The Factory in the Kitchen: Scientific Management, Time-Motion Studies, and Domestic Efficiency, 1890-1920

 

Liz Muller, edm29@cornell.edu

Ph.D. Program, History of Architecture and Urban Development

 

 

From the 1890s until around 1920, the United States experienced nothing short of an “efficiency craze” in matters relating to industrial production and the management of home and business affairs.[1]  Frederick Winslow Taylor’s ideas of the scientific management of factory tasks were influential in shaping the manner in which work was carried out and labor was perceived.  Translated into the domestic sphere, the idea of the “efficient kitchen” became the subject of popular home management guides and drove research studies and design decisions related to the kitchen. This discourse about the efficient kitchen can be contextualized within ideas of the scientific management of factory work prevalent during this period.  The concepts of efficiency and scientific management operated at multiple scales in the domestic sphere – the body, the kitchen, and the house – and directly impacted the design of domestic space.

 

By exploring the ideal of efficiency, this essay will elucidate the relationship of the Progressive Era kitchen to Frederick Winslow Taylor’s ideas of scientific management and industrial production during this period.  How did the ideal kitchen function like a factory?  By investigating the time-motion studies of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, as well as their counterparts in the field of home economics, this essay will explore the role of the human body in constructing factory and kitchen space.  Additionally, this essay will underscore the important role of time-motion studies as an investigative method during this period.  Finally, by investigating these ideas, this essay will elucidate their importance in informing ideas of early twentieth-century design at all scales through their emphasis on tracing bodily movement through space, functional arrangement, and the zoning of productive activities.

 

Household Management Books and the Efficient Kitchen

 

Beginning in the 1890s and through the 1920s in the United States, home economists and homemakers published numerous popular books that promoted the idea of efficiency in the kitchen. Following on the precedent of Catharine Beecher in her late nineteenth-century works,[2] these books served as household management guides for women.  Around the turn of the century, these books took a decidedly scientific turn, promoting the idea of the efficient kitchen and related concepts of sanitation, scientific cookery, and reduced labor in the kitchen,[3] with titles such as Practical Sanitary and Economic Cooking Adapted to Persons of Moderate and Small Means (1890),[4] The Science of Nutrition (1896),[5] and Every-Day Dishes and Every-Day Work (1896).[6]  Ellen Richards was a home economist who wrote prolifically about the healthful kitchen and home, publishing books such as The Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning: A Manual for House Keepers (1897),[7] and Air, Water, and Food, from a Sanitary Standpoint (1901).[8]

 

The goals of eliminating wasted effort and potentially reducing women’s household work manifested in the early twentieth century around the idea of the “efficient kitchen,” focusing on the spatial layout of the kitchen itself. One example is Georgie Boynton Child’s 1914 book The Efficient Kitchen (Figure 1), which was a direct reaction to Child’s experience with older kitchen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

designs that were outdated for modern use.  In an anecdote at the start of book, she describes how she lived in “awkward, badly arranged Eastern houses, and tried to do efficient work in kitchens diabolically contrived to waste every human effort.”[9]  The efficient kitchen, in contrast, was the well-arranged kitchen.  Child’s book, like other contemporary works, outlines ways in which to accomplish this through space planning and modern appliances.  She provides floor plans showing how to situate the kitchen within the house and photographs depicting the scientific grouping of equipment and the “concentration of working processes.”

 

Child’s contemporary Christine Frederick, a home economist, strove to liberate women from housework through household efficiency.  In her book, The New Housekeeping, which was originally published as a series in Ladies Home Journal, she states, “I put out this book…with a deeply earnest hope and belief that the beginnings made in the application of efficiency science to the household (however modest and inadequate) may yet assist in cutting from women the most dreary shackles of which they have ever complained.”[10]  Like Child’s book and other household management guides, Christine Frederick’s work presented ways to achieve the efficient kitchen through plans, photographs, and equipment lists.  Frederick’s work was widely disseminated and accessible to women, and thus it had a broad influence on the shaping of domestic space during this period.[11]

 

Frederick also ran experiments in her home in Greenlawn, New York, which she called Applecroft Home Experiment Station, in order to find the fastest ways to prepare meals within kitchen space.  In The New Housekeeping, she created kitchen plan diagrams tracing the movement of the body in space while preparing food such as an omelet.  This work, when translated into its first German edition in 1921, was a direct influence on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, who carried out similar studies and designed the Frankfurt Kitchen for public housing in Germany in 1926-1927.[12]

 

Scientific Management and Time-Motion Studies

 

Where did these ideas of the efficient kitchen originate?  Tellingly, Frederick wrote another book in 1919 called Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home.[13]  This book explicitly cites the model of factories, the goal of reducing the number steps to complete a task, and the proper arrangement of equipment.  This discourse about efficient kitchens was intimately related to the idea of “scientific management” that arose simultaneously during this period.

 

Scientific management was a principle developed for industrial production by Frederick Winslow Taylor, an engineer for a steel company, first in a paper prepared for a presentation to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.[14]  The goal in production, according to Taylor, was the smallest expenditure of human effort in completing a task in a factory setting.  He posited that scientific methods should be used instead of rule-of-thumb methods in completing tasks.  He noted the need to systematically record and index work practices in order to derive the most efficient methods and develop rules and laws.  He states, “The managers assume…the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating, and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws, and formulae which are immensely helpful to the workmen in doing their daily work.”[15]  Taylor called for time-motion studies, as well as studies of the time required to complete particular tasks.

 

Although Taylor has since been criticized for wresting power from the hands of individual workers and craftsmen in favor of managers to find standardized solutions, Taylorism was immensely popular and influential during the first two decades of the twentieth century.  Among those influenced by Taylor’s ideas were Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.  Frank Gilbreth, a building contractor, was looking for ways to make bricklaying faster and easier, and he collaborated with his wife Lillian in pioneering time-motion studies in order to reduce production-related fatigue and improve output.[16]  The Gilbreths created “chronocyclographs” to analyze complex movements made by expert workers in order to understand work patterns and to choreograph the “one best way” to do each task (Figure 2).  These were photographs and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stereographic prints that were created by attaching a light to the human body while completing a task, with the image of light movement captured in slow exposure photography.[17]

 

Importantly, these principles of scientific management and time-motion studies were perceived to be applicable to the home and other contexts outside of the factory.  Taylor himself had written, “the same principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions, our universities, and our governmental departments.”[18]  Lillian Gilbreth, who had co-authored some works with Frank, also published many works on her own during the teens and twenties that focused on Taylorist household efficiency, later publishing an article in Architectural Record entitled “Efficiency Methods Applied to Kitchen Design.”[19]  Gilbreth focused on the spatial organization of the kitchen, aiming to reduce of the number of kitchen tasks, largely through the arrangement of kitchen equipment, which she illustrated with a plan and process chart for making a coffee cake.  In this example and others, it is clear that the discourse about the efficient kitchen was intimately related to scientific management and time-motion studies.

 

Photographic Documentation and Ergonomic Studies

 

Simultaneous to the Gilbreths investigations into time-motion studies, members of the new profession of home economics were conducting research studies on the kitchen.  Their efforts to systematically record and index work practices, as Taylor suggested, began with simple photographic documentation of kitchen appliances and household tasks.  As early as the 1910s, the Department of Household Economics and Management at Cornell University began to collect images of tools such as stoves, pots, and pans in order to analyze household work (Figure 3).  Also documented through photographs were the actions of kitchen work being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

performed, such a woman placing food in an oven.[20]  These photographs serve as a precursor to later, more systematic studies conducted by the Department during the 1940s that documented rural kitchens in upstate New York and directly led to the development of the Cornell Kitchen.[21]

 

During the 1910s and especially the 1920s, the Department of Household Economics and Management also began to distribute and collect paper surveys recording household time usage and equipment, through a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The survey was another means of documenting household work, especially work in the kitchen.  Surveys requested information on household time usage for activities such as cooking and sleeping, as well as information on household equipment such as ovens, and they requested that the homemaker draw a plan of her kitchen.[22]  This data collection was an important part of home economists’ effort to record, index, and analyze household work.

 

Also in the 1910s, the Department of Household Economics and Management at Cornell University began to conduct ergonomic studies that recorded the movement of the body in space and its use of energy while performing household tasks.  Home economists studied weight distribution, posture, and even oxygen usage while study participants carried out tasks such as ironing clothes.[23]  As a result, the Department created a series of images showing the right and wrong posture for performing household tasks (Figure 4).  These were staged

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

images taken by a professional photographer, so they were most likely intended for publication.  Scenes such as sitting, sweeping, and washing in a washtub were staged in front of a naturalistic backdrop to evoke rural upstate New York.  Notably, in the images depicting washing dishes in the kitchen sink, the “wrong” way to wash is shown in what appears to be a rural kitchen.  The “right” way to wash dishes is shown in an updated kitchen, with non-porous surfaces, efficient shelving, and appropriate lighting over the sink.[24]

 

Through these research studies, home economists could collect the data they needed to develop the rules, laws, and formulae that Taylor had advocated.  The Department at Cornell University distributed these results in publications, through demonstrations on trains, and through community workshops.[25]  These efforts resulted in best practices for kitchen tasks and the development of new ideas regarding kitchen space.

 

Efficient Labor and the Well-Arranged Kitchen

 

The ideas of kitchen efficiency, scientific management, and related research studies manifested in proposed kitchen workflows created by home economists.  The practice of canning, which saw an increase in popularity around the turn of the century due to lower sugar prices and an improved understanding of safe canning techniques,[26] was one way to achieve efficient labor in the kitchen.  Fruits and vegetables could be preserved in bulk, and the operation lended itself well to mass-production methods in the kitchen.  Information about safe canning practices was disseminated through canning clubs, publications, and by home economists.[27]

 

In a photograph made by the Department of Household Economics and Management at Cornell University in 1914, the process of canning is depicted as assembly line production (Figure 5). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The caption on the back reads, "Home canning, a division of labor,” clearly equating the production of canned goods in the home with factory production.  The machine-like stove serves to support this impression and reinforce the idea that the efficient kitchen can and should function like a factory.[28]  Within the Department at Cornell, community canning classes were one way to promote this practice.  In a photograph depicting a community canning class around 1920, the room is clearly set up for efficient labor and the mass-production of canned goods.[29]

 

Home economists, as mentioned with regard to Child and Frederick, were preoccupied with the “well-arranged kitchen” as a means to achieve efficient labor while cooking.  Thus, the collecting and analyzing of research data also resulted in kitchen designs and domestic space planning.  One example is the work of trained architect and home economist Helen Binkerd Young, who taught at Cornell University from 1910 to 1921.  In her 1916 pamphlet, “Planning the Home Kitchen,” Young lays out the principles for planning an efficient kitchen through text, plans, and photographs (Figure 6).  She synthesizes ideas of functional grouping and the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

movement of the body in space while presenting kitchen plans for farm and suburban houses.  Each plan includes lines tracing the movement of the body through the house and in relation to the kitchen.  Interestingly, Young translates these concepts of efficiency to the scale of the entire house, providing plans for entire floors, as in “Fig. 30: Plan in which principles of kitchen arrangement are clearly expressed.”[30]

 

In another article entitled “The Relation of House Planning to Home Economics,” Young describes the importance of house design clearly: “We need a readjusted vision of the house, both as concerns its plan and its fittings.  As long as we attempt to fit economic house keeping into uneconomic arrangements, there will be lost motion….  By intensive planning of the working areas, humane and economic conditions are assured to the worker; service is reduced to a minimum and many times the homemaker becomes independent of outside help.”[31]  Importantly, Young specifically cites Child’s The Efficient Kitchen and Frederick’s The New Housekeeping as influences on the work.  One can also view it within the larger context of modern kitchen design that includes the Frankfurt Kitchen.  This and the work of Child and Frederick, though, is a particular to the American context at this time, the product of theories of scientific management and scientific research studies by home economists.  These principles operated at the multiple scales of the body, the kitchen, and the house.

 

Conclusions

 

It is worth mentioning that the same principles of scientific management and efficiency were also applied during this period at a much larger scale – that of the city.  This era saw the beginning of the urban planning profession, and scientific management was intimately related to the ideals of planning.[32]  Specifically, the 1910s were the period in which the first zoning regulations were developed, with the New York plan, for example, adopted in 1916.  Zoning, in essence, consolidated urban functions into designated areas, not unlike the “scientific grouping” of equipment in the kitchen to achieve the “concentration of working processes” that Child and Frederick had promoted.  The same spatial principles were operating at the urban scale and at the domestic scale.

 

It was in fact the interplay of public and private spheres – the factory and city with the kitchen and house – that Child, Frederick, and home economists hoped would lend legitimacy to women’s household labor.  How did the adoption of scientific management succeed and not succeed in legitimizing women’s household work?  Did it function to liberate women from housework as intended, or did it serve to further tie them to household tasks?[33]  Child and Frederick’s explicit goal, after all, was to liberate women from household work by reducing the effort required.  Some have argued that Frederick and her contemporaries served to reinforce conservative values in contrast to progressive movements around the turn of the century that promoted alternative ideas such as community kitchens.[34]  The analysis of these women’s roles is also complicated by the fact that women were consumers as well as producers in the space of the kitchen – of food, equipment, and furniture.[35]

 

In any case, Child, Frederick, home economists, and their contemporaries were on the front lines in shaping ideas of women’s roles in the domestic sphere and its relation to labor in the public sphere during this period.  The discourse about the efficient kitchen was intimately related to that of scientific management for industrial production.  The emphasis on studying the body in space through time-motion studies was first applied in industrial contexts, and these ideas from the factory were brought into the space of the kitchen.  In their development of the “well-arranged kitchen,” Child, Frederick, home economists, and their contemporaries had a tremendous impact on early twentieth-century domestic design. 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Abel, Mary W. Hinman. Practical Sanitary and Economic Cooking Adapted to Persons of Moderate and Small Means. Rochester, N.Y.: American Public Health Association, 1890.

 

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University Library. “A Taste for Science.” http://exhibits.mannlib.cornell.edu/scientificcookery/introduction.htm. Accessed 9 February 2015.

 

Atkinson, Edward. The Science of Nutrition: Treatise Upon the Science of Nutrition. Boston: Damrell and Upham, 1896.

 

Beecher, Catharine Esther. 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 and Co., 1869.

 

Carlisle, Nancy Camilla. America’s Kitchens. Boston, Mass.: Historic New England, 2008.

 

Child, Georgie Boynton. The Efficient Kitchen: Definite Directions for the Planning, Arranging and Equipping of the Modern Labor-Saving Kitchen; a Practical Book for the Home-Maker. New York: McBride, 1914.

 

Coleman, Debra, Elizabeth Danze, and Carol Henderson, eds. Architecture and Feminism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

 

Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library. “From Domesticity to Modernity: What Was Home Economics?” http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/homeEc/. Accessed 9 February 2015.

 

———. “Human Ecology Historical Photographs, Cornell University.” http://he-photos.library.cornell.edu/index.php. Accessed 9 February 2015.

 

Fairfield, John D. “The Scientific Management of Urban Space: Professional City Planning and the Legacy of Progressive Reform.” Journal of Urban History 20, no. 2 (February 1994): 179–204.

