EDUCATION IN WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: AN UPDATE

James P. Armstrong*{
Professor Emeritus
Division of Forestry and Natural Resources
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-6125
E-mail: jim.armstrong@mail.wvu.edu

Cecilia Bustos A.{

Associate Professor
Universidad del Bı́o Bı́o
Departamento de Ingenieria en Maderas
Avenida Collao, 1202
Concepción, Chile
E-mail: cbustos@ubiobio.cl

H. Michael Barnes{
Thompson Distinguished Professor of Wood Science & Technology
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory
Department of Forest Products
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5724
E-mail: mbarnes@cfr.msstate.edu
(Received September 2013)

INTRODUCTION name—that benefits our mission and helps us reach

The 21st century has been a time of great change
for undergraduate education in wood science and
technology (WST). For one, most of our programs
no longer carry long-standing names such as wood
science and technology or forest products. They
go by names such as bioproducts and biosystems
engineering, renewable materials, and sustainable
construction management and engineering. For
simplicity’s sake, we use the acronym WST in
referring to the collective group of programs,
although we recognize that the acronym may no
longer be used by many of those programs. As
Barnes (2007) stated in a presentation at the 2007
IUFRO Division 5 Meeting, we are “in a quandary
as to what constitutes a wood scientist/technolo-
gist.” This is acknowledged in the recent revision
of the accreditation standards of the Society of
Wood Science and Technology (SWST):
“SWST recognizes that multiple terms may be used
to describe a universal concept—or program
* Corresponding author
{ SWST member
out and develop consensus among our accredited
programs and constituencies. Examples include
but are not limited to: Wood Science and Technol-
ogy, Forest Products, Lignocellulosic Materials,
Renewable Materials, Sustainable Materials, Bio-
based Materials, Renewable Products, Sustainable
Products, Bio-based Products, and Lignocellulosic
Products. For brevity’s sake, the program seeking
SWST accreditation will hereafter be referred to
as the ‘SWST Program’ or ‘the program’ in this
Accreditation Handbook” (SWST 2012).
Changes in our educational programs run much
deeper than rebranding. Programs have gone
through a process of restructuring, redirection,
and renewal during the past decade or two
unmatched since the years immediately following
World War II. None of this should be surprising.
The wood products and housing industries as
well as higher education feel the pinch of a stag-
nant economy. We are also trying to recruit and
educate a college-aged population—the millen-
nial generation—whose values and motivations
do not often align with their perceptions of a

Wood and Fiber Science, 46(1), 2014, pp. 3-14

# 2014 by the Society of Wood Science and Technology
4 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)
career in the wood products industry (Kitchens
et al 2011).
This report updates past status reports on educa-
tion in WST (Barnes 1979, 1980, 2007; Bowyer
1991; Lyon et al 1995; McLain 1998). In it, we
summarize results of a survey of programs
conducted in 2011 and updated in 2012. We also
examine the results in the context of historical
trends and offer our perspective on current issues
based on the literature and our own experience.
SURVEY OF PROGRAMS
Prior to conducting a survey of programs, the
authors reviewed previous reports on wood sci-
ence education. We also reviewed recent annual
reports from SWST-accredited programs and pro-
gram web sites to gather background information.
Twenty-two undergraduate/graduate programs
and three graduate-only programs identified by
SWST were surveyed in the spring and summer
of 2011. Four of the undergraduate programs
that received surveys are defunct or inactive. Of
Table 1. Programs surveyed in 2011.
B.S. degree
Auburn University
Iowa State University
Louisiana State University
Mississippi State University
North Carolina State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
State University of New York ESF
Universidad del Bı́o-Bı́o (Chile)
Université Laval
University of British Columbia
University of Idaho
University of Maine
University of Massachusetts
University of Minnesota
University of Tennessee
University of Toronto
University of Wisconsin
Virginia Tech University
Washington State University
West Virginia University
a
Major was restored following restructuring and rebranding (see Table 7).
b
Construction major.
the 18 that did respond, 15 are located in the US,
two are in Canada, and one is in Chile (Table 1).
The Universidad del Bı́o-Bı́o, Concepción, Chile—
an SWST-accredited program—was included in
the survey. The initial survey was sent by e-mail
to program heads. A follow-up telephone call to
selected program heads was conducted to gather
information from nonrespondents and to sup-
plement information from the initial survey. In
particular, the follow-up sought insights into
programmatic change that could not be ade-
quately addressed in a written survey response.
Another follow-up was conducted by e-mail in
2012. Responses were received from 11 of the
programs surveyed in 2012. The 2011 and 2012
surveys represent slightly different populations
and therefore are not directly comparable. This
report cites data obtained in 2011 with information
from 2012 included where deemed appropriate.
Number of Programs
Based on our responses, there are 17 active
undergraduate programs in the US and Canada
Option within forestry major Minor within forestry major SWST-accredited Graduate only
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
{ X
X X
X
X
X X
Xa X
b
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
 Armstrong et al—EDUCATION UPDATE IN WST 5

