brumberg, “Defining the Profession and the Good Life: Home Economics on Film,” in Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, 189–202.

31 Penny A. Ralston, “Distinctive Themes from Black Home Economists,” Journal of Home Economics 84, no. 2 (Summer 1992), 41–42; and Penny A. Ralston, “Black Participation in Home Economics: A Partial Account,” Journal of Home Economics 70, no. 5 (Winter 1978), 36. See also Carmen Harris, “Grace Under Pressure: The Black Home Extension Service in South Carolina, 1919–1966,” in Stage and Vincenti, Rethinking Home Economics, 203–28.

32 For an analysis of gender and deaf education, see Lee, “Family Matters.”

33 These articles included Clara Lee Cone, “A Study of Home Economics in the Training of Handicapped Children,” Journal of Home Economics 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1931), 732–35; Helen Valk, “Vocational Home Economics for Slow-Progress Students,” Journal of Home Economics 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1931), 735–37; Stella V. Coffman “Homemaking Activities for ‘Different’ Children,” Journal of Home Economics 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1931), 737–39; Isabel Betz, “Cooking and Sewing for Blind Students,” Journal of Home Economics 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1931), 740–42; and Hazel Thompson Craig, “Home Economics for the Deaf,” Journal of Home Economics 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1931), 742–46.

34 K. Walter Hickel, “Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare: The Politics of Disability Compensation for American Veterans of World War I,” in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, ed. Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 241–42.

35 Catherine J. Kudlick, “The Outlook of The Problem and the Problem with the Outlook: Two Advocacy Journals Reinvent Blind People in Turn-of-the-Century America,” in Longmore and Umansky, New Disability History, 202.

36 R. A. R. Edwards, Words Made Flesh: Nineteenth-Century Deaf Education and the Growth of Deaf Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 121. For more on eugenics in general, as well as the emergence of the designation feeble-minded, see Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).

37 See, for example, Carney Landis and M. Marjorie Bolles, The Personality and Sexuality of the Physically Handicapped Woman (New York: Paul B. Hoeber, 1942).

38 Audra Jennings, “Engendering and Regendering Disability: Gender and Disability Activism in Postwar America,” in Disability Histories, ed. Susan Burch and Michael Rembis (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2014), 346–48.

39 Rusk et al., introduction to Manual for Training the Disabled Homemaker.

40 For an excellent overview, see David M. Oshinsky, Polio: An American Story (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

41 Patrick A. McKee et al., “The Natural History of Congestive Heart Failure: The Framingham Study,” New England Journal of Medicine 285, no. 26 (Dec. 23, 1971), 1441–46; and Syed S. Mahmood, “The Framingham Heart Study and the Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Disease: A Historical Perspective,” Lancet 383, no. 9921 (March 14, 2014), 999–1008.

42 Act to Amend…an Act to Authorize the Establishment of a Bureau of War Risk Insurance in the Treasury Department, Pub, L. No. 65–90, HR 5723 (October 6, 1917); and Obermann, History of Vocational Rehabilitation in America, 14.

43 Richard K. Scotch, “American Disability Policy in the Twentieth Century,” in Longmore and Umansky, New Disability History, 381; and Act to Provide for the Promotion of Vocational Rehabilitation of Persons Disabled in Industry or Otherwise and Their Return to Civil Employment, Pub. L. No. 66–236, HR 4438 (June 2, 1920). The federal government made monies available on a matching basis and thereby assumed half of the cost.

44 Obermann, A History of Vocational Rehabilitation in America, 179–82, 286–87. Act to . . . Provide for Rehabilitation of Disabled Veterans, and for other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 78–16, S 786 (March 24 1943); and Barden-LaFollette Act, Pub. L. No. 78–113, 128 Stat. 647 (1943).

45 Federal Board for Vocational Education, Vocational Rehabilitation: Its Purpose, Scope, and Methods with Illustrative Cases (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1923), 6.

46 Linker, War's Waste, 4. While homemakers were technically included in the civilian rehabilitation program, they made up a tiny minority. According to Audra Jennings, homemakers accounted for just 156 of the 41,925 people who received rehabilitation services in 1945. See Jennings, “Engendering and Regendering Disability, 350.

47 Ruth O'Brien, Crippled Justice: The History of Modern Disability Policy in the Workplace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 65.

