The Current and Future State of Wood Science Education in the United States


  • Robert L. Smith SWST
  • Paula Fallas Valverde


Eleven institutions were asked to participate in a meeting looking at the future of the discipline early in 2018 (Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Mississippi State University, North Carolina State University, Virginia Technology University, Auburn University [AU], University of Minnesota, University of Maine, West Virginia University, Pennsylvania State University, and Michigan Technological University). Efforts were made to invite the department head or a senior representative of each program. All institutions accepted the invitation. Participants were asked to complete a set of questions regarding their individual programs. Each representative then provided a 30-min overview of their programs and the changes/planned changes to occur. Two of the programs involved were new/or being established included AU and Michigan Technological University. Both of these universities previously had wood science programs and are now reestablishing them. It is important to emphasize that of the 11 participating institutions, all are land-grant universities except one. Furthermore, the forest economy is significant to the prosperity of the states represented.


Armstrong JP (2014) Education in wood science and technology: An update. Wood Fiber Sci 46(1):3-14.

Barnes HM (1979) Education in wood science and technology: A status report. Wood Fiber Sci 11(4):243-260.

Bowyer JL (2003) Changes needed in wood science education. Wood Fiber Sci 35(4):631-632.

Delgado-Maciela J, Cortes-Roblesa G, Alor-Hernandeza G, Garcıa Alcarazc J, Negnyb S (2018) A comparison between the functional analysis and the causal-loop diagram to model inventive problems. 28th CIRP Design Conference, May 2018, Nantes, France, 70, pp. 259-264.

Ellis EL (1964) Education in wood science and technology. SWST, Madison, WI. 187 pp.

Ifju G (1996) To secure the future of wood science and technology profession. Wood Fiber Sci 28(2):145.

Kiani B, Reza M, Hamzehei A, Hossein S (2009) Using casual loop diagram to achieve a better understanding of E-business models. Int J Electron Bus Manag 7(3):159-167.

McGlashan J, Johnstone M, Creighton D, de la Haye K, Allender S (2016). Quantifying a systems map: Network analysis of a childhood obesity causal loop diagram. Accessed 27 October 2016.

Sharik T, Lilieholm R, Lindquist W, Richardson W (2015) Undergraduate enrollment in natural resource programs in the United States: Trends, drivers, and implications for the future of natural resource professions. J For 113(6):538-551.

Shupe TF (2009) The extinction of forest products and wood science academic programs. Wood Fiber Sci 41(4):331-332.

Smith RL (2011) A stakeholder analysis of the College of Natural Resources and Environment. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech. 46 pp.

Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics-systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill.

Winistorfer PM (2003) The future of wood science and forest products-in our hands or theirs? Wood Fiber Sci 35(4):481.





Professional Pages