with 12 offering a major. Three of the programs Table 2. Wood science and technology programs in 1979 as
operate as options within a forestry baccalaureate cited by Barnes (1980) and surveyed by the authors in 2011.a
1979 2011
degree, and two are minors within a forestry
program. These numbers must not be taken too Auburn University Auburn University*
literally. We include the Building and Construc- Clemson University Iowa State University*
Colorado State University Louisiana State University*
tion Technology program at the University of Iowa State University* Mississippi State University*
Massachusetts in our survey because it was once Louisiana State North Carolina State
a traditional WST program and because many of University* University
our programs have or are branching into construc- Louisiana Tech University Oregon State University
tion. Similarly, the venerable program at the State Michigan State University{ Pennsylvania State University
Michigan Tech University Purdue University
University of New York (SUNY) discontinued its Mississippi State State University of
Wood Products Engineering degree and changed University New York ESF{
its name to the Department of Sustainable Con- North Carolina State Universidad del Bı́o-Bı́o
struction Management and Engineering. The B.S. University
program in Sustainable Construction Manage- Oregon State University Université Laval
Pennsylvania State University of
ment remains in the department. As mentioned University British Columbia
previously, quite a few WST programs have Purdue University* University of Idaho
rebranded and restructured. We will go into this State University University of Maine*
in further detail later in this report. of New York,
College of Environmental
The first “wood technology” degree program in Science & Forestry
the US was started in 1929, and the discipline Texas A&M University{ University of Massachusetts{
grew with the addition of 12 new programs in University of University of Minnesota
British Columbia
the years immediately following World War II University of California University of Tennessee{
(Ellis 1964). By 1963, there were 19 undergradu- University of Idaho University of Toronto
ate and 6 graduate-only programs. By 1979, the University of Maine University of Wisconsin{
number of programs in the US and Canada University of Massachusetts Virginia Tech University
increased to 24 undergraduate and 3 graduate- University of Minnesota Washington State University{
University of Missouri West Virginia University
only programs (Barnes 1980). Since that time, University of Toronto*
the number of programs has diminished (Bowyer University of Washington
1991; Lyon et al 1995; McLain 1998). Table 2 is Virginia Tech University
a side-by-side comparison of programs cited by Washington State
Barnes (1980) with those identified in our survey. University{
West Virginia University
We also discovered some good news. Two pro- a
*Option in forestry curriculum; {graduate only; {construction major;
SWST-accredited programs are underlined.
grams that were threatened by restructuring
within their forestry schools appear to have
weathered the storm and are now degree pro-
Enrollment
grams within restructured departments. The pro-
gram at the University of Maine was temporarily Education in what has traditionally been called
suspended and downgraded to a minor at the wood science or forest products has been plagued
time of the 2011 survey. It was reactivated in by low enrollments for decades. For example, the
2012 following consolidation of the forest prod- 1958 National Meeting of the Forest Products
ucts and forest operations into a single major. Research Society included a panel discussion on
What was formerly the Wood Products degree attracting more students into the profession
program at Penn State is now part of a broader (Anon 1958). Reasons for low enrollments have
BioRenewable Systems degree within the Depart- been analyzed for just as long. Bowyer (2003)
ment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Goodell et al (2010) offer thoughtful ana-
(Goodell 2013). lyses of why traditional WST programs appeal
6 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)

Table 3. Undergraduate and graduate enrollment and number of degrees awarded 2010–2011.
Enrollment Degrees awarded
Number of programs Total Average Total Average

B.S. 18 716 44.8 140 8.8

M.S. 21 200 9.5 52 2.5
Ph.D. 21 207 9.9 47 2.2

to such a small percentage of high school and
college-aged students. Gardner et al (2005)
observed that low enrollments and the need to
restructure curricula to meet ever-changing needs
in materials science are not unique issues to
North America but are shared by European pro-
grams. The program of the 2011 International
Convention of SWST was dedicated to education
in WST. Speakers from North America (Armstrong
and Barnes 2011), Europe (Barbu 2011), South
America (Bustos 2011), and China (Han 2011)
indicate that concerns about enrollment are com-
mon to programs worldwide.
North American WST programs reached their
enrollment zenith of more than 1000 undergradu-
ates in the late 1970s (Barnes 1979, 1980). Enroll-
ments declined in the 1980s to approximately half
that number and probably remained between 400
and 500 through the 1990s (Bowyer 1991; Lyon
et al 1995; McLain 1998). Our data indicate that
restructuring and rebranding of programs in
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and British Columbia
helped the overall totals reflected in this survey.
The 17 programs from the US and Canada
reported undergraduate enrollments totaling 716
students with 140 graduating during the 2010–
2011 academic year (Table 3). Graduate enroll-
ments totaled 200 M.S. and 207 Ph.D. students
with 52 students receiving their M.S. and 47
receiving the doctorate. Bı́o-Bı́o reported enroll-
ments of 22 undergraduate and 4 M.S. students.
As with our count of the number of programs, data
for WST enrollment are easy to criticize. As pre-
viously stated, we included programs in Building
and Construction Technology at the University of
Massachusetts and Sustainable Construction
Management at SUNY in our survey. It may be
argued that they do not fit the historic definition
of wood science programs. It is also undeniable
that inclusion of those programs in our data set
significantly inflated the reported undergraduate
enrollment as those two programs constitute 30%
of the total enrollment reported here.
There is great disparity in the size of enrollments
among programs (Fig 1). Five of the programs
responding to our survey reported enrollments of

