© 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26, 4, December 2002, pp303–312 303 Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKJCSInternational Journal of Consumer Studies0309-3891Blackwell Science, 200226Original Article Perceptions of international development S.L.T. McGregor Correspondence S. L. T. McGregor, Department of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, 166 Bedford Highway, Halifax, NS, Canada B3M 2J6. E-mail: sue.mcgregor@msvu.ca Home economists’ perceptions of international development Sue L.T. McGregor Department of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada Abstract Little is known about home economists’ perceptions of inter- national development (ID). This paper offers some insights about this issue gained from an interpretative, thematic analysis of a very small sample of participants who attended the 1996 International Federation of Home Economics Con- gress. The analysis suggests inconsistencies in how home economists understand ID and what is seen to constitute ID activities, a lack of consensus about the meaning of devel- opment work, a lack of certainty about the difference between criticism and critique and concern for the imposi- tion of western ideology on southern countries. Seven themes for future research are offered to help gain a better understanding of how home economists perceive ID includ- ing: (1) the role of participatory action research, critical theory, science and critical reflective practice in ID; (2) meanings attached to the concepts of international, devel- opment and economic growth; (3) the necessity of position- ing an ID philosophy in practice, curricula, research and policy; and (4) perceptions of what constitutes development activities at home and abroad. Keywords International development, home economics, per- ceptions, meanings. Introduction There is a compelling need for home economists to be involved in international development (ID) activities. Even though human welfare is a universal concern, there is a greater concern for human welfare in southern countries, where individuals and families (80% of the world’s population) often face serious problems related to inequality, inequities, inaccessibility, lack of freedom, insecurity, injustices and war or civil unrest, values that are central to home economics 1 and forefront in our minds given the events of 11 September 2001. The basic premise of this paper is that, although home economists have a legitimate role to play in ID, 2 little is known of how they understand that role. For clarification, this paper assumes that ID refers to activities occurring in southern developing countries, often called Third World countries, but more recently referred to as ‘the majority world’, the 80% of the world’s population that is not part of the North Atlantic system. 3 The north still refers to developed countries. 4 Also, Evans 5 clarifies the difference between develop- ment and economic growth. He claims that develop- ment is often brought in from the outside whereas economic growth is usually initiated from within a coun- try. Development initiatives strive for sustainability, institutional capacity and capability, poverty reduction, empowerment, gender relations, environmental protec- tion, feasibility, good governance, dialogue and par- ticipation. 4 If done properly, attempts to stimulate economic growth can facilitate development, but they often do not. Knowing why home economics practitioners are, and are not, involved in ID and how they understand ID would help us to understand the potential impact that the profession can have on citizens living in southern countries who comprise the bulk of the world’s popula- tion. There were three objectives for this study: (1) to determine what the phrase ‘international development’ actually means to home economists in terms of daily practice and in the wider field of home economics; (2) to determine the various degrees of involvement in ID projects and initiatives; and (3) to identify other profes- sional activities seen to relate to ID but that do not involve travel to, and work in, a southern developing country. To obtain answers to these three objectives, a survey instrument, containing both open and closed questions, was developed (taking direction from Backstrom and Hursh-César 6 ), pilot tested and then air mailed to a random sample of 80 of the approximately 1000 home economists who attended the 1966 International Federation of Home Economics (IFHE) Congress in Bangkok, Thailand. There were participants from 44