Doctoral Programs 91
91 Journal of Sport Management, 2004, 18, 91-110
© 2004 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Are Sport Management Doctoral
Programs Meeting the Needs of
the Faculty Job Market? Observations
for Today and the Future
Daniel F. Mahony University of Louisville
Michael Mondello Florida State University
Mary A. Hums University of Louisville
Michael R. Judd
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Weese (2002) recently expressed concerns about the faculty job market in sport management. The purpose of the current article is to examine and dis-cuss both the number of doctoral students being produced and the adequacy of their preparation for faculty positions. The authors surveyed doctoral-program faculty and reviewed advertised open positions to provide the basis for obser-vations regarding current and future issues relative to this job market. Whereas the authors found that approximately 70 jobs are advertised each year in sport management, doctoral programs produce only about 15 graduates annually, suggesting that the numbers produced are clearly insufficient. When examin-ing the adequacy of the students’ preparation, the authors found research prepa-ration is considered to be most important. Doctoral programs in sport man-agement, however, also place high emphasis on teaching preparation. It is unclear whether these efforts are adequate to meet the needs of the students or the job market.
Daniel Mahony is with the Dept. of HPES, University of Louisville, Education Bldg. Room 126G, Louisville, Kentucky 40292. Michael Mondello is with the Sport Manage-ment Program, Florida State University, 114 Tully Gym, Tallahassee, FL 32306. Mary A. Hums is with the Department of HPES, University of Louisville, 107 HP/Studio Arts Build-ing, Louisville, KY 40292. Michael Judd is with the Department of Physical, Education Southern Illinois University, 160 E. Davies Gymnasium, Carbondale, IL. 62901-4310.
In the past 20 years, the academic discipline of sport management has expe-rienced considerable growth. In the United States alone, the number of programs has increased from about 20 in 1980 to over 200 today (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001). In addition, many universities have experienced growth in the number of students majoring in sport management (Mondello, Mahony, Hums, & Moorman, 2002). The increased number of programs combined with increased student enrollments in these programs has lead to a considerable increase in the number of advertised sport management faculty positions (Mondello et al.). Consequently, the growth in advertised tenure-track faculty positions in sport management presents concerns about both the quantity and quality of people available to fill these positions (Weese, 2002).
In his Ziegler Lecture at the North American Society for Sport Management Annual Conference, Weese (2002) asked the important question, “Where will we find faculty in the future to teach our students?” (p. 4). He noted Mondello et al.’s (2002) results had already indicated search committee chairs were complaining about the lack of qualified candidates. Moreover, there are reasons to believe this problem will grow in the coming years. Although many have expressed concern that sport management programs are in danger of oversaturating the job market in the sport industry (e.g., Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001; Weese), universities are likely to maintain and add new sport management programs because of the popularity of these programs among students. In addition Weese noted that Baby Boom Echo Cohort, which is much larger than the recent Baby Bust Cohort, is just starting to reach college age and this will lead to an increase in the number of students en-rolled in higher education across North America (Foot, 2000). This should lead to an increase in the number of students enrolled in each program, leading to an increased demand for sport management faculty. Like Weese, we must all be con-cerned about who is, and who will be, teaching the sport managers of tomorrow.
Research on Doctoral Programs
It is important to note that although some fields have a similar supply and demand imbalance (Silberman & Corn, 1996), many fields are not facing the same supply-demand problem as sport management. Research findings on doctoral education in general show that there are not enough faculty jobs for the students seeking doctoral degrees in most majors (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001). In addition, the results of these studies indicated that there were concerns beyond those related to the inconsistency between supply and demand. Although most students were satisfied with their doctoral programs overall, they were not consistently happy with all areas of their preparation for their careers. On the posi-tive side, most doctoral students believed that their doctoral programs were prima-rily designed to prepare them to be researchers and were successful in this regard. In contrast, preparation for service roles and tasks was extremely uncom-mon in doctoral programs (Golde & Dore, 2001). Moreover, almost half of the respondents in the National Association of Graduate and Professional Students (NAGPS) study also reported that they did not receive sufficient preparation and
training before entering the classroom and lacked appropriate supervision to help them learn good teaching skills. In fact, only about one-third of the students felt prepared to teach a lecture class (Golde & Dore). This is considered a major prob-lem because most doctoral graduates find employment at institutions in which research is not the primary focus. At these institutions, faculty members reported spending a large percentage of their time on teaching and service-related activities and very little, if any, on research (Golde & Dore). In addition, faculty members at most schools are generally assigned to teach a variety of classes, which appears to conflict with the highly specialized nature of many doctoral programs (Golde & Dore, 2001).
Hedley (2000) noted that “most of the people we hire fresh out of graduate school have done their graduate work at research universities; the point and pur-pose of their work has been to make them capable of publishable scholarship in a subfield of their discipline” (p. 41). In contrast, small colleges and even small departments within larger colleges and universities are asking faculty to become teaching generalists at the expense of their research interests. This is particularly true in sport management. Most programs with open positions have less than four faculty members in sport management (Mondello et al., 2002), but the current Sport Management Program Standards identify ten different content areas (Sport Management Program, 2000). Whereas not all programs seek program approval, it appears likely that the typical faculty member will need to teach classes in two to four different areas. Therefore, in addition to concerns about the quantity of doc-toral students in sport management, we need to be concerned about whether these students are being adequately prepared for their future roles in faculty positions.