Figure 1. Distribution of undergraduate enrollments in 17 US and Canadian programs: 2010-2011.

 Armstrong et al—EDUCATION UPDATE IN WST
20 or fewer students. Seven reported enroll-
ments in the range of 21-40, one program reported
having 50-60, one had 70-80, and three programs
reported having more than 90 students.
The 2012 follow-up resulted in responses from
11 programs that reported enrollments totaling
394. Two of the larger programs, the construc-
tion programs at SUNY and University of
Massachusetts, did not participate in the 2012
survey. Also, data for only one of the options at
the University of Minnesota were submitted as
opposed to two options in 2011. Therefore, the
2012 follow-up survey resulted in comparable
data from 10 undergraduate programs that were
surveyed in 2011 (Table 4). If our information is
indicative, enrollments in B.S. programs increased
by 26.6%. The increase occurred primarily at
three institutions: the University of British
Columbia (UBC), Oregon State, and Virginia
Tech. UBC has benefitted by a recruiting pro-
gram led by a dedicated recruiter, follow-up
contacts with program applicants, and “2 þ 2”
agreements with Chinese and other international
universities. Oregon State doubled enrollment
following rebranding, restructuring, and changes
in messaging in recruiting. Virginia Tech was in
the final stages of a rebranding effort similar to
Oregon State’s and has had a successful recruit-
ing strategy in place for a number of years.
Graduate enrollments indicate that M.S. enroll-
ments in the 10 programs declined by 26.3%,
whereas Ph.D. enrollments increased by 18.5%.
Faculty
The 17 undergraduate programs in the US and
Canada employed 133 faculty members during
Table 4. Comparison of undergraduate and graduate enrollments of ten programsa surveyed in 2011 and 2012.
B.S.
2011
Total 286
(% change) þ26.6
Average 28.6
Median 26.5
Range 0-94
a
Iowa State, Louisiana State University, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Oregon State, Laval, University of British Columbia, Idaho, VA Tech,
West Virginia.
7
the 2010–2011 academic year. There were 10
faculty at Bı́o-Bı́o. Programs had between 1 and
16 WST faculty, averaging 7.44 faculty per pro-
gram with a median faculty size of 6. The break-
down of the 133 faculty by rank shows that
WST programs are predominantly staffed by full
professors (Fig 2).
Fifteen of the programs, representing 108 fac-
ulty full-time equivalents, submitted data for
the average teaching, research, and service
assignments of their faculty (Table 5). The aver-
age faculty assignment for the responding pro-
grams was 34.3% teaching, 48.3% research,
15.2% service, and 3.6% unspecified.
Subjects Covered in Wood Science and
Technology Courses
We asked respondents to provide information
on subjects covered within the undergraduate
courses taught by the WST program and the
number of semester credit hours dedicated to
each subject. We received responses to this
section of the survey from 16 programs, includ-
ing Universidad del Bı́o-Bı́o. They offer an
average of 37.6 h with a median of 33.2 and a
range 12-90 h. A sampling of subjects covered
by these programs can be found in Table 6.
Basic materials sciences, eg anatomy, chemis-
try, physical properties, and mechanical pro-
perties, remain common elements of almost all
(14-15) curricula. Likewise, courses covering sub-
jects that have long been part of WST curricula—
composite materials, secondary processing and
products, lumber manufacture, and preservation—
remain a part of the subject offerings of 12-14
programs. Adhesion and finishing, machining,
M.S. Ph.D.
2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
362 118 87 130 154
"26.3 þ18.5
36.2 11.8 8.7 13.0 15.4
26.0 10.0 5.5 9.0 9.0
0-128 0-34 0-30 0-40 0-46
8 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)

Figure 2. Ranks of faculty in 18 undergraduate wood science and technology programs: 2010-2011.

