This survey research study uses job choice theory to assess recent educational leadership doctoral graduates’ perceptions of the desirability of the educational administration professorate. Results reveal attractive and unattractive aspects of professorial work as well as those job attributes that are most strongly related to candidates’ assessment of overall job desirability and job intentions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BasingerJ. (2000, August 11). A new way of classifying colleges elates some and perturbs others. Chronicle of Higher Education, A31, A34–A42.
2.
BehlingO., LabovitzG., & GainerM. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical base. Personnel Journal, 47, 13–19.
3.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of public schools.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
CampbellR. F., & NewellL. J. (1973). A study of professors of educational administration.Columbus, OH: University Council for Educational Administration.
5.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1994). A classification of institutions of higher education.Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
6.
EnglanderM. E. (1960). A psychological analysis of vocational choice. Teaching Journal of Counseling Psychology, 9, 257–264.
7.
HillsJ. (1965). Educational administration: A field in transition. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1(1), 58–66.
McCarthyM. M., & KuhG. D. (1997). Continuity and change: The educational leadership professoriate.Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
10.
McCarthyM. M., KuhG. D., NewellL. J., & IaconaC. (1988). Under scrutiny: The educational administration professoriate.Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.
11.
MurphyJ. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 65–82). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
12.
National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for American schools: The report of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration.Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.
13.
NewellL. J., & MorganD. A. (1980). Study of professors of higher education and educational administration. Unpublished data.
14.
PounderD. G. (1994). Educational and demographic trends: Implications for women's representation in school leadership. In PrestineN. & ThurstonP. (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: New directions in educational administration—Policy, preparation, and practice (pp. 135–150). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
15.
PounderD. G., & MerrillR. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principal-ship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.
16.
PounderD. G., & YoungI. P. (1996). Recruitment and selection of educational administrators: Priorities for today's schools. In LeithwoodK., ChapmanJ., CorsonD., HallingerP., & HartA. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 279–308). Dordrecht: Kluwer
17.
SchwabD. P., RynesS. L., & AldagR. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and choice. In RowlandK. M. & PerrisG. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 5, pp. 129–166). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
18.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender-inclusive profession. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
TomV. R. (1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 573–592.
20.
YoungI. P., RinehartJ. S., & PlaceW. (1989). Theories for teacher selection: Objective, subjective, and critical contact. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 329–336.
