Are Sport Management Doctoral Programs Meeting the Needs of the Faculty Job Market? Observations for Today and the Future

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel F. Mahony ◽  
Michael Mondello ◽  
Mary A. Hums ◽  
Michael R. Judd

Weese (2002) recently expressed concerns about the faculty job market in sport management. The purpose of the current article is to examine and discuss 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 observations 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 examining the adequacy of the students’ preparation, the authors found research preparation is considered to be most important. Doctoral programs in sport management, 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.

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald R. Ferris ◽  
Pamela L. Perrewé

The sport management field has witnessed tremendous growth just in the past couple of decades, with more programs in universities at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels. Because there is keen competition for jobs at all levels, but particularly at the Ph.D. level in university faculty positions, and the lack of material published on how best to train, develop, and prepare doctoral students, this article focused on developing a combined apprenticeship and mentoring perspective on Ph.D. training, and discussed some of the specific features of that pedagogical approach. Hopefully, these ideas will help educators in sport management doctoral programs with their educational endeavors.


10.28945/4665 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 685-704
Author(s):  
Patrícia Silva Santos ◽  
Maria Teresa Patrício

Aim/Purpose: This article examines the experience and practice of doctoral students by focusing on different dimensions of the PhD socialization process. It addresses the question of whether university collaborations with businesses influence the experience and practice of PhD students. Background: The study explores the academic culture in the PhD process through the analysis of the experiences and practices of doctoral students in two groups – those without business collaborations (academic trajectories) and those with business collaborations (hybrid trajectories). Academic trajectories are seen as traditional academic disciplinary based doctoral education, while hybrid trajectories cross boundaries collaborating with companies in the production of new knowledge. Methodology: The article uses a qualitative methodology based on extensive interviews and analysis of the curriculum vitae of fourteen Portuguese PhD students in three scientific domains (engineering and technology sciences, exact sciences, and social sciences). The doctoral program profiles were defined according to a survey applied to the directors of all doctoral programs in Portugal. Contribution: The study contributes to the reflection on the effects of collaboration with companies, in particular on the trajectories and experiences of doctoral students. It contributes to the understanding of the challenges associated with business collaborations. Findings: Some differences were found between academic and hybrid trajectories of doctoral students. Traditional products such as scientific articles are the main objective of the PhD student, but scientific productivity is influenced by trajectory and ultimately by career prospects. The business culture influences the trajectories of doctoral students with regard to outputs such as publishing that may act as a barrier to academic culture. PhD students with academic trajectories seem to value international experiences and mobility. Minor differences were found in the choice of topic and type of research activity, revealing that these dimensions are indicative of the scientific domain. Both hybrid and academic students indicate that perceptions of basic and applied research are changing with borders increasingly blurred. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is important for universities, department chairs, and PhD coordinators to be concerned with the organisation, structure, and success of doctoral programs. Therefore, it is useful to consider the experiences and trajectories of PhD students involved with the business sector and to monitor the relevance and results of such exchange. Key points of contact include identifying academic and business interests, cultures, and practices. A student-centred focus in university-business collaboration also can improve students’ well-being in this process. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should consider the processes of interaction and negotiation between academic and business sectors and actors. It is important to understand and analyse the trajectories and experiences of PhD students in doctoral programs and in university-company collaborations, since they are the central actors. Impact on Society: This analysis is relevant to societies where policy incentives encourage doctoral programs to collaborate with companies. The PhD is an important period of socialization and identity formation for researchers, and in this sense the experiences of students in the context of collaboration with companies should be analyzed, including its implications for the professional identity of researchers and, consequently, for the future of science inside and outside universities. Future Research: More empirical studies need to explore these processes and relationships, including different national contexts and different scientific fields. Other aspects of the academic and business trajectory should be studied, such as the decision to pursue a PhD or the focus on perceptions about the future career. Another point that deserves to be studied is whether a broader set of experiences increases the recognition and appreciation of the doctoral degree by employers inside and outside the academy.


Author(s):  
Murray F. Mitchell ◽  
Hal A. Lawson ◽  
Hans van der Mars ◽  
Phillip Ward

What does the future hold for Doctoral Programs for Physical Education Teacher Education (D-PETE) programs, faculty, and doctoral students? What can D-PETE faculty prioritize and do to create a more desirable future for D-PETE, PETE, and school physical education programs? What are the main facilitators, constraints, and barriers? Framed by these three questions, this chapter offers an action-oriented analysis of doctoral programs. Alongside physical education-specific program priorities influential factors in the external environment merit attention, including regional and state accreditation, neoliberal forces for accountability, the regulatory environment, program standards and national rankings, and declining enrollments. Mindful of alternative perspectives and university- and program-specific action plans, a dual priority appears to be crosscutting. Every D-PETE program needs to reflect theoretically sound and evidence-based practices, and D-PETE graduates need to be prepared to advance these practices after graduation. Toward these ends, it is timely to work toward consensus on a core knowledge base, explore how best to share resources across university boundaries, and join forces to solidify and safeguard appropriate practices. Today’s choices have short- and long-term consequences for each program and the profession overall, recommending that national priorities gain prominence alongside local program traditions and D-PETE faculty practices.


Author(s):  
Julie Smit ◽  
Elizabeth Jones ◽  
Michael Ladick ◽  
Mellinee Lesley

University faculty created the Llano Estacado Writers' Alliance (LEWA) in response to improving the quality and rigor of online doctoral programs. The goal for LEWA was to promote meaningful academic writing and transform doctoral students' identities as agentic academic writers. After LEWA's inception, the authors incorporated the perspectives of their alumni and advanced doctoral students to help address students' needs. This chapter documents the four-year journey of forming LEWA and developing new approaches to mentoring online doctoral students. Specifically, the authors recount the evolution from the faculty-led, week-long summer intensives that addressed students' anxieties and uncertainties about the doctoral program to the writing intensives that were more student centered, responsive, and primarily focused on the mores of academic writing. Results demonstrated the benefits of professor-led and peer-led networks in developing students' sense of belonging, sense of accountability to their peers, and a sense of self-worth as capable academic writers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandy R Maynard ◽  
Elizabeth M Labuzienski ◽  
Kristina S Lind ◽  
Andrew H Berglund ◽  
David L Albright

Summary Longstanding tensions exist around the purpose of social work doctoral programs, particularly around the extent to which doctoral program should prepare their students to teach. Indeed, social work programs in the United States have been criticized for failing to prepare graduates for teaching; however, it has been a number of years since doctoral curricula have been reviewed. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which US social work doctoral programs are training their students to teach by assessing the extent to which pedagogical training is explicitly integrated into doctoral curricula and examining the scope and content of required doctoral courses on teaching. Content analysis of social work doctoral program curricula ( n = 72) and teaching and learning related course syllabi ( n = 24) was conducted by two coders. Syllabi were coded and analyzed to produce a profile of course objectives, readings, teaching strategies, assessment methods, and course content. Findings Of the 72 PhD programs, 90% included a goal related to the preparation of their students for teaching; however, only 37 (51%) required a course on teaching. Course content, teaching, and assessment methods were found to vary across courses. Applications Training the next generation of social work practitioners to engage in effective social work practice is critical to the profession; however, the preparation of doctoral students to provide quality education to future social work practitioners seems to be largely neglected. Implications for doctoral education are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. p16
Author(s):  
Angela Lumpkin ◽  
Rebecca M. Achen

Doctoral program graduates, including in kinesiology, may be inadequately prepared to become effective teachers. The purpose of this study was to examine the required courses in research and teaching for kinesiology doctoral students and the related skills and abilities most important for doctoral students to develop to be successful in their first faculty positions. Through a survey, faculty coordinators of graduate programs in kinesiology were asked to identify required courses, the relative importance of skills and abilities in research and teaching, and the preparation levels of doctoral program graduates in research and teaching. Respondents rated courses, skills, abilities, and preparation in research consistently higher than courses associated with teaching. The authors proposed recommendations for preparing a more qualified cadre of kinesiology doctoral program graduates.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Silvera ◽  
Bruno Laeng ◽  
Tove I. Dahl

This article describes both formal and informal aspects of doctoral training of psychology students in the United States. We first describe admission procedures and the financial support of doctoral students and then discuss the various milestones in a typical doctoral program. There follows an overview of what is expected of doctoral students and a description of the working environment (e.g., faculty and fellow students) in doctoral programs. Finally, we provide a brief analysis of the doctoral training system in the United States. One question of particular importance is whether the close supervision associated with many doctoral programs prepares the student adequately for supervising researchers and developing a research program of his/her own after graduation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray R. Buss ◽  
Ron Zambo ◽  
Debby Zambo ◽  
Tiffany R. Williams

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how entering students and graduating students from an education doctorate (EdD) program viewed themselves as learners, leaders, and action researchers. Further, the paper examines differences in the identity trajectories between the two groups. Finally, the paper suggested a new identity status – scholarly and influential practitioners (SaIP) emerged from melding the three identity statuses. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employed a mixed method design. Findings – Results indicated students new to the program held strong identities as learners and leaders, but not as action researchers; whereas graduates held stronger views of each type of identity, especially as researchers. Program features such as cycles of action research (CAR), and leader-scholar communities were instrumental in influencing graduates’ identities as researching professionals. Research limitations/implications – SaIP emerge when doctoral programs enhance the learner and leader identity statuses of doctoral students while at the same time fostering the construction of a researching professional identity status. Practical implications – Development of researching professionals can be accomplished by fostering a researcher ethos during their participation in a doctoral program. For working professionals, this can be accomplished by requiring and supporting ongoing CAR in a doctoral program. Social implications – With respect to social implications, researching professionals, especially those in education offer substantial promise of achieving the educational reforms the school so desperately need. Originality/value – This research examines how one institution has attempted to develop researching professionals during their preparation in an EdD program, which is based on Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate (CPED) working principles and design features.