 

Frederick, Christine. Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home, by Mrs. Christine Frederick ... a Correspondence Course on the Application of the Principles of Efficiency Engineering and Scientific Management of the Every Day Tasks of Housekeeping. Chicago: American School of Home Economics, 1919.

 

———. The New Housekeeping: Efficiency Studies in Home Management. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1913.

 

Gilbreth, Frank Bunker. Frank B. Gilbreth Motion Study Photographs, 6126 P. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University.

 

———. Motion Study, a Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1911.

 

Gilbreth, Lillian. “Efficiency Methods Applied to Kitchen Design.” Architectural Record 67, no. 3 (March 1930): 291–94.

 

Haber, Samuel. Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Hayden, Dolores. The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.

 

Kellogg, E. E. Every-Day Dishes and Every-Day Work. Battle Creek, Mich.: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1896.

 

Leavitt, Sarah. From Catharine Beecher to Martha Stewart: A Cultural History of Domestic Advice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

 

Lupton, Ellen. The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste: A Process of Elimination. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT List Visual Arts Center, 1992.

 

Museum of Modern Art. “Counter Space: Design and the Modern Kitchen.” http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/counter_space. Accessed 26 March 2015.

 

New York State College of Home Economics. Dept. of Household Economics and Management Extension Records, #23-18-919. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.

 

———. New York State College of Home Economics Records, #23-2-749. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.

 

Orem, Hugh S. A Revolution in the Kitchen. 2d ed. Bel Air, Md.: Bureau of Publicity of the National Canners’ Association, 1910.

 

Richards, Ellen H. Air, Water, and Food, from a Sanitary Standpoint. New York: Wiley, 1901.

 

———. The Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning: A Manual for House Keepers. 2d ed. rev. and rewritten. Boston: Home Science Publishing Co., 1897.

 

Rutherford, Janice Williams. Selling Mrs. Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 2003.

 

Taylor, Frederick Winslow. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911.

 

Turner, Katherine Leonard. How the Other Half Ate: A History of Working-Class Meals at the Turn of the Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014.

 

Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.

 

———. Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

 

Young, Helen Binkerd. “Planning the Home Kitchen.” Cornell Reading Course for the Home 108 (July 1916): 109–27.

 

———. “The Relation of House Planning to Home Economics.” Journal of Home Economics 6, no. 3 (June 1914): 229–33.

 

 

End Notes

 

[1] See Samuel Haber, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

 

[2] Beecher’s best-known work, issued in several revised editions, was Catharine Esther Beecher, 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 and Co., 1869).

 

[3] For a thorough description of the idea of the “scientific” improvement of the home, see Chapter 2: “The Rise of the Domiologist: Science in the Home,” in Sarah Leavitt, From Catharine Beecher to Martha Stewart: A Cultural History of Domestic Advice (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002); for a discussion of scientific cookery, see Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University Library, “A Taste for Science,” http://exhibits.mannlib.cornell.edu/scientificcookery/introduction.htm (accessed 9 February 2015).

 

[4] Mary W. Hinman Abel, Practical Sanitary and Economic Cooking Adapted to Persons of Moderate and Small Means (Rochester, N.Y.: American Public Health Association, 1890).

 

[5] Edward Atkinson, The Science of Nutrition: Treatise Upon the Science of Nutrition (Boston: Damrell and Upham, 1896).

 

[6] E. E. Kellogg, Every-Day Dishes and Every-Day Work (Battle Creek, Mich.: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1896).

 

[7] Ellen H. Richards, The Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning: A Manual for House Keepers, 2d ed. rev. and rewritten (Boston: Home Science Publishing Co., 1897).

 

[8] Ellen H. Richards, Air, Water, and Food, from a Sanitary Standpoint (New York: Wiley, 1901).

 

[9] Georgie Boynton Child, The Efficient Kitchen: Definite Directions for the Planning, Arranging and Equipping of the Modern Labor-Saving Kitchen; a Practical Book for the Home-Maker (New York: McBride, 1914), ix.