Sport Management Faculty Searches
Given the differences and concerns across disciplines found in prior research on doctoral education (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001), it is im-portant for each discipline to have a strong understanding of its faculty job market and the preparation of students for that job market. In a recent study, Mondello et al. (2002) examined job openings in sport management during the 1997–1998, 1998–1999, and 1999–2000 academic years. The researchers surveyed search com-mittee chairs in order to determine the success of their searches, as well as the criteria used to choose the best candidate. The results indicated a number of failed searches—a finding that is consistent with a more recent study by Pedersen and Schneider (2003) that found that nearly 40% of the advertised sport management positions went unfilled. Moreover, institutions that filled a position often had a small number of candidates from which to choose and low to moderate satisfac-tion with the overall quality of the applicants.
Mondello et al. (2002) also found that, according to search committee chairs, the most important criteria for candidates were teaching ability and interpersonal skills, followed by research skills. This was different, however, for top-tier re-search institutions; these institutions placed the most emphasis on rere-search skills. Although the Mondello et al. article helped with the understanding of the sport
management faculty job market, it only examined the demand side. An explora-tion of the supply side is also necessary in this field.
This study has two purposes. First, the authors will examine how well doc-toral programs in sport management are meeting the demands of the faculty job market in terms of quantity. Both Weese (2002) and Mondello et al. (2002) have suggested that there is an imbalance, but neither had data to support their claim, nor could they accurately assess the extent of the imbalance. We will compare the numbers of doctoral students with the number of open faculty positions over a 5-year period and then explore the implications of the results in the discussion sec-tion.
Second, we will examine how well doctoral programs in sport management are meeting the demands of the sport management faculty job market in terms of the adequacy of the students’ preparation. Even if numbers of graduates are suffi-cient, there are general concerns in academia about the quality of graduates’ prepa-ration (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001). Because of the ex-pected imbalance in sport management, however, there is an even greater cause for concern. Research in economics suggests that quality of production is best when the market is competitive (e.g., Mansfield, 1992; Schultz, 1995). The lack of a competitive market leads to concerns about “diminished product quality” (Schultz, p. 1155). For example, monopolists that operate in a noncompetitive marketplace “are slow to innovate and adopt new techniques and products” (Mansfield, p. 200) and generally are less responsive to consumer demands. Therefore, because of a similar lack of competition in the sport management faculty job marketplace, we need to be particularly concerned about “product quality.”
In order to examine the adequacy of doctoral candidates’ preparation, the authors asked doctoral program faculty about their students’ preparation using both closed-ended and open-ended questions. In addition, the authors compared the responses of the doctoral program faculty with sport management search commit-tee chairs in the Mondello et al. (2002) study to examine the consistency between the qualifications being produced on the supply side with the qualifications being sought on the demand side.
Survey
In order to better understand the supply side of the sport management faculty job market, we surveyed 24 doctoral programs in North America that were identified using two separate lists—one from the North American Society for Sport Manage-ment (2001) website and one from Stier (2001). A survey was used to ascertain the number of doctoral graduates being produced and skills and qualities being devel-oped by doctoral programs. The results of the survey were then compared with faculty job qualifications. Surveys were given to both program directors and doc-toral advisors to best capture the perceptions of all program faculty working with doctoral students. In order to maintain confidentiality, a survey numbering system was used.
The survey had five parts. Part 1 focused on obtaining information about the doctoral program, including number of students, location of the program, student experiences, criteria for selecting students, and types of jobs for which graduates are prepared. Part 2 of the survey examined faculty perceptions of the importance of various doctoral program experiences, including publishing in refereed jour-nals, acquiring sport management teaching experience, and involvement in pro-fessional and university service. In the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important).
Part 3 of the survey focused on the importance of various criteria in the job market. Question 1 asked about the importance of specific criteria in the faculty job market. The current study used the criteria identified in prior research (e.g., Carr & Tsai, 1994; Mondello et al., 2002; Moore, Pealer, Welier, & Siebert, 1999). In the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate each selection criteria on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important). Similar to prior research, the respondents were also asked to rank order six general criteria in order of perception of their importance in the faculty job market and how strong their graduates were in each area. The six general criteria were: (a) teaching record or potential, (b) service record or potential, (c) research record or potential, (d) interpersonal skills, (e) academic record, and (f) personal and professional devel-opment.
Part 4 of the survey included six open-ended questions that asked about the types of assistance doctoral program faculty provide for students, including pre-paring for the job-search process and acquiring skills necessary to for the job mar-ket. Part 5 of the survey aimed to obtain some basic information about the respon-dents (e.g., age, gender) and their university (e.g., total enrollment, research clas-sification).
The authors also collected information regarding job openings in sport man-agement over the last five years. Positions available at any college or university in North America for an individual specializing in sport management were included. Because one of the goals was to compare the demands of the faculty job market with what is being produced in sport management doctoral programs, it was im-portant to have an accurate assessment of the faculty job market in sport manage-ment. These jobs were found in The Chronicle of Higher Education and the Sport Management Listserv.
Survey Results
Eighteen of the 24 universities surveyed responded, resulting in a 75% response rate. Of these, three indicated they did not currently offer a sport management doctoral program. In addition, a few of the schools that did not complete the sur-vey indicated through informal responses that they had rarely, if ever, graduated a student specializing in sport management. In fact, the authors were only aware of one nonrespondent that produced sport management doctoral graduates in the last
five years (the university had produced a few graduates to our knowledge). In addition, eight doctoral-program advisors who were not program directors also responded. Overall, the respondents had a mean age of 45.26 (SD = 10.26) and were primarily white (87%) men (69.6%). The rank of the respondents was fairly evenly distributed among assistant professor (34.8%), associate professor (43.5%), and professor (17.4%).
An initial review of the responses indicated two of the doctoral programs were different than the others. They were not housed at doctoral research-extensive or research-intensive institutions and the respondents indicated that their students do not seek faculty positions. Because our goal was to focus on graduates being produced by doctoral programs to fill sport management faculty positions, we de-cided to limit our examination to responses from faculty at the other 13 universities.
Job Market
The number of open sport management faculty positions over the last five years is presented in Table 1. The number of jobs advertised in which expertise in sport management was a job requirement is in Column 1. Of these, some were positions requesting specialization in more than one area (e.g., physical education and sport management). Most of the advertisements (see Column 2), however, clearly sought an individual with a specialization in sport management only. The average number of open jobs per year during the last five years that required sport management expertise was 75, with 69.4 of those requiring sport management only. In addition, it is clear that the number of positions advertised has increased each year, with more than twice as many jobs advertised in the most recent year as compared with the first year.
Profiles of Doctoral Programs
The means and standard deviations for some of the information related to the sport management doctoral programs and the universities housing them are presented in Table 2. A number of interesting items appear in this table and in other data related
Table 1 Sport Management Job Openings
Sport Management Sport Management
Year Expertise Only
2000-2001 112 102 1999-2000 84 73 1998-1999 67 64 1997-1998 64 62 1996-1997 48 46 Five-Year Average 75 69.4
to the sport management doctoral programs. In general, the programs have been around for over a decade (M = 12.67), are housed in the College or School of Education (61.5%) at Doctoral Research Extensive universities (92.3%) with large enrollments (M = 28,346.15), and have more sport management faculty than was typical of the universities seeking sport management faculty (M = 4.08) (Mondello et al., 2002). Although the sport management undergraduate (M = 193.00) and graduate (M = 55.69) enrollment was larger than was found in the Mondello et al. study, it is important to note that five of the 13 programs did not have an under-graduate program.
In general, doctoral programs in sport management have fairly low enroll-ment. Only one program had more than 20 full time doctoral students. On average, sport management programs produced less than three students for faculty jobs at research institutions and less than three for faculty jobs at nonresearch institutions over the last five years. Collectively the programs produced 75 doctoral students who took jobs as faculty members over the last five years, or an average of 15 per year. In addition, only 26 students left these programs either as graduates or as doctoral candidates who had completed all but their dissertation (i.e., ABD) last year. This number is well below the 112 advertised positions seeking individuals with sport management expertise. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that all 26 took faculty positions in North America. Jisha and Pitts (2002) found that 20% of doctoral
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Sport Management Doctoral Programs (N = 13)
Standard
Item Mean Deviation
Number of doctoral students 12.08 14.13
Full-time doctoral students 9.62 10.36
Doctoral students admitted per year 3.69 3.49 Average years to complete the program 3.54 0.52
Graduated last year 1.46 1.71
Left ABD last year 0.54 0.78
Graduated in last 5 years 6.92 8.70
Jobs at research institutions–5 years 2.92 4.35 Jobs at nonresearch institutions–5 years 2.85 3.69
Years with a doctoral program 12.67 9.31
Number of sport management faculty 4.08 2.25
Number of undergraduate students 193.00 230.38
Number of graduate students 55.69 46.40
Year sport management program began 1,985.69 7.54 Total university enrollment 28,346.15 12,656.33
students plan to seek administrative positions outside of North America and our survey indicated almost 20% of the doctoral students are from outside of North America (see Table 3).
Whereas these numbers should be interpreted cautiously because of the six nonrespondents, it is clear that the current doctoral student production in sport management is well below the needs of the faculty marketplace and the concerns of Weese (2002) are well supported. Approximately 75 jobs were advertised each year over the last five years, whereas the doctoral programs produced only 15 students each year for jobs in the professoriat. Although production appears to be increasing (26 in the most recent year is well above the average of 15 per year), the number of jobs is increasing as well.
Doctoral-Student Preparation Compared With Search Committee Expectations
The percentages for items related to the preparation and background of sport man-agement doctoral students is presented in Table 3. When compared with the top candidates for faculty positions in sport management (Mondello et al., 2002), the graduates of the doctoral programs are more likely to have sport-industry experi-ence (77.5% vs. 57%), were about as likely to have published in refereed journals (67.5% vs. 70%), but were less likely to have sport management teaching experi-ence (61.54% vs. 78%). This could be because many of the programs did not have undergraduate programs in sport management. In fact, in many of the programs students taught non-sport-management classes in addition to, or instead of, sport management classes.
