The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

The effectiveness
The effectiveness of culinary of culinary
curricula: a case study curricula
Keith F. Müller
George Brown College, Toronto, Canada 167
Dawn VanLeeuwen and Keith Mandabach
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, and Received 25 October 2007
Revised 16 May 2008,
Robert J. Harrington 5 June 2008
Accepted 9 June 2008
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare current culinary student, graduated
culinary student, and industry responses to educational skills attained.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses a survey methodology to examine perceptions
of what and how institutions might best prepare culinary students for success in the workplace.
Findings – Students enter culinary education institutions with expectations of the experience they
will gain and the skills/knowledge they will master. After graduation, they discover how prepared
they are for a culinary career. Similarly, employers expect students to enter the work place with
specific skills and abilities. Findings provide both similarities and differences among the respondent
groups.
Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted in only one country using
graduates from one culinary school and industry needs of Eastern Canada. Based on an analysis of the
findings, educators and industry should address key skills of the culinary profession to ensure
culinarian success and satisfaction.
Originality/value – The present study provides evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of the
North American culinary education process using a triangulated approach. The findings have
important implications for culinary education as well as other hospitality-related educational
programs.
Keywords Education, Training, Catering industry, Canada, Students, Curricula
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This exploratory culinary study, utilizing survey methodology, examines perceptions
and expectations of students, graduates and those in industry who hire them. Students
entering the field of culinary training have perceptions and expectations of what they
should be taught to be successful and how well their culinary school is meeting their
needs. Employed graduates may have different perceptions on the value of the
education a school’s educational processes have delivered. At the same time, the
industry is constantly evaluating the graduate performance in the workplace. The
International Journal of
industry forms perceptions on how well the educational system has prepared the Contemporary Hospitality
students for their positions as cooks and chefs. This study compares culinary Management
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2009
education quality perceptions of current students, graduated students and industry pp. 167-178
culinarian success and satisfaction as well. The study provides evidence of the Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
strengths and weaknesses of the North American culinary education process using a DOI 10.1108/09596110910935660
IJCHM triangulated approach. The findings have important implications for culinary
21,2 education as well as other hospitality related educational programs.

Background
As the food and hotel business grew in the industrialized world in the nineteenth
century the development of formal and legitimate institutions to teach the craft of
168 cooking occurred. The development of these institutions created the need for suitable
curriculum development to validate such institutions (e.g. Harrington et al., 2005;
Mayer, 1908), and ensure student’s success and meet the needs of industry. Curriculum
development and evaluation is a dynamic process (Gustafson et al., 2005) and
institutions must ensure that currency is met at all times to ensure credibility (Baker
et al., 1995).
Culinary education curriculum has its roots in the vocational education movement
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and traditionally focuses on
achieving student mastery of core technical culinary competencies (Mandabach, 1998;
Mandabach et al., 2002). The traditional distinction between liberal and vocational
education must become more irrelevant as we are challenged to recreate the citizen
(well rounded worker) as opposed to the consumer (Hegarty, 2004). Thus, a more
holistic approach is assumed to be more appropriate in today’s business environment.
In addition to hospitality/culinary related skills and education, employees require
specific life skills to survive or thrive in an increasingly complex environment.
Today’s culinary student often has developed perceptions about a culinary career
from the media. The increase in the number of food-related programs on television and
on the Web has helped popularize the chef profession and increase the awareness of the
pleasure of food (Pratten, 2003a). For the “millenials” or “echo boomers” (entering the
workforce for the first time), there is a clash between reality and expectation (Twenge,
2006) as they expect immediate results and success and struggle to come to terms with
a working environment which has a long standing tradition of authoritarianism
(Pratten, 2003b).
The ascension of the chef to an exalted status is an on-going occurrence. It was not
until 1971 that the culinarians’ job classification status changed from domestic to
professional in the USA (VanLandingham, 1995). This change was the first of many
that brought about a heightened awareness of the glamour and viability of the
profession as well as increased demand for skilled professionals in the hotel and
restaurant industry. Rapid changes in food technology, food science, agricultural
methods (VanLandingham, 1995) and changes in educational requirements
(Harrington et al., 2005) have caused institutions to examine the programs and
courses offered.
It is not uncommon for politicians and industry to complain about a lack of skills by
graduates. A recent study found a lack of proper secondary educational, language and
communication skills. Successful graduates need to develop problem solving skills,
customer service management, service management, teamwork and people skills. They
also must possess sensitivity to multi-cultural needs and understand how to work in a
diverse workplace (Toronto Labour Force Readiness Plan, 2000). It is also interesting
the large number of culinary school graduates that leave the industry. One wonders if
there is a difference between student perceptions of culinary education, school
curriculum and industry needs (Severson, 2007).
 Popular culinary programs continue to focus on technical cooking skills with some The effectiveness
focus on the teamwork and leadership skills essential to the delivery of a great meal. of culinary
Most programs also require students to learn some business, foodservice accounting
and management competencies. Minimal math and English proficiency are usually curricula
required but topics such as marketing, sales, computer/IT studies, career advice,
organizational theory and human relations/personnel are not always included. These
are some of the desired skills necessary for career success according to a ten year study 169
of career demands and learning perceptions (Johns and McKechnie, 1995) and are also
required courses for accreditation (Harrington et al., 2006).
This study provides an assessment of how one culinary school’s curriculum relates
to the expectations and the needs of current students, graduates and industry. The
increased exposure of celebrity chefs has been a growth factor for culinary education
but there are few “celebrity” high paying jobs and graduates are increasingly voicing
their dissatisfaction with their often expensive culinary educations (Severson, 2007).