10.28945/4701 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 171-187
Author(s):  
Dr. Sharron Scott ◽  
Jennifer M Johnson

Aim/Purpose: This qualitative study investigated the educational experiences of Black male doctoral students that contributed to prolonged “All But Dissertation” (ABD) status. Background: Explorations of the enrollment and persistent patterns among Black/African American students has shed light on the disparate rates of graduate school completion. While previous scholarship has focused on Black men in doctoral programs, there has been less focus on the experiences of Black male doctoral students who, after successfully completing coursework, comprehensive examinations, and a dissertation proposal hearing, find themselves mired in “All But Dissertation” (ABD) status. The purpose of this research was to explore the intersections of race and gender in the educational experiences of Black male doctoral students that contribute to delayed terminal degree completion. Methodology: Utilizing Self-Efficacy Theory and Critical Race Theory, this phenomenological investigation examines the racialized experiences of three Black male doctoral candidates enrolled in diverse graduate programs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify how race and gender intersects with faculty advising, mentoring, student behaviors, and the ways faculty members support or impede doctoral student progression during the dissertation phase. Contribution: This study contributes to research in three critical ways: (1) it expands our understanding of the experiences of doctoral students specifically between completing coursework and defending a dissertation; (2) it illustrates the types of racialized encounters experienced during graduate study that contribute to prolonged ABD status and program attrition; and (3) it offers strategies for campus administrators and faculty to consider to extend structures of support to promote degree attainment among Black male doctoral students. Findings: This study’s findings indicate that racialized dynamics during doctoral education create environments that negatively impact doctoral student self-esteem and diminish motivation to complete doctoral studies. Through the narratives of Rico, Jeremy, and Kevin, three core themes emerged that illustrate the salience of race in the doctoral program experiences of Black males: (1) Underrepresented & Undervalued, (2) Challenging Transitions, and (3) Gendered Racism. First, each participant attended doctoral programs at predominantly White institutions, and all shared the commonality of being the only or one of a few Black male doctoral students in their program. Being underrepresented in the program led to challenges finding faculty members who valued their burgeoning research interests and were willing to support them through the dissertation process. Additionally, participants described challenging transitions at each stage of their doctoral program, which ultimately contributed to extending their time as students. Not only did they describe having different levels of preparedness to begin doctoral study, limited feedback from faculty through coursework and on dissertation proposal drafts prolonging their time as doctoral candidates. Finally, participants described their experiences navigating gendered racism, or racism that was attributed to their identity as Black men. Exasperated by their underrepresentation in the academy, participants talked about being surveilled on campus, having their intellect questioned, and the struggles associated with getting approval for their research. Recommendations for Practitioners: The experiences highlighted by participants offer insights into the institutional policies and procedures that can be implemented to support Black men. Specifically, findings speak to the importance of diversity. Campuses should work to ensure there is structural diversity within programs, and that faculty can guide students through a diverse array of research interests and topics as well. Faculty should offer clear and consistent feedback on student writing at all stages of graduate education to better prepare students for the transition to writing a dissertation independently. Finally, as racism is endemic to education, administration should promote spaces where students of color can talk about their racially charged experiences navigating the academy. Recommendation for Researchers: This work would benefit from additional research exploring the experiences of doctoral candidates across diverse institutional contexts. This includes intentional exploration of experiences of students enrolled in online doctoral programs, executive doctoral programs, and other types of programs that have emerged.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Jay Martyn ◽  
Kyle J. Brannigan ◽  
Brent D. Oja ◽  
Claire C. Zvosec

Scholarly literature focusing on organizational environments and organizational fit highlights the importance of a Multi-Fit perspective, which includes person–environment fit, person–culture fit, and person–vocation fit. However, relatively few scholars in sport management have focused on the organizational environment that includes sport management faculty and doctoral students. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine sport management doctoral programs to evaluate how sport management faculty and sport management doctoral students assessed the academic environment. Findings from 15 sport management faculty and 13 doctoral students resulted in three distinct overarching themes: (a) initial evaluations from person–environment fit, (b) fitting in with person–culture fit, and (c) the gap in person–culture fit. Moreover, subthemes emerging from faculty were (a) coachable, (b) well-roundedness, (c) experience, (d) research interests, and (e) statistical knowledge. Subthemes emerging from sport management doctoral students were (a) funding, (b) initial contact, (c) geography, (d) foundation, and (e) cohort mentality. The findings of this study have significant importance to the sport management academy as scholars have suggested approximately 50% of doctoral students fail to receive their degree, and cohort entrance and exit attrition may be as high as 85%. Therefore, the goal of this study was to increase the extant knowledge pertaining to person–environment fit and the sport management doctoral matriculation and enrollment process between sport management faculty and sport management doctoral students.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document