HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS. Introduction

Transcription

1 HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS 61 Lea D. Wikoff HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS Hotel and Restaurant Management This study examined the attitudes of hospitality administrators on the relative desirability of various qualifications of faculty, including doctoral degrees and industry experience. The study used a survey instrument that was designed to address the following questions: (1) What qualifications with respect to terminal degrees and industry experience do hospitality education administrators prefer when hiring hospitality faculty?, (2) What factors influence hospitality education administrator preferences regarding faculty qualifications?, and (3) Do hospitality education administrators at similar programs have cognate preferences for faculty qualifications? The results indicated a preference for hiring faculty who possess a Ph.D. over those with a D.B.A., Ed.D., or J.D. as a terminal degree. Industry experience was also a desired qualification for faculty. The study also indicated that hospitality programs cluster into two groups, primarily smaller programs which place less emphasis on the doctorate and industry experience than larger programs. Because of the current shortage of hospitality faculty, those without the doctorate or industry experience continue to provide a large portion of the professoriate. However, these faculty will ultimately need to pursue the doctorate and gain substantial industry experience if they wish to survive in hospitality education. Introduction Hospitality education has recently experienced tremendous growth in the United States and internationally. In the past fifteen years, the number of undergraduate hospitality programs has more than quadrupled (Riegel, 1991). Graduate hospitality education has also rapidly expanded and will continue to do so in the future. This has happened in spite of the shortage of qualified faculty to teach in these programs (Zabel, 1991). The gap between supply and demand of qualified faculty has been widening. Although just half of the current faculty hold a terminal degree, the number of programs requiring faculty with doctorates has continued to increase. Also, the problem of locating qualified faculty has been compounded because the doctorate is a desirable and often mandatory requirement for tenure track faculty in many hospitality programs, and candidates to fill these positions are few. Findings of a study conducted by Calnan, Chacko, and Nebel (1986) indicated that the demand for doctorally qualified new faculty between the years of 1986 and 1991 was approximately 170. In addition, almost 70 percent of the administrators surveyed indicated they would be hiring faculty with doctorates to fill future turnover needs. Doctoral programs related to hospitality number eleven in the United States and two abroad (Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education [CHRIE], 1991). An aggregate of only 70 students are enrolled in these programs. The low number of doctoral students is disturbing because current enrollments will not alleviate the shortage of qualified faculty (Zabel, 1992). Therefore, a relatively small pool of faculty candidates are available, and they are primarily found in the existing professoriate (Pavesic & Brymer, 1986). Guyette (1983) termed this phenomenon an educator short-fall and stated that this allows potential candidates the luxury of job selectivity in a period when the majority of educators in other fields have little choice and demand is relatively low. The continuing debate, however, has revolved around the qualifications of hospitality faculty regarding industry experience and terminal degrees. Some educators favor industry experience over academic preparation, and others favor the opposite orientation (Miller &

2 62 LEA D. WIKOFF Fall 1995 Olsen, 1988). Powers and Riegel (1984) stated that the proportion of these credentials must be dictated by the teaching and research needs of individual programs. They explained that the doctorate provides an understanding of theory, and industry experience allows educators the ability to translate theory into practice while enhancing credibility in the classroom. They stated that the doctorate is an important credential because the goal of educators is to be excellent instructors, not successful operators (Powers & Riegel, 1984, p. 45). However, Wachtel and Pavesic (1983) argued that doctoral degrees are relatively unimportant for hospitality educators. In fact, they maintained that the doctorate may be detrimental because time spent pursuing the degree could be better used at gaining industry experience. Rutherford (1982) confirmed this by stating that faculty holding doctoral degrees generally have less industry experience than faculty without terminal degrees. Regardless of the differences in preference toward industry experience and terminal degrees, the combination of the two in some proportion has proven successful for hospitality educators (Riegel, 1987). Sheldon and Collison (1990) outlined the need for definition of faculty qualifications in the following statement: The development of qualified faculty is especially critical to the tourism/ hospitality discipline as it matures. Faculty determine the curriculum and, therefore, the knowledge base that students acquire. They also contribute to the development of the field of knowledge through their research and service activities. Yet little is known about the criteria used for the selection and retention of tourism/hospitality faculty. (p. 557) Therefore, this study explored the current issues of hospitality education and gathered input from hospitality education administrators in order to better define appropriate faculty preparation. The study examined the preferences of hospitality education administrators regarding the relative desirability of various doctoral degrees and other factors, including faculty experience and industry experience, which determine the qualifications of hospitality educators. In addition, factors that influence administrator preferences were investigated. Finally, groupings of hospitality programs which have similar characteristics were examined in order to ascertain if they have cognate requirements for faculty. Methodology The data for this study were collected by means of a survey instrument developed by the researcher. A pilot study was conducted prior to the project study in order to determine validity and reliability of the instrument. The subjects for the pilot study were determined by a random sample of 70 assistant program directors at hospitality programs in the United States which offer at least a baccalaureate program in hospitality education. The sample for the pilot study was determined through a search of the potential and current membership of the Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (CHRIE), the association of hospitality educators and affiliates. The total response rate of the pilot study was 41.4 percent and was sufficient for reliability and validity testing. Cronbach s Coefficient Alpha was used as the statistic to measure reliability of the instrument (Cronbach, 1951). Principal components factor analysis was the statistical method used to determine if the instrument was valid with respect to content validity (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). The reliability and validity of the instrument was confirmed using these two statistical techniques.