Methodology
The study utilized survey methodology. An analysis was done of current curriculum
information published and currently offered by institutions teaching culinary
programs to determine the practical and theoretical content for the survey and
following evaluation methodology suggested by Ornstein and Hunkins (1988).
Questions were formulated to measure and evaluate criterion-referenced perceptions of
major stakeholders such as current students and graduates. In addition, the surveys
were developed using referenced established curricular culinary educational
competencies that had been implemented at the college. Thus, the surveys follow
the curricular objectives.
Identical questionnaires were sent to separate samples of culinary students. The
first sample consisted of students who were mid-way through completion of their
second year, and the second were recent graduates of a two-year culinary program.
The purpose was to identify if their education had adequately prepared them for the
demands of the industry. For current students and graduates, the questionnaires
evaluated the satisfaction level in the areas of computers skill preparation, relevant
topics, writing, speaking, problem solving/critical thinking skills, relevant technical
skills, teamwork and the overall value of the program.
A separate survey had been developed to measure criterion graduate employers felt
were relevant industry skills and thus to determine if students entered the workforce
with the necessary skills and knowledge to be successful in the food service industry.
Employers were asked questions to rate the satisfaction level of graduate competencies
in communication, comprehension, hiring, knowledge, productivity, quality, time,
problem-solving/critical thinking skills, technical skills, and teamwork. The primary
data collected were then analyzed for frequency of response using a five-point quality
scale where 1 ¼ very satisfied and 5 ¼ very dissatisfied.
Three similar questions were on the student/graduate survey and the industry
survey; these included teamwork, relevant technical skills and problem solving/critical
thinking. The surveys sent to students currently enrolled in the two-year culinary arts
program realized a 67.2 percent response rate (84 of the 125 responding). The survey to
recent graduates from the same school resulted in a 70 percent response (112 out of 160
responded). In the third survey to employers of the above students, the survey achieved
IJCHM a 52 percent response rate (31 out of 60). The response is considered good, given that
21,2 the average response for on-line surveys is 39.6 percent (Cook et al., 2000).

Analysis methodology
Original responses to items were collapsed into three categories: satisfied, neutral and
170 dissatisfied. A response was coded as “satisfied” if the original response was either
“very satisfied” or “satisfied”; similarly a response coded as “dissatisfied”
corresponded to an original response of either “very dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied”.
The recoded data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. The collapsing of
the data simplified and improved the analysis of the results and reduced edge effects.
For items common to more than one group, group response distributions were
compared using Pearson’s chi-square test. When the overall test was significant for an
item given to all three groups, follow-up chi-square tests were used to compare group
pairs to determine which groups differed. Because some expected cell counts were less
than 5 for some variables, both approximate p-values and Monte Carlo estimates of
exact p-values were computed. Monte Carlo estimates were based on 10,000 random
samples and upper confidence bounds from the 99 percent confidence interval are
reported to confirm significance (SAS Support Documentation, 2008). For each item
and group 95 percent confidence interval estimates of the percent satisfied were
computed. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.1.3 software. Significance was
defined for p # 0:05.

