Are Academic Administrators Becoming More ...

American Journal of Distance Education

ISSN: 0892-3647 (Print) 1538-9286 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Are Academic Administrators Becoming More Accepting of Faculty With Online Doctoral Degrees? Thomas A. DePriest & Beverly M. Absher To cite this article: Thomas A. DePriest & Beverly M. Absher (2013) Are Academic Administrators Becoming More Accepting of Faculty With Online Doctoral Degrees?, American Journal of Distance Education, 27:2, 77-88, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2013.768124 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.768124

Published online: 27 Jun 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 292

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajd20 Download by: [Union University]

Date: 12 July 2016, At: 06:52

The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 27:77–88, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-3647 print/1538-9286 online DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2013.768124

Are Academic Administrators Becoming More Accepting of Faculty With Online Doctoral Degrees? Thomas A. DePriest The University of Tennessee Martin

Downloaded by [Union University] at 06:52 12 July 2016

Beverly M. Absher Union University

This study surveyed 208 deans and department or division chairs from universities and colleges across the southeastern United States regarding their perception of faculty who had earned their doctoral degrees online. Data revealed only a slightly negative perception of online learning; however, over three-fourths of the respondents would select a candidate with a traditional doctorate versus the candidate with an online degree when hiring a new faculty member.

Much of the literature pertaining to distance education has focused on whether online learning is as effective in delivering course content as traditional learning methods; however, a limited number of studies have addressed the issue of the acceptability of distance education and online degree programs when one is actively seeking employment (Adams and DeFleur 2005; Thirunarayanan 2010). Adams and DeFleur’s (2005) national study concerning the acceptability of an online doctorate as a credential for obtaining a faculty position indicates that an overwhelming number of committee chairpersons would choose a potential faculty candidate with a traditional degree over a candidate with a degree utilizing some form of distance education. In a similar study, Adams and DeFleur (2006) posed the same question of online degree acceptability to potential employers outside of academia. This research likewise provided results in favor of traditional degrees. However, national surveys of hiring executives and committee chairs found that a candidate with a traditional degree was accepted or hired at a much higher rate than a candidate who completed half or all of his or her coursework online (Adams and DeFleur 2005, 2006). There appears to be a paucity of research considering the acceptability of online degrees in academia, particularly as it relates to online and other nontraditional degree programs satisfying the educational requirements to be qualified as a faculty member. Prior to 2006, few studies focused on the acceptance levels of academic administrators when considering candidates for faculty positions who possessed Web-based doctoral degrees. However, a number of studies on this topic have appeared in the literature since that time (Adams and DeFleur 2006; Baltzer, Lazaros, and Flowers 2007; Flowers and Baltzer 2006a, 2006b; Good and Pecca 2007; Stewart, Bachman, and Johnson 2010; Correspondence should be sent to Beverly M. Absher, Union University, 1050 Union University Drive, Jackson, TN 38305. E-mail: [email protected]

78

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER

Thirunarayanan 2010; Tinnerman 2008). This indicates the relevance, interest, and concern that Web-based degree programs have generated in recent years.


METHOD Much of the research concerning perceptions of distance learning pedagogy has focused on student and faculty perceptions of online education. A limited number of studies have examined the acceptability of online education as a means of earning baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees (Adams and DeFleur 2005, 2006; DeFleur and Adams 2004). Adams and DeFleur’s 2005 study gathered data from chairs of hiring committees and focused specifically on the acceptability of an online doctoral degree when a potential candidate is seeking a faculty position at an institution of higher learning. However, the final decisions regarding the hiring of faculty members are often made based on recommendations of an academic dean or an academic chair in lieu of a dean. The purpose of this research was to compare the hiring preferences of academic administrators when deciding between faculty candidates who possess either a traditional degree or a degree that employed some form of online course delivery. Although this regional study encompassed the same general aspects of Adams and DeFleur’s (2005, 2006) national studies, it was designed to gather additional information pertinent to understanding academic administrators’ hiring practices. Variables Considered The independent variables are the demographic factors of the faculty (see Table 1). These factors include university size (under five thousand students to over twenty thousand students), number of faculty in the universities’ college/school (between two and six faculty to more than thirty-five faculty), description of the institution (public, private, etc.), and administrative position (dean or department chair). The dependent variable, online attitude, is the mean outcome from the Likerttype sample questions concerning the perceptions of online degrees by academic administrators. In addition, to ensure that a high mean score represents a positive assessment of online education and a low mean score represents a negative assessment of online education, answers to negatively phrased questions were reverse coded. Finally, to ensure an acceptable reliability score, nineteen of thirty-six questions were used in constructing the dependent variable; this produced a Cronbach’s alpha score of .80. Sample The intent of the researchers was to survey academic administrators who are directly involved in the hiring process of faculty members; therefore, the survey instrument was sent to academic deans and/or division/department chairs. The academic administrators surveyed were employed at four-year public and private colleges and universities in the southeast portion of the United States, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. This particular population of academic administrators was chosen due to the prevalence that one may find a representation of these academic colleges/schools at

ARE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS BECOMING MORE ACCEPTING?

