This study undertakes an evaluation of candidates and their hireability within programmatic and institutional contexts. The focus is on applicant qualifications, characteristics, and perceived fit within the program and institution. A survey of program contacts for graduate programs in public affairs analyzes candidate hireability. Results indicate clear differences between programs with similar ranking and institutional differences from Carnegie Classifications, but with little clarity on the rationale for the differences. Likewise, findings emerge relating to publishing in discipline-specific academic journals and obtaining a doctorate from online institutions. Discussions focus on implications for programs, institutions, and applicants seeking their first appointment in higher education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsK. A. (2002). What Colleges and Universities Want in New Faculty. Preparing Future Faculty Occasional Paper Series. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
2.
AustinA. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777132
3.
BairJ. (2003). Hiring practices in finance education: Linkages among top-ranked graduate programs. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(2), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1536-7150.t01-2-00007
4.
BecherT., & TrowlerP. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press.
5.
BedeianA. G.CavazosD. E.HuntJ. G., & JauchL. R. (2010). Doctoral degree prestige and the academic marketplace: A study of career mobility within the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.1.zqr11
6.
BlandC. J.CenterB. A.FinstadD. A.RisbeyK. R., & StaplesJ. (2006). The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89–123. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0002
7.
BoiceR. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. Jossey-Bass.
8.
BrewerG. A.FacerR. L.II, & O’TooleL. J.Jr. (1998). The state of doctoral education in public administration: Developments in the field’s research preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.1998.12022018
9.
BurkeD. (1988). A new academic marketplace. Greenwood.
10.
BurrisV. (2004). The academic caste system” Prestige universities in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900205
11.
CampbellC. M., & O’MearaK. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9303-x
12.
CaplowT., & McGeeR. (1958). The academic marketplace. Basic Books.
13.
CiprianoR. E. (2011). Facilitating a collegial department in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
14.
ClarkB. R. (1987). Perpectives on higher education: Eight disciplinary and comparative views. University of California Press.
15.
ClausetA.ArbesmanS., & LarremoreD. B. (2015). Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances, 1(1), e1400005. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400005
16.
CordesJ.CongerD.LaddH., & LugerM. (2008). Undergraduate and doctoral education in public policy: What? Why? Why not? Whereto?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 1009–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20370
17.
DiRamioD.TherouxR., & GuarinoA. J. (2009). Faculty hiring at top-ranked higher education administration programs: An examination using network analysis. Innovations in Higher Education, 34(3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9104-5
18.
EdwardsJ. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In CooperC. L. & RobertsonI. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6) (pp. 283–357). John WIley & Sons.
19.
FinkelsteinM. J.SealR., & SchusterJ. H. (1998). New entrants to the full-time faculty of higher education institutions. 1993 study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF-93). Statistical analysis report. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC.
20.
FredericksonH. G., & StazykE. C. (2016). Ranking public policy and administration graduate programs, 1995-2016: An analysis and discussion. American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016651716
21.
GaravanT. N. (2007). A strategic perspective on human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306294492
22.
GoodmanS. A., & SvyantekD. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1682
23.
HeibergerM. M., & VickJ. M. (1996). The academic job search handbook, 2ndedition. University of Pennsylvania Press.
24.
HenryN.GoodsellC. T., & LynnL. E.Jr. (2008). Understanding Excellence in Public Administration: Report of the Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the Master of Public Administration Degree. American Society for Public Administration.
25.
HermanowiczJ. (2009). Lices in science: How institutions affect academic careers. Chicago University Press.
26.
HolzerM.XuH., & WangT. (2007). The status of doctoral programs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3/4), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2007.12001502
27.
HuismanJ.de WeertE., & BartelseJ. (2002). Academic careers from a European perspective: The declining desirability of the faculty position. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777134
28.
KennedyD. (1997). Academic duty. Harvard University Press.
29.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D., & JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of Individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
30.
LindholmJ. A. (2008). Perceived organizational fit: Nurturing the minds, hearts, and personal ambitions of university faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0040
31.
MayrhoferW.MeyerM.StrunkG.SchiffingerM., & LellatchitchA. (2005). Graduates’ career aspirations and individual characteristics. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(1), 28–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00139.x
32.
MillsW. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
33.
O’ReillyC. A.III, & PfefferJ. (2000). Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people. Harvard Business School Press.
34.
PriviteraG. J. (2016). Research methods for the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). Sage.
35.
RaadscheldersJ. C. (2010). Identity without boundaries: Public administration’s canon(s) of integration. Administration & Society, 42(2), 131–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710366215
RaadscheldersJ. C., & DouglasJ. W. (2003). The doctoral graduate in public administration: Apprentice or master?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(4), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2003.12023596
38.
RahmD.BrittainV.BrownC.GarofaloC.RangarajanN.ShieldsP., & Jung YunH. (2015). Exploring the demand for PhDs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2015.12001820
39.
RiceR. E.SorcinelliM. D., & AustinA. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation. American Association for Higher Education.
40.
RodgersR., & RodgersN. (2000). Defining boundaries of public administration: Undisciplined mongrels versus disciplined purists. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00106
41.
RoschT., & ReichJ. N. (1996). The enculturation of new faculty in higher education: A comparative investigation of three academic departments. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680044
42.
RosserV. J. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019591.74425.f1
43.
SlagleD. R., & WilliamsA. M. (2018). Redefining the boundaries of public administration. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418775789
44.
SlagleD. R., & WilliamsA. M. (2019). Changes in public affairs and administration doctoral research, 2000 to 2015. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1477370
45.
SorcinelliM. D., & AustinA. E. (Eds.). (1992). Developing new and junior faculty: New directions for teaching and learning, No. 50. Jossey-Bass.
46.
SproullN. L. (2002). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and students in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Scarecrow Press.
WhitleyR. (1976). Umbrella and polytheistic scientific disciplines and their elites. Social Studies of Science, 6(34), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277600600309
