Exploring the Faculty Pipeline in Educational Administration: Evidence from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1999 to 2000

Abstract

Purpose : This study examines the factors that predict who among those receiving educational administration doctorates is most likely to become a faculty member. Research Design : The study uses 10 years of data on all doctoral recipients from programs in educational administration gathered from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (1990 to 2000). Statistical models, using logistic regression, determined which variables (preparation, experience, and personal) best predicted whether graduates pursued postsecondary academic careers. A separate model determined which variables predicted the likelihood of holding a graduate assistantship (the best predictor of a faculty career). A third model determined the variables that best predicted the selectivity of an individual's undergraduate institution. Findings : The study found that 19% of doctoral recipients in educational administration pursue faculty careers. The best predictors of becoming a faculty member were attending a research university full time, holding an assistantship, being single, having no children, and being younger than age 30. A second track to the professoriat is also evident. Many who pursue faculty careers are older, worked full time in graduate school, and held faculty positions before they graduated. Conclusions : More research is needed about the second track to the educational professoriat. From a policy perspective, questions remain about the characteristics most desired for those training future school administrators as well as future educational administration faculty.

Characteristics of Tenure-Line Faculty in Leadership Preparation Programs: An Analysis of Academic Preparation and Administrative Experience

“…The research category contained research universities–very high research activity (RU-VH) and research universities–high research activity (RU-H); the doctoral category contained doctoral/research universities; and the comprehensive category included master’s colleges and universities, baccalaureate colleges, special focus colleges, and tribal colleges (Figure 1). These categories are consistent with those used by Baker, Wolf-Wendel, and Twombly (2007) in their study of educational administration faculty.…”

“…How one interprets the implications of these findings depends in part on personal values and beliefs regarding the attributes educational leadership programs and tenure-line faculty should possess. For example, the prevailing current view is that faculty members teaching aspiring school leaders should have served as school administrators themselves (Baker, Wolf-Wendel, & Twombly, 2007; Levine, 2005). Accordingly, the significant increase in hiring tenure-line faculty with administrative experience since the mid-1990s (from about one third of the faculty in 1994 to two thirds in 2008) likely would be viewed by many as a positive development.…”

“…Baker, Orr, and Young (2007) reported that comprehensive institutions experienced a 48% increase in doctoral degree programs between 1993 and 2003; as a result, educational leadership doctoral degree production is shifting. Research universities awarded 60% of doctoral degrees in 1990 but only 42% in 2000 (Baker, Wolf-Wendel, & Twombly, 2007). The practice of non-research institutions developing processes to emulate prestigious top-tier research universities has been termed academic drift (Berdahl, 1985); often, an initial step in this process is the addition of doctoral programs (Morphew & Huisman, 2002).…”

“…Our study focused on full-time tenure-line educational leadership faculty members, because they are expected to be involved in all aspects of programming, including teaching, research, service/outreach, and advising responsibilities. Baker, Wolf-Wendel, and Twombly (2007) noted that faculty “are ultimately the principal designers and deliverers of those programs, and themselves provide the research base for what is taught in their own as well as other programs in educational administration” (p. 191). Full-time tenure-line faculty members in research universities reported spending a higher percentage of their time on research and writing (19.4%) than did those in doctoral (14.2%) and comprehensive institutions (12.9%); faculty members in comprehensive institutions spent more time teaching and advising students (47.9%) than did those in doctoral (41.2%) and research institutions (35.1%; Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011a).…”

“…Whereas three in five professors earned their degrees from research universities in 1994 (McCarthy & Kuh, 1997), by 2008, 86% earned their degrees from research institutions (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011a). Because the majority of educational leadership doctoral degrees are now awarded from comprehensive institutions (Baker, Wolf-Wendel, & Twombly, 2007), “the pool of doctoral recipients is increasingly dominated by graduates from less selective institutions” (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007, p. 296). Given these institutional shifts, it is possible that the proportion of educational leadership faculty members with doctoral degrees from research institutions will decline in the coming years.…”