and pulp and paper are included among the course
offerings of five to eight programs. Drying is
offered by only two. Five programs require senior
capstone courses and/or field studies.
Forest products business, marketing, manage-
ment, and quality assessment/quality control
(QA/QC) are covered in 12 of the 16 programs.
Eleven teach forest products marketing, eight
cover management, and six teach QA/QC. Two
programs offer forest products business and
global trade/global forest resources. Although
marketing and business courses have been a part
of WST curricula for many years, we suspect
that the percentage of programs covering these
topics has grown.
A number of programs have readily identifiable
specializations and also offer courses covering
environmental issues. Sustainable construction
and bioenergy are covered by eight programs.
Seven programs include environmental princi-
ples in their curricula. Other specializations cov-
ered in two or fewer programs include furniture
design and construction, packaging, timber har-
vest, and recycling.
Information on WST course offerings from past
decades is unavailable, probably because SWST
accreditation standards prior to 2004 used a pre-
scriptive system requiring a certain number of
semester credit hours in certain subjects (Barnes
1979). The standards were revised in 2005 into an
outcomes-based system that still required cover-
age of specific topical areas considered essential
to a professional WST education (Rice 2010). In
2012, another revision of the standards allowed
programs greater flexibility in tailoring curricula
to their needs while maintaining a required core
of basic materials science courses, eg biology of
raw materials, physical properties, mechanical
properties, and chemical characteristics and prop-
erties (SWST 2012). Thus, it would be useful to
track changes in course offerings as programs
continue to restructure curricula.

Table 5. Faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs) assigned to Distance Education

teaching, research, and service: 2010-2011.
FTEs Percent Range%
Only 3 of 17 programs responding to the 2011
Teaching 37 34.3 7.1-100
survey indicated that they offered distance
Research 52.2 48.3 0-69.5 learning opportunities. Only two of these pro-
Service 15.2 14.1 0-37.5 vided information on the number of semester
Unspecified 3.6 3.3 0-11 credit hours offered through distance learning, 3
Total 108 and 9 h, respectively. The follow-up conducted
 Armstrong et al—EDUCATION UPDATE IN WST 9

Table 6. Subjects covered in the course offerings of responding positively from 2011 to 2012 and rec-
16 wood science and technology programs, the number of ommend that future SWST surveys delve into
programs covering each subject, and the average and
range of semester credit hours dedicated to each subject
this question in greater detail.
2010-2011.
Semester credit hours
Number of CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Subject programs Average Range

I. Basic Material Sciences The following section addresses three areas that
Anatomy/Biology 15 2.7 1-4 the authors view to be of extreme importance to
of Raw Materials the health and vitality of our educational pro-
Chemical Properties 15 3.5 1.3-9
Physical Properties 15 2.8 1-4 grams. We explore some of the progress made
Mechanical Properties 13 3.3 2-6 in meeting challenges we identify by relying
II. Products and Processes heavily on those on whose shoulders we stand.
Composite Materials 14 2.8 0.5-6
Secondary Processing 13 3.1 0.2-6
Lumber Manufacture 13 2.5 0.2-6
Wood Preservation 12 2.3 0.2-4 Enrollment and Recruiting
Adhesion/Finishing 8 2.6 0.3-6
Machining 7 3.5 0.2-6 Aggressive recruiting has long been recognized
Pulp & Paper 5 1.8 0.1-3 as a solution to low enrollments in WST, and
Drying 2 3.5 3-4 various recruiting strategies and tactics have been
III. Business/Marketing/ discussed and written about for more than 50 yr
Management
Marketing Forest Products 11 3.1 2-4
(Panshin 1956; Anon 1958; Jorgensen and Lew
Wood Industry Management 8 2.7 0.7-3 1968; Sommer and Armstrong 1984; Ifju 1996;
Quality Control 6 2.5 0.3-4 Zink 1997; Schmidt 1998). Recruiting and wood
Forest Products Business 2 7.0 6-8 science education efforts have even reached into
Global Trade/Forest 2 4.0 2-6 elementary schools through Wood Magic Science
Resources
IV. Specializations
Fairs (Garrard et al 1999; Lockee et al 2003).
Sustainable Construction 8 4.6 1-12 Wood science and technology programs must be
Bioenergy 8 2.3 0.2-4
Harvesting/Road Design 2 4.5 2-7
cognizant of the effectiveness, or lack thereof,
Furniture Design 2 3.0 of the messages that are conveyed in recruiting
Packaging 1 12.0 efforts. Oregon State followed a carefully con-
Furniture Construction 1 3.0 ceived plan of using student focus groups
Timber Design 1 3.0 consisting of “math/science-friendly” high school
Timber Procurement 1 1.5
V. Environmental Issues
and college students to determine what might
Environmental Principles 7 2.2 1-3 motivate millennial generation students to choose
Recycling 1 3.0 a career path in a rebranded and restructured
VI. Other WST program. The groups identified images
Sr. Capstone/Field Studies 5 2.0 1-3 portraying graduates and students in an industrial
Statistics 1 3.0
Other 1 9.0
setting (ie wearing hardhats in a lumber yard) as a
turnoff and images and messages projecting the
program graduates in more environmentally
friendly, outdoorsy, and creative surroundings as
in 2012 revealed that 6 of 11 programs offered
appealing (McLain 2011; Schimleck 2012).
courses through distance learning with the num-
ber of credit hours offered ranging from 0 to 9. An element of the enrollment problem is the
(We believe that the programs responding with underrepresentation of women in undergraduate
zero credits offer not-for-credit extension or con- programs (Zink 1997; McLain 1998; Weidenbeck
tinuing education courses.) We have no explana- 1998; Anagnost and Oporto 2010). This is espe-
tion for the increase in the number of programs cially troubling when one considers that women
10 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)
constitute more than half of the college-bound
population. Although the authors of these articles
pose thoughtful solutions for increasing interest
among female students, professional programs
continue to struggle with recruiting women. Our
programs are also plagued with a dispropor-
tionally low percentage of minority students.
Until now, little attention has been focused on
minority recruiting, although Virginia Tech has
offered targeted scholarships for minorities and
West Virginia University has engaged tradition-
ally black “1890” schools in the recruitment of
graduate students.
All these approaches achieved some degree of
success. However, none have proved to be the
silver bullet in reversing the trend of low enroll-
ments. Common characteristics of the most suc-
cessful programs as indicated in our survey
results include employing a dedicated recruiter,
conscientiously following up by contacting inqui-
ries and applications, and using messaging most
likely to appeal to millenial-generation students.
SWST has a role to play in this effort by continu-
ing to act as a vehicle for program administrators,
faculty, and others who have a stake in the suc-
cess of academic programs to exchange ideas and
collaborate in marketing of the profession.
The ‘Higher Education Bubble’
and eLearning
Enrollment problems facing our programs may
be exacerbated by what some economists refer
to as the “higher education bubble” similar to
the bubble in the housing market, which burst
to precipitate the current economic doldrums
(Dan 2013). Rapidly increasing tuition costs,
heavy student indebtedness, and poor employ-
ment prospects (particularly in nontechnical dis-
ciplines) are predicted to be indicators of a
coming collapse of the higher education market
as prospective students seek other opportunities
including associate degrees, technical education,
and online degrees and are foregoing postsec-
ondary education entirely (Wood 2012; Baldwin
2013; Dan 2013; Rosen 2013). Ashburn (2011)
contends that the higher education bubble may
be more a question of students and parents find-
ing the right “financial fit” in their higher educa-
tion decisions. This may indicate an opportunity
for WST programs because of their presence in
public institutions and better than average pros-
pects for employment.
The authors of this report are not the first to
recognize that the Internet offers an opportunity
for WST programs to extend their impact
through distance learning. Massey et al (1997)
described pioneering efforts at the University of
Minnesota to offer distance learning courses in
WST online. Bowyer (2002) identified four pro-
grams that offered online courses, including one
that had begun to offer degrees through an
online curriculum. Hiles (2002) described a
series of online instructional modules on wood
engineering created by APA—The Engineered
Wood Association for architects, engineers, and
other professionals. MacDonald and Evans
(2008) discussed an online course in wood
finishing offered to undergraduates and industry
learners by UBC. Lewark (2012) considered the
opportunities of offering courses online to an
international audience of students. The latter is
particularly insightful in exploring opportunities
for WST programs to reach a larger audience
than the resident population on our campuses.
Furthermore, if the so-called higher education
bubble exists (there is some debate about this),
online education is touted as a means to make
higher education more affordable and more
accessible to those who are seeking opportuni-
ties outside of the traditional brick and mortar
campus (Baldwin 2013; Rosen 2013).
Greater reliance on eLearning offers an opportu-
nity for programs to share faculty expertise
through team-taught courses, courses taught
remotely by faculty at another institution, self-
guided courses, and interinstitutional seminars.
Online learning may also help us reach more
students outside WST programs, which was one
of the opportunities for growth identified at a
2009 national strategic planning workshop on
WST education held at Mississippi State
(Kitchens et al 2011). We think it safe to say that
WST programs have not scratched the surface
 Armstrong et al—EDUCATION UPDATE IN WST 11

of the opportunities afforded by eLearning as
described by Rosen (2013) and others. Exploiting
those opportunities will require a major invest-
ment of faculty time and funds. However, a
number of WST parent institutions have extended
learning offices that offer the expertise and facil-
ities necessary to lessen the load on programs.
SWST is in a position to help identify areas in
which development of online courses and
materials may be most beneficial. Furthermore,
SWST can identify existing online courses and
expertise in eLearning among its members.
SWST is also in a position to facilitate develop-
ment of cooperative distance learning partner-
ships between institutions.
Restructuring and Rebranding
Wood and science technology educational pro-
grams are in the midst of a discipline-wide move-
ment to rebrand and restructure programs in
response to tightening budgets and greater scru-
tiny of low-enrollment programs by administra-
tors (Shupe 2011). What Lyon et al (1995) called
the “crisis in wood science and technology edu-
cation” almost 20 yr ago found new urgency with
the economic downturn and stagnation of the last
5 yr. A 2009 Wood and Fiber Science editorial
with the alarming title “The extinction of forest
products and wood science academic programs”
indicated that the issues facing programs in the
1990s are unresolved (Shupe 2009).
We asked if programs had “rebranded” in our
survey. Eleven of 14 North American programs
answered yes. Of 11 SWST-accredited pro-
grams (including the Universidad del Bı́o-Bı́o),
six responded yes, three answered no, and two
did not provide an answer. Since the survey was
completed, one of the latter two programs did, in
fact, rebrand. Follow-up discussions with prog-
ram heads also revealed that almost all had under-
gone or were attempting to undergo restructuring
of their curriculum (Table 7). Several program
heads cited significant bureaucratic and political
(ie “turf”) issues as impediments to making
changes beneficial to their programs.

Table 7. Significant rebranding and restructuring of Society of Wood Science & Technology-accredited North American
undergraduate wood science and technology programs in the 21st century.
Mississippi State University Forest Products is now a concentration within the Forestry degree program
North Carolina State University Renamed department “Forest Biomaterials.” Maintained names of degree programs
“Paper science & Engineering and “Wood Products”
Oregon State University Renamed and restructured degree as “Renewable Materials”; maintained the department
name “Wood Science & Engineering”
Pennsylvania State University The B.S. in Wood Products within the Department of Forest Resources was discontinued
in a departmental restructuring. WST faculty were moved to the Department of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering and are now part of a broader
“BioRenewable Systems” degree program.
State University of New York Renamed department “Sustainable Construction Management and Engineering”;
College ESF eliminated degree program in “Wood Products Engineering”; maintained degree
program in “Sustainable Construction Management”
University of Idaho Renamed degree program “Renewable Materials”; merged department into the
Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences
University of Maine Combined “Forest Products” and “Forest Operations” into a new “Forest Operations,
Bioproducts & Bioenergy” degree in 2012
University Minnesota Changed name of the Department of Bio-based Products to the “Department of
Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering” while integrating agricultural engineering-
based programs into the department; offers degrees in “Bioproducts and Biosystems
Engineering” and “Bioproducts Marketing and Management”
Virginia Tech University Renamed department “Sustainable Materials” offering restructured degree programs in
“Packaging Systems & Design” and “Sustainable Biomaterials”
West Virginia University Changed degree name from “Wood Industries” to “Wood Science and Technology” in
2003; new options in “Sustainable Low-rise Building Construction” and “Bio-based
Materials Marketing” are in the last stages of the University’s approval process
12 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)
Four programs serve as examples of how
rebranding and restructuring may have changed
their fortunes. One of the first to restructure and
rebrand was the program at the University of
Massachusetts, which became the Building Mate-
rials and Wood Technology program in the early
1990s. In 2010, the University of Massachusetts
dropped the reference to wood in the program
name by renaming it Building and Construc-
tion Technology (Damery 2009). Enrollment
at the University of Massachusetts has increased
by more than 250% since a 1996 survey
(McLain 1998).
In the mid-1990s, UBC engaged in a collabora-
tive initiative with the Canadian government
and the wood products industry to re-engineer
UBC’s wood science program to better educate
graduates to meet the specific needs of Canada’s
wood products sector (Cohen and Maness 1995;
Barrett and Cohen 1996). This led to significant
restructuring of the curriculum. Enrollment sta-
tistics for UBC from the 1990s could not be
found, but it was one of the three largest pro-
grams in North America in 2010–2011.
In 2004, the University of Minnesota restructured
and rebranded their Wood and Paper Science
department, becoming the Department of Bio-
Based Products (Bowyer and Ramaswamy 2005).
The rationale behind this move was that WST
programs needed to evolve into more materials
science-oriented programs (Bowyer 2003).
Restructuring of the Minnesota program involved
a merger of wood science, pulp and paper, and
some agricultural engineering programs into a
single department. Minnesota’s undergraduate
enrollment in 1996 was 14 (McLain 1998).
Department enrollment was almost 150 in
2010-2011 with approximately one-fourth of the
students enrolled in the SWST-accredited Bio-
products Marketing and Management degree.
When faced with mounting challenges from
administrators, the wood science and engineer-
ing program at Oregon State relied on the stu-
dent focus groups described earlier to determine
the direction for rebranding and restructuring.
They now offer a B.S. in Renewable Materials
while offering greater flexibility, less technical
content, and broadening elements to the cur-
riculum (McLain 2011; Schimleck 2012). The
program elected to maintain its department
name (Wood Science and Engineering) to keep
engineering in its identity. Our survey results
indicate that Oregon State doubled enrollment
from 2011 to 2012, perhaps an early indicator
of success.
Restructuring and rebranding carries with it a dan-
ger that the programs that exist under the SWST
umbrella may lose their common purpose and
identity. The authors agree with the following
proposition: “Ideally, all academic programs in
the field, and ultimately industry and government
would adopt a similar terminology. A unique iden-
tity is good for recognition in some cases but to
develop stronger, and more positive, ‘brand recog-
nition’ for the field—across the industry, across
academia, and across government institutions
internationally—adoption of the same terminol-
ogy is best” (Goodell et al 2010, Goodell 2013).
This is, in our opinion, a challenge that SWST and
Forest Products Research Society must address.
SWST is moving in this direction by redefining
its mission to include a broader range of lignocel-
lulosic materials, efforts to become an interna-
tional professional society, and adding greater
flexibility in its accreditation standards. We urge
SWST and its members to support these initiatives
and help expand them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to all the university coordinators
and personnel who took the time to see that the
survey was completed. Approved as Journal
Article No. FP724, Forest & Wildlife Research
Center, Mississippi State University.
REFERENCES
Anagnost SE, Oporto G (2010) Women in the wood science
and technology profession. In Proc Int Conv SWST and
UN ECE—Timber Comm, 11-14 Oct 2010, Geneva,
Switzerland. Society of Wood Science and Technology,
Monona, WI.
 Armstrong et al—EDUCATION UPDATE IN WST
Anon (1958) How can we get more and better students to
study forest products technology? Group discussion. Forest
Prod J 8(1):27A-31A.
Armstrong JP, Barnes HM (2011) North American
wood science programs: History and trends. 54th Inter-
national Convention SWST, 22 June 2011, Portland,
OR. http://swst.org/meetings/AM11/pdfs/Armstrong.pdf
(3 April 2013).
Ashburn E (2011) The higher education bubble: Rhetoric
vs. reality. American Council on Education. http://www
.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/
The-Higher-Education-Bubble-Rhetoric-vs–Reality.aspx
(2 April 2013).
Baldwin W (2013) The scary economics of higher edu-
cation. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/
2013/01/15/the-scary-economics-of-higher-education/
(2 April 2013).
Barbu MC (2011) Wood science education in Europe.
54th International Convention SWST, 22 June 2011,
Portland, OR. http://swst.org/meetings/AM11/pdfs/Barbu
.pdf (3 April 2013).
Barnes HM (1979) Education in wood science and technol-
ogy: A status report. Wood Fiber Sci 10(4):243-258.
Barnes HM (1980) Education in wood science and technol-
ogy: Update 1978-79. Wood Fiber Sci 11(4):252-260.
Barnes HM (2007) A historical assessment of wood science
& technology education in North America. IUFRO Divi-
sion 5, Taipei, China–Taipei. http://iufro-archive.boku
.ac.at/D5-conference07/10.30tuesday/101/5.14-SWST/5.14%
20SWST_4%2030Oct07%20H.%20Michael%20BARNES
.ppt (2 April 2013).
Barrett JD, Cohen DH (1996) Wood products education:
The Canadian strategy for renewal and growth. Forest
Prod J 46(9):15-20.
Bowyer JL (1991) Undergraduate education for the forest
products industry. Wood Fiber Sci 23(4):607-617.
Bowyer JL (2002) North American wood science and tech-
nology enrollment trends. Pages 48-54 in Proc State of
the profession: Reviewing our accomplishments, establish-
ing our breadth, outlining our future. SWST 2002 Annual
Meeting, Madison, WI.
Bowyer JL (2003) Changes needed in wood science educa-
tion. Wood Fiber Sci 35(4):631-632.
Bowyer JL, Ramaswamy S (2005) Redefining undergraduate
education for the 21st century: Minnesota moves aggres-
sively to strengthen program. Forest Prod J 55(7/8):4-10.
Bustos C (2011) Wood science educational programs: The
South American approach. 54th International Conven-
tion SWST, 22 June 2011, Portland, OR. http://swst.org/
meetings/AM11/pdfs/Bustos.pdf (3 April 2013).
Cohen DH, Maness T (1995) Educational needs of the
Canadian solid wood products industry. Wood Fiber Sci
27(2):126-133.
Damery D (2009) We have a new name!—Building and
Construction Technology. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA. http://bct.eco.umass.edu/news/we-have-
a-new-name-%E2%80%93-building-and-construction-
technology/ (2 April 2013).
13
Dan A (2013) After housing and the stock market, is higher
education the next bubble to burst? Forbes. http://www
.forbes.com/sites/avidan/2013/01/01/after-housing-and-the-
stock-market-is-higher-education-the-next-bubble-to-burst/
(2 April 2013).
Ellis EL (1964) Education in wood science and technology.
SWST, Madison, WI. 187 pp.
Gardner DJ, Kurjatko S, Kúdela J, Paule L (2005) The
status of wood science education. Wood Fiber Sci 37(2):
189-191.
Garrard A, Barnes HM, Seale RD, Conners TE (1999)
Wood magic science fair. Forest Prod J 49(2):10-15.
Goodell B (2013) Greener Academics. Eng Wood J
16(2):36-39.
Goodell B, Howe J, Militz H, Rodriguez J, Daniel G (2010)
Sustainable biomaterials and bioenergy – Examining
how we think about forest products, from education to
global. In Proc Int Conv SWST and UN ECE—Timber
Comm, 11-14 Oct 2010, Geneva, Switzerland. SWST,
Monona, WI.
Han G (2011) Wood science education in China. 54th Inter-
national Convention Soc Wood Sci Technol, 22 June
2011, Portland, OR. http://swst.org/meetings/AM11/
pdfs/Han.pdf (3 April 2013).
Hiles L (2002) Wood university: Online engineered wood
products education. Forest Prod J 52(10):10-15.
Ifju G (1996) To secure the future of the wood science and
technology profession. Wood Fiber Sci 28(2):145.
Jorgensen RN, Lew EF (1968) Program for recruiting stu-
dents to the profession of wood science and technology.
Forest Prod J 19(5):20-24.
Kitchens SC, Shmulsky R, Barnes HM (2011) Forest
products/wood science education in the United
States. . .Past. . .Present. . .Future? 54th International Con-
vention SWST, 22 June 2011, Portland, OR. http://swst
.org/meetings/AM11/pdfs/kitchens.pdf (3 April 2013).
Lewark S (2012) Competencies and career—Outcomes of
study programmes in wood science and technology.
http://www.swst.org/meetings/IUFRO/Schimleckppt.pdf
(3 April 2013).
Lockee BB, Pugh CE, Zink-Sharp A (2003) Wood magic at
a distance. Forest Prod J 52(9):6-14.
Lyon DE, Beall FC, Galligan WL (1995) The crisis in wood
science and technology education. Forest Prod J 45(6):
23-28.
MacDonald I, Evans P (2008) Integrating professional and
undergraduate education using blended learning: Creating
pedagogical and operational synergies online. Int J Learn-
ing 15(8):85-93.
Massey JG, Bowyer JL, Bratkovich SM (1997) New oppor-
tunities abound. Forest Prod J 47(7/8):20-26.
McLain TE (1998) Student enrollment—Fall 1996. Wood
Fiber Sci 30(2):117-118.
McLain TE (2011) Rebranding a wood science and tech-
nology degree. 54th International Convention SWST, 22
June 2011, Portland, OR. http://swst.org/meetings/
AM11/pdfs/McLain.pdf (3 April 2013).
14 WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, JANUARY 2014, V. 46(1)
Panshin AJ (1956) Forest products education is everybody’s
problem. Forest Prod J 6(2):58.
Rice RW (2010) Wood science and technology program
accreditation in the United States—History, guidelines,
processes and changing demand. In Proc Int Conv SWST
and UN ECE—Timber Comm, 11-14 Oct 2010, Geneva,
Switzerland. SWST, Monona, WI.
Rosen AS (2013) Change.edu: Rebooting for the new talent
economy. Kaplan, New York, NY. 208 pp.
Schimleck LR (2012) Wood science & engineering: Renew-
able materials. 2012 IUFRO Dision 5, Lisbon, Portugal.
http://www.swst.org/meetings/IUFRO/Schimleckppt.pdf
(3 April 2013).
Schmidt RG (1998) Students recruiting students at Virginia
Tech. Forest Prod J 48(3):12-16.
Shupe TF (2009) The extinction of forest products and
wood science academic programs. Wood Fiber Sci 41(4):
331-332.
Shupe TF (2011) Rebranding wood science academic pro-
grams. Wood Fiber Sci 43(4):345.
Sommer SL, Armstrong JP (1984) Wood science curricula:
A plan for improved enrollment. Wood Fiber Sci 16(3):
466-471.
SWST (2012) Accreditation handbook: Standards, pro-
cedures and guidelines for accrediting professional edu-
cational programs. Society of Wood Science and
Technology, Monona, WI. http://swst.org/edu/pdfs/accred_
handbook.pdf?ts=1023345703 (4 April 2013).
Weidenbeck JK (1998) Women’s work. . . in wood prod-
ucts. Forest Prod J 48(7/8):12-23.
Wood P (2012) Bubble update: More helium, part 1. Chron-
icle Higher Ed. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/
bubble-update-more-helium-part-1/33671 (2 April 2013).
Zink AG (1997) Elements of a successful undergradu-
ate student recruiting program. Wood Fiber Sci 29(2):
142-147.