Findings
Student, graduate and industry comparison
Table I consists of the three questions common to all three groups. The first question
asked respondents to evaluate their ability to solve problems. Response distributions
differed for all three groups. About 78.3 percent of current students indicated they were
satisfied while only 3.6 percent were dissatisfied. The graduated student responses
indicated that 21.3 percent were satisfied but 39.8 percent were dissatisfied.
Furthermore, a 95 percent confidence interval estimates that the percentage of the
graduate students reporting satisfaction with the program’s development of problem
solving/critical thinking ability is between 13.6 and 29.0 percent. In a similar question
the industry respondents were asked if students demonstrated problem solving/critical
thinking skills. About 48.4 percent of industry respondents reported being satisfied,
while 22.6 percent were dissatisfied.
For an item asking about relevant technical skills - either taught in the students’
programs or demonstrated by students as employees - over 88 percent of respondents
in all groups (current, graduated, and industry) indicated that they were satisfied
(Table I). Response distributions of the three groups did not differ significantly from
one another.
Over 89 percent of both student groups responded that they were satisfied with the
program’s training and encouragement to practice teamwork skills. However, the
industry group response distribution differed from the student response distributions
(Table I). Only 71.0 percent of industry respondents were satisfied with student’s
teamwork abilities.
 Sample Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Lower bounda Upper bounda Monte Carlo
Construct Group size (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) p-value p-valueb

Problem Current students

solving 83 78.3 18.1 3.6 69.4 87.2 ,0.0001 0.0005
Graduated
students 108 21.3 38.9 39.8 13.6 29.0 – –
Industry 31 48.4 29.0 22.6 30.8 66.0 – –
Technical Current students
skills 84 88.1 7.1 4.8 81.2 95.0 0.7725 0.8099
Graduated
students 112 91.1 5.4 3.6 85.8 96.4 – –
Industry 31 93.5 6.5 0.0 84.9 102 – –
Team work Current students 82 90.2 8.5 1.2 83.8 96.7 0.0397 0.0413
Graduated
students 110 89.1 10.0 0.9 83.3 94.9 – –
Industry 31 71.0 29.0 0.0 55.0 86.9 – –
Notes: aLower bound and upper bound correspond to a 95 percent confidence interval for the percent agreement; bMonte Carlo estimates of exact p-values
were based on 10,000 random samples
The effectiveness
of culinary
curricula

Summary of items given

to all three groups
171

Table I.
IJCHM Current and graduated student rating of the educational process
21,2 Seven items were administered to both student groups but not to industry respondents:
computer skills, overall learning, overall program satisfaction, speaking skills, teacher
currency, relevant topics, and writing skills. Current and graduate student response
distributions differed for only two items: computer skills and speaking skills (Table II).
In both cases, higher percentages of graduated students reported dissatisfaction with
172 their program.
For four of the seven items, overall learning, overall program satisfaction, teacher
relevancy, and relevant topics, 80 percent or more of both current and graduated
student respondents reported being satisfied with their program (Table II). However,
for computer skills, speaking skills, and writing skills lower percentages reported
being satisfied. For computer skills, nearly half (47.7 percent) of graduated students
reported being dissatisfied with the program; only 18.3 percent reported being
satisfied. For the current students, 19.3 percent reported dissatisfaction while 37.3
percent reported being satisfied. The 95 percent confidence intervals for computer
skills indicate that the percent satisfied was less than 50 percent for both of these
groups with the interval estimate for the graduated students being from 11.1 to 25.6
percent.
For speaking skills, 38.4 percent of the graduated students reported being
dissatisfied with the level of skill taught in their program; the same percentage
reported being satisfied (Table II). For the current students, 19.0 percent reported being
dissatisfied while 44.0 percent reported being satisfied. The 95 percent confidence
interval of the percent of satisfied graduate students was from 29.4 to 47.4 percent and
suggests that the percent of satisfied graduated students is significantly less than 50
percent. The interval estimate of the percent of satisfied current students is 33.4 to 54.7
percent.
While response distributions of current and graduated students did not differ for
writing skills, both groups reported relatively low satisfaction with the level of writing
skills taught in their program. Of the graduated students responding, 34.2 percent
reported dissatisfaction with the same percent reporting being satisfied (Table II). For
current students, 26.5 percent reported being dissatisfied and 41.0 percent reported
being satisfied with the level of writing skill taught in their program. The 95 percent
confidence intervals estimate the percent satisfied to be between 30.4 and 51.5 percent
for current students and between 25.4 and 43.1 percent for graduate students.