 

[10] Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping: Efficiency Studies in Home Management (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1913), ix.

 

[11] See Janice Williams Rutherford, Selling Mrs. Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 2003); and Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981).

 

[12] See Susan R. Henderson, “A Revolution in the Women’s Sphere: Grete Lihotzky and the Frankfurt Kitchen,” in Debra Coleman et al., eds., Architecture and Feminism (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996); Ellen Lupton, The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste: A Process of Elimination (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT List Visual Arts Center, 1992); and Museum of Modern Art, “Counter Space: Design and the Modern Kitchen,” http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/counter_space (accessed 26 March 2015).

 

[13] Christine Frederick, Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home, by Mrs. Christine Frederick ... a Correspondence Course on the Application of the Principles of Efficiency Engineering and Scientific Management of the Every Day Tasks of Housekeeping (Chicago: American School of Home Economics, 1919).

 

[14] Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911).

 

[15] Ibid., 15.

 

[16] Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Motion Study, a Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1911).

 

[17] Frank Bunker Gilbreth, motion study photographs, 1913-1917, Box 1, Frank B. Gilbreth Motion Study Photographs, 6126 P, Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University.

 

[18] Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, iv.

 

[19] Lillian Gilbreth, “Efficiency Methods Applied to Kitchen Design,” Architectural Record 67, no. 3 (March 1930): 291–94.

 

[20] New York State College of Home Economics, photographs of household equipment and work, 1912-1918, Box 101, Folder 3, New York State College of Home Economics Records, #23-2-749, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.

 

[21] New York State College of Home Economics, kitchen survey photographs, 1940, Box 7, Dept. of Household Economics and Management Extension Records, #23-18-919, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.

 

[22]  U.S.D.A. Bureau of Home Economics survey of N.Y. farm wives use of time, 1925, Box 9, ibid.

 

[23] New York State College of Home Economics, photographs of early studies measuring weight distribution and posture when doing household chores, ca. 1910s-1920s, Box 101, Folder 20, New York State College of Home Economics Records.

 

[24] Photographs demonstrating household chores, 1921, Box 101, Folder 17, ibid.

 

[25] See Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library, “From Domesticity to Modernity: What Was Home Economics?,” http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/homeEc/ (accessed 9 February 2015); and Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library, “Human Ecology Historical Photographs, Cornell University,” http://he-photos.library.cornell.edu/index.php (accessed 9 February 2015).

 

[26] See Nancy Camilla Carlisle, America’s Kitchens (Boston, Mass.: Historic New England, 2008), 128–131.

 

[27] See, for example, Hugh S. Orem, A Revolution in the Kitchen, 2d ed. (Bel Air, Md.: Bureau of Publicity of the National Canners’ Association, 1910).

 

[28] New York State College of Home Economics, photograph of home canning, 1914, Box 101, Folder 17, New York State College of Home Economics Records.

 

[29]  Community canning class, ca. 1920, Box 101, Folder 19, ibid.

 

[30] Helen Binkerd Young, “Planning the Home Kitchen,” Cornell Reading Course for the Home 108 (July 1916): 109–27.

 

[31] Helen Binkerd Young, “The Relation of House Planning to Home Economics,” Journal of Home Economics 6, no. 3 (June 1914): 229–230.

 

[32] See John D. Fairfield, “The Scientific Management of Urban Space: Professional City Planning and the Legacy of Progressive Reform,” Journal of Urban History 20, no. 2 (February 1994): 179–204; and Chapter 9: “Expert Advice,” in Gwendolyn Wright, Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

 

[33] For a detailed discussion of these questions in relation to the “moral virtue” of housework, see Chapter 5: “’A Woman’s Work is Never Done:’ Cooking, Class, and Women’s Work,” in Katherine Leonard Turner, How the Other Half Ate: A History of Working-Class Meals at the Turn of the Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).

 

[34] See Dolores Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981).

 

[35] See Lupton, The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste.