Nutrition Education Research: Past, Present, and Future

JUDY K. BRUNI AND ARDITH H. GILLESPIE2

'Department of Family and Consumer Sciences Education and Studies, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011; and ' Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell UniverSity, Ithaca, New York 14853

ABSTRACT This article presents the rationale for an in­depth look at the field of nutrition education research as the Society for Nutrition Education celebrates its twenty-fifth anni­versary. Four conclusions about the current status of' the Held of nutrition education research are made and a cohesive introduc­tion to the other seven articles in the issue is provided.

(jNE 24:220-221, 1992)

Nutrition education research is a relatively new field of endeavor. However, in the twenty-five years since the founding of the Society for Nutrition Education in 1967 and the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education in 1968, it is the Society and its Jour­nal that have prOvided continuity and intellectual stimula­tion for the field. Therefore, it is fitting that a special theme issue to celebrate SNE's twenty-fifth anniversary has as its focus: "Nutrition Education Research-Past, Present and Future,"

This issue featnres conceptual and review papers that present overviews of selected areas in nutrition education research and practice. The goal is to propose futnre re­search agendas for nutrition education in light of the his­tory of the field . A guiding prinCiple in selecting the articles was to provide a basis for further strengthening the interac­tion betvv'een research and practice.

As we put the issue together, four things hecame clear. First, we could only sample from among the great diversity of research heing conducted in the field. Several kcy areas are covered in this issue, hut other significant areas arc not included, either because authors did not come forth to write in a particular area or because papers were not yet ready for publication.

Second, developing a comprehensive and yet concise summary of past research, current status, and future direc­tions for a segment of the field of nutrition education research is a demanding exercise. We thank the authors who persevered, grasped the breadth and depth of their topics, and effectively communicated their messages. We also thank the many reviewers who made critical sugges­tions to authors to make good articles even better.

Address for correspondence : Judy K. Brun, Ph.D ., C.II .E. , Department of Family and Consumer Sciences Education and Studies, Iowa State University. Ames, IA s0011 . 0022-3182/92/2405-0220$03.00/0 <I) 1992 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION

220

Third, research in nutrition education has led to major improvements in the practice of nutrition education. It was clear in working with authors and in reviewing articles for our own work on the issue that nutrition education is a much more sophisticated and effective endeavor in 1992 than it was in 1967 when the Society for Nutrition Educa­tion was formed. We can conclude that the research in the field has had a major impact on these achievements.

Finally, key issues of research methodology still exist. Several of these are discussed in the lead article, others are implied or expliCitly discussed in the other articles as well. Key among the issues are how to measure behavior change and how to respond to the realities of both genetic and environmental variables as they relate to food, nutri­tion , behavior, and health.

TIlE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

The remaining articles in this speCial theme issue on nutri­tion education research make a Significant contribution toward achieving the goal of setting future research agendas for the field . However, the constraints of space and time dictate the need to acknowledge that the task is certainly not completed b y this publication. We, as profes­sionals in the field, must continue the process begun by these authors.

The next article, by the s pecial theme issues editors Gillespie and Brun, "Trends and Challenges for Nutrition Education Research," provides an overview of issues facing the field. They discuss the role of theory, a recurring con­cern throughout several recent nutrition education re­search conferences; the issue of bias and stereotypical thinking as related to food and food providers; the innu­ence of personal and profeSSional perspectives in shaping research questions, especially concerning human behavior and its detenninants; and the impact of educational pro­gram evaluation on research.

Achterherg and Clark, in "A R etrospective Examination of Theory Use in Nutrition Education ," examine the fre­quency of theory- or model-driven research during the period from 1980 through 1990. identifY specific theories and models used, and also categorize research according to Gowin 's "five commonplaces." They suggest that trends in the use of esplicit theory have been disappointing, call for the generation of theories speci fi c to nutrition educa-

J. of Nutr. Educ. Vol. 24, No.5

tion , and provide an organizing framework that will help improve the identification of theoretical bases in future research.

In the next article by Sobal, "Research Ethics in N utri­tion Education ," the author discusses theoretical founda­tions for research ethics, ethical concepts and issues in nutrition education, and offers suggestions for preventing misconduct and fraud. Although misconduct has not been a major issue in nutrition education research, Sobal recom­mends awareness and training in research ethics to insure future high-quality research and avoid controversy. He suggests the development of an explicit code of ethics for nutrition education researchers.

Axelson and Brinberg, in "The Measurement and Con­ceptualization of Nutrition Knowledge," review recently published research from the perspective of the conceptual­ization and measurement of nutrition knowledge, focusing especially on the validity of measurement procedures. They consider two scenarios for the relationship between knowledge and behavior, suggest that this relationship as currently described by empirical evidence is weaker than the actual relationship, and make several suggestions for improving measurement and addressing conceptual weak­nesses contributing to this problem.

The final articles in the special theme issue focus on target audiences for whom nutrition education program­ming and related research are frequently focused. Con­tento, Manning and Shannon, in the article "Research Per­spective on School-based Nutrition Education," review work since 1980, thus updating previous reviews. They conclude that recent studies have improved in quality, and

September/October 1992 221

discuss these improvements in relation to the issues of research design and methods, theoretical frameworks, and appropriate attention to issues of educational outcomes and teaching strategies. They make important suggestions for both nutrition education research and related practice in the future.

Nitzke and Voichick focus on reaching low-literate audi­ences in "Overview of Reading and Literacy Research and Application in Nutrition Education." They point out that little research in nutrition education for this audience has yet been conducted, provide guidance for applying find­ings from general low-literacy educational research to nu­trition education, give examples of materials and programs in nutrition education for low-literate audiences, and iden­tify issues and questions for future research. The need for an operational definition of "functional nutrition literacy" is emphasized.

"Consumer Behavior and Nutrition Education: An In­tegrative Review," by Glanz, Hewitt and Rudd, is struc­tured around three common concerns: nutrition labeling, consumer shopping behavior , and pOint-of-purchase! choice nutrition education. Based on their review of 83 research and review articles, they make useful suggestions for improving the effectiveness of nutrition education pro­grams targeted to consumers, and argue for the use of theories of consumer information processing and social cognitive theory as frameworks for future research and practice.

Note: Gillespie and Bnm are guest co-editors for this special theme isSIl('

of tIle Jounllli of Nutrition Education. It celebrates the Twenty-fifth Anni­VCr$0n; of the Society for Nutrition Education. In relation to the entire pr(~ect. it was Dr. Gillespie who assumed the greater editorial role.

ERRATUM

In the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section of "Evaluation of a Motivational Education Program for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: Effects on Knowledge and Behavior" by Kim D. Travers et at. (jNE, Vol. 24, No.3 , 1992, pp. lO9-ll6 ), the fifth paragraph under Knowledge and the first paragraph under Maintenance (pp. ll2-ll3) should actually follow the first paragraph under Post-test and follow-up (p. ll3). We regret any inconvenience caused by this error.