Industry only responses

Seven items were administered to only the industry respondents. These included
industry specific competencies such as communication skills (writing, speaking and
technology), comprehension, hiring, knowledge, productivity, quality of work, and
time management. The items with the lowest percentages of industry respondents
reporting being satisfied were communication skills and comprehension (Table III).
For communication skills, 32.3 percent reported being satisfied with the same percent
reporting being dissatisfied. The 95 percent confidence interval estimate for the percent
satisfied with student employees’ communication-skills are from 15.8 to 48.7 percent.
For comprehension, 51.6 percent reported being satisfied with the interval estimate
being from 34.0 to 69.2 percent. Of the remaining five items, the percentages of
industry respondents reporting being satisfied with student skills ranged from 67.7 to
 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Lower bounda Upper bounda
Construct Group Sample size (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) p-value Monte Carlo p-valueb

Computer skills Students 83 37.3 43.4 19.3 26.9 47.8 0.0001 0.0005
Graduated students 109 18.3 33.9 47.7 11.1 25.6 – –
Overall learning Students 84 88.1 10.7 1.2% 81.2 95.0 0.7929 0.8154
Graduated students 112 91.1 8.0 0.9 85.8 96.4 – –
Overall program Students 84 90.5 9.5 0.0 84.2 96.8 0.2769 0.3290
Graduated students 112 85.7 11.6 2.7 79.2 92.2 – –
Speaking skills Students 84 44.0 36.9 19.0 33.4 54.7 0.0089 0.0112
Graduated students 112 38.4 23.2 38.4 29.4 47.4 – –
Teacher relevancy Students 83 88.0 12.0 0.0 80.9 95.0 0.6353 0.6657
Graduated students 111 90.1 9.9 0.0 84.5 95.6 – –
Relevant topics Students 84 83.3 13.1 3.6 75.4 91.3 0.2085 0.2083
Graduated students 112 80.4 9.8 9.8 73.0 87.7 – –
Writing skills Students 83 41.0 32.5 26.5 30.4 51.5 0.4697 0.4786
Graduated students 111 34.2 31.5 34.2 25.4 43.1 – –
Notes: aLower bound and upper bound correspond to a 95 percent confidence interval for the percent agreement; bMonte Carlo estimates of exact p-values
were based on 10,000 random samples
The effectiveness
of culinary
curricula

Summary of items given

to all student groups
173

Table II.
IJCHM
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Lower bounda Upper boundb
21,2 Construct (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Communication 32.3 35.5 32.3 15.8 48.7

Comprehension 51.6 29.0 19.4 34.0 69.2
Hiring 80.6 16.1 3.2 66.7 94.6
174 Knowledge 67.7 32.3 0.0 51.3 84.2
Productivity 77.4 19.4 3.2 62.7 92.1
Quality 80.6 12.9 6.5 66.7 94.6
Table III. Time management 67.7 22.6 9.7 51.3 84.2
Summary of items given
to only the industry Notes: aLower bound and upper bound correspond to a 95 percent confidence interval for the percent
group agreement; n ¼ 31

80.6 percent. The lower bounds on the confidence intervals for the percent satisfied for
these five items were all above 50 percent (Table III). Most interesting are the responses
with the dissatisfaction levels, communication (32.3 percent), comprehension (19.4
percent), time management (9.7 percent), and quality of work (6.5 percent) followed by
hiring (3.2 percent) and productivity (3.2 percent).

Discussion
Overall, this study reveals several issues. First, all three groups (current students,
graduated students and industry practitioners) were satisfied with traditional culinary
technical skills. But, there is a consistent perception that skills in communication need
to be improved.
Current and graduated students conferred a low satisfaction with overall writing
skills and satisfaction with many others: overall learning, overall program, teacher
relevancy and relevant topics. But, current students and graduated students disagreed
on the level of satisfaction in problem solving skills, computer skills and speaking
skills. Current students had a much higher satisfaction level for these three items than
did graduated students. Graduated student perceptions were more closely aligned with
industry perceptions on these issues.