48 Puaca, “The Largest Occupational Group of All the Disabled,” 88–90.

49 Jane Lancaster, Making Time: Lillian Moller Gilbreth—A Life Beyond “Cheaper by the Dozen” (Northeastern University Press, 2004), 1–2, 90–93, 107–20, 149, 163–64; Julie Des Jardins, Lillian Gilbreth: Redefining Domesticity (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2013), 57–69; and Ruth Schwartz Cowan, “Gilbreth, Lillian Evelyn Moller,” in Notable American Women: The Modern Period: A Biographical Dictionary, ed. Barbara Sicherman and Carol Hurd Green (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1980), 293–94. See also Frank Gilbreth, Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey, Cheaper by the Dozen (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1948). Mary, a twelfth child, died of diphtheria in 1912.

50 See Janice Williams Rutherford, Selling Mrs. Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2003), 36–45; and Christine Frederick, “Points in Efficiency,” Journal of Home Economics 6, no. 3 (June 1914), 278–80. Frederick's article was based on her address to the Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Home Economics Association, Ithaca, New York, 1913.

51 Laurel Graham, Managing on Her Own: Dr. Lillian Gilbreth and Women's Work in the Interwar Era (Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press, 1998), 94–95; 105–107; 161–64; Frank B. Gilbreth, “Scientific Management in the Household,” Journal of Home Economics 4, no. 5 (Nov. 1912), 438–47; and “News from the Field,” Journal of Home Economics 15, no. 5 (May 1923), 293.

52 Des Jardins, Lillian Gilbreth, 134–38; Graham, Managing on Her Own, 167–72; and Cowan, “Gilbreth,” 294.

53 Eloise Davison, review of The Home-Maker and Her Job, by Lillian M. Gilbreth, Journal of Home Economics 19, no. 9 (Sept. 1927), 529.

54 Graham, Managing on Her Own, 179–93; Lancaster, Making Time, 301.

55 American Heart Association, preface to Heart of the Home (New York: American Heart Association, 1948), folder 2, box 52, Gilbreth Papers; and Rusk et al., introduction to Manual for Training the Disabled Homemaker. According to Rusk et al., women with cardiac disease constituted the largest subgroup of disabled homemakers.

56 “News of Food: Kitchen That Saves Time and Energy Featured at Employ-the-Disabled Show,” New York Times, October 5, 1948, 5; Eva vom Baur Hansl to Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Jan. 25, 1968, with Hansl's overview of Gilbreth's work on “Rehabilitation of the Handicapped,” folder 8, box 10, Gilbreth Papers.

57 Pauline Rehder, “Trends in Management,” paper written for Mechanical Engineering 180 at the University of Wisconsin [c.a. 1952], folder 2, box 52, Gilbreth Papers; Eva vom Baur Hansl, “The Gilbreth Projects” and attached letter from Hansl to Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Jan. 25, 1968, folder 8, box 10, Gilbreth Papers; Eva vom Baur Hansl to Howard A. Rusk, Sept. 2, 1947, correspondence 1947 folder, box 2, Eva vom Baur Hansl Papers, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University Libraries, Syracuse, NY; Rusk et al., “Acknowledgements,” Manual for Training the Disabled Homemaker; and “News of Food: Disabled Housewives in New Bellevue Clinic Find They Can Cook Again and Do Dishes,” New York Times, May 8, 1950, 26.

58 See Julia Swenningsen Judson, “Home Management Aids for Women with Physical Difficulties” (master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1949), 2–3.

59 Edith Lind Kristeller, “Work Program for the Disabled Housewife,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 34, no. 7 (July 1953), 411–416. See also Rusk et al., introduction to Manual for Training the Disabled Homemaker.

60 American Heart Association, Heart of the Home.

61 John G. Bielawski, “Cardiac Housewife Program of the Michigan Heart Association,” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 49, no. 12 (Dec. 1950), 1441, 1447; and Frances G. Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps of the Physically Limited Homemaker,” Journal of Home Economics 47, no. 9 (Nov. 1955), 691–92. For a summary of Frances G. Sanderson's 1951 report, “Improving Work Habits of the Cardiac Homemakers,” prepared for Kelvinator Kitchen in Detroit, which contains additional information about the history of the Michigan Heart Association's collaboration with Wayne University, see Ruth Cresswell Kettunen, “A Limited Survey of Research Studies and Pertinent Material Bearing Upon the Problems of the Cardiac Homemaker” (master's thesis, Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, 1952), 64–65.

62 Kettunen, “A Limited Survey of Research Studies,” 64–65; Bielawski, “Cardiac Housewife Program,” 1441; and Marion Tate Houts, “Application of Work Simplification Methods to Specific Allowed Activities of the Cardiac Homemaker” (master's thesis, Wayne University, 1951). 411, 425–26.

63 Houts, “Application of Work Simplification Methods,” 412, 426.

64 See Margaret H. Austin, “The Cardiac Housewife,” Journal of the American Medical Women's Association 8, no. 6 (June 1953), 198; Bielawski, “Cardiac Housewife Program,” 1441; Kettunen, “A Limited Survey of Research Studies,” 59; and “Gas Gives Heart to Cardiacs,” American Gas Association Monthly (Oct. 1951), 9, 37.

65 Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps,” 691.

66 Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps,” 691–92. Unfortunately, Sanderson did not include the names of the organizers.

67 Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps,” 691–92.

68 Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps,” 692.

69 Sanderson, “Surmounting the Handicaps,” 692.

70 University of Connecticut, Schools of Home Economics, Business Administration and Physical Therapy, Handicapped Homemakers Proceedings: Leader's Workshop on Principles of Work Simplifications Applied to Problems of Physically Handicapped Homemakers, June 14–20, 1953 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, May 1954).

71 Neva Waggoner, Richly Blessed (Phoenix, AZ: Imperial/Litho Graphics, 1989), 95–96.

72 Waggoner, Richly Blessed, 20.

73 Waggoner, Richly Blessed, 33.

74 Elizabeth Eckhardt May, “Forward,” The Team Approach, 1. For list of organizers, which includes May, Waggoner, Gilbreth, and Judson, see p2age 2.

75 May, “Forward,” The Team Approach, 1.

76 Neva R. Waggoner, “The Role of the Homemaker and Her Family on the Rehabilitation Team, Presenting the Point of View of a Handicapped Homemaker,” in The Team Approach, 14–17.

77 Julia S. Judson, “The Team Approach at the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of the New York University-Bellevue Medical Center,” in The Team Approach, 10–13.

78 “Recommendation of the Home Economics Group,” in The Team Approach, 23. See also May, Elizabeth Eckhardt, “Rehabilitation Views and Previews,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 32, no. 11 (Nov. 1956), 1049–53Google ScholarPubMed.

79 Leidenfrost, Nancy B., “Obituary: Dr. A. June Bricker,” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 92, no. 2 (March 2000), 62Google Scholar.

80 Bricker, A. June, “The Team Approach for the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped Homemaker,” Journal of Home Economics 47, no. 8 (Oct. 1955), 626–27Google Scholar.

81 A. June Bricker, “Planning for Rehabilitation Service,” Journal of Home Economics 50, no. 9 (Nov. 1958), 701–702; A. June Bricker, “Plan and Purpose of the Workshop,” in Rehabilitation of the Physically Handicapped in Homemaking Activities: Proceedings of a Workshop, Highland Park, Illinois, Jan. 27–30, 1963, 3–5. For the goals of the AHEA-ADA subcommittee, see Bricker, “Planning for Rehabilitation Service,” 701–702.

82 Bricker, “Plan and Purpose of the Workshop,” 4. See also Proceedings: AHEA Pre-Convention Workshop Expanding the Services of the Home Economist in Rehabilitation, Denver, Colorado, June 25–27, 1960, folder 47, box 1, Handicapped Homemaker Project Records.

83 Bricker, “Plan and Purpose of the Workshop,” 4; “AHEA Fellowship Awards Presented at the Annual Meeting,” Journal of Home Economics 55, no. 7 (Sept. 1963), 508–509; and Judson, Julia, Home Economics Research Abstracts, 1963–1968 (Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association, 1969), 2–3Google Scholar. Examples of funded theses and dissertations include Mabel Grace Stolte, “Physically Handicapped Homemakers’ Meal Management Patterns” (master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1968); Rosemary M. Harzmann, “Decision-Making in Homes of Disabled Homemakers” (master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1969); Carol Glenn Prentiss, “Some Homemaking Practices of the Hearing Impaired” (master's thesis, Colorado State University, 1968); and Lois O. Schwab, “Self-Perceptions of Physically Disabled Homemakers” (EdD diss. University of Nebraska, 1966). See descriptions in Judson, Home Economics Research Abstracts.

84 See Elizabeth Eckhardt May, “Text of Statement Summarized Before the Congressional Hearing Subcommittee on Special Education and Rehabilitation, House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor,” Dec. 18, 1959, folder 255, box 5, Elizabeth E. May Papers, Archives and Special Collections, Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut.