View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Are Online Doctoral Program Graduates Viewed as Hireable for Academic Positions? The Case of Public Affairs Programs

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Are Online Doctoral Program Graduates Viewed as Hireable for Academic Positions? The Case of Public Affairs Programs
Language: English
Authors: Slagle, Derek R. (ORCID 0000-0002-0367-3185), Blankenberger, Bob (ORCID 0000-0002-5025-4880), Williams, Adam M. (ORCID 0000-0001-5307-5370)
Source: Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 2022 70(1):21-41.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Graduate Students, College Graduates, Doctoral Programs, Electronic Learning, Public Affairs Education, Employment Potential, Online Courses, COVID-19, Pandemics, Outcomes of Education, Accountability
DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2020.1859349
ISSN: 0737-7363
Abstract: This article compares the hireability of doctoral graduates of online and traditional public affairs programs in the United States. In this context, "hireability" refers to the measure of how likely it is that someone may be hired. There has been an expansion in the number of awarded doctoral degrees, particularly through online degree programs, yet there has not been a commensurate expansion in the number of academic positions. This is especially true in applied fields such as public administration in which online, for-profit institutions are producing 36.2% of doctoral degrees. Furthermore, COVID distancing measures have forced degree programs to shift to mediated instruction, magnifying the importance of comparing program outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding perceptions of hireability of doctoral program graduates despite the importance for accountability in the higher education marketplace. For this study, we surveyed faculty search committee chairs, program directors, and others involved in hiring for public affairs faculty positions in the U.S. Results indicate substantial differences between the perceived hireability of candidates from online doctoral programs compared to traditional ones. Furthermore, a review of dissertation data shows a stark contrast by type of institution in the subjects researched within the same degree awarded.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1339719
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGQk3XfBxHoDS05XN65b8WdAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDItgSNubYdAcI3bKqQIBEICBmy_6ednqk-XRrxP3mwpmoh6pBy1_61vnIiDKCAm7YpMwVForFq1Kj85hHcIVotoRUrL38cXo8Y6S35E548OBFiZTmgJxVNdnTjGxIz2EUZWQiKC6YTrdR-juxIAIduopjgxux0pAyeHeaZ10MBslg4DssOa6KTFpOwE46JxMeqjWvNw8tOtMAK_bZrzOL8PAB5ORheX4gLwD8E5b
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155930192;gwp01jan.22;2022Mar28.02:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155930192-1">Are Online Doctoral Program Graduates Viewed as Hireable for Academic Positions? The Case of Public Affairs Programs </title> <p>This article compares the hireability of doctoral graduates of online and traditional public affairs programs in the United States. In this context, "hireability" refers to the measure of how likely it is that someone may be hired. There has been an expansion in the number of awarded doctoral degrees, particularly through online degree programs, yet there has not been a commensurate expansion in the number of academic positions. This is especially true in applied fields such as public administration in which online, for-profit institutions are producing 36.2% of doctoral degrees. Furthermore, COVID distancing measures have forced degree programs to shift to mediated instruction, magnifying the importance of comparing program outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding perceptions of hireability of doctoral program graduates despite the importance for accountability in the higher education marketplace. For this study, we surveyed faculty search committee chairs, program directors, and others involved in hiring for public affairs faculty positions in the U.S. Results indicate substantial differences between the perceived hireability of candidates from online doctoral programs compared to traditional ones. Furthermore, a review of dissertation data shows a stark contrast by type of institution in the subjects researched within the same degree awarded.</p> <p>Keywords: Accountability; online education; for-profit education; doctoral education</p> <p>A growing number of individuals are pursuing doctoral education through distance education, or more commonly referred to as online degree programs. In the United States a significant percentage of the expansion of online doctoral education has been driven by for-profit institutions. This is especially true in applied fields in the United States such as public affairs and administration in which online, for-profit institutions are producing 20.7% of all public affairs doctoral degrees and 36.2% of doctoral degrees in public administration (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]). Although some of these graduates intend to work outside of academia, many seek employment as faculty. Generally, there has been an expansion in the number of awarded PhD degrees without similar expansions in the number of academic positions in the United States (Milojević et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). With fewer academic positions available relative to the increased number of doctoral degrees awarded, it is important for students and academics to understand whether there is an impact on hireability for those earning a doctoral degree online. (In this context, "hireability" refers to the measure of how likely it is that someone may be hired.) However, little has been published on the topic. Furthermore, COVID distancing measures have forced degree programs to shift to online instruction (Blankenberger & Williams, 2020). Although this may be a temporary measure, as students and institutions adapt to online delivery modalities it will likely lead to greater demand for online degree delivery. Thus, it is important to understand any potential differences in outcomes between online and traditional degree programs. This article attempts to address this gap by studying the perceptions of the hireability of graduates of online doctoral programs by those involved in the hiring of postsecondary faculty. For this study, we surveyed faculty search committee chairs, program directors, and others involved in hiring for public affairs positions in the United States to rate the hireability of a series of candidates and found statistically significant differences between perceived hireability of candidates depending upon whether they came from online doctoral programs or traditional ones.</p> <p>This study is a part of a larger conversation about the equivalency of outcomes for online doctoral education, a conversation that has only intensified during the COVID crisis as more institutions are forced to shift degree programs to online delivery. Online postsecondary education has grown rapidly worldwide over the past few decades, yielding approximately $60 billion annually (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; Pantò & Comas-Quinn, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]). Qayyum and Zawacki-Richter ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref5">48</reflink>]) reported that more than 23 million students take online courses in the 12 countries discussed in their article: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. This expansion of distance education has been especially pronounced in countries with well-developed higher education systems, such as in India, where an estimated 25% of all higher education students take online courses; 40% in Turkey; and 34% in the United States (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]; National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]). In the United States, for-profit institutions account for a disproportionately large amount of that growth (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]; Deming et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]; Ginder et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]; Lederman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). In 2016, 57.5% of students at for-profit institutions studied at least partially online (Lederman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]). For-profit institutions have also led the way in the growth of online doctoral programs, although traditional institutions have also seen growth in such online degrees (Adams & DeFleur, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]). Because of this, the hireability of these online doctoral graduates may be impacted by the prominence of for-profit institutions in this area. Although many studies have found similarities in the attainment of learning outcomes across delivery modalities, there are still some who express concerns about the equivalency of such degrees (Bernard et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; Bernard et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; Jaggars & Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]; Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]; Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]). This is especially true for doctoral degrees, which face added challenges for achieving an equivalent educational experience (Adams & DeFleur, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]; Kumar & Coe, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]; Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]; Wikeley & Muschamp, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref22">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>For our study, we focused on the online doctoral public affairs and administration programs in the United States. The data we gathered for the study came from surveys of administrators for U.S. public affairs and administration programs. The U.S. context is particularly useful for this study as it is considered to have stronger regulations and quality control mechanisms for online degree programs (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]). Furthermore, the public affairs field serves as an ideal case to explore the questions of online doctoral education and research broadly for higher education, given the field's focus on praxis, market trends, institutional structures, and knowledge development. The interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and umbrella nature of public affairs education also provides an opportunity for online institutions to share curriculum across various disciplines and provide a degree with the public affairs label (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]). Compared to more traditional academic fields, it is also a field in which the value of practitioner experience helps to offset some of the traditional hiring preferences, such as the volume of published research and institution from which the candidate graduated. Thus, in theory, the value of the practitioner experience would help to counterbalance any potential negative connotations related to earning a doctorate at an online program. In addition, scholars have sought to understand the purpose of a doctoral education in public administration only to find conflicting results (Felbinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]). There is an accrediting body for master's-degree level education in the field, the Network of Schools of Public Policy Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), but not at the doctoral level (NASPAA, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]). There have been discussions about doing so, particularly since there are more than 80 institutions with NASPAA-accredited programs that also offer a doctoral program in a public affairs field. However, at this point NASPAA has elected not to. Given these circumstances, we are faced with two questions: (a) Are these online programs providing a different set of curricula? (b) Where, if any, are there differences with mainstream public affairs doctoral studies?</p> <p>Students graduating with doctoral degrees from online institutions may face bias from those at other institutions of higher education regarding how well-prepared these graduates are to be faculty. There are questions concerning the lack of consistent faculty (which questions quality and appropriateness of content), overall quality, and intent of the program. For those who are interested in a career in the academy, is a degree from these institutions truly putting the candidate at a disadvantage? If so, how great a disadvantage is it?</p> <p>Furthermore, job market supply and demand analyses demonstrate an inability to fill faculty vacancies for public administration programs in the United States (Rahm et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>]). This failure to fill academic postings is surprising given that doctoral education in public administration has been intended for production of research university faculty (Raadschelders & Douglas, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]). Nonetheless, earning a doctorate in public affairs does not necessarily signal that a graduate must seek a faculty position. Rahm et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]) noted that more than half of the PhD program graduates in Public Affairs and Administration do not enter academic faculty jobs, while Cordes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]) found that only 42% of graduates stay within domestic academia. Given this, it is arguable that doctoral students in public administration may not intend to become faculty since many graduates instead return to the jobs they currently hold, using the doctorate for reputation or career enhancement or for a second career upon retirement from another profession (Rahm et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref32">50</reflink>]). However, it is also possible that that many of those graduating with doctoral degrees in public affairs are simply not considered "hireable" for faculty positions. Interestingly, the rise in public administration doctoral graduates not obtaining academic positions upon completion is occurring at the same time that the "practitioner doctorate," the Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) degree, has fallen to only 7% of total conferred public administration and policy doctorates in the United States in 2015 (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]). Given all of this, is doctoral education simply an option for professionals to add another credential with no interest in pursuing a career in the academy? And does this differ by program modality? In this study we focused on the preferences of those hiring for public affairs faculty positions in an attempt to sidestep these concerns. However, it is worth noting that some seeking such a doctoral degree may not be concerned about whether there is a potential bias in the faculty hiring process against those with online doctorates.</p> <p>This study sought to address questions of reputation of online institutions in higher education through the case of public affairs and administration in the United States. Doctoral graduates provide a clearer image of reputation within higher education since their hireability serves as a strong indicator of the perceptions of these online institutions and their place compared with more traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions. As such, this exploratory study took on three primary questions in an effort to discuss the impact these institutions are having on the future of the academy:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the perceptions of the hireability in higher education of recent graduates from online doctoral programs in the case of public affairs in the United States?</item> <p></p> <item> How many of these recent graduates are seeking employment in higher education, and are there differences in where they seek employment?</item> <p></p> <item> How different are the focus areas of scholarship for graduates of online doctoral programs in public affairs from the more traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions in the United States, and what are these differences?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155930192-2">Background Literature</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155930192-3">The Higher Education Accountability Context</hd> <p>This study is a part of the broader discussion of consistency in program delivery, perception, and accountability in higher education. Higher education operates under conditions of market failure in what is known as a trust market (Blankenberger, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]; Blankenberger & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]; Dill & Soo, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]; Winston, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref37">62</reflink>]). In competitive market environments, both the buyer and seller have sufficient information to make informed decisions about the transaction in which they are engaging. In some markets, one party operates at an information deficit relative to the other party, typically the seller having more information than the buyer (Bardach, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Kraft & Furlong, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]; Schultze, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref40">52</reflink>]). In markets like education and health care, the buyer is at a severe information deficit. In this case of information asymmetry, compared to the seller, the buyer does not have adequate information to make informed choices about the "product" they are purchasing. In the case of education, this "product" is the knowledge and the associated degree acquired. The postsecondary institution and the professors at the institution decide what the students should learn, how the learning will be facilitated, and when the students have learned what they need to in both a particular class and in the degree program overall. So, the students must trust the seller to assess that the learning has occurred appropriately and thus to provide them a quality "product." The product, learning, is intangible, making it difficult to measure or to monitor. Under these conditions, the buyer is extremely vulnerable to fraud or abuse. With the enormous cost of higher education, the risk is substantial for the student if the product is inferior, and the temptation for abuse is high for the seller. In many countries this is why, historically, for-profit entities have not been allowed to participate in higher education—the profit motive is considered to create too great a temptation for the seller, and the market is too difficult to monitor to ensure consumer protection. For example, although several countries in Asia allow for-profit education, in most of Africa, with the notable exception of South Africa, for-profit higher education is not formally recognized (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Hentschke et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). Similarly, in Latin America, most countries forbid for-profit education, with the notable exceptions of Brazil and Peru, and in Chile for non-university higher education. Many have argued that institutional reputation will suffer if students are unhappy with their experience, but in this type of market it is still much easier to deceive the buyer about quality through marketing and aggressive sales, particularly for those who come from backgrounds where they have less foreknowledge of the higher education experience. There are outcomes such as degree completion and job placement that are easier to quantify, but these do not necessarily equate to whether appropriate learning has occurred. However, the fact that they are easier to quantify makes them important as information for students when considering programs.</p> <p>In addition to market failure via information asymmetry, higher education also acts to provide public goods which are not fully captured in private market exchanges, such as providing society at large with the creation of new knowledge and contributions to social equity (Hazelkorn & Gibson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]; Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]; McMahon & Walter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref45">36</reflink>]). Traditionally, this has been one of the primary rationales for government support of public higher education. Since higher education does not operate under pure market conditions, some have argued that it is under little pressure to operate efficiently (Birnbaum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]; Blankenberger, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>]; Blankenberger & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]). Institutions are less pressured by market forces to operate efficiently or fail due to direct and indirect public funding, financial aid programs, endowments, and other financing. Governments invest heavily in higher education through direct support, financial aid programs, student loans, and grants. This has contributed to why politicians and the public are at times suspicious that higher education institutions are wasteful. In the United States, calls for greater accountability have been growing since the 1980s (Astin, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; Klasik & Hutt, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]; National Governors' Association, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]; National Institute of Education, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]). Oversight entities, whether state, federal, or accrediting bodies, have increased demands on institutions to provide evidence of successful student outcomes in both online and traditional programs (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]; Blankenberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]; Conner & Rabovsky, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>]; Heller, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]; Ochoa, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref57">44</reflink>]; Russell, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]; Spellings, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref59">54</reflink>]; Tait, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref60">55</reflink>]; U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref61">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student outcomes such as retention and graduation are easier to quantify, but measuring student learning is much more challenging. Nonetheless, regulatory entities are pressuring institutions to develop meaningful measures of student learning as an essential component of accountability (Astin, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]; Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]; Blankenberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]; Kuh & Ikenberry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]; Spellings, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref66">54</reflink>]; Tait, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref67">55</reflink>]). Awarding a degree can be counted for accountability, but the degree means little if the graduate has not learned at the level consistent with what the degree should entail. In other words, should employers, students, and the public have any faith that there is some consistency from institution to institution in what a graduate learns? Does a bachelor's degree, a master's, or a doctorate mean roughly the same thing across institutions? Do institutions offer content that is consistent from one to the next?</p> <p>Furthermore, adequate measurement of student outcomes is becoming even more critical to accountability as institutions increasingly deliver programs through online or mixed methods (i.e., hybrid delivery modalities) and through alternative scheduling such as weekend formats, eight-week, and even five-week semesters. COVID distancing measures have only accelerated this change to delivery modality. As institutions move away from the traditional format, concerns by oversight entities and the public have only increased (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>]; Tait, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref69">55</reflink>]). African education leaders in particular have pushed for greater scrutiny of online programs, particularly in the case of for-profit institutions (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Pilkington & Nair, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref71">46</reflink>]). Institutions are being required to provide evidence that student outcomes are the same across modalities by, in the United States for example, regional accrediting bodies and state and federal governments (Blankenberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]; Blankenberger, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]; Blankenberger & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]); in India by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC); in Malaysia by the Malaysia Qualifications Agency; in South African by the South African Qualifications Authority; and in Australia the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) (Bannier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]; Pilkington & Nair, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref76">46</reflink>]; Tait, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref77">55</reflink>]). However, because of the complexities of measuring learning outcomes, ultimately the burden of proof lies with institutions, particularly in a trust market ripe for potential abuse.</p> <p>Given the changing higher education environment, it is not surprising that some are suspicious of the content of programs offered via alternative modalities. Meta-analyses have found similarities in achievement of learning outcomes across online, mixed, and traditional delivery modalities (Bernard et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]; Bernard et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]; Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref80">37</reflink>]; Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref81">37</reflink>]). However, there is variation among the findings of these studies, and some of these findings have been disputed (e.g., Jaggars & Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>]). Meta-analyses further indicate that the caliber of instruction and course construction is critical to student success in both online and traditional courses, suggesting that these should be monitored for accountability purposes. In sum, these meta-analyses indicate support for the potential of online and hybrid delivery, but they do not obviate the need for institutions to provide evidence of consistency of learning outcomes across modalities. Furthermore, these studies have not eradicated concerns by many about the consistency of online programs as compared to traditional ones, particularly at the more demanding doctoral level.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-4">Challenges to the Online Doctorate</hd> <p>Online doctoral programs offer other distinct challenges that have caused some to question their comparability to traditional programs (Adams & DeFleur, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]; DePriest & Absher, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]; Karl & Peluchette, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref85">28</reflink>]). For example, some have argued that the online environment is not suitable for doctoral education, noting challenges for creating a community of learners (Kumar & Coe, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>]; Wikeley & Muschamp, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref87">61</reflink>]), developing strong mentor relationships (Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>]), heightened student anxiety (DeVaney, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]), lower student satisfaction and quality of instruction (Broome et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref90">12</reflink>]), student feelings of isolation from their classmates and inadequacy of interactions (Albion & Erwee, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]), and suitable facilitation of research preparation (Butcher & Sieminski, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref92">13</reflink>]). Furthermore, Carnevale ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]) noted that employers distrust online degrees, making them less likely to hire doctoral graduates from online programs. To complicate matters further, online doctoral degrees are disproportionately offered by for-profit institutions. Negative perceptions about for-profit institutions may muddy the waters when trying to determine attitudes toward online doctoral degrees.</p> <p>There is some evidence that these concerns become manifest in the hiring process for graduates of online doctoral programs. In a survey of faculty, Karl and Peluchette ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]) found that 90% of respondents would not hire a candidate with a doctoral degree from an online university for a tenure-track faculty position. Adams and DeFleur ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>]) surveyed faculty search committee chairs (<emph>N</emph> = 109) about what type of doctoral degree they believed was a suitable credential for candidates seeking a faculty position. The chairs were given descriptions of candidates who were equal in other respects but held degrees from traditional, mixed modality, or exclusively online doctoral programs. Chairs were provided candidates in pairs and asked to choose which they would recommend for the job, as well as additional questions to generate data for qualitative findings. When considering traditional versus online degrees, 98% of chairs chose the candidate with the traditional degree, and 85% noted they had concerns about online degrees, while just 4% indicated they had no such concerns.</p> <p>Given these issues related to perception and the potential pitfalls of online degrees, there is a need to continue to examine outcomes for those pursuing online doctoral degrees. This study aimed to explore academic placement outcomes for online doctoral graduates through evaluations of the hireability of doctoral graduates from online institutions within public affairs and administration. Specifically, we explored the academic perceptions of the degrees themselves, the behaviors of the students, and the exploration of placement outcomes for those seeking positions as faculty at higher education institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-5">Methods</hd> <p>The study utilized two sources of primary data collected to address the research questions. This section outlines the data, the description of variables, and the analytical techniques undertaken. A breakdown is provided on the basis of the research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-6">Research Questions 1 and 2</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the perceptions of the hireability in higher education of recent graduates from online doctoral programs in the case of public affairs in the United States?</item> <p></p> <item> How many of these recent graduates are seeking employment in higher education, and are there differences in where they seek employment?</item> </ulist> <p>To assess hireability, the authors collected and analyzed data from surveys administered to public affairs programs listed in the <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> Graduate Programs in Public Affairs. <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> is a publication which presents well-known annual U.S. college and university rankings based on surveys of higher education personnel (<emph>U.S. News & World Report</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref96">58</reflink>]). The authors sent surveys to the 282 institutions on the 2018 U.S. Newslist and received 63 partial and 40 full responses. A single point of contact (e.g., program directors, department chairpersons, school directors, etc.) was asked to complete the survey with questions focusing on hiring practices, preferences, and candidate profiles. When responding, participants were asked to assume they were evaluating a position for a new, tenure-track assistant professor with no previous appointment (i.e., entry-level).</p> <p>Germane to the first two research questions, the survey included a series of 12 unique candidate profiles for hypothetical entry-level faculty positions. The profiles were made up of a complete set of 11 independent factors (see Table 1) to create items common to a job candidate's curriculum vitae. As the table indicates, the 11 items included a few each from these categories: doctoral program characteristics, scholarly activity, teaching activity, and other professional identifiers. The 12 unique candidate profiles sent to each survey recipient were created randomly using these 11 independent factors. Thus, each profile represents a job candidate with 11 characteristics. Survey respondents provided a Hireability Score from 0 to 100 based on their knowledge of their public affairs program and their university's institutional expectations for an entry-level, tenure-track assistant professor. Instructions were to examine each candidate individually and not as a means of comparison to the other 11 candidates. From the 40 survey respondents, a total of 478 cases (40 respondents times 12 cases, with two missing) generated Hireability Scores. Two cases were missing as a result of respondents skipping or omitting answers. In addition, a set of respondents did not provide necessary grouping identifiers (see the Grouping Variables from Table 1) and limited valid cases to 454 for the <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> Rank groups and 442 for Research Classifications. Further discussion of the variables follows.</p> <p>Table 1. Variables and descriptions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable and Abbreviations</td><td>Description</td><td>Groups/Categories</td><td>Level of Measurement</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Grouping Variables</td></tr><tr><td><italic> U.S. News and World Report</italic> [USNWR] Rank</td><td>Grouping based upon the most recent—2018—<italic>U.S. World and News Report</italic> rankings of graduate schools in Public Affairs</td><td>4: Top 50, 51–100, 100–155, Unranked</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Research Classifications</td><td>Description of the institution from Carnegie Classifications</td><td>6: R1, R2, R3, Comprehensive, Regional, Liberal Arts</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td>Independent Factors</td></tr><tr><td> Doctoral Program Rank - DPR</td><td>Based upon <italic>U.S. News and World Report</italic> graduate schools in Public Affairs rankings, the variable indicates the place the candidate received their doctoral degree</td><td>6: Top 25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–100, 101–155, Unranked</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> University Type - UT</td><td>Identifies the nature of the university (public, private, for-profit) where candidate received their doctoral degree</td><td>3: Public, Private/Nonprofit, Private/Online</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td> Dissertation Chair - DC</td><td>The reputation of the dissertation chair within public affairs</td><td>3: Renowned Scholar, Recognized Scholar, General Scholar</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td> Number of Publications - NP</td><td>Total of publications prior to applying to the position</td><td>4: 0–1, 2–3, 4–5, 6+</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Publication Locations - PL</td><td>Location of the publications prior to applying to the position</td><td>4: Top 10 Journal, Top 40 Journal, Discipline-specific Journals, Any Journal</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td> Conference Presentations - CP</td><td>Total of academic conference presentations prior to applying to the position</td><td>4: 0, 1, 2, 3+</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Courses Taught - CT</td><td>Teaching experience in terms of courses taught</td><td>4: TA Only/None, 1, 2, 3+</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Course Creation – CC</td><td>Dichotomous variable indicating whether applicant developed courses or only taught without developing</td><td>2: Created/Taught, Taught Only</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td> Practitioner Experience - PE</td><td>Total years of experience in the public sector as a practitioner</td><td>4: None, 1–5 Years, 6–10 Years, 11+ Years</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Service Record - SR</td><td>Indicator of community and academic service</td><td>3: None, Some, Considerable</td><td>Ordinal</td></tr><tr><td> Professional Affiliations - PA</td><td>Identifies the primary professional affiliations for the candidate</td><td>3: None, Affiliations Outside Public Affairs, Affiliations Within Public Affairs</td><td>Nominal</td></tr><tr><td>Dependent Variable</td></tr><tr><td> Hireability Score</td><td>Score given to each candidate from the whole of their profile</td><td>0–100 Score</td><td>Scale</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To answer question two, additional data were collected relating to program identifiers within the respondent's institution, institutional classification, and descriptors of the most recent position hired within a public affairs unit. Doctoral program variables included ordinal classifications of the <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> ranking for the graduate program, the type of university (the key variable to identify online institutions), and the status of one's dissertation chair. Scholarly achievement assessed publication numbers in peer-reviewed publications, the type of journal in which the candidate published, and the number of presentations at academic conferences. For teaching experience, profiles included the number of unique courses where the candidate was the instructor of record as well as a dummy variable identifying whether courses taught by the candidate were created and prepared by the candidate or the candidate was simply lecturing from previously developed material. Professional activity variables explored the number of years of practitioner experience, record of previous academic service (e.g., committees, councils, etc.), and types of professional affiliations the candidate had within and outside of public affairs. Finally, the respondents were asked to provide data on their last hiring cycle with respect to the percentage of applicants from online institutions, the type of position, and whether the position was filled. For this study, the percentage of applicants from online institutions was the most relevant.</p> <p>To answer the first two research questions, we conducted a multi-stage analysis using descriptive statistics, a series of independent-samples <emph>t</emph>-tests, and a set of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for variance between groups. First, we explored hireability scores and the percentage of online applicants in the context of the various identification variables using descriptive statistics. These results are presented with hireability and percentage mean scores, standard error, and sample sizes. Prior to conducting further analysis, these values provide an overview of the results from these data.</p> <p>Following the descriptives, we conducted a series of independent-sample <emph>t</emph>-tests to evaluate the mean difference between hireability scores given to candidates from online institutions and those from brick-and-mortal (traditional) institutions. These are presented with the overall difference as well as differences controlling for groups relating to program ranking, institutional classifications, and modality of degree completion for the highest degree variables (face-to-face only, hybrid, online only, and two or more). Control variables assessed possible mitigating factors impacting the differences in the perception of hireability between the two types of candidates. A level of significance, <emph>α</emph> = 0.05, was used for all analyses in this study. For the <emph>t</emph>-tests, a total of 478 cases were analyzed. Each test had its own subsample and is presented in Table 2 in the Results section.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics and <emph>t</emph>-tests for mean difference (traditional versus online) for hireability of candidates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Categories</td><td>Online (SE), <italic>N</italic> = 80</td><td>Brick-and-Mortar (SE), <italic>N</italic> = 398</td><td>Mean Diff.</td><td>Total (SE), <italic>N</italic> = 478</td><td><italic>t</italic> (df)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Overall</td><td char=".">43.1 (3.24)</td><td char=".">69.3 (1.16)</td><td char="."><italic>26.2</italic></td><td char=".">64.69 (1.20)</td><td char="."><italic>8.83 (476)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ranks</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Top 50</td><td char=".">38.0 (7.89), <italic>N</italic> = 16</td><td char=".">58.4 (2.91), <italic>N</italic>= 80</td><td char="."><italic>20.4</italic></td><td char=".">55.0 (2.85), <italic>N</italic> = 96</td><td char="."><italic>2.76 (94)</italic>**</td></tr><tr><td> 51–100</td><td char=".">27.4 (5.21), <italic>N</italic> = 22</td><td char=".">65.7 (2.33), <italic>N</italic> = 110</td><td char="."><italic>38.3</italic></td><td char=".">59.3 (2.46), <italic>N</italic> = 132</td><td char="."><italic>6.70 (130)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> 101–155</td><td char=".">47.8 (5.56), <italic>N</italic> = 18</td><td char=".">78.2 (1.93), <italic>N</italic> = 89</td><td char="."><italic>30.4</italic></td><td char=".">73.1 (2.15), <italic>N</italic> = 107</td><td char="."><italic>6.13 (105)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Unranked</td><td char=".">58.2 (6.15), <italic>N</italic> = 20</td><td char=".">74.9 (1.58), <italic>N</italic> = 99</td><td char="."><italic>16.7</italic></td><td char=".">72.1 (1.75), <italic>N</italic> = 119</td><td char="."><italic>3.75 (117)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td>Institution</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Research 1</td><td char=".">30.8 (6.68), <italic>N</italic> = 20</td><td char=".">60.1 (2.48), <italic>N</italic> = 100</td><td char="."><italic>29.3</italic></td><td char=".">55.2 (2.54), <italic>N</italic> = 120</td><td char="."><italic>4.66 (118)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Research 2</td><td char=".">46.7 (7.87), <italic>N</italic> = 18</td><td char=".">70.2 (2.91), <italic>N</italic> = 90</td><td char="."><italic>23.5</italic></td><td char=".">66.3 (2.87), <italic>N</italic> = 108</td><td char="."><italic>3.19 (106)</italic>**</td></tr><tr><td> Research 3</td><td char=".">41.5 (8.53), <italic>N</italic> = 10</td><td char=".">75.4 (2.30), <italic>N</italic> = 49</td><td char="."><italic>33.9</italic></td><td char=".">69.7 (2.89), <italic>N</italic> = 59</td><td char="."><italic>5.35 (57)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Comprehensive</td><td char=".">50.6 (5.75), <italic>N</italic> = 14</td><td char=".">76.4 (1.91) ,<italic>N</italic> = 69</td><td char="."><italic>25.8</italic></td><td char=".">72.0 (2.13), <italic>N</italic> = 83</td><td char="."><italic>5.20 (81)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Regional</td><td char=".">45.5 (9.41), <italic>N</italic> = 10</td><td char=".">74.7 (2.48), <italic>N</italic> = 50</td><td char="."><italic>29.2</italic></td><td char=".">69.8 (2.92), <italic>N</italic> = 60</td><td char="."><italic>4.23 (58)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Liberal Arts</td><td char=".">55.0 (5.00), <italic>N</italic> = 2</td><td char=".">55.0 (4.66), <italic>N</italic> = 10</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">55.0 (3.89), <italic>N</italic> = 12</td><td char=".">0.0 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Modality</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Face-to-Face</td><td char=".">30.9 (5.10), <italic>N</italic> = 30</td><td char=".">70.4 (1.66), <italic>N</italic> = 150</td><td char="."><italic>39.5</italic></td><td char=".">63.8 (1.96), <italic>N</italic> = 180</td><td char="."><italic>9.07 (178)</italic>***</td></tr><tr><td> Hybrid</td><td char=".">57.2 (9.32), <italic>N</italic> = 10</td><td char=".">74.7 (2.75), <italic>N</italic> = 50</td><td char="."><italic>17.5</italic></td><td char=".">71.8 (2.86), <italic>N</italic> = 60</td><td char="."><italic>2.37 (58)</italic>*</td></tr><tr><td> Online Only</td><td char=".">45.3 (11.82), <italic>N</italic> = 8</td><td char=".">57.4 (4.78), <italic>N</italic> = 39</td><td char=".">12.1</td><td char=".">55.3 (4.43), <italic>N</italic> = 47</td><td char=".">0.10 (45)</td></tr><tr><td> 2+ Modality</td><td char=".">47.8 (4.66), <italic>N</italic> = 30</td><td char=".">68.0 (1.98), <italic>N</italic> = 149</td><td char="."><italic>20.2</italic></td><td char=".">64.6 (1.91), <italic>N</italic> = 179</td><td char="."><italic>4.15 (177)</italic>***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ***<emph>p</emph> = 0.000. **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>To explore differences in the Percentage of Online Degree Applicants at different institutions, one-way between-groups ANOVAs are appropriate to examine the categories within each of the factors described above (Privitera, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>]). A level of significance, <emph>α</emph> = 0.05, was used to determine variability among the groups, with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) test serving as a post hoc <emph>t</emph>-test for any statistically significant ANOVAs. Descriptive statistics for the mean percentages precede the analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-7">Research Question 3</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 3. How different are the focus areas of scholarship for graduates of online doctoral programs in public affairs from the more traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions, and what are these differences?</item> </ulist> <p>The third research question emerged due to the interdisciplinary nature of public affairs education. More specifically, traditions and bodies of literature from a number of other academic disciplines and subfields are commonly influential in the scholarship and academic training for students in public affairs. We sought to determine whether there were differences in areas of academic focus between traditional and online doctoral programs through an evaluation of doctoral students' dissertation subjects. In order to evaluate these subjects, we explored dissertation categorization criteria from the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database.</p> <p>Data collected from the database included a variety of categorical variables relating to institution, subjects, degree conferred, and more. For this study, the institution name was used to classify the program and its status as an online institution. Through the degree and subject variables, valid cases were determined for public affairs graduates. Use of data from the entirety of the 2015 calendar year for graduates provided a sample of 419 cases relating to public affairs programs. Within subject variables, graduates self-reported up to five separate subjects relating to their dissertations. Outside of those identifying their relationship to public affairs, the remaining subjects, classified as Secondary Subjects, were collected and categorized.</p> <p>In total, a set of 28 additional Secondary Subjects' categories were formed and used to evaluate the differences between scholarship from online and brick-and-mortar institutions. Using a Pearson's chi-squared test of homogeneity, an evaluation of all 28 Secondary Subjects' categories provided distinct differences between these two types of institutions. Furthermore, a list of the top five Secondary Subjects for each institution type were presented to demonstrate the percentage of Secondary Subjects categories found in all dissertations during 2015.</p> <p>Results from all analyses in this study are presented in the same fashion as the methodology (i.e., by research question). Subsequent discussions will follow to address the research questions and their significance within the context of this study and beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-8">Results</hd> <p>Analyses of hireability are presented in Table 2. The table details the descriptive results relating to the mean scores for hireability for candidates from online institutions and traditional institutions as well as the overall mean. Further detail on the hireability means are used to examine the categories within three factors: Program Ranks, Institutional Classification, and Delivery Modality of Highest Degree. Mean scores from the survey regarding the hireability of the fictitious candidates are presented along with the sample size from the totality of the cases.</p> <p>Table 2 provides the results of the test of the mean differences between the traditional (brick-and-mortar) institutions for hireability overall and within each factor category against the hireability scores for candidates from online institutions. The differences are all positive, indicating higher scores for candidates from traditional institutions. For example, overall the mean hireability score for online doctoral graduates was 43.1 while the mean for graduates of traditional brick-and-mortar programs was 69.3 (see Table 2). The mean difference of 26.2 was statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> =.000). Every mean difference is statistically significant except for institutions in the Liberal Arts institutional classification and the Online Only category from the Delivery Modality of Highest Degree factor. However, the Liberal Arts category only has a sample size of 12 candidates assessed, so achieving a statistically significant difference would be unlikely. The Online Only modality is of particular interest as it indicates there may not be as great a difference in perception of these programs when they are delivered online.</p> <p>Aside from the two categories that are insignificant, the two other mean difference scores with the lowest values are Hybrid modalities and Unranked programs. These categories do still have statistically significant differences, but they demonstrate less bias in perception. Contrarily, programs ranked between 51 and 155 and programs whose delivery modality is entirely Face-to-Face have the greatest difference in mean scores (greater than 30 points on the Hireability scale). Other categories in all three factors show strong results for statistically significant differences in perceptions.</p> <p>Tables 3 and 4 evaluate Research Question 2 on the actions of the candidates in their decisions to apply for positions in the academy. At first glance, the percentages of applicants from online institutions appear low, with an overall mean of 8.19% and the largest value being Regional institutions at 16.25%, especially given that for-profit (often online) institutions are producing 20.7% of public affairs doctoral degrees and 36.2% of doctoral degrees in public administration (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref98">53</reflink>]). However, we have no information about what other positions these graduates chose to pursue after graduation. It is possible that many did not enter a doctoral program in order to pursue an academic career, stayed in their current occupations, or simply pursued a doctorate for personal satisfaction. Having said that, online graduate potential candidates appear to avoid Top 50-ranked programs and Unranked programs in public affairs as well as Research 1, Research 2, and Comprehensive institutions and also programs with the highest degree offered in individual formats (i.e., only face-to-face or only online). The Unranked programs finding (i.e., from the bottom half of the <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> rankings) is somewhat perplexing given the results from Table 2 indicating that Unranked programs are one of the least biased against individuals from online institutions.</p> <p>Table 3. Mean values for percentage of online institution candidates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Categories</td><td>Mean Value (SE)</td><td>Sample Size</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Overall</td><td char="(">8.19 (1.772)</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ranks</td><td char="(" /><td /></tr><tr><td> Top 50</td><td char="(">4.50 (1.956)</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td> 51–100</td><td char="(">12.15 (4.973)</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td> 101–155</td><td char="(">10.73 (4.230)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td> Unranked</td><td char="(">5.27 (1.376</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Institution</td><td char="(" /><td /></tr><tr><td> Research 1</td><td char="(">5.71 (1.891)</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td> Research 2</td><td char="(">4.70 (1.745)</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td> Research 3</td><td char="(">11.50 (5.735)</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td> Comprehensive</td><td char="(">5.00 (2.236)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td> Regional</td><td char="(">16.25 (7.650)</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td> Liberal Arts<sup>a</sup></td><td char="(">5.00 (–)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Modality</td><td char="(" /><td /></tr><tr><td> Face-to-Face</td><td char="(">5.91 (1.781)</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td> Hybrid</td><td char="(">8.50 (5.299</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td> Online only</td><td char="(">3.40 (0.927)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td> 2+ Modalities</td><td char="(">12.87 (4.347)</td><td>16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <sups>a</sups>Liberal Arts only has one respondent, so no standard error is calculated.</p> <p>Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for percentages of online institution candidates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Categories</td><td><italic>F</italic> (<italic>df</italic>)</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Post Hoc</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Program Rank</td><td>1.123 (44)</td><td>.351</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Institution</td><td>1.449 (45)</td><td>.235</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Modality</td><td>1.278 (45)</td><td>.294</td><td>None</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>One major result is that programs delivering their highest degree in an online only format have the lowest mean percentage of applicants at 3.40%. Given that these candidates come from similar programs, the lack of interest in positions in those programs begs the question of why. One last point relating to Table 3 shows that Liberal Arts institutions do not have a sufficient sample size for analysis.</p> <p>Table 4 indicates no significant differences among the factors and the subsequent categories within them. Post hoc tests were unnecessary since there was no statistical significance. Lack of significant difference could be due to the sample sizes for the categories and is an area for potential improvement for the study. We revisit the results for the second research question in the Discussion section. In order to evaluate the third question, Tables 5 and 6 provide a list of the most prevalent secondary subjects in public affairs dissertations and the differences between brick-and-mortar programs and online programs. Those differences were assessed using percentages of the total dissertations within the category and through a Pearson's test for homogeneity.</p> <p>Table 5. Top five list, by percentage, of secondary subjects for public affairs doctorates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Brick-and-Mortar Programs<sup>a</sup></td><td>Online Programs<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Secondary subject</td><td>Percentage (%)</td><td>Secondary subject</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Political Science</td><td char=".">14.05</td><td>Criminology</td><td char=".">18.33</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td char=".">13.71</td><td>Psychology</td><td char=".">14.17</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td char=".">13.38</td><td>Sociology</td><td char=".">12.50</td></tr><tr><td>Public Health</td><td char=".">11.04</td><td>Health Care</td><td char=".">11.67</td></tr><tr><td>Sociology</td><td char=".">9.70</td><td>Management; Race/Ethnicity/Gender Studies</td><td char=".">10.83</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <sups>a</sups><emph>N</emph> = 299; <sups>b</sups><emph>N</emph> = 120.</p> <p>Table 6. Secondary subject differences for traditional and online institution dissertations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Secondary Subject</td><td>Person's Chi-squared (Sig.)</td><td>Expected Count</td><td>Observed Count</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Criminology</td><td char=".">39.430 (.000)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td char=".">19.3</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td char=".">7.7</td><td char=".">22</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental Science</td><td char=".">5.890 (.015)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td char=".">22.1</td><td char=".">28</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td char=".">8.9</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td char=".">15.749 (.000)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td>30</td><td char=".">41</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td>12</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Psychology</td><td char=".">20.154 (.000)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td char=".">17.8</td><td char=".">8</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">17</td></tr><tr><td>Political Science</td><td char=".">5.594 (.018)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td>35</td><td char=".">42</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td>14</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>Planning</td><td char=".">4.736 (.030)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td char=".">16.4</td><td char=".">21</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td char=".">6.6</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>Race, Ethnicity, Gender Studies</td><td char=".">3.995 (.046)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Traditional</td><td char="." /><td char=".">20.7</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td> Online</td><td char="." /><td char=".">8.3</td><td char=".">13</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As indicated in Table 5, there is a very different list of secondary subjects for dissertations being produced at traditional programs compared to online programs. There is only one category appearing in both types of program—Sociology. Other Secondary Subjects from traditional, brick-and-mortar programs include Political Science, Economics, Education, and Public Health. The rise in Public Policy dissertations (see Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]) likely accounts for the interest in fields such as Education, Public Health, Health Care, and Criminology. The latter two are categories for online programs alongside Management, Race/Ethnicity/Gender Studies, and Psychology.</p> <p>Table 6 provides more detail on the statistically significant differences between Secondary Subjects and the institution types. Of the 28 subjects tested, only seven are shown to be statistically significant. Results in Table 6 identify the observed counts for dissertations in 2015 against what should be expected. For online institutions, Criminology, Psychology, and Race/Ethnicity/Gender Studies overperformed to a significant degree. Contrarily, Environmental Science, Economics, Political Science, and Planning showed results far fewer than would be expected for dissertations in public affairs.</p> <p>The next section provides a discussion of the implications from these results and how they reflect issues of academic hiring, doctoral scholarship, and the stereotype associated with online institutions in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-9">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155930192-10">Hireability for Online Institutions</hd> <p>Returning to the discussion of the necessity and challenge of measuring postsecondary outcomes in the higher education trust market, this study suggests that there is a difference in outcomes for doctoral students of which students, institutions, and oversight entities should be aware. This study found substantial differences of the perceived hireability of candidates depending upon the institution at which they pursued their doctoral studies. Although this study did not attempt to address the question of the equivalency of student learning outcomes, it did address the question of equivalency of potential for job placement as faculty. Reputation is one market force that operates similarly in both open and trust markets, and this study provides clear evidence that, for public affairs programs, the reputation of online doctoral programs impacts attitudes about hireability. This is true despite the practitioner orientation of the public affairs field. Moreover, the only item that showed it could potentially mitigate this perception is when the highest degree is offered in a solely online format. While this may seem intuitive, none of the respondents were actually from the online institutions, and so there are some programs that likely see the modality of delivery as less problematic due to having similar structures within their own programs (e.g., Valdosta State University and West Chester University offer fully online doctorates).</p> <p>Additional findings suggested that the chasm between the hireability for graduates of traditional institutions and online institutions is great. The differences in the means were so great that these essentially indicate a seemingly inexorable distance limiting the recipient of such a degree to a career in their current place of employment or in another professional setting outside the academy. In the case of public affairs education in the United States, the percentages of degrees coming from online institutions (28.64%, or 120/419) indicates that these perceptions present new challenges for the job market. In public affairs, the tendency to explore hiring outside of discipline-specific programs is an outlet being sought by a number of programs.</p> <p>Findings relating to the percentages of online institution applicants, while not statistically significant across any of the categories examined, should be alarming given the number of degrees being granted by these institutions (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref100">53</reflink>]). This suggests that there may not be expectations to train future academics in these settings or that the stigma creates such an onerous burden on the students that they refrain from seeking positions in academia.</p> <p>With the background discussion of higher education as a trust market, as we compare the potential for student outcomes, students attending these institutions should be aware of this gulf as they consider their choice of doctoral program. If the desired outcome for their doctoral studies is to enter academia, students should be aware that they face a great disadvantage when they seek employment.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-11">Differences in Doctoral Studies and Research</hd> <p>Where the previous discussion could potentially become more important is when coupled with the results showing sharp differences in the Secondary Subjects relating to doctoral dissertations from public affairs programs. These differences identified areas where there may be differences in curriculum, greater use of faculty in multiple disciplines, or even differing preparation for the knowledge, skills, and abilities sought from doctoral degrees in public affairs.</p> <p>Another area to discuss is the differences themselves and whether there are some alignments with how online institutions function, as well as the other programs they often offer. This could indicate areas in greater demand and where there is a supply gap. Of particular interest are the fields of Economics and Political Science, since they appear to be substantially less represented by the online institutions, while Criminology and Psychology appear to be substantially more represented. Does this indicate that Criminology and Psychology are also seeing similar results with doctoral programs? And does the interdisciplinary nature of public affairs education make this a natural avenue for faculty to cross over?</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-12">The Online Doctoral Program Stigma</hd> <p>There has been considerable research on the acceptability/rigor of online education and perceptions from (nonacademic) employers and from students, but faculty perspectives of online education programs are heterogeneous from other perspectives (Tanner et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref101">56</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref102">59</reflink>]). While faculty perspectives of online learning are changing and status quo assumptions are mutable, online education historically has been regarded as less legitimate and credible than traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions (Yick et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref103">63</reflink>]). With regard to hireability of recent doctoral graduates for faculty positions, the literature tends to indicate that academic administrators' perceptions are improving or only slightly negative (DePriest & Absher, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref104">18</reflink>]). However, with regard to the determination of candidates for faculty appointments, the selection is overwhelmingly in favor of traditional doctorates (Adams & DeFleur, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>]; DePriest & Absher, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref106">18</reflink>]). Results from this study are aligned with the literature on the preferential treatment for hiring applicants for tenure-track faculty positions from traditional institutions. Karl and Peluchette ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref107">28</reflink>]) noted that 90% of surveyed faculty would not hire someone with a doctoral degree from an online university for a tenure-track faculty position. Preferential characteristics for faculty positions from traditional institutions were related to doctoral experiences, institutional quality and credibility, lack of socialization and discourse, availability of mentorship, lack of face-to-face interactions, poor quality of instruction, and issues related to accreditation (Adams & DeFleur, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>]; Karl & Peluchette, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref109">28</reflink>]). Although our study focused on a more practitioner-oriented field where practical experience might mitigate the possible stigma of an online degree in hiring, this preference for traditional brick-and-mortar doctoral program graduates held true nonetheless. This suggests that despite a growing amount of research that has been done to evaluate the potential equivalency of student learning outcomes across modalities, attitudes about the caliber of online doctoral education may be slow to change. This underscores the need for continued research regarding student outcomes across modalities, particularly at the doctoral level. However, this dynamic may change due to the impact of COVID. As Gaus ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref110">22</reflink>]) noted in his classic work proposing an ecological approach to public administration, catastrophe can lead to innovation and changes to systems. With the presence of COVID forcing institutions to deliver programs remotely, more students and faculty will become familiar with online delivery. It is possible that this may reinforce negative attitudes regarding the effectiveness of online education, or it may cause attitudes to soften (Slagle & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>]). We conducted our survey a year before COVID broke out, and it may be worth conducting it again to see whether attitudes have changed.</p> <hd id="AN0155930192-13">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study on the role of doctoral education and research and the relationship to selection of tenure-track faculty in public affairs programs contributes to the broader discussion on program delivery, perception, and accountability within higher education. Results indicated clear differences on the hireability of candidates depending upon the delivery type of the doctoral program. Findings indicated that perceptions from academic gatekeepers may be predisposed in a direction that disadvantages online doctoral students when they seek academic faculty positions. While this poses an outlook seemingly bleak for candidates hoping to enter the academy, public affairs doctoral degrees from online and/or for-profit institutions may be sought for professional development or returning to practitioner appointments—without expectations of entering academic postings. The previous research (Cordes et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref112">16</reflink>]; Rahm et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref113">50</reflink>]) on the overwhelming departure rate of students leaving academia upon completion of doctoral degrees did not investigate whether that attrition is voluntary or involuntary, based upon available job opportunities. That is, these may be voluntary decisions by graduates seeking other opportunities or may be involuntary since many institutions are facing financial challenges that limit new full-time faculty hires. Future research should investigate possible differences in the employment expectations of online and traditional doctoral students and/or recent doctoral graduates, dependent upon institutional characteristics and on national context.</p> <p>The findings also indicated distinct Secondary Subject differences for doctoral research between traditional institutions and online institutions. The differences between doctoral research focuses warrant further discussion and investigation. If online doctoral institutions are to address perceptions of quality, credibility, and contribution to the field of knowledge, then results indicating a differentiation in research focus and output may need to be addressed. Public affairs is undoubtedly an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary field where different institutions certainly produce different focuses for doctoral research. Whether this variation contributes to the gap in perception is an open question.</p> <p>Finally, this study contributes to the literature on the hireability of online doctoral program graduates in the context of higher education outcomes across delivery modalities. Overall, there has been an expansion in the number of awarded PhD degrees without similar expansions in the number of academic positions in the United States (Milojević et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref114">39</reflink>]). Broadly, other recent shifts in the academic job market demonstrate that even when recent graduates obtain an academic job, more than half of those faculty members leave the profession within five years, compared to 35 years in the 1960s (Milojević et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref115">39</reflink>]). Prospective and current doctoral students seeking to pursue faculty positions in higher education should consider the difference in the perception of program graduates in the job market when they weigh their program choices. Certainly, attitudes can change. As online education continues to expand and gain broader acceptance, this difference in perception may narrow, so this type of study should be repeated to monitor attitudinal shifts. Furthermore, this study is limited to public affairs programs in the United States, and additional research needs to be done regarding such perceptions in other fields and other countries. However, if this difference in perception holds for other fields, it indicates a possible difference in student outcomes of which students, higher education institutions, and national governing and accrediting bodies need to be aware.</p> <ref id="AN0155930192-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, J., & DeFleur, M. H. (2005). The acceptability of a doctoral degree earned online as a credential for obtaining a faculty position. American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (2), 71 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1902_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref91" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Albion, P., & Erwee, R. (2011). Preparing for doctoral supervision at a distance: Lessons from experience. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2011 (pp. 82 – 89). AACE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref49" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Rowman and Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bannier, B. J. (2016). Global trends in transnational education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6 (1), 80 – 84. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. CQ Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79 (3), 1243 – 1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74 (3), 379 – 439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref46" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref34" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blankenberger, B. (2020). Higher education policy environment and accountability. In D. Slagle & A. Williams (Eds.), Practicum in public administration (pp. 11 – 43). Birkdale Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blankenberger, B., McChesney, K. Y., Schnebly, S. M., Moranski, K. R., & Dell, H. (2017). Measuring racial bias and general education assessment. The Journal of General Education, 66 (1), 42 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blankenberger, B., & Williams, A. (2020). COVID and the impact on higher education: The essential role of integrity and accountability. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42 (3), 404 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1771907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broome, M. E., Halstead, J. A., Pesut, D. J., Rawl, S. M., & Boland, D. L. (2011). Evaluating the outcomes of a distance-accessible PhD program. Journal of Professional Nursing: Official Journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 27 (2), 69 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butcher, J., & Sieminski, S. (2006). The challenge of a distance learning professional doctorate in education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 21 (1), 59 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510500472239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carnevale, D. (2007). Employers often distrust online degrees. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, 28 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39 (S1), 93 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00389_7.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cordes, J., Conger, D., Ladd, H., & Luger, M. (2008). Undergraduate and doctoral education in public policy: What? Why? Why not? Where to? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27 (4), 1009 – 1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deming, D. J., Yuchtman, N., Abulafi, A., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The value of postsecondary credentials in the labor market: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 106 (3), 778 – 806. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Priest, T. A., & Absher, B. M. (2013). Are academic administrators becoming more accepting of faculty with online doctoral degrees? American Journal of Distance Education, 27 (2), 77 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.768124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeVaney, T. A. (2010). Anxiety and attitude of graduate students in on-campus vs. online statistics courses. Journal of Statistics Education, 18 (1), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2010.11889472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2006). Transparency and quality in higher education markets. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 61 – 85). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felbinger, C. L., Holzer, M., & White, J. D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59 (5), 459 – 464. https://doi.org/10.2307/977428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaus, J. M. (1947). Reflections on public administration. University of Alabama Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginder, S. A., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Mann, F. B. (2019). Enrollment and employees in postsecondary institutions, Fall 2017; and financial statistics and academic libraries, Fiscal Year 2017: First look (provisional data). NCES 2019-021Rev. National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591907.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazelkorn, E., & Gibson, A. (2019). Public goods and public policy: What is public good, and who and what decides? Higher Education, 78 (2), 257 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0341-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, D. E. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hentschke, G. C., Lechuga, V. M., & Tierney, W. G. (2010). For-profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education. Stylus Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaggars, S., & Bailey, T. R. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a Department of Education meta-analysis. Community College Research Center Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/effectiveness-fully-online-courses.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2013). Management faculty perceptions of candidates with online doctorates: Why the stigma? American Journal of Distance Education, 27 (2), 89 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.773221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klasik, D., & Hutt, E. L. (2019). Bobbing for bad apples: Accreditation, quantitative performance measures, and the identification of low-performing colleges. The Journal of Higher Education, 90 (3), 427 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1512804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2015). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (5th ed). CQ Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes assessment in American higher education. University of Illinois and Indiana University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, S., & Coe, C. (2017). Mentoring and student support in online doctoral programs. American Journal of Distance Education, 31 (2), 128 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, D. (2018). Who is studying online (and where). Inside Higher Ed, 5. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/new-data-online-enrollments-grow-and-share-overall-enrollment">www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/new-data-online-enrollments-grow-and-share-overall-enrollment</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, J. H., Dannels, S. A., & Watkins, R. (2008). Qualitative investigation of doctoral students' learning experiences in online research methods courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (3), 223 – 236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. (2018). Public/private in higher education: A synthesis of economic and political approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (2), 322 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1168797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMahon, W. W., & Walter, W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. JHU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115 (3), 1 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Baki, M., Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. ED No. 04-CO-0040, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://repository.alt.ac.uk/629/1/US_DepEdu_Final_report_2009.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milojević, S., Radicchi, F., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (50), 12616 – 12623. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800478115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of education statistics. Table 311.15. Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2016 and Fall 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_311.15.asp?current=yes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors' Association. (1986). Time for results. National Governors' Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED246833</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Network of Schools of Public Policy Affairs and Administration. (2020). Doctoral program managemen t. https://<ulink href="http://www.naspaa.org/resources/resources-programs/managing-undergraduate-or-doctoral-program/doctoral-program-management">www.naspaa.org/resources/resources-programs/managing-undergraduate-or-doctoral-program/doctoral-program-management</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ochoa, E. (2011). Renewing the American dream: The college completion agenda. <ulink href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/05/renewing-american-dream-college-completion-agenda">http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/05/renewing-american-dream-college-completion-agenda</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pantò, E., & Comas-Quinn, A. (2013). The challenge of open education. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 9 (1), 11 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pilkington, M., & Nair, G. (2013). Global trends in higher education: An unexpected convergence between France and India. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 4 (1), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEED.2013.054101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Privitera, G. J. (2018). Essential statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qayyum, A., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2019). The state of open and distance education. In Open and distance education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East (pp. 125 – 140). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raadschelders, C. N. J., & Douglas, J. 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahm, D., Brittain, V., Brown, C., Garofalo, C., Rangarajan, N., Shields, P., & Jung Yun, H. (2015). Exploring the demands for PhDs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21 (1), 115 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2015.12001820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, A. (2011). A guide to major U.S. college completion initiatives (A Higher Education Policy Brief). AASC&U. <ulink href="http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/PolicyPublications/Policy%5fMatters/College%20Completion%20October%202011.pdf">http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/PolicyPublications/Policy%5fMatters/College%20Completion%20October%202011.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultze, C. (1983). The public use of private interests. Brookings Institution.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slagle, D., & Williams, A. M. (2019). Changes in public affairs and administration doctoral research, 2000 and 2015. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25 (4), 441 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1477370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tait, A. (2018). Doctoral study and research degrees: Online and distance programmes. Commonwealth of Learning. <ulink href="http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/3052/2018%5fTait%5fDoctoral-Study-and-Research-Degrees-Online-and-Distance-Programmes.pdf?sequence=1">http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/3052/2018%5fTait%5fDoctoral-Study-and-Research-Degrees-Online-and-Distance-Programmes.pdf?sequence=1</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Totaro, M. W. (2009). Business faculty and undergraduate students' perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20 (1), 29 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2011). College completion toolkit. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf">http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. News and World Report. (2020). U.S. News best colleges. https://<ulink href="http://www.usnews.com/best-colleges">www.usnews.com/best-colleges</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, M. W., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11 (3), 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, J. D., Adams, G. B., & Forrester, J. P. (1996). Knowledge and theory development in public administration: The role of doctoral education. Public Administration Review, 56 (5), 441 – 452. https://doi.org/10.2307/977043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikeley, F., & Muschamp, Y. (2004). Pedagogical implications of working with doctoral students at a distance. Distance Education, 25 (1), 125 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winston, G. C. (1992). Hostility, maximization, & the public trust: Economics and higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 24 (4), 20 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yick, A. G., Patrick, P., & Costin, A. (2005). Navigating distance and traditional higher education: Online faculty experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6 (2), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Derek R. Slagle; Bob Blankenberger and Adam M. Williams</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Derek R. Slagle holds a dual appointment in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Public Affairs as an assistant professor and Director of the UALR Survey Research Center. Additionally, he is an Arkansas Governor appointed Commissioner. His research interests include public affairs pedagogy and institutional characteristics, state government, and higher education administration.</p> <p>Bob Blankenberger is an associate professor and chair in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Illinois Springfield. He is a former Deputy Director of Academic Affairs and Student Success at the Illinois Board of Higher Education. His research interests include educational policy, assessment, and educational attainment.</p> <p>Adam M. Williams is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Public Administration at the University of Illinois Springfield. His research focuses on human resources, public procurement, and public affairs education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1339719
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Are Online Doctoral Program Graduates Viewed as Hireable for Academic Positions? The Case of Public Affairs Programs
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Slagle%2C+Derek+R%2E%22">Slagle, Derek R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0367-3185">0000-0002-0367-3185</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blankenberger%2C+Bob%22">Blankenberger, Bob</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5025-4880">0000-0002-5025-4880</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Williams%2C+Adam+M%2E%22">Williams, Adam M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5307-5370">0000-0001-5307-5370</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Continuing+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Continuing Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 70(1):21-41.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Graduates%22">College Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Programs%22">Doctoral Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Affairs+Education%22">Public Affairs Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Potential%22">Employment Potential</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07377363.2020.1859349
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0737-7363
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article compares the hireability of doctoral graduates of online and traditional public affairs programs in the United States. In this context, "hireability" refers to the measure of how likely it is that someone may be hired. There has been an expansion in the number of awarded doctoral degrees, particularly through online degree programs, yet there has not been a commensurate expansion in the number of academic positions. This is especially true in applied fields such as public administration in which online, for-profit institutions are producing 36.2% of doctoral degrees. Furthermore, COVID distancing measures have forced degree programs to shift to mediated instruction, magnifying the importance of comparing program outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding perceptions of hireability of doctoral program graduates despite the importance for accountability in the higher education marketplace. For this study, we surveyed faculty search committee chairs, program directors, and others involved in hiring for public affairs faculty positions in the U.S. Results indicate substantial differences between the perceived hireability of candidates from online doctoral programs compared to traditional ones. Furthermore, a review of dissertation data shows a stark contrast by type of institution in the subjects researched within the same degree awarded.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1339719
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1339719
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07377363.2020.1859349
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Affairs Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Potential
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Are Online Doctoral Program Graduates Viewed as Hireable for Academic Positions? The Case of Public Affairs Programs
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Slagle, Derek R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blankenberger, Bob
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Williams, Adam M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0737-7363
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 70
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Continuing Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1