3 HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS 63 The questions for both the pilot and project instruments included three classifications of information including attitudes, beliefs, and attributes. The structure of the questions contained open-ended response choices, close-ended with ordered response choices, closeended with unordered response choices, and partially close-ended response choices. The project instrument was developed from the pilot instrument after testing for reliability and validity. The project instrument included the following topic areas: demographics of the administrator, demographics of the administrator s hospitality program, demand for hospitality programs and research within the next five and ten years, future development of degrees in the administrator s program, faculty demographics in the administrator s program, institutional degree requirements for tenure-track faculty, institutional differences in faculty salaries based on terminal degree held, administrator preferences of faculty teaching, research, and industry experience, administrator preferences of faculty educational degrees and industry experience, administrator explanations of least preferred qualifications, and administrator age and gender. The variables used to examine the preferred qualifications of hospitality educators included 94 items which surveyed administrator characteristics, program and institutional characteristics, and faculty characteristics. The variables also included administrator hiring preferences regarding faculty qualifications of D.B.A., Ed.D., J.D., Ph.D., and industry experience in the curriculum areas of hotel management, foodservice, tourism, hospitality law, and hospitality business. The subjects for the study were hospitality education administrators at hospitality programs in the United States which offer at least a baccalaureate program in hospitality education. All 50 states in the United States were represented in the final responses, and the total usable response rate of the study was 46.5 percent. Of the 258 surveys mailed, 120 were returned as usable. The sample for the project study was determined through a search of the potential and current membership of CHRIE. The study was designed to explore the following three research questions. Below each question is the statistical method used to analyze the data collected from the instrument. Research Question 1: What qualifications with respect to terminal degrees and industry experience do hospitality education administrators prefer when hiring hospitality faculty?

4 64 LEA D. WIKOFF Fall 1995 Statistic used: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Research Question 2: What factors influence hospitality education administrator preferences regarding faculty qualifications? Statistic used: Multivariate regression analysis Research Question 3: Do hospitality education administrators at similar programs have cognate preferences for faculty qualifications? Statistic used: Cluster analysis Findings Although the study examined three research questions, the majority of this section is focused on the findings of Research Question 3. The results of the cluster analysis for the third question provided a more global overview of the hiring preferences in hospitality education than the results for questions 1 and 2. However, a brief summary of the results for questions 1 and 2 are included in this paper in order to provide a background for the discussion of the results for Research Question 3. The analysis of variance used to test Research Question 1 revealed statistically significant differences at the ninety-five percent confidence level (p <.05) in administrator hiring preferences across all curriculum areas. Curriculum areas included hotel management, foodservice, tourism, hospitality law, and hospitality business. Faculty qualifications included industry experience and the doctoral degrees D.B.A., Ed.D., J.D., and Ph.D. Hospitality administrators generally preferred to hire faculty who possess a Ph.D. and industry experience in all curriculum areas with the exception of hospitality law. When hiring faculty to teach hospitality law courses, the preferred qualification was the J.D. In addition, preference for hiring faculty with the Ed.D. was consistently low in all curriculum areas. Also, with the exception of hospitality law, the J.D. was the least preferred qualification in all curriculum areas. The multivariate regression analysis used to test Research Question 2 revealed factors influencing preferences at the ninety-five percent confidence level (p <.05). The analysis showed the strength and direction of relationships between the dependent and independent variables in the study. Factors varied depending on the qualification. However, some common factors included importance the administrator places on industry experience and teaching experience, the degrees held by current faculty in hospitality programs, program size, and doctoral degree held by the administrator. Research Question 3 addressed the possible grouping of programs which have similar preferences for faculty qualifications. Groupings were determined through cluster analysis. Cluster analysis is a statistical method which searches clusters of the observations (responding programs) based on data gathered from each subject s survey. The cluster analysis used in this study employed the centroid method to determine the distance between cluster means. Variables were assigned to cluster seeds which approximate the means of the variables. Each observation was then assigned to the nearest seed and temporary clusters were formed. The

5 HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS 65 cluster seeds were replaced by the newly formed clusters and the process was repeated as the sum of the squared distances from the cluster means were minimized. The process continued until optimal clusters remained. The focus of analysis was on dissection, or summarization, of the data rather than finding natural clusters. The purpose of the analysis was to place observations which tended to be similar into groups suggested by the data. The clusters generated by the analysis were classified as fuzzy clusters and were defined by a grade of membership of each observation in each cluster (SAS User s Guide, 1982). A separate cluster analysis was performed for each of the content areas; hotel management, foodservice, tourism, hospitality law, and hospitality business. The researcher chose a maximum number of five (5) clusters per content area as adequate based on the number of variables used in the analysis. Each cluster analysis included the program / institution characteristic variables and hiring preference variables to determine possible clustering of similar programs with similar hiring preferences. Each hospitality program represented a separate observation. The cluster numbers, cluster groups, and frequencies of observations in all curriculum areas were reported across each curriculum area (see Table 1). Table 1 SUMMARY OF CLUSTER NUMBERS, CLUSTER GROUPS, AND FREQUENCIES OF OBSERVATIONS IN ALL CURRICULUM AREAS Cluster Cluster Frequency Curriculum Areas Number Group of Observations Hotel management: 3 B 71 5 A Foodservice: 1 B 73 3 A Tourism: 2 B 51 5 A Hospitality law: 4 B 51 1 A Hospitality business: 4 B 59 2 A The cluster number represented the number assigned to the groupings by the cluster analysis. The two largest clusters in each curriculum area were designated as Cluster Groups A or B by the researcher. Group A contained clusters which had more than five (5) and less

6 66 LEA D. WIKOFF Fall 1995 than fifty (50) observations. Group B contained clusters which had more than fifty (50) observations. This represented ninety-two (92) percent of all responding programs. All other clusters, eight (8) percent, contained 5 or less observations and were not statistically significant cluster groups. After identifying the two main cluster groups (Group A and Group B) in all curriculum areas, the researcher analyzed the variables in each grouping of observations (programs) to determine commonalties among hospitality programs. Each cluster group included the program / institution characteristic variables and hiring preference variables. Cluster means for each of the variables were compared between Group A and Group B across all curriculum areas. In comparing the means, the researcher determined general relationships among the variables in both groups. A summary of the common characteristics across all curriculum areas was compiled by the researcher (see Table 2). Higher indicated that the cluster means were higher in this group than the other group, and lower indicated the converse. Yes indicated the tendency of the programs to exhibit the designated characteristic, and no indicated the converse. Varied indicated small differences in means or little commonalty across curriculum areas. Table 2 SUMMARY OF COMMON PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS ACROSS ALL CURRICULUM AREAS CLUSTERED IN GROUP A AND GROUP B Program/Institutional Characteristics Group A Group B program type (i.e. business, home economics) varied varied institution type (i.e. public, private) varied varied total enrollment higher lower highest degree offered higher lower years of program existence higher lower type of bachelor s degree (i.e., B.A., B.S.) varied varied type and tracks of graduate degrees yes no future development of degrees yes no terminal degree is doctorate yes no importance on industry experience varied varied importance on teaching lower higher importance on research higher lower importance on service varied varied D.B.A. hiring preference higher lower Ed.D. hiring preference higher lower J.D. hiring preference higher lower Ph.D. hiring preference higher lower industry experience hiring preference higher lower The relationships in Table 2 suggested that Group A generally represents larger, older programs which offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees or who plan to develop graduate degrees in the future. These program administrators preferred to hire doctorally qualified faculty with substantial industry experience. In addition, the programs existed in institutions in which the terminal degree was the doctorate and emphasis was placed on research.

7 HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS 67 Furthermore, the relationships in Table 2 suggested that Group B represents smaller, younger programs which typically do not offer graduate degrees and do not plan to develop any in the future. These program administrators placed less of an emphasis on hiring doctorally qualified faculty with substantial industry experience. In addition, the programs existed in institutions in which the terminal degree was not the doctorate and focus was placed primarily on teaching. Implications This study offers valuable information to future faculty who desire to prepare themselves in a manner which will provide them the optimal qualifications for hospitality educators. Those faculty who pursue the most preferred qualifications will not only enhance their marketability but will also enhance the quality of educators in the field. The results of the study offered answers to some of the questions currently posed in hospitality education. The debate over industry experience versus academic credentials for faculty was addressed in this study. Findings indicated that the two qualifications have almost equal weight in value. With an adequate balance of both industry experience and academic credentials, faculty can deliver the curriculum in a manner which enhances appropriate outcomes for students. However, many hospitality programs are having difficulty finding and recruiting qualified hospitality faculty mainly because of the shortage of educators in the field and disparity over what constitutes a qualified faculty member (Meyer, Koppel, & Tas, 1990). Furthermore, the tremendous projected average growth in demand for hospitality programs in the next five to ten years compounds the faculty shortage problem. Consequently, as programs emerge, they will most likely assume the characteristics of the programs found in Cluster B of this study. They will start as smaller programs which offer primarily undergraduate degrees. Because of the shortage of faculty, administrators at these programs may place less emphasis on hiring doctorally qualified faculty with extensive industry experience. Faculty whose terminal degree is the Masters will find that these newer smaller programs may be more receptive to hiring them. However, as these programs mature, they will most likely take on more of the characteristics of programs found in Cluster A of this study. Therefore, the need for doctorally qualified faculty with industry experience will most likely increase. New faculty, therefore, should focus on pursuing the doctorate, specifically the Ph.D., and work toward gaining industry experience if they are going to maintain marketability in the long term. Until numbers of qualified faculty increase, hospitality program administrators must devote resources to faculty development. Although the ideal faculty would all possess Ph.D.s and have many years of industry experience, this ideal is currently unrealistic in hospitality education. Once administrators recognize this, they can develop programs to assist hospitality educators in achieving the desired level of qualifications.

8 68 LEA D. WIKOFF Fall 1995 References Calnan, T. W., Chacko, E. H., and Nebel, E. III. (1986). Hospitality doctorates - A seller s market? CHRIE 1986 Annual Conference Program and Proceedings, Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education. (1991). A guide to college programs in hospitality and tourism, , Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), Fraenkel, J. and Wallen, N. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Guyette, W. C. (1983). A checklist for the position search and hiring considerations in hospitality education. The Journal of Hospitality Education, 7(2), Meyer, R. A., Koppel, J., and Tas, R. (1990). Graduate hospitality: Where are we in our search for excellence. Hospitality Research Journal, Annual Conference Proceedings, 14(2), Miller, D. T., and Olsen M. D. (1988). Setting standards for faculty evaluation. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(2), Pavesic, D. V., and Brymer, R. A. (1986). Recruitment and retention factors for the hospitality professoriate. CHRIE 1986 Annual Conference Program and Proceedings, Powers, T. F., and Riegel, C. D. (1984). R (for research) and D (for doctorate): An affirmative definition of hospitality education. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25(2), Riegel C. D. (1987). Defining the doctorate: A body of knowledge for the hospitality educator. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28(2), Riegel C. D. (1991). An introduction to career opportunities in hospitality and tourism. A Guide to College Programs in Hospitality and Tourism, Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education, Rutherford, D. G. (1982). Who teaches hospitality education? The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(2), SAS Institute Inc. (1982). SAS user s guide: Statistics,(1982 edition). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Sheldon, P. J., and Collison, F. M. (1990). Faculty review criteria in tourism and hospitality. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), Wachtel, J. M., and Pavesic, D. V. (1983). The doctorate dilemma. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 24(2), Zabel, D. (1991). Characteristics of baccalaureate and graduate programs in Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management: A recent survey. Hospitality Research Journal, Annual Conference Proceedings, Zabel, D. (1992). Undergraduate and graduate programs in hospitality: A typology. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 5(1),