Burgett, J M; Smith, J P and Lavang, Y (2017) A comparison between industry's and academia's perceptions of a career in construction education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 13(4), pp. 251-66. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
It is well documented that real-world experience is essential in teaching the applied sciences. However, it has also been shown that faculty positions are being filled with candidates with strong research agendas but less industry experience. The aim of this study is to understand what industry's perception of a career in academia is like and compare it to the perceptions of those actually in the profession. This is viewed as a needed first step in attracting more industry practitioners into construction education. The study surveys practitioners and faculty on how satisfying a career in CM academia is at meeting 16 factors identified as important to overall job satisfaction. The responses of both groups were compared to evaluate where industry's perceptions did not align with those of faculty. The study also compared the workplace attributes that industry indicated they valued most and what faculty indicated a career in education provided. The study found that a terminal degree, interest in research and publishing, interest in teaching, and salary were the greatest barriers for industry practitioners to enter CM academia. The comparison of work place priority and barriers to entry was used to provide potential strategies to encourage more industry practitioners into CM education.;It is well documented that real-world experience is essential in teaching the applied sciences. However, it has also been shown that faculty positions are being filled with candidates with strong research agendas but less industry experience. The aim of this study is to understand what industry's perception of a career in academia is like and compare it to the perceptions of those actually in the profession. This is viewed as a needed first step in attracting more industry practitioners into construction education. The study surveys practitioners and faculty on how satisfying a career in CM academia is at meeting 16 factors identified as important to overall job satisfaction. The responses of both groups were compared to evaluate where industry's perceptions did not align with those of faculty. The study also compared the workplace attributes that industry indicated they valued most and what faculty indicated a career in education provided. The study found that a terminal degree, interest in research and publishing, interest in teaching, and salary were the greatest barriers for industry practitioners to enter CM academia. The comparison of work place priority and barriers to entry was used to provide potential strategies to encourage more industry practitioners into CM education.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | teaching; construction education; industry; experience; academia; profession; education; careers; comparative studies; perceptions; job satisfaction; construction industry |
| Index terms: | job satisfaction, academia, profession, comparative study, construction industry, research agenda, survey, strategy, science, practitioner, construction education, career |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, data collection methods, institututions, practitioner, specialized education, research management, educational institutions, professional education, industry analysis, management, professional development |
| Topics: | Education, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here