Implications to educators
The findings have several implications for educators and administrators in the
culinary and foodservice fields. By examining the positives in the responses of this
study, perceptions on the value and satisfaction in the areas of teamwork and technical
skills responses of all three groups provide support for curriculum quality in these
areas. In addition, most students (90.5 percent) and graduates (85.7 percent) are
satisfied with the overall performance of this culinary program. Overall learning also
was rated satisfactory by students (88.1 percent) and graduates (91.1 percent). Teacher
relevancy received no dissatisfaction responses by either students or graduates.
Additionally, an examination of these results indicates areas that educators and
administrators might need to review. Communication skills were an issue based on
industry responses. In this study, industry responses indicate communication as the
number one issue. Students should be taught to understand the importance of this skill
and that all kitchens might have their own systems in regards to production methods,
techniques and communication. Scores were balanced in the satisfied (32.3 percent),
neutral (35.5 percent) and dissatisfied (32.3 percent) categories. For student and The effectiveness
graduate responses categories in the communication discipline, writing, speaking, and of culinary
computer skills also have higher than desired dissatisfied responses.
The gap in level of agreement between current and graduated students provides an curricula
additional area for educators to consider. While current and graduates reported low
satisfaction (37.3 and 18.3 percent) and high dissatisfaction in computer skills (19.3 and
47.7 percent), respectively, this discrepancy can only be addressed by ensuring that 175
current students are aware of the value or importance of these areas while completing
their program to ensure practice and learning is maximized. The same difference was
also evident in student (19 percent) and graduate (38.4 percent) dissatisfaction with
speaking skills and should be addressed accordingly.
Improving communication skills might also address some of the responses in the
problem solving/critical thinking area. Current student response indicates satisfaction
(78.3 percent) with only minor (3.6 percent) dissatisfaction. Graduates had a low
response for satisfaction (21.3 percent) with problem solving skills and a higher (39.8
percent) dissatisfaction with a 95 percent confidence interval upper bound of only 29
percent when compared to current student responses. While industry (48.4 percent) had
almost half satisfied responses, they also reported a higher than desired dissatisfaction
(22.6 percent) level. Only a small percentage of current students reported
dissatisfaction with their training in this area.

Implications to industry
A corporate recruiter, industry trainer or an executive chef hiring culinary gradates
should expect to be more than satisfied with the new hires culinary knowledge and
ability to cook. However, they should be ready to address and deliver training in
application areas related to the communication areas such as comprehension, time
management, work quality, hiring and productivity. New hire training might focus in
these areas and improvement might occur if communication skills were improved.
Industry generally rated graduates with satisfied responses but comprehension had
relatively high dissatisfaction rating (19.4 percent). So while the graduates might have
the knowledge and basic skills, the differences in preparation methods and techniques
inherent in different kitchens present a challenge. While experienced cooks know that
the right way to prepare a dish is the way the company or the chef wants it done,
culinary graduates might not understand this issue.
The ratings of time management dissatisfaction (9.7 percent) and quality of work
dissatisfaction (6.5 percent) are also noteworthy. While graduates understand and
know how to cook, they may need time and help in learning the keys to saving steps
and becoming more productive by managing their time and staying ahead. There were
no dissatisfied responses for knowledge; and productivity and hiring had only a low
percentage (3.2 percent) of dissatisfied responses.

Conclusion
This exploratory study presents some interesting questions and might be replicated
with revised questions that focus on improving the educational process. It indicates
that improving communication skills may assist graduates in becoming more
successful and help already successful programs become more successful. Some
educators are quick to blame the student’s lack of communication skills on obvious
IJCHM twenty-first century distractions. The amount of time they spend on Web messaging,
21,2 text messaging, cellular phones and often the lack of time spent on formal written and
verbal activities. But, educators would be better served to look at one’s own
communication skills before examining the students (Twenge, 2006).
The causes behind the poor communication skills in the kitchen might also not be
the students’ fault but endemic to the culture of the culinary world. The kitchens of the
176 world are hot and noisy and most chefs and chef educators assume students
understand their communications. The culture of the culinary world does not
encourage questions – be it a food laboratory or an industry kitchen. Chefs often
assume knowledge and then are driven to distraction when students or workers do not
ask and perform the task incorrectly.
Kitchen miscommunications are part of the business. One author’s experiences
serve as an example in this regard. For instance, a cook was instructed to “brown the
lamb shanks, place them in hot stock and prep them so all we have to do is reheat them
tomorrow”. Imagine the chef educator’s surprise when the nicely browned lamb shanks
and stock were taken from the refrigerator for re-heating two hours before the lunch
and they were raw. The cook did as instructed, but just did not comprehend.
Another example is when a cook or student is instructed to put prime rib into the
oven with no other instruction. The oven may be too hot or cold and if the oven
temperature is not specified the roast might burn or not cook properly. For example,
instead of a rib roasted at 3508 for three hours, it may be roasted at 1108 for three hours.
Thus, it will not finish in time for dinner. Any chef educator can relate to these stories.
The more any chef educator considers the issue, improving student communication
skills (as well as our own) is a valuable concept.
A variety of strategies might be developed to improve communication education
across a program’s culinary curriculum. Culinary educators might consider stressing
the importance of developing an agenda supporting the relevance of language
pedagogy in hospitality/culinary education. They might also create a plan “for
embedding communication in the hospitality curriculum”. This issue has been
addressed in detail in the hospitality education discipline and a recent journal article
offers suggestions that might be appropriate for the culinary curriculum to consider.
This five-step program suggests the following:
(1) Discover what written and oral communication instruction occurs in other
classes.
(2) Choose professional communication to emphasize in your curriculum.
(3) Develop contextualized assignments.
(4) Encourage careful communication planning and revising processes.
(5) Set standards, provide feedback and reward good communication performance
(Jameson, 2007).

Planning and implementing such a strategy might help the culinary student develop
communication skills. A study of communication education in culinary education
might provide valuable insight to culinary educators and culinary education as a
whole. One key to the success of the research program in this area might be to examine
the communication skills of the culinary educators themselves.
Limitations The effectiveness
The objective of this study was to consider the differences and similarities of of culinary
perceptions by current culinary students, recent graduates, and industry employers on
the satisfaction level of preparedness in key skill sets and knowledge related to curricula
culinary professions. The findings of this study are based on the curriculum provided
by a large, public culinary program and industry needs in eastern Canada. Thus, this
restriction limits the external validity of its findings. The authors hope that this 177
exploratory study will provide information and provide encouragement for other
culinary programs to expand and replicate this research in other locations to determine
the appropriateness of the constantly evolving culinary curriculum.

References
Baker, M., Cattet, A. and Riley, M. (1995), “Practical food and beverage training in the UK: a study
of facilities and a debate on its relevance”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 21-4.
Cook, C., Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000), “A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
internet-based surveys”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 821-36.
Gustafson, C.M., Love, C. and Montgomery, R.J. (2005), “Expanding the food service curriculum:
who has added fine dining to the menu?”, Journal of Culinary Science and Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 53-68.
Harrington, R.J., Mandabach, K., Thibodeaux, W. and VanLeeuwen, D. (2005), “A multi-lens
framework explaining structural differences across foodservice and culinary education”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 195-218.
Harrington, R.J., Mandabach, K., Thibodeaux, W. and VanLeeuwen, D. (2006),
“The institutionalization of culinary education: an initial assessment”, Journal of
Culinary Science and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 31-49.
Hegarty, J.A. (2004), Standing the Heat, Hawthorn Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Jameson, D.A. (2007), “Embedding written and oral communication within the hospitality
curriculum”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Johns, N. and McKechnie, M. (1995), “Career demands and learning perceptions of hotel and
catering graduates – ten years on”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 9-12.
Mandabach, K. (1998), “American professional culinary education prior to WWII: the history of
the founding of the Washburne Trade School chef’s training program”, UMI dissertation,
University of Houston College of Education, Houston, TX.
Mandabach, K.H., Revalas, D. and Cole, R.P. (2002), “Pioneers of American culinary education:
lessons from the depression for culinary education today”, PRAXIS, The Journal of
Applied Hospitality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Mayer, A. (1908), “A cook’s school for Winona”, The Hotel Monthly, Vol. 9 No. 1908, p. 13.
Ornstein, A.C. and Hunkins, F.P. (1988), Curriculum-foundation Principles and Issues, Allyn and
Bacon, Toronto, pp. 280-92.
Pratten, J. (2003a), “What makes a great chef?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 7, pp. 454-9.
Pratten, J.D. (2003b), “The training and retention of chefs”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 237-42.
IJCHM SAS Support Documentation (2008), SAS Support Documentation, available at: http://support.
sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/91pdf/sasdoc_913/base_proc_8977.pdf
21,2 Severson, K. (2007), “Top chef dreams crushed by student loan debt”, The New York Times,
8 May, pp. 1, 20.
Toronto Labour Force Readiness Plan (2000), Toronto Labour Force Readiness Plan, available at:
www.toronto.ca/business_publications/labour_force_readiness_plan.htm (accessed
178 April 8, 2006).
Twenge, J.M. (2006), Generation Me, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
VanLandingham, P.G. (1995), “Effects of change in vocational and occupational education on
teaching culinary arts in America”, non-published manuscript.

Corresponding author
Keith F. Müller can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints