Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT Scholar Works Theses
Thesis/Dissertation Collections
2001
Culinary arts competencies in hospitality curriculum Thomas Smyth
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Smyth, Thomas, "Culinary arts competencies in hospitality curriculum" (2001). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
CULINARY ARTS COMPETENCIES IN HOSPITALITY CURRICULUM
By
Thomas J. Smyth
A thesis
Faculty of the
school of
submitted
Hospitality and at
partial
fulfillment
Service Management
the
Rochester Institute
in
to the
of
Technology
of the requirements
Master
of Science
February 2001
for the degree
of
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of Hospitality and Service Management Graduate Studies
M.S. Service Management Presentation of ThesislProject Findings
Name: _ _.....:T~h~o~m~a~s~J.~S~m~yth~ Title of Research:
Date:
02/07/01
SS#
CULINARY ARTS COMPETENCIES IN HOSPITALITY CURRICULUM
Specific Recommendations: (use other side if necessary)
Thesis Committee: (1) _ _D_r_.J_am_e_s_Ja_c_o_bs
(2) OR (3)
(Chairperson)
Dr. Joseph LaLopa
-------------
Faculty Advisor: Number of Credits Approved:
2
Committee Chairperson's Signature
Date
Committee Signature
Note: This form will not be signed by the Department Chairperson until all corrections, as suggested in the specific recommendations (above) are completed. cc.
FORMT
Department Student Record File - Original
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of HoSPiqhty aDO Service wianagewent Graduate Studies
M.S. Service Maoagemeut Statemenl Granti~ or Denying Pennission to Reproduce Thesis/Graduate Project The Author of a thesis Of project should complete one ofthe following statements and include this statement as the page following the title page.
Title of Thesislproject: C1R.INARY ARTS COMPETENCIES IN HOSPITALITY Cl TRRrcm.IJM
I, Thomas J. S m y t h , herebY~, deny) permission to the Wallace
Memorial Library ofR.I.T., to reproduce the document titled above in whole or pan. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.
OR
1,
,prefer to be contacted each time a request
for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address:
Datfk/: lirNO I )
Signature
Rochester
Institute
of
Technology
Abstract
CULINARY
BY
ARTS
THOMAS
JUDE
Chairperson Professor
COMPETENCIES
the
used
to
educators
industry
and
relative
that
confirmed
competencies,
dialogue
to
culinary
arts
great
to
and
curriculum
establish
to
apprise
does
each
a
for
of
educator
divergent
opinion
of
of
their
needs.
of
require
culinarians.
and
on
continued
industry
which
arts
professionals
value
voice
was
culinary
the
other
future
managers
These
objectives.
challenges,
prepare
industry
positions
exist
the
fifteen
of
objectives
the
affirming
faculty,
immediate
to
these
there
study
fifteen
and
Studies
Graduate
of
Delphi
instructional
while
Committee:
Department
two-round
identify
education
Supervisory
Jacobs
A modified
hospitality
CURRICULUM
SMYTH
of
Jim
HOSPITALITY
IN
Working
speaks
an
with
to
evolving
Culinary
Competencies
Arts
Ac knowl edgment s
I
am
have done
not
with
all
time
I
the
took
degree. the
I
times.
You
Lastly
I
In
a
from
of
are
whose
and
time
our
change
albeit
known
dreamer.
you
to
not
work
were
all
cut
I
in
forget
the
for
or
the
by
blessed
the
and
to
work
all
the
this
achieve
me
in
unwittingly
at
joining
experience.
unrealized
short
to
order
unwillingly
feel
place
quiet
could
and
very dedicated
two
of
colleagues
soon
to
a
study
for understanding
together
thank my
lives
for
Dan
also
sure
support
Shirley
trimmings
dedicate my
having
still
Aunt
opportunity to
the
without
you
would
process
friends
it
Thank
people.
for this
grateful
very
dreams
ravages
honored
of
of
my aids.
that
I
am
2
Culinary Table
Arts
Competencies
Contents
of
Abstract
1
Acknowledgement
2
Table
3
Contents
of
Chapter
I
4
-Introduction
Problem Statement
Purpose
6
Significance
7
Assumptions
7
Scope
8
Key
II-Review
Chapter
III
IV
Limitations
and
Terms
Chapter
Chapter
5
9
19
-Methodology
The
Sample
19
The
Procedure
21
-Results
and
Respondents
23
Gender
Profile
24
25
Range
Educational
Experience Educator
Combined
29
Competency Ranking
Competency Ranking
-Conclusions
.
.
30 31
33 and
Recommendations
35
39
Bibliography Letters
27
Profile
Discussion
Appendix:
26
Profile
Hospitality Industry Competency Ranking
V
23
Discussion
Survey
Age
Chapter
11
the Literature
of
and
Questionnaires
41
3
Culinary CHAPTER
Arts
Competencies
1
Introduction
There
hotels,
was
restaurants, recipes
menus,
trendsetters
benchmarks
culinary
arts
sum
of
The
food
Jewish
their
are
be
Industry change
Who
educated?
picture
and
power
their
is
own
and
in
which
the
dynamic
of
midst
renaissance
their
as
the
those
became but
whole
(with
caraway to
informed
well
rudiments
in
of
as
also
of
a
response
to
consumer
the
impetus
scan
questions
our
given
standard
lead
us
environment
a
tradition
similar
that
and
to
for
to
a
out
came
with
These
or
having become
now
new
salad
comes
of
point
are
the
it
hold the
and
educator
set
when
Caesar
a
seeds
the
foodstuffs "wow"
will
only
the
extravagances
products,
The
coupled
to
not
and
and
of
consumer
These
"cool"
demand.
drove
scale
legendary
creating
great
of
became
standards
in
was
service
parts.
bread
benchmarks.
The
that
when
caterers,
shows,
and
These
standards.