The means and standard deviations for ratings of the importance of various student experiences are presented in Table 4. For items in this table and in Tables 5 and 6, a University mean was computed before computing a sample mean. An examination of the means in Table 4 indicates that doctoral programs place the highest importance on research-related items (e.g., publishing in refereed journals,
Table 3 Means for Items Related to Preparation of Background of Sport Management Doctoral Students (N=13)
Item Percentage
Sport industry experience 77.50
Teach nonsport management classes 53.85 Teach sport management classes 61.54 Publish in scholarly journals 67.50 Serve as research assistant 38.27
Women 41.33
People of color 16.25
presenting at professional conferences, developing an established line of research) followed closely by teaching-related items. The only exception related to research items is that less importance was placed on seeking external funding in research, which was consistent with Mondello et al.’s (2002) suggestion that the limited funding available in sport management makes this item less important in our field.
Importance of Factors in Faculty Job Market
The respondents’ perceptions of the importance of various factors in the faculty job market are presented in Table 5. The table also includes the means for these items from the search committee chairs surveyed by Mondello et al. (2002). A few general observations could be made about the means in this table. Whereas Mondello et al. found that teaching-related items were evaluated the highest followed by research-related items, our results indicate that teaching and research items were evaluated about the same. In fact, the highest mean was for research potential. Both groups, however, were consistent in their evaluations of personal character-istics as being very important and service-related items as being the least important. The ranking of the six general criteria is presented in Table 6. We asked the respondents to rank these in order of importance and in order of the strength of their graduates. Also included in Table 6 are the overall rankings from Mondello et al. (2002) and the rankings by Carnegie research classification (Doctoral Research– Extensive vs. Other Institutions) from this study. Whereas there was only one dif-ference between the rankings of importance and strength, there were difdif-ferences between the rankings in this survey and the rankings by search committee chairs. We found the rankings of the importance of the six categories in this survey were
Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Importance of Student-Related Experiences (N=13)
Standard
Item Mean Deviation
Publishing in refereed journals 6.24 1.16
Presenting at professional conferences 6.22 1.42 Developing an established line of research 6.15 1.01 Acquiring sport management teaching experience 5.94 1.20 Provided with opportunities to learn to be a better teacher 5.85 1.32 Involvement in professional organizations 5.81 1.30
Learning to use latest technology 5.30 1.52
Seeking external funding for research 3.94 1.73 Leadership in professional organizations 3.04 1.39 Involvement in departmental service 2.67 1.44
Involvement in community service 2.32 1.24
exactly the same as the rankings of the Doctoral Research–Extensive Institutions in the Mondello et al. study. They both rated research record or potential as the most important, followed by teaching record or potential, interpersonal skills, aca-demic record, and personal and professional development. In contrast, the other institutions rated teaching record or potential as the most important, and only rated research record or potential as the fourth most important area. It is important to note that two-thirds of the respondents in Mondello et al. were from these other institutions.
Table 5 Importance of Factors in Faculty Job Market
Doctoral Program Search Committee Faculty Chairs
Item (N=13), M(S.D.) (N=65), M(S.D.)
Research potential 6.67 (0.42) 5.03 (1.93)
Public-speaking ability 6.48 (0.48) 5.55 (1.38) College-teaching experience 6.33 (0.62) 5.18 (1.50) Perceived quality of research 6.22 (0.70) 4.40 (2.01)
Self-confidence 6.19 (0.81) 5.51 (1.44)
Collegiality 6.14 (0.94) 5.72 (1.32)
Institution conferring doctoral degree 5.98 (0.94) 3.64 (1.76) Fit within the department 5.91 (0.83) 5.85 (1.43) Number of refereed publications 5.80 (0.99) 4.04 (1.87) Number of conference presentations 5.76 (0.87) 3.67 (1.50)
Recommendations 5.70 (0.77) 5.22 (1.40)
Autonomy 5.70 (0.88) 4.19 (1.53)
Courses taken 5.62 (0.73) 4.21 (1.56)
Computer and technology competence 5.52 (0.61) 3.99 (1.70) Established research agenda 5.49 (1.05) 4.17 (2.05) Area of specialization 5.33 (0.89) 5.45 (1.77) Ability to teach a variety of courses 5.35 (1.38) 5.44 (1.50)
Prestige of mentor 5.23 (0.75) 3.08 (1.78)
Instructor evaluations 5.05 (0.79) 4.57 (1.83) Sport industry or related experience 4.95 (0.96) 4.52 (1.58)
Overall graduate gpa 4.79 (1.18) 3.30 (1.62)
Professional quality of cv and cover letter 4.69 (1.74) 4.80 (1.73) Professional memberships and service 4.14 (1.28) 3.80 (1.31) External funding success 3.92 (1.36) 2.99 (1.69) Qualification as an aa/eeo employee 3.80 (1.77) 3.13 (1.97)
Honors and awards 3.31 (1.07) 3.22 (1.43)
Community service 2.90 (0.55) 3.02 (1.60)
Open-Ended Questions
In the opended questions, doctoral advisors indicated that they strongly en-couraged their doctoral students to pursue scholarly endeavors while completing their graduate programs. For example, advisors and doctoral students are frequently involved with collaborative research efforts. Some advisors indicated they meet with doctoral students on a regular basis to discuss their research, and many pro-grams offered a number of doctoral seminars designed to develop students’ re-search skills. These classes were often designed so the student would develop a research project in the seminar and/or attempt to teach students the process of getting their work published. Doctoral advisors also indicated the importance of developing a research line and helping students find classes to complement that research line. Finally, doctoral advisors indicated it was important for students to learn to present their research. This was accomplished by having students present their research in doctoral classes and by presenting at conferences for organiza-tions such as North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM).
The open-ended questions indicated doctoral programs offered a variety of ways to prepare students to be teachers. Many advisors indicated they worked closely with their students in the area of teaching, as well as research. For ex-ample, one university administers a “shadow mentoring” program within their sport management program. Students undergo an apprentice relationship with a desig-nated professor, assisting the faculty with lectures, learning how to develop course syllabi, and perhaps teaching a lecture. The following year, students might team teach an undergraduate course or, in other instances, might teach a course by them-selves. Consequently, doctoral students enter the job market having taught three to
Table 6 General Criteria Ranking
Doctoral Program Search Committe
Faculty Chairs
Doctoral Research
Importance Strength Extensive Others Overall
Items (N=13) (N=13) (n=22) (n=43) (N=65)
Research record/potential 1 1 1 4 3
Teaching record/potential 2 2 2 1 1
Interpersonal skills 3 4 3 2 2
Academic record 4 3 4 5 5
Personal and professional
development 5 5 5 3 4
five sport management courses. Some programs have less flexibility, however, because they do not have an undergraduate program and might not want doctoral students teaching masters level courses. These programs often tried to give the students other teaching experiences, including teaching non-sport-management courses and teaching as a guest lecturer. Many faculty also indicated that they observed students when they taught and provided feedback. In addition, some pro-grams enrolled students in teacher training offered by the university or had them enroll in courses focusing on teaching effectiveness.
Discussion
This survey helped the authors to explore sport management doctoral education in North America and how it compares with the demands of the faculty job market. A few items are particularly important to discuss further.
Supply and Demand in the Faculty Job Market
The results provide strong support for the suggestion by both Mondello et al. (2002) and Weese (2002) that there is a considerable gap between the number of faculty positions available in sport management and the number of doctoral graduates being produced for these positions. The number of open positions grew to over 100 in 2000–2001, whereas the number of sport management doctoral graduates available for these positions was probably less than 26. There are clearly not enough sport management doctoral graduates to fill these open faculty positions. Again, this is much different than most other fields in academia in which the number of doctoral graduates seeking faculty positions well exceeds the number of openings (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001). This result leads to concerns for institutions looking to hire or keep current sport management faculty. In addi-tion, it is a concern for the academic field of sport management. Because universi-ties are unlikely to cut programs with such a high level of student demand, it raises the question: who is filling sport management faculty positions today and who will fill them in the future?
Based on discussions with other faculty in North America and on articles by Weese (2002) and Pedersen and Schneider (2003), it is likely that positions are filled in a variety of ways. First, many programs fill positions with sport manage-ment faculty currently teaching at other universities (Weese). Whereas programs that are successful in attracting experienced faculty members benefit and the indi-vidual who changes jobs generally benefits with an increased salary (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992), this does not benefit the field. It simply creates an opening that must be filled at the school that the experienced faculty member left. Although it appears to the authors that faculty members in sport management do change uni-versities frequently, more research is needed to determine the extent of this turn-over.
Second, faculty members are hired from other related fields, such as leisure sciences, recreation, physical education, and business. Whereas a number of ex-cellent “converts” currently exist among sport management faculty, a heavy
reli-ance on faculty from other fields to fill sport management positions could lead to questions about the uniqueness of sport management as an area of study and the potential for decreased respect in the academic community, which tends to value specialization. Still, this option appears better than many of the others.
Third, classes might be taught by part-time instructors or graduate teaching assistants. Whereas providing doctoral-student teaching assistants an opportunity to teach undergraduates students clearly has merit and will benefit the field over the long term, an over-reliance on part-time instructors can be damaging to the field. Although some part-time instructors do an excellent job, they generally do not have as much time to prepare for classes and are not as available for out-of-class discussions as full-time faculty members. Moreover, they are not generally active researchers and are less likely to be aware of the cutting-edge research be-ing done. It is also common that the most experienced sport professionals in the local area are intercollegiate athletic-department employees. With the high num-ber of student athletes in many sport management programs, the danger of relying heavily on athletic-department employees is fairly obvious. They have incentive to keep athletes who commonly major in sport management eligible by giving them higher grades than are deserved. Part-time instructors who give out high grades for any reason further detract from the reputation of an individual program and the field as a whole. In general, heavy reliance on part-time instructors has, for good reasons, been criticized by a number of scholars in higher education (e.g., Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, & Chronister, 2001; Schuster, 1998).
Fourth, some programs have begun to hire people who have not completed a doctoral program. A review of advertisements indicates the minimum qualifica-tion for some jobs is only a Masters degree. Once again, this has possible negative implications for the reputation of the field. We should also note another common occurrence is that programs hire students who are enrolled in doctoral programs, but have not yet completed their dissertation (i.e., ABD). Although most academ-ics would strongly agree that waiting until students complete their entire program is better for their long-term development and therefore better for the field, the shortage of candidates makes it unlikely that this practice will stop.
Fifth, it is possible that some retired faculty members are being lured back into teaching on a short-term basis. This was a suggestion by Weese (2002) and appears to have some clear benefits. From our observations, however, it appears this option is not yet frequently chosen. Sixth, some programs might try to attract faculty from outside of the North America. This appears to be occurring with some frequency, but it generally occurs with faculty who were educated as doctoral stu-dents in North America. In other words, it is more likely that this has reduced “leakage” of talent rather than resulting in a new source of talent. In addition, this has some possible negative implications for the worldwide growth of sport man-agement.
Seventh, doctoral programs will experience growth in both the number of programs and the number of students. The first appears to be happening already, with at least three doctoral programs being created since the authors finished this survey. This appears to be a good long-term solution, but it will obviously take
some time before these programs begin to produce the number of students needed to fill the available positions. In addition, the gap between the number of faculty positions available and the number of doctoral graduates is so large, there would have to be a very large increase in the number of doctoral programs to eliminate our problem. Whereas this might appear to be a good solution at first, it creates some problems as well. Many programs have an insufficient number of faculty members to cover the needs of undergraduate and Masters programs or are at insti-tutions in which doctoral education is not a priority (Mondello et al., 2002). In both cases, there would be concerns about the quality of preparation the students receive at these institutions. The other option is to increase the number of students in doctoral programs. Weese (2002), however, cautions us against this approach. Large programs are unlikely to provide students with enough individual attention and the high-quality doctoral experience they will need to help the field improve. Finally, rather than finding more faculty, universities will ask current faculty to teach larger classes and more sections. This has a detrimental impact on both teaching and research quality. Larger classes decrease the flexibility of the instruc-tor to use a variety of teaching methods, and students are unlikely to receive the amount of attention they need. In addition, as faculty members are asked to teach more sections, they have less time to spend on preparation. This is particularly problematic in sport management because the sections taught might involve very different topic areas (e.g., marketing, finance, law). Teaching large classes and multiple sections also detracts from the faculty member’s time to work on their own research and to keep up with research being done by others. Overall, this has the potential to hurt the improvement of sport management both as a means for preparing future sport managers and for producing high-quality research.
Differences Between Doctoral Institutions and Institutions with Open Positions
A second observation emerging from this survey is that the universities housing sport management doctoral programs are often different than the universities with open sport management faculty positions (Mondello et al., 2002). The universities producing doctoral students for faculty positions are research universities with large enrollments. In contrast, the universities with most of the open positions are smaller universities with less focus on research (Mondello et al.). In addition, doc-toral programs are likely to have a larger group of faculty in sport management than are the universities seeking to hire sport management faculty members (Mondello et al.). Finally, although some universities housing doctoral programs also have large undergraduate programs, many had no undergraduate programs at all. It appears clear that the field of sport management faces some issues similar to those faced in other areas of academia (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001). Doctoral students are prepared in environments with a heavy focus on research and graduate education even though most of the jobs are in an environ-ment with a heavier focus on teaching and undergraduate education (Golde & Dore; Mondello et al., 2002; NAGPS Survey Team). In addition, they become used to an environment in which colleagues in sport management are plentiful, but
most advertised jobs are at schools with fewer colleagues (Golde & Dore; Mondello et al.; NAGPS Survey Team).
These differences lead to a couple of questions. First, do research institu-tions have an easier time filling posiinstitu-tions than do other instituinstitu-tions? It would ap-pear logical that students prepared in an intense research environment would feel more comfortable in a faculty position at a similar institution. Observations by the authors suggest, however, that this is not the case, with many research institutions struggling to fill positions. Second, why are research institutions having difficulty filling positions? Whereas this cannot be determined from the results of this sur-vey, there are a few possible answers. Even though they place a high emphasis on research, it is possible that some doctoral programs in sport management are not preparing students well enough in research to get these positions. If some are in fact not doing well in this area, improving the research preparation in all programs needs to be a focus for the future of the field. It is also possible that many doctoral students are turned off by the intense research environment or simply prefer posi-tions at instituposi-tions with a greater emphasis on undergraduate teaching. In fact, a recent study by Austin (2002) found that a number of the doctoral students in arts and sciences were turned off by the heavy research expectations at their doctoral institution and had already decided to seek jobs at nondoctoral institutions instead. Finally, it is possible the emphasis on research at the hiring institution is not one of the most critical factors for those seeking faculty positions. It is possible that other factors (e.g., salary, benefits package, location) are more important to potential sport management faculty.
Importance of Service
A third observation was that there were both similarities and differences among the ratings of teaching, research, and service by the doctoral program faculty and the search committee chairs in Mondello et al. (2002). It was clear that both groups felt that service-related experience was less important than teaching and research. This could be because service truly is the least valued aspect of the typical faculty member’s job or that it is easier to get people involved with service later, whereas it is more difficult to train someone to be a good teacher or a good researcher.
Importance of Research
In contrast, the biggest difference between the results from this survey and the survey in Mondello et al. (2002) related to the importance of research preparation. Even though it was only ranked third overall in the Mondello et al. study (behind teaching and interpersonal skills), research was the number-one priority among doctoral program faculty. In fact, the focus on research seemed to be very consistent with the demands of search committees at research institutions. Whereas some might be critical of this heavy emphasis on research, others would suggest that this is in the best interest of the students. Prior studies indicate that candidates with greater research skills are more in demand in the faculty job market and gen-erally receive higher salaries (e.g., Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992; Tuckman & Hagemann, 1976). Again, given the small number of students and the large number
of jobs, graduates in sport management who are well prepared in research are in an excellent position to use these skills to improve their earning capacity. Achieving tenure and earning promotions at any institution require the faculty member to be a productive researcher; those who are most productive are generally rewarded.
Importance of Teaching
When examining the means of items related to teaching, doctoral program faculty indicated that these were important. In fact, the means were about the same as the means in the Mondello et al. (2002) study for the institutions with less of a re-search focus. This would appear to indicate doctoral program faculty in sport man-agement recognize that the environment their graduates will face as faculty might have more of an emphasis on teaching, and they wish to prepare them for this environment. In fact, some programs provided considerable detail on their efforts to prepare their students as teachers. Overall these results would appear inconsis-tent with the theory that a noncompetitive marketplace would lead to dimin-ished product quality and a lack of responsiveness to the demands of the “con-sumers.”
There still might be some concern related to preparation for teaching, how-ever. Many programs did not have an undergraduate program in sport manage-ment, so they could not provide students with the opportunity to teach an under-graduate sport management class. In addition, the current study only examined the perceptions of faculty and did not examine the perceptions of students relative to preparation in teaching. Past research indicates that although some doctoral-pro-gram faculty members believe they do a good job relative to teaching preparation (e.g., Valentine, Edwards, Gohagan, Huff, Pereira, & Wilson, 1998), students are less satisfied with this preparation (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001). Finally, teaching preparation was not identified as the top priority. With doctoral students facing so many demands on their time, the fact that teaching was considered the second priority behind research is important to note. In some cases, the top priority can overwhelm the second priority because of time constraints (e.g., Fox, 1992). This is particularly troubling because university administrations have become more concerned about accountability related to student learning and the importance of quality teaching at all universities has increased (Austin, 2002).
Teaching and Research
The focus on the priority of research over teaching is a matter of great controversy in the literature (e.g., Allen, 1996; Feldmann, 1987; Hattie & Marsh, 1996). Ac-cording to Hattie and Marsh, there are generally three perspectives on the relation-ship between teaching and research. The first suggests the relationrelation-ship between teaching and research is negative. Some advocates of this opinion believe time is scarce and an emphasis on one area naturally leads to a decrease in time, and therefore performance, in the other (e.g., Fox, 1992), whereas others have sug-gested the personalities needed for each activity are very different (Elbe, 1976). Despite the apparent logic of these arguments, there is little support in the litera-ture for this perspective (e.g., Feldman; Hattie & Marsh).
The second perspective posits a relationship between teaching and research that is positive. In fact, some have claimed the positive relationship is widely ac-cepted among academics and is so clear that it is “obvious” (e.g., Neumann, 1992). Others claim that the abilities needed to be a successful teacher are similar to the abilities needed to be a successful researcher (e.g., Westergard, 1991). Based on a meta-analysis of research in this area, however, Hattie and Marsh (1996) con-cluded “that the common belief that research and teaching are inextricably en-twined is an enduring myth. At best, research and teaching are very loosely coupled” (p. 529). The myth appears to be perpetuated by administrators seeking to justify their institutions’ focus on research (see Neumann) and faculty members seeking to justify the time spent on their research (Webster, 1986).
The third perspective claims that there is no relationship between teaching and research. This perspective has the greatest amount of support in the literature (e.g., Harry & Goldner, 1971; Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Marsh & Hattie, 2002; Olsen & Simmons, 1996). According to this perspective, we should not be too concerned that the heavier emphasis on research will automatically result in a generation of faculty members who cannot teach. On the other hand, we cannot afford to assume that well-trained researchers will naturally become great teachers. Consequently, it is unclear whether the doctoral programs are all doing the best job possible to prepare their students for their role as teachers.
The lack of an undergraduate program in sport management at some of these institutions would appear to make efforts to produce well-trained teachers more difficult. Possibly, some of these programs could partner with local institutions that have undergraduate programs and simultaneously meet the need for qualified instructors at these institutions and provide students with the teaching experience they need (Curry, 2001). Programs without undergraduate programs could also assign faculty to team teach masters-level classes with doctoral students. In addi-tion, it is important that faculty members mentor students in their role as teachers (Burke, 2001). This might or might not be the same individual who acts as their research mentor. What is most important is that students receive the guidance they need.
Conclusion
The survey results presented in this article provide further understanding of the realities of the sport management faculty job market and what is being done to prepare doctoral students for that job market, but additional research is still war-ranted. For example, it would be helpful to examine the views of doctoral students relative to their goals and how well programs are preparing them for the faculty job market. Doctoral students in sport management may not reflect the same opin-ions as doctoral students in general and might feel they receive sufficient prepara-tion in teaching or do not receive enough research preparaprepara-tion. As was previously discussed, doctoral advisors sometimes perceive their students’ experiences differently than the students do. In addition, it might be useful to examine the expectations of Deans and Directors who are associated with sport management
programs. Although the perceptions of search-committee chairs examined in Mondello et al. (2002) are important in getting the first job, the Deans and Direc-tors have more influence over whether the individual will be promoted.
It would also be useful to examine sport management faculty members’ per-ceptions of opportunities in the current job market. As was discussed earlier, many search committees are pursuing faculty members who are employed at other insti-tutions. An understanding of the factors that influence faculty members decisions to move would be helpful both to programs seeking to attract them and to pro-grams seeking to keep them. Being an “employer of choice” is critical in a job market in which the demand far exceeds the supply (Herman & Gioia, 2001). Research in this area can build on research on job choice theory, which has been well developed in the recruiting literature (Behling, Labovitz & Gainer, 1989; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Young, Rinehart, & Place, 1989)
Overall, the authors believe that issues related to the faculty job market are the most critical ones facing the field of sport management today. The lack of trained sport management faculty available to fill open positions creates a number of problems for the field. These problems are exacerbated if the candidates pro-duced by current sport management doctoral programs are not well prepared to handle both research and teaching roles. If students who graduate from sport man-agement programs are not well prepared, the academic prestige of the field will be damaged and sport organizations will look to other programs to supply interns and employees. This issue ultimately affects all of us, and, therefore, we need to con-tinue to discuss it, gather more information, and seek higher-level solutions.
References
Allen, M. (1996). Research productivity and positive teaching evaluations: Examining the relationship using meta-analysis. Journal of the Association for Communication Ad-ministration, 2, 77-96.
Austin, A.E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socializa-tion to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Educasocializa-tion, 73, 94-122. Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical base.
Personnel Journal, 47, 13-19.
Burke, J.C. (2001, October 5). Graduate schools should require internships for teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B16.
Carr, A.A., & Tsai, B.R. (1994). Getting into academe: A study of assistant professor selec-tion criteria for educaselec-tional technology posiselec-tions. Educaselec-tional Technology, 34(9), 43-49.
Curry, D. (2001, June 15). University and colleges team up to help Ph.D.’s. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A10.
Elbe, K. (1976). The craft of teaching. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K.A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teach-ers as related to instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Research in Higher Education, 26, 227-298.
Foot, D.K. (2000). Boom, bust, and echo. Profiting for the demographic shift in the 21st century. Toronto, ON: Stoddart
Fox, M.F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus com-petition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293-305.
Golde, C.M., & Dore, T.M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education (Report prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts). Retrieved October 22, 2001, from www.phd-survey.org
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., & Balkin, D.B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921-955.
Harper, E.P., Baldwin, R.G., Gansneder, B.G., & Chronister, J.L. (2001). Full-time women faculty of the tenure track: Profile and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 219-235.
Harry, J., & Goldner, N.S. (1971). The null relationship between teaching and research. Sociology of Education, 45, 47-60.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H.W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507-542.
Hedley, J. (2000, Spring). Scholarship and teaching: Mixed mentoring messages. ADE Bul-letin, 125, p. 40-43.
Herman, R.E., & Gioia, J.L. (2001). Helping your organization become an employer of choice. Employee Relations Today, 28 (2), 63-78.
Jisha, J., & Pitts, B. (2002, May 29-June 1). Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in North America. Paper presented at the North American Society for Sport Management Annual Conference, Canmore, Alberta.
Mansfield, E. (1992). Principles of microeconomics (7th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching
effectiveness: complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603-641.
Mondello, M., Mahony, D.F., Hums, M.A., & Moorman, A.M. (2002). A survey of search committee chairpersons: Candidate qualifications preferred for entry-level sport management faculty positions. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 262-281.
Moore, M., Pealer, L., Welier, R., & Seibert, D. (1999). A survey of search committee chairpersons: Candidate qualifications preferred for entry-level tenure track health education faculty positions. Journal of Health Education, 30, 297-302.
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students Survey Team. (2001). The national doctoral program survey executive summary. Retrieved October 22, 2001, from http:/ /survey.nagps.org/about/execsummary.php
Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: A framework for analy-sis. Higher Education, 23, 159-171.
North American Society for Sport Management. (2001). University based sport manage-ment programs. Retrieved September 1, 2001, from http://www.nassm.org/ universities.htm
Pedersen, P.M., & Schneider, R.G. (2003). Investigating the academic openings in sport management: An analysis of the field’s professorial position announcements and hires. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 35-47.
Pounder, D.G., & Merrill, R.J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 27-57.
Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1996). The research versus teaching debate: Untangling the relationships. New Directions for Institutional Research, 90, 31-39.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Pitts, B.G. (2001). Definition, evolution, and curriculum. In B.L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport: Its foundation and application (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schultz, E. (1995). Markets and power. Journal of Economic Issues, 29, 1147-1170. Schuster, J. H. (1998). Reconfiguring the professorate: An overview. Academe, 84, 48-53. Silberman, R.K., & Corn, A.L. (1996). Teaching educators and the future personnel prepa-ration programs for serving students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Im-pairments and Blindness, 90, 115-124.
Sport Management Program Review Council. (2000). Sport management program stan-dards and review protocol. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Stier, W.F. (2001). The current status of sport management and athletic (sport) administra-tion programs in the 21st century at undergraduate and graduate levels. Internaadministra-tional Journal of Sport Management, 2, 60-96.
Tuckman, H.P., & Hagemann, R.P. (1976). An analysis of reward structure in two disci-plines. Journal of Higher Education, 47, 447-463.
Valentine, D.P., Edwards, S., Gohagan, D., Huff, M., Pereira, A., & Wilson, P. (1998). Pre-paring social work doctoral students for teaching: Report of a survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 273-283.
Webster, D. (1986). Research productivity and classroom teaching effectiveness. Instruc-tional Evaluation, 9, 14-20.
Weese, W.J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the cur-rent and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 1-17.
Westergard, J. (1991). Scholarship, research, and teaching: A view from the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 23-28.
Young, I.P., Rinehart, J., & Place, A.W. (1989). Theories for teacher selection: Objective, subjective, and critical contact. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 329-336.