An Examination of Sport Management Doctoral Programs and the Organizational Environment Through Person–Environment Fit Theory

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.

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.


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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Knut Larsson ◽  
Josef Frischer

The education of researchers in Sweden is regulated by a nationwide reform implemented in 1969, which intended to limit doctoral programs to 4 years without diminishing quality. In an audit performed by the government in 1996, however, it was concluded that the reform had failed. Some 80% of the doctoral students admitted had dropped out, and only 1% finished their PhD degree within the stipulated 4 years. In an attempt to determine the causes of this situation, we singled out a social-science department at a major Swedish university and interviewed those doctoral students who had dropped out of the program. This department was found to be representative of the nationwide figures found in the audit. The students interviewed had all completed at least 50% of their PhD studies and had declared themselves as dropouts from this department. We conclude that the entire research education was characterized by a laissez-faire attitude where supervisors were nominated but abdicated. To correct this situation, we suggest that a learning alliance should be established between the supervisor and the student. At the core of the learning alliance is the notion of mutually forming a platform form which work can emerge in common collaboration. The learning alliance implies a contract for work, stating its goals, the tasks to reach these goals, and the interpersonal bonding needed to give force and endurance to the endeavor. Constant scrutiny of this contract and a mutual concern for the learning alliance alone can contribute to its strength.


2000 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 1003-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith B. Williams

This study examined the perceptions of social support reported by 70 African-American, 44 Hispanic, 20 Native-American, and 69 Asian-American doctoral students ( N = 203) concerning their experiences in graduate school. The Doctoral Student Survey was used to measure the levels and types of social support provided. One-way analysis of variance of mean scores indicated that a majority of doctoral students perceived the academic environment on campus and faculty advisers to be strong sources of social support, while perceiving the social environment on campus as unsupportive of their progress. The African-American and Native-American doctoral students perceived the social environment on campus to be less supportive than did the Hispanic and Asian-American doctoral students, and Native-American doctoral students perceived their departments to be less supportive than did the African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American doctoral students.


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):  
Daniel M. Maggin ◽  
Tai A. Collins ◽  
Josalyn A. Foster ◽  
Meagan N. Scott ◽  
Kandace W. Mossing ◽  
...  

The field of special education continues to grapple with the presence and implications of disproportional representation related to race and ethnicity. While research focuses mostly on disproportional representation of students, there remains long-standing acknowledgment that too few students of color populate our special education university doctoral programs. The present study, therefore, surveyed current special education faculty members at doctoral degree granting institutions to understand the practices used to recruit and retain doctoral students of color and perspectives on their programs’ climate related to racial and ethnic diversity. In addition, the research team conducted a series of exploratory analyses to examine whether responses depended on respondent race or whether the respondent worked at a minority-serving institution. Results suggest a general commitment to increasing doctoral student diversity; however, there appears a lack of formalized plans and culturally relevant coursework. Findings of the exploratory analyses suggest that programs within minority-serving institutions may provide important leadership in this area. We conclude with limitations and recommendations for doctoral programs.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S48-S48
Author(s):  
Heidi H Ewen

Abstract One question asked by generations of gerontology doctoral students is what types of employment can be secured after completing the PhD in Gerontology. The Gerontology Education Longitudinal Study (GELS) has surveyed graduate students and alumni of the various doctoral programs in order to understand the career trajectories of graduates. Of 102 alumni surveyed in 2014 (42% response rate), the majority (60%) were not working with other people who had degrees in gerontology, yet 51% report working with at least some people who have experience with aging and older adults. On the job, graduates say that their duties require knowledge and mastery of public policy issues, health and medical aspects related to aging, and psychological theories. As aging experts, it is inherent in their work to combat ageism and reduce age-related stereotypes. As such, gerontologists are using substantive content expertise within their careers and serving as experts in aging.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document