TV
with
food
of
industry
the
culture.
anchovies)
plethora
experienced
average
Rye
a
recognized
universally
chefs
chefs,
new
an
Imagine
years.
the
set
Economies
change.
the
and
for
in the hospitality industry
time
a
comes
how
are
consider
the
of
wishes.
time
of
with
they the
variables
to
total
that
4
are
most
future
hospitality
Particularly a
time
of
rapid
the
additional
new
frontiers
this
to
significant
by
required
students
and
of
to
One
to
germane
again
the
which
draws
into
us
the
objectives
closely
the
competencies
take
to
and
what
how
keen
A
on
is
understanding
of
culinary
look
forecast
arts
how
at
which
challenges
is
there
of
and
in
working
Also
economies.
requirements.
prepared
of
Internet,
examine
those
being
is
millennium
runaway
the
by industry today
presented
fact
this
hospitality industry
view
are
is
note
benchmarking. be
the
educators'
of
factor of
for
process
education
professionals.
change
will
study
the
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
in
the
this
are
new
the
value
of
is
being
challenged
study.
The
Problem
The
to
the
meet
the
hospitality industry.
industry'
change,
effective
means
is
certainly
not
Educators
entering
models.
are
academia
Industry
bottom
increasing
line
volume
system
education
some
problem
allow
arts
of
needs
this
effect
adopt
culinary
of
and
sharing this
outdated
executives
who
and
often
leave
in
needs
to
must
challenge.
industry
effective
segment
thinking to drive of
order
This
one-dimensional.
practitioners
with
educators'
In
often
teaching
training
expectations.
hospitality industry business
and
The
coupled
5
Culinary
with
a
substantial
timely, to
if
push,
educators
institutions
and
the
The
are
demand for is
the
to
vast
and
change.
where
educators
and
challenges
new
alike.
immediate.
Educational
in the
Somewhere
(leading
change
to
(leading
reflection
a
are
industry
middle
to
fade)
traditional
to
meet
must
lock
extremes.
Purpose This
Cornell
is
study
modeled
University.
competencies
a
professionals
of
curriculum
select
and
is
It
hypothesis
that
possibility
arts
industry The
provide
industry, needs,
and
inside
how
of
programs
expect
the
at
area.
the
examine
a
establish
at
what
hospitality industry
metropolitan
is
survey done
disconnect
data
in
find
to
the
post-secondary In
lieu
in
between
of
light
the
a
of
the
educator
agendas.
sampling
an
there
similar
educators
will
study
a
intended to
culinary
culinary
this
after
group
from the New York
level
and
slow
are
demand for immediate
the
stepping)
avoid
changes
professionals
Competencies
business
the
presents
which
shove,
industry
and
Industry
between
not
in
interest
student
Arts
of
expert
look
educators
create
at
the
see
empathy
opinion
needs
and
of
themselves
for
one
or
analysis
the
hospitality
responding
the
may
other.
to
those
6
Arts
Culinary The
Competencies
Significance is
It
in the
with
hospitality
opportunities
that
this
between taught
new
setting
is
the
opinion
analysis
objectives
In
for
may
likely
change
possible
is
gap
being this
that
event
industry
about
culinary
also
what
and
be
to
prove
is
significant
a
creating
students.
It
student.
of
new
creating many
industry
of
divergent
the
requirements,
is
pace
accelerated
culinary
expansion
culinary a
the
sector
requirements
reveals
study
for the
rapid
the
to
that
anticipated
arts
a
in
tool
useful
education.
Assumptions
Ideological
I
both
assume
industry
and
from
of
the
education
experiences
with
industry
that
bias
as
my
field
will
I
that
about
own
have
have
a
some
groups
a
and
will
have
with
practitioner
varying
bias
will
I
polling from
had varying
education.
who
experience
about
be
industry
of
has
I
also
from the
come
both.
assume
I
also
expectations
assume
and
bias
educator.
Procedural
The
open-ended
survey
instrument
its
ability
to
canvas
a
larger
has
area
been
of
chosen
opinion
because
with
the
of
7
Culinary result
it
that
establishes
negatively for its construction
the
groupings
round
of
look
anonymous
two
the
investment
the
of
pool
of
is however tedious
It
requirements.
a
second
round
at
what
one
of
round
responses
other
participants
or
viewed
often
the
With
this
in
inquiry
will
incorporate
time.
of
trends
needs
and
Competencies
Arts
allowing for
participants
will
be
asked
be
to
gain
have
to
mind
an
responded.
select
and
In
rank
twenty key issues.
Limitations The
focus
of
this
hospitality industry In
educators.
the
included chefs, The
caterers.
culinary New
York
The
broadest
to
professionals
educator
Metropolitan
for
basis
expert
the
of
have
extensive
practitioners
and
will
credit
input
from
arts
culinary
professionals
restaurant
consist
of
will
owners,
be
and
post-secondary in
the
capture
the
bearing institutions
area.
criteria
may
hoteliers,
group
from
and
hospitality
of
group
managers,
educators
perspective
due
will
study
sample
an
opinion
adverse
time
scope
selection
of
and
the
to
experience.
effect
commitment
were
on
the
required
inquiry.
This
response
from very
rate
busy
8
Competencies
Arts
Culinary Key Terms Academia
a:
place
life, Teaching
model:
-A
community,
body
to
of
kitchen
skill
or
-Acquired
skill
represents
dissemination
of
one
a
sets
of
or
relating to the
cookery.
mastery
knowledge base
of
and
or
sets.
Professional:
Hospitality Industry -
academic
world
which
the
the
knowledge
-Specific
Competencies:
or
methodology,
approach
Culinary Arts:
instruction b:
of
Persons
food,
of
in
working
beverage,
or
around
lodging,
the
business
travel
and/or
tourism
Stakeholders
:
Practitioners
claim
-To
:
-One
responsibility practices;
who
a
practices
Bottom
line:
-the
the
line
report
at
that
financial
or
or
most
or
loss)
:
ownership
especially:
one
who
profession.
essential
primary
and/or
the
salient
the
important
consideration
bottom
a
shows
the
of
net
considerations
the
point:
final
financial
profit
(as
result
cost
or
or
loss:
profit
9
Missing
Page
Culinary CHAPTER
Review
The
that
focusing
on
such
Literature
in the
evidence
suggests
and
present
institutions example
this
of
would
Real
Investor
challenges
presented
Travel
Tourism
and
what
of
the
ongoing
effort
and
industry.
to
the
expect
of
Issue
8
created
to
a
create
a
industry
and
the
the
the
Hospitality, of
need.
these
address
between
ties
stronger
realistic
One
National
the
plethora
interesting
industry
the
102-107)
to
met
are
community
University
by
pp.
of
strongly
professionals.
article
an
educators
including
within
York
expansion
Some
from the
New
the
field have
in
importance
the
by
and
education
be
40
(Vol.
leaders
an
hospitality
hospitality
1998. In
industry
issues
in the
train
which
literature
the
of
future planning
and
Conference
Estate
review
the dialogues
Hospitality
The
points
to
note
understanding career
were
of
mindedness
students.
an
article
on
Professors
Lefever
&
In
authors
11
2
the
of
Competencies
Arts
surveyed
on
their
or
competencies
curriculum
Withiam
industry
experience
as
might
at
Cornell
professionals
recognized
be
review
done
1998
University, to
experts,
considered
in
by the
determine, which
essential
for
based
issues the
and
Culinary training not
future
of
to
specific
culinary
basis
provided
the
academic
leaders
culinary
arts.
The
life
if
Industry view
to
creating
to
I'd
what
Withiam
the
level
1998,
requirements
with
of
the
in
very
both
expressed
concern
scholarly
that
dimension
73
of
while
the
move
well
is
of
in
quoted
in
enrollment
in
be
called
the "
and
these
and
hospitality to
business
life
stated
themselves
represent.
&
educators
academic
they
Academia
Ahit
a
(Lefever M.
.
meet
and
industry
hospitality
hospitality
lack
a
as
hospitality
nurturing the
by
shelf
unrealistic
They frequently find
leaders
of
an
years
needing to
and
limited.
is
might
ten
Similarly,
industry in the
watching
what
and
of
both
practitioners
five,
institutions
industry
as
Hotels
to
sent
process
and
to
still
75-76) a
due
graduates
industry.
instances
the
p.
business
hospitality
odds
of
two,
after
Hyatt
benchmark
to
incisive
of
in the
career
of
while
student
is
"Instead
deans,
want
find themselves
of
Hoover,
percentage
G.,
a
study,
apparently the
graduation
questionnaire
advised
graduates,
at
a
that
this
upon
This
competencies
hospitality
given
She
'
the
expect
Barbara
of
revealed
to
response
rate,
of
inquiry
Competencies 12
was
education,
topic
believe that
execs
industry.
1998.
the
study
will
arts
managers.
further
what
of
import
for
on
Cornell
you
hospitality
Arts
In
at
several
educators
legitimize was
putting
too
distance between the
much
Severe for
actually
the
realities
interesting school
to Walle
Conference
Research.
The
in business This
new
academic
.
educators,
in both There
popular
is
mutual
process
an
strive
which
the
student
the
on
is
same
and
that
debated
strategic
planning
are
both
the
professional
shared
industry
turned
which
a
and
insures
dedication
1996,
p
amongst
hospitality.
of
in
occurring
hospitality
students
interest
path
"(Walle,
other
suggest
is
practitioners
hand,
model.
school
the
being heavily
and
development
Much
one
at
Students
technically
and
writing
presented
business
middle
exist
business
for
a
the
the
too
need
where
on
there
Graduate
and
the
of
walk
to
evidence
and
model
university
historical
the
to
concerns,
of
was
hospitality
apparent
benefit
.
of
practitioners
process
paper
in business.
curriculum
education
of
II
of
out
respectability,
is
development
identifies
grew
"should
There
review
the
World War
after
practitioner
210)
to
Graduate Education
author
concept
educators
the
at
209-218),
PP
(1996,
conference
on
business
in the
a
individuals
skilled
to
in
leveled
industry.
the
of
parallels
model
was
13
industry.
the
and
practitioner
communicating effectively to the
not
According
the
in fact
criticism
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
hot
topics
The
present
journal.
vision
the
to
the
education
"In
of
place
curriculum
industry
review
1998,
Withiam
surveyed
determine
70)
p.
a
were
discussion
73
p.
keen
interest
in
The
is
point
legitimize
(i.e.
experience
literature
in
the
in
expectations.
quarterly
(Withiam,
industry
the
G.
the
to
In
editor
1998
leaders
p and
to
has
part
.
The
a
the
of
data
(Lefever
would
to
Withiam,
&
his
the
critical
of
on
down play
of
was
were
of
first is
There
has
created
the
Cornell
editorial
editor
to
effort
emphasis
this
issue
academicians
a
future
of
educator.
that
August
titles
80)
the
meant
indicate
the
it
been. in
that
education
Ph.D.)
of
sample
study
preparation
has
methodology
on
the
being generally
while
alluded
education.
sufficient
study.
successful
hospitality
credentials
hand
the
successful
get
to
study clearly demonstrated
This
hospitality leadership how
to
further
and
the
and
may have biased the able
2).
Exhibit
1998,
random
&
and
professionals
hospitality
views
not
(Lefever
Lefever
article
who
or
classroom
programs"
industry
of
were
professionals
they
same
with
contact
the
visit
the
industry
findings
that
warrant
In
.
sample
how the
their
industry
who
regular
in executive-education
Withiam
appear
involves
now
discussions,
panel
and
surveys,
representatives
participate
While
major
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
of
TWO
a
gap
SURPRISES
mind
further
a
much
that
along in
14
Culinary
a
joint partnership only to
hospitality
regards
requirements
curriculum
its
paradigm
circles
of
learners"
from
This
Industry
by
interests
the
individuals
A
practitioners.
impression
that
into
competing
look
at
these
the
snap the
demand
teach
but
not
to
lies
advent
point
the
as
what
only
a
of
of
rhetoric
takes
task
the
Herein
as
be
To
with
charged
have
we
know
future
the
business.
Organizations
of
business
hospitality
which
hospitality industry services
shot
of
business
special
learning.
not
does
education
a
calls
While
.
organizations
of
provide
who
to
dialogue
efforts
both
of
in
and
experience
Professional
ongoing
(1999)
Bosselman
educator
Bosselman
what
are
supply
hospitality
of
and
The
fueled
the
of
challenges
as
industry
education.
of
which
point
historical
an
hospitality
R.H.
faculty
from the
departure
obligation
the
excellence
boundaries
the
industry.
the
considerations
principle
guiding
exploring
and
represent
(Bosselman,
industry
of
"excellent
issues
unresolved
15
educators'
education
teaching competencies,
exclusive
Competencies
.
Within
research
find
Arts
this
of
interest
organizations
to
and
that
and
their
AKA
give
the
splintered
However,
missions
the
the
might
hospitality is groups.
represent
industry,
picture
is
a
close
demonstrates
Arts
Culinary
their
shared
(1999
p.
16
vision
)
holders.
They
individuals, is
important to
the
sphere
of
Institutional
Education
to
become
hot
a
the
topic
who
Not
these
the
of
is
the
know."
same
and
willingness
(Foucar-Szocki,
has
R
&
is
There
content
many benefits
true
practitioner
education
groups.
what
and
Association
bringing
on
of
Restaurant
Motel
and
It
and
groups
Restaurant
National
of
represent.
business
the
on
stake
these
of
surprisingly,
teaching
"One
the
a
belongs
of
being
of
colleagues
a
C.
Bolsing,
45)
p.
In
they
focused
are
is
,
Hotel
amongst
educator
what
share
1999,
in
curriculum.
hospitality to
few
a
Stutts
Alan
ideals
they
which
nature
(CHRIE)
together.
interest
keen
in
name
been
long
promote
Hotel,
on
American
(NRA)
industry
and
and
influence they have Council
what
representing the
the
understand
The
(AH&MA)
have
institutions,
hospitality.
Association
in
to protect
the
or
16
leadership."
industry
exist
and
service
organizations
this
of
customer
"service
calls
Professional
guardians
of
Competencies
the
industry.
literature
Coupled
for
skilled
has
been
has
that
see
low
a
with
personnel
suggested
we
rate
out
the
the
exponential
of
paced
growth
unemployment,
the
educators
of
the
availability.
should
teach
the
an
need
It
Culinary basic
skills
skill
training.
let
and
Educators
perhaps
necessarily
at
odds
this
review
of
the
level
there
is
a
needs
of
future
the
industry
their
see
the
with
fine
the
difference in
perception
that
not
some
at
future
the
of
and
however
service
how to best
and
community
17
specialized
indicate
would
Competencies
differently
charge
industry they
literature
hospitality
tune
Arts
prepare
leadership.
Summary The
business
most
are
aspects
the
issues
in
of
There
identifies
tucked
about
is
of
the
education.
that
a
gap
Certainly in
an
of
arts
to
of
of
an
appropriate
in
the
industry of
hospitality
and
the
places
culinary
equation.
a
often
and
is
education.
which
value
for
an
hospitality
of
is
hospitality
itself
of
about
economy.
topics
literature
thinking which
the
of
hospitality
the
in
done
been
education
envelope
approach
perhaps
hospitality
education
in
This
contribution
arts
little
absence
exists
the
sector
prominent
more
Culinary
the
of
writing has
growing
other
within
very
areas
culinary
broad-based
arts
business
fast
this
or
extensive
hospitality.
management's
the
and
many
stepchild
frequently
on
segments
discussion
However
more
various
indication
educators.
significant
variable
Culinary
culinary
within
value
the
operations
according to Nations
which, the
US
employment
exponential
effected
future
multiple
leaders
surveyed
of
the
persons
growth
perspectives
for
The
and
observations
literature
are
being
the
successful
explicit
preparation
students
culinary
and
of
for
of
cent
has
business
dialogues,
from this
labeled
perceptions.
They
implicit
requirements
for
entry
into
review
inclusive
students,
the
of
training
attitudes,
hospitality
the
.
the
gleaned
18
for
account
per
1999)
regarding
industry.
the
8
or
hospitality
of
opinions
represent
of
million
News,
(Nations Restaurant News,
workforce
The
10.2
of
Restaurant
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
business
of
hospitality.
In
the
previously perceptions
to
attempt
cited
of
to
successful
within
and
to
Lefever
significant
industry
replicate
professionals
surveyed
by
study
and
that
hospitality prioritize
was
The
of
culinary at
consensus
in
This
those
the
will
study
industry
common
arts
post
about
collected
participants
held
herein
(1998)
study using both
education
by
data
criteria
preparation
Withiam
practitioners.
educators.
identify
and
will
for
students
secondary criteria.
be
the
framed
institutions
Culinary
Arts
Competencies
19
3
CHAPTER
Methodology
The
Sample
The
criteria
from the Cornell
professionals
to
selected
with
the
completed
The
The
each
used
by
part
each
assigns
to
to
likeliness
the
of
which
evaluate
variable
is
were
be
the
the
support
of
Educators
region
same
who
bearing also
chosen
of
with
the
commitment
experience
influence
culinary
instructional
food
to
participants.
would
the
the
professional
relationships
would
variable
educators,
dependent
group
the
the
a
area.
serving the
professional
on
study
and
York
participants
increased
independent
professionals
standard
The
and
which
in
for
established
New
in
with
relationships
participation
metro
were
area
experience
in post-secondary degree
programs.
personal
their
on
institutions
from
students
researcher,
their
by
and
industry
of
metropolitan
direct working
in the
work
on
based
working
selected
based
from the New York
has been
were
section
adapted
were
study group
cross
which
organization
hospitality
A
study.
sector,
professionals
the
select
participate
hospitality
culinarians
to
used
relative
arts
of
the
the
students.
importance that
objectives
or
Arts
Culinary
The
competencies.
research
more
basis
in
accuracy than
accumulated
Delphi
education
1998;
is
reduces
dominant
a
(b)
eliminates
collection
of
input
from
impossible
to
bring
together
encourages
more
(Lloyd, The
of
the
time
La
J.,
J.
disadvantages
required
effort
and
to
group
(d)
M., of
the
administer
energy
required
the
part
of
the
disadvantage
is
that
it
becomes
out
which
interest
on
opinion,
understanding
experience
of
of
is based
education
education.
which
and
lie
that
Hence
anonymity
not
which
2000).
C.
in
the
(a)
data
the
a
high
and
level
Another
difficult
amount
(b) of
obvious
to
separate
currently held
is
past
by
participants.
maintaining
a
if
difficult
is
participants.
on
it
the
enables
collect
more
The
.
influence
peer
guarantees
Delphi
&
because a)
Braunlich,
and
studies
unnecessary
from the
response
candid
Lopa,
a
result.
1993)
Smith,
to
its
due to
(Lefever
tool
(c)
material
often
which
previous
&
conformity due
from the
success
formulated
a
review
forecasting
irrelevant
of
not
Simpson
1990;
of
personality,
conversation
curriculum
useful
incidence
the
and
influenced
experience
by
20
the
as
projection
successfully in
used
and
its
opinion,
statistical
Canterino,
method
expert
experience
has been
method
involving
of
chosen
was
derives
method
identification
bears
Withiam,
Technique
This
approach.
effective
This
Delphi
Competencies
previous
may
not
be
Culinary
best
the
by
metric
which
we
and
current
evaluate
Competencies
Arts
21
future
expectation.
Procedure
With
professionals
culinary in
May
the
2000,
of
Delphi
included titled
factors
these
which
Survey
of
and
was
after
patterned
Quarterly, format
on
of
inquiry
were
were
did
limit
not
arts
students
reference
to
the
to
all
responses
All
training
round
first
Many the
1998) to
those
train
nine
The
a
to
Cornell
wide
the
range
first
eliminated.
and
survey
open-ended
for
of
round
The
education
of
responding
and
culinary
included
resources
available
them.
Select
titled
culinary
responses,
The
the
requirements
questionnaire
into
.
areas
trainers,
which
questionnaire
in
express
many
the
of
Also
participate.
Educators.
responses
of
to
inquiry,
the
of
round
duplicates
and
regarding
similar
fell
to
study found
the
inclusive
alone.
second
them
introduction,
of
nature
and
Hospitality Industry
Withiam,
themselves
twenty key issues included
of
participants
grouped
very
the
was
letter
the
asked
similar
and
institutions,
The
The
a
topic.
the
experts
the
a
Hospitality Culinary
(Lefever
allowed
opinion
and
opinion
Professionals
sent
explained
letter
the
thirty hospitality
mind
were
methodology
with
in
which
specific
arts
and
rank
curriculum
were
areas
not
or
duplicative. themes
(1)
representing
(5)
environment
July
second
round
review
the
of
ratings
were
were
and
select
to
recorded.
to
the
years
one
broken
compare
to
and
were
and
generated
with
a
list
In
addition
age,
topics,
into
contrast
to
issue,
establish
participant
findings.
first
twenty
the
sent
of
round
the
education.
arts
in the business.
of
were
letter asking them to
rank
culinary
respondents
calculated
out
and
(7)
assessment.
respondents
sixty topics derived from the
specific
training
(9)
22
(4)
skills
communication
preparedness
questionnaire
significance
responses
data
trainer
(6)
food
(3)
service
2000 the thirty
of
questionnaire
order
experience
(8)
expectations
In
technology (2)
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
there
sex,
was
sixty The
included
also
education
and
inquiry
The
two
and
competencies.
ranking.
groups
round
The
separately
in
Mean
results
to
Culinary
CHAPTER
4
Results
Discussion
and
Arts
Competencies
Survey Respondents The
fell
22
hospitality
into
the
professionals
following
who
5
Food Wholesaler
1
Retail
1
Food
Dining
(food Service)
Room
the
survey
categories:
Restaurateurs
Private
completed
1
Caterer
1
Hotelier
1
Educators
Travel
1
Culinary
4
F&B
Of
the
Lodging the
returned
thirty
by
Gender, breakdown
respondents
twenty-two
study,
of
7
Operations
August
completed
8,2000.
This
education
age
and
the
responding
requested
to
participate
questionnaires
represents
identify
population.
the
a
in
were
73.3%
return.
demographic
23
Culinary
Gender
Competencies
Arts
Profile
The
combined
groups
professionals
resulted
participants.
However
educator
and
As
in
shown
educators
(32%)
1,
in
a
the
industry figure
of
educators
50/50
ratio
there
compared
to
were
male
of
ratio
changes
respondents
were
industry
and
to
male
when
slightly
more
educators
female
(23%)
.
industry 18%
male
industry 27%
female educators
32%
1-
Gender
Profile
of
Sample
the
separately.
examined
slightly
female
female
Figure
24
Culinary
Age
them
age
Competencies
Range
The
In
Arts
as
age
groupings
figure
of
Figure
the
of
35,
2-
2
we
Age
20
see
with
respondents
-
that
54%
Range
35
years
95%
of
between the
Profile
of
was
requested
ages
identify
35-45
and
over
45.
surveyed
are
over
the
of, age,
those
to
of
Sample
35
and
45.
25
Culinary
Arts
Competencies
Education
Figure
3
educated
group
degrees,
and
having
shows
the
survey
respondents
with
53%
having
completed
31%
with
advanced
completed
some
post-secondary
continuing
degrees.
to
be
a
highly
undergraduate
The
remaining
professional
or
education.
Continuing
Education
18%
Professional/ Vocational
29%
Undergraduate Graduate
31%
Figure
3
-
Education
Profile
22%
47%
26
Culinary
Years
of
The
that
of
years
responses
91%
in
in
the
survey
were
they had
worked
in
are
the
of
experience
industry
Competencies
charted
educators
hospitality
respondents
in
have
while
having
the
figures
at
a
4
figure
20
5.
and
5
of
industry.
Figure
twenty 100%
shows
years
the
indicate
hospitality
minimum
least
to
asked
4
shows
years
of
the
experience
hospitality.
less
than
ten ten
twenty
-
years
9%
twenty-twenty five
years
55%
Figure
4.
27
Experience
Participants number
Arts
Educators
Industry Experience
in
Culinary
less
than
Arts
Competencies 28
ten
years
ten
twenty
-
years
0%
twenty five
thirty
twenty-
-
years
five
55%
Figure
5.
The
the
In
was
of
45%
Industry
second
less
The
the
held
as
a
important
educator
to
the
round
established
the
Respondents
of
results
competencies
the
twenty
years
first be
round
Experience
questionnaire
to
significant
value
ranking
Work
rating of
for
the
the
importance
respondents.
competencies
and
elimination
competencies.
group
identified the
revealed
top twenty
Arts
Culinary
from the
competencies
1)
.
While
a
other
maturing
problem
education.
development
1.
An
as
as
education
of
Top Twenty
1
2.5
qualified
2
3.66
independent
3
5.14
food safety
4
6.5
technical
faculty
6.75
state
which
Ranked
Competency
6.5
study
skills mentors
the
art
6
7
seasonal
7.14
teamwork
8
8
peer
8
interpersonal
8
maturing
9
8.33
human
10
8.62
problem
8.62
professionalism
8.66
on
skills
foods
interaction skills
resources
the
solving job
experience
9
customer
9
team
9
communication
9
kitchen
13
9.16
critical
14
9.25
student
15
9.33
internship
12
for
at
service
teachers skills
language
thinking
skills
input programs
student
life.
Competencies
7
11
looks
educators
as
of
broad-based
preparation
Rank Mean
5
top twenty issues
more
experience
comprehensive
Educator
a
of
and
mentoring,
the
that
appears
with
peer
educators,
teamwork,
indicative
were
a
qualified
solving, It
processes.
educators
Table
such
highest
in the high ranking
significance
competencies
interaction,
for
is
ranked
29
table
(see
questionnaire
round
strong technical training
there
educators
second
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
The
16
9.4
shared
17
9.5
discipline
18
10
cultural
10
manners
10
staffing health
20
11
international
are
competencies
are
development.
In
such
Table
team
as
2
.
opportunities
to
the
in table 2.
skills.
with
Industry
the
at
employee
ten
retention
The
and
study abroad,
and
top
and
1
2
skilled
2
4
maturing
4
employee
retention
5
flexible
management
5
classical
5
manage
skills
4
5.55
technical
5
6
technology
6
shared
level
cooking
cooks
skills
passions
expectations
6.6
discipline
8
6.83
communications
9
7.33
qualified
10
7.83
food
11
8
front
8
manners
educators
safety line management
to
in
at
opportunities
Ranked
skills
6.5
the
rank
problem
people
6
resource
discipline
Competencies
7
ranked
human
learning
Top Twenty
line
round
competencies
Interpersonal
Participants
Rank Mean
top
non-traditional
teaching,
3
second
basic culinary training
looking
along
responses
represented
management
20
number
group
from
range
flexible
diversity
10.8
questionnaire
choices
passions
19
Industry
Competencies 30
solving.
Competencies
Culinary
8.57
problem
13
8.66
global
14
8.77
teamwork
15
9.16
cultural
16
9.33
service
17
9.45
international
opportunities
18
9.5
broad based
not
9.5
customer
9.5
cross
cultural
10
local
foods
20
the
mean
3
input
of
industry more
to
-
10.3
interpersonal
competency
note
within
skills
top twenty
competencies
is
on
and
the
exposure
language
derived
industry
little
that
segmented
service
top
preparation
basis
occurs
competencies
for
working
addressing in the
development
did
make
the
combined
ranking
3. Combined Educator
and
Industry
Participant
not
of
from the
shared
passions,
when
respondents.
deviation ten
the
Excepting
competencies
twenty
extracurricular
kitchen
educators
ranking
diversity -
team teachers
technical, "useful",
industry.
Table
each
solving
10.3
the
31
experience
10
represents
from both
Interesting
Competencies
12
19
Table
Arts
personal
of
the
top
competencies.
Competencies
Rank
Mean
Competencies
1
3.8
qualified
educators
2
5.69
technical
skills
3
6.13
classical
cooking
techniques
4
6.67
maturing
5
6.75
state
of
industry 6
7.6
the
art
skills
discipline
Expected
Culinary
7
7.8
teamwork
8
7.08
food safety
9
7.44
communications
10
8.33
cultural
11
8.4
work/study
12
8.5
independent
13
8.67
global
14
8.8
faculty
15
8.83
shared
16
9
interpersonal
17
9.07
professionalism
18
9.08
customer
19
9.25
manners
20
9.31
problem
Arts
diversity abroad
study
experience
as
mentors
passions skills
service
solving
Competencies
32
33
Competencies
Arts
Culinary
Discussion
Educator (table
2)
would
industry
3
table
picture
come
from
note
is
to
the
the
age
surveyed
these
statistics
career
in
practice
work
ethic
the
internet.
determines
(employment) It
seem
would
the
needs
Cornell
study
serving the that
the
to
very
a
well
comparing
is
One
in
a
clear
the
means
(Lefever
15
of
age
(prepare
good
view
Interesting 1998)
Withiam,
hospitality
note
it
was
of
the
expected
turn
competencies
it
to
is
the
end
.
as
that
in
noted
for
students
leads
result
generally led
students
expectations
in
the
employees)
to
the
which
a
education
candidate
high
was
changed
that
expectation
enthusiastic
However
as
anticipated
as
that
has
States
a
16
or
consider
also
respondents
&
Clearly
employment
current
United
changes
industry.
of
must
the
/employee.
inclined to begin the
at
to
gap between
generation
prepared
unrealistically
In
of
preparation
employment.
format
of
relative
experience,
the
to
in the
experience
student
less
are
industry
that
years
reflect
not
greater
There
of
years
95%
with
experience
of
potential
culture
with
significantly
point
20
historically.
of
Another
significant
students
apprentice
an
past
the
would
Culinary
background.
The
the
and
is
it
3
and
survey
35.
a
balanced
in this
years
least
at
very
In
material.
more
1,2
a
participants
and
indicate
those
the
a
figures
at
education
over
with
might
trends.
employee
range
participants
91%
good
that
note
age
achieve
looking
diverse
a
business,
of
In
The on
emphasis
an
combined
common
priorities.
for
are
responses
sharing
need
rankings
emerges.
interesting
the
the
when
while
high the
to
training
pragmatic
industry
and
clearly different
are
rates
group
1)
indicate that
seem
there
objectives;
(table
responses
a
seem
to
be
high turnover. perhaps
this
Culinary trend
intensive study it
this
These
where
a
it
identifies
new
is an
is
concern
similar
results
Withiam, 1998 )
their
It
were
The
prove
this
that
is
about
same
disconnect and
preparation
of
a
study
worth
of
business.
the
study
spectrum
as
seen
inclusion. generate
(Papiernik,
R.
,
in
the
note
&
of
felt
there
there
to
to
(Lefever
industry
slated
and
ineffective
to
of
which
literature
ties
one
data
industry
and
similar
closer
was
students.
significant
professionals
sentiment
arts
the
Cornell
to
guide
a
support
very
the
by
of
as
outdated
perhaps
surveyed
2001.)
the
In
demographic
the
to
seem
industry
News
a
more
expectations
for culinary
would
an
Restaurant
is
future
useful
in both
in
surprising billion
to
the
population
need
education.
responses
might
Industry in
their
key
a
employee.
there
for
push
34
students.
produced
which
professionals. students
provide
raised
models.
in
educators
interesting older
future
perhaps
curriculum
population
teaching
that
Management
findings
developing
educator
might
gap
Hospitality
and
to
respondents
the
of
proposed
industry
However,
industry
preparation was
between that
leads
which
Competencies
Arts
that through some
This over
of
not
399
Nation's
out
the
Arts
Culinary
Competencies
35
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
Conclusion
The
purpose
this
of
instructional
objectives
germane
arts
education.
The
culinary
into their On
the
perspective
be
more
with
industry
tradition.
strongly
and
plug
perspective.
for
heavily
more
to
suited
pragmatic
very
human
new
resource
at
sector
Some
of
own
is
The
educators
masters
of
bulk
more
businesses.
in
industry
anticipated
in
recognize
food,
growth
wealth.
rooted
fast
a
knowledge
Perhaps
relationships
manager
industrial
an
of
impact that
the
creating
business
with
enough
cultivating
people.
hospitality industry
education
their
on
technology-based
crunching
arts
experienced
not
astute
hospitality
managers
teamwork
the
unawares
quite
having is
educator
a
about
conversation
a
employees
pushed
like
that
appear
culinary
are
from
the
.
would
the
to
industry
good
educators
technologies
development
ideas
hand
other
It
of
organizations
management
views
development
the
support
determine
to
was
study
of
and
the
or
needs
to
understanding
of
However,
the
it
is
a
hunter-gatherer
that
and
the
number
instant
food
will
Culinary
not
their
sustain
elasticity will
demand
of
augment
mindless
technologies, bigger,
the
faster
industry
sector
this
some
would
see
that
educators
are
still
fact that
confirm
the
teamwork
work
as
a
would
seem
to
confirm
also
international trend
towards
diverse
component
of
the
issue
discussion
concern
informed
with
well
future
health
consumer.
culinarian
as
the
to
genetic
at
This
on
in
place
much
the
the
of
teaching
of
developing
an
importance
fact
within
student's
It
organization.
of
confirming
experiences
or
experience,
which
at
to
exposure
an
the
apparent
the
very be
would
least
a
curriculum.
food safety is
of
about
work
student
member
In
abroad
work
of
The
valued
community.
kind
as
a
that
included in the top twenty
was
literature
current
ability to
the
learn
secure
to
other
unlike
will
money
paradigm.
The
some
always
interesting
and
Not
tasks.
of
amount
no
when
professional
better don't
is very
It
found
repetitive
culinary
or
market.
be
will
36
The
bottom line.
the
to
contribution
Competencies
Arts
and
all
germane
existing levels
places
benchmarks
a
manipulation
markets.
has
food
issues
as
industry
an
The
led the way
serious
hygene,
to many
challenge
and
drug
yet
not
apparent
to
an
before
standards
apparent.
Culinary The
subject
assigned
So
educators.
competencies
were
too
the
at
other
was
development to
than
it
opposite
intangible issues
the more
see
curriculum
any significance
qualified
we
of
Competencies
Arts
not
was
to
interesting the
of
end
as
such
clearly
value
place
37
on
see
which
There
spectrum.
and
personal
development.
professional
Recommendations
A
slightly different
if there
and
the
such
is
Another
of
did
be
confirm
of
most
that
qualified
of
would
arts
revealed
discussion
the
the
expectation
professionals
who
are
Further
be done to
I
see
competencies
would
how
here.
recommend
they
measure
that
a
see
economy
students
in
a
the
the
review
training
of
Perhaps
given
teaching.
study
against
at
respondents
contrary.
and
the
look
significant
However
to
doing
a
The
were
gap between
a
to
culinary
take
to
program.
literature
culinary
be
educators
arts
is
arts
culinary
educators.
culinary
there
side
supply
fraternal
a
of
a
undertaken
valuable.
recommendation
training culinary
component
the
input
The
would
organizations
area
disinterest
increasing
be
might
between
correlation
any
lifestyle.
a
inquiry
the
of
curriculums
top twenty
to
Culinary
Lastly
a
gathering
more
educators
and
Competencies
Arts
study using the interview format
in-depth data
industry
specific
personnel.
to
the
as
a
tool
expectations
38
for
of
Arts
Culinary
Competencies
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.
Allen, foodservice a
job.
L.
(1999,
industry
NATIONS
March
offers
15).
RESTAURANT NEWS,
Berberoglu,
H.
From
students
p.
a
Bosselman, In
Hospitality NY:
Press
C.W.&
path,
just
restaurateur
Polytechnical
life
academic
of
hospitality
Bosselman
R.H.
&
(Ed.), Binghamton, 131-148)
(pp.
education
Hospitality
Barrows,
The
(1999) Barrows
management
Hayworth
management
W.
the
of
.
R.H.
C.
end, not
35.
The world (1978) (Unpublished Masters Thesis) , Ryerson Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
educators.
to
beginning
career
.
Press.
Bosselman, R.H., Ed. (1999). Hospitality Binghamton, NY: Hayworth Hospitality
education.
.
(1990).
J.T.
Canterino,
Necessary competencies and learning experiences for hospitality educators: a delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University,
IA.
Ames,
Foucar-Szocki,
hospitality &
R.H.
(pp.
Hospitality Keyes,
Bosselman
131-148)
.
(1999).
E.W.
in
Journal
of
Linking In
C.
W.
in
characteristics
an
(Unpublished Masters
Technology,
of
M.
&
,
Rochester
J.,
La
Changes
New
Thesis) York,
Hong
Sovereignty Travel
,
Kong's
from
Research,
Curriculum
education.
M.
J.
Lopa, in
(1998).
G.
Withiam,
industry views hospitality 39_(4), 70-78.
Change
industry.
Leadership
how
Predicting
(1999)
,
NY.
Lefever,
Lloyd,
C.
to
(Ed.), Hospitality management Binghamton, NY: Hayworth
transformation.
Institute
Rochester,
Bolsing,
Press.
organizational
Rochester
&
programs
management
education
Barrows
R.
38,
and
CORNELL
QUARTERLY,
Braunlich,
Hotel
Britain
405-410.
Industry
to
China
review:
C.
(2000).
Given
in
the
1997.
Culinary
National
hoteliers
Real
mull
Estate
Ed.)
Sales
,
Restaurant News
Schultz,
H.
Pour
USA New York:
Hyperion.
Simpson,
&
for
competencies
study using the delphi 18, 133-146. A.
Stutts,
T.
(1999, July) RESTAURANT HOSPITALITY 83, p. 16. VanGundy,
A.B.
Problem Solving.
Walle,
A.
hospitality: IN
39,
H.
New
(1981) York.
(1996)
mating
.
The
.
Van
G.
(1999).
Two
Yang,
national
a
HIGHER
EDUCATION,
leadership.
service
of
Structured
Nostrand Reinhold.
education
and
scholarly HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM RESEARCH, p. 213.
Withiam, (4) p. 80.
(D.J.
Validating teaching
Techniques
Graduate
relevance
it
assistants:
Seeking
.
$399B.
hit
heart into
INNOVATIVE
method.
Top
102-107.
to
(1993).
teaching
graduate
.
40
1.
your
K.S.
Smith,
pp.
expected
35 no.l,
(1997).
R.D.
(1998, August)
industry's future,
over
Papiernik,R. (2001) Nation's
Investor.
Competencies
Arts
surprises.
and rigor.
CORNELL
ADVANCES
QUARTERLY
Culinary
Arts
Competencies
41
APPENDIX Letter
Introduction to Questionnaire One
of
May 5, 2000
Dear
:
The
attached questionnaire represents an
inquiry on my
behalf to
answer some
the culinary arts and education for my Rochester Institute Graduate key Project. In summary, my thesis is that there are specific competencies required of the questions about
culinary
arts student.
Student to join the me
Competencies
hospitality
work
represent acquired skills that
force. Research
and a prior
successfully prepare a Cornell study have given
the basis from which to focus in on the culinary arts education.
My request is questionnaire
attached,
24 hours. This e-mail)
and a
will
you
involved
that
present or past
for
be
a
Thank
education or
two-phase and
process.
ranking
you
for supporting this
Thomas Smyth
City Technical
College
Management Department
Hospitality 300 Jay Street
Brooklyn, New York 1 1201 Cunychef@,aol.com 716-292-4488
competencies.
it to my
attention via
A summary
of the
(Rochester)
720-222-0970 FAX
hospitality
Then FAX
review
top twenty
project and myself.
sector
the
or e-mail within
of phase one results
two.
Sincerely,
New York
training
complete and return
brief selection
constitute phase
to reflect on your own experience in the
(via
mail or
at your convenience will
Culinary
Questionnaire
Arts
Competencies
42
one
Survey of opinion of Hospitality Industry Professionals and Hospitality Culinary Educators Cornell (based on Study August
1998
What
the
are
Ways that
Curriculum Review)
key
issues in the
industry
hospitality education
The greatest strength(s) program is (are)
of a
sector
can prepare
culinary
(are) the greatest weakness (es) hospitality program?
What do
What
How
hospitality
could
hospitality faculty
relevant
is the typical
How important
are
What is the ideal
If
you were
educators
do
hospitality
graduating from
culinary
student
a
be:
hospitality
graduating from
improve?
curriculum
opportunities
student work or
Hospitality Czar,
of a
graduates would
right?
members
international
culinary
student
What is
today?
internship
what would
be
to culinary
for
industry
students?
requirement?
your
first
action?
needs?
a
Culinary letter for Questionnaire 2
Cover
August
Dear
RE:
Competencies 43
Arts
2000
6,
Colleague: Smyth
Thesis
-
Project
Questionnaire Thank
you
again
for
RIT
2
this
survey.
Your
responses
been
grouped
into
categories,
They
common.
topics
included
be
to
expect
are
in
the
taking
and
to
the which
issues,
and/or
time
to
first
questionnaire
hold
elements
which
covered
by
in
participate
your
have
in
colleagues
culinary
arts
education
in
an
academic
Please
key most
setting.
review
these
items
issues
and arts
regarding culinary important and 20 the least)
Thank
again
you
for
your
cooperation
Sincerely,
Thomas
J.
New
York
300
Jay
Smyth Technical
City
College
Street
Brooklyn,
New
Cunychef @aol
.
York
NY
11201
com
716-292-4488
(Rochester)
720-222-0970
FAX
select
rank
and
curriculum.
in
(1
this
twenty
being study.
the
Culinary
Arts
Competencies
Questionnaire 2 Select
and rank twenty key issues regarding culinary arts being the most important 20 being the least important) global experience technology
curriculum
(1
technical skills the art
state of skilled
industry skills
line level
classical
cooks
cross cultural exposure
expectations
internship
staffing real life experience
programs
cooking techniques
customer service
industry familiar links to industry
manage people
front line flexible
management experience
management
human resources peer
interaction
industry experience cultural diversity
nutrition
assessment
environmental awareness
communication skills
student
foods
the job experience
broad based
-
not segmented
input
interpersonal
hands
on operations
employee retention
intercultural experience
local foods
on
real world applications
food safety health
seasonal
internet business to business
international opportunities
of work experiences
survey
career path workweek
issues ( HOURS)
palate
skills
kitchen language teamwork
qualified educators
problem
team teachers
critical
shared passions
independent study
faculty
solving
thinking
skills
as mentors
professionalism
discipline professional
development
maturing manners service-
extracurricular
manage
profitability
outcomes assessment
Please
check one:
Total Years in
Age Range
Education
20-35
Professional/Vocational
less than ten
and
Training
35-45
Undergraduate
ten
45-65
Graduate
twenty
Male
Continuing
Education
-
Hospitality Sector
years
twenty years -
twenty-five years
twenty five thirty years -
44