79

TABLE 1 Participant Demographics


Variable Number of faculty 2–6 7–10 11–15 16–25 26–35 Over 35 Missing University standing Public Private Missing Academic administrator’s school/college Arts and Science Business Education Missing Academic administrator’s position Dean Chair Missing

Frequency

%

27 23 29 20 23 84 2

13.0 11.1 14.0 9.7 11.1 40.4 1.0

91 99 18

43.8 47.6 8.7

81 59 67 1

39.1 28.4 32.4 0.5

150 57 1

72.1 27.5 0.5

Note: N = 208.

the majority of institutions of higher learning regardless of the institution’s size. These states are within the same hiring market area as the researchers and are found to be similar and grouped as a region in some other organizations, including Amtrak’s regional division (http://www.amtrak. com), the Southeast Chapter of the Music Library Association (http://semla.musiclibraryassoc. org), and others. Instrumentation All participants were surveyed utilizing an adapted instrument from Levernier’s (2005) dissertation. The final survey design consisted of forty Likert-type questions concerning the perceptions and acceptability of online degrees. The questions were arranged to allow participants to choose between different answers such as strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, and unsure. In addition, survey questions were added to collect demographic information pertaining to each school. Questions regarding the type of university (public or private) and the highest degree offered were added to the survey for this study. Procedures Following Institutional Review Board approval from their respective universities, the researchers conducted an online survey by sending a letter in the form of an e-mail to the deans and/or

80

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER


department chairs selected for the study. Each participant was assured anonymity through the use of a Web site that collected data from survey participants without capturing any identifying information from the individual respondent. Data entered into the Web site was transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet allowing only the Web site manager and the researchers to access the information. The spreadsheet contained numerical data only; no names or other information that could be used to identify survey participants were included. The Web-based survey was formatted so that no more than one survey was accepted from an e-mail address to prevent multiple surveys being submitted by the same individual. Surveys were sent to 963 potential survey participants with 208 respondents fully completing the survey, for a response rate of 22%. Answers from the completed surveys were recorded in Excel to allow easy portability of data to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The SPSS package used was Version 16.0.

RESULTS The relationships between academic administrators’ perceptions of online degrees, academic administrators’ demographic association, and administrators’ willingness to hire potential faculty candidates who earned a doctorate degree employing online instruction were investigated in order to answer the three research questions central to this study: 1. What perceptions do academic administrators have concerning online education? 2. Are there any differences in the perceptions of academic administrators concerning online education when comparing university or collegiate demographics? 3. Are there any differences in the perceptions of academic administrators concerning the method of degree completion, specifically traditional, blended, or online degree programs, when hiring for a faculty position? Perceptions of Online Instruction The purpose of the first research question was to gain an understanding of academic administrators’ general perceptions of online education. To accomplish this goal, a scale was calculated (1–2.67 is negative, 2.68–3.32 is unsure, and 3.33–5 is positive) that allowed the researchers to compare the mean results for each of the nineteen survey questions used in construction of the dependent variable. Using this scale, a low score (1–2) represents a negative opinion of online education, a neutral score (3) represents an unsure opinion of online education, and a high score (4–5) represents a positive opinion of online education. Based on an item-by-item comparison of the nineteen survey questions used, one may conclude that academic administrators hold a slightly negative opinion of online education. Specifically, administrators’ responses to five of the survey questions were negative, responses to four of the survey questions were positive, and the remaining ten questions received an unsure response. Demographics and Online Instruction The second research question examined the relationship between the demographic data describing academic administrators and the dependent variable, online attitude. Reviewing the output from



81

independent samples t tests and ANOVAs, one may conclude that there are differences in the perceptions of academic administrators concerning online education when comparing university or collegiate demographics. Statistical tests comparing online attitude with many of the demographic variables describing academic administrators were found to be significant at the .05 level. An independent samples t test was conducted to examine the question of whether administrators employed at institutions of higher learning that offer online degree programs have a greater acceptance of online learning versus schools that do not offer online degrees. The test was significant, t(206) = –3.632, p = .000, but the results were counter to the proposed hypothesis (see Table 2). Administrators at institutions of higher learning that offer online degrees (M = 2.52, SD = .524) held a slightly more negative opinion of online education than administrators employed at institutions that do not offer degrees utilizing an online platform (M = 2.82, SD = .506). According to Allen and Seaman (2007b, 2011), many schools are actively recruiting nontraditional students by offering the flexibility and convenience of online degree programs. Due to these actions, many schools have reported growth in their continuing and/or professional education programs; therefore, administrators who work at universities that are expanding their outreach and online services might be expected have a more positive opinion of online education. An independent samples t test was also run to determine if a significant relationship existed between the type of school, that being one of a public or private university. The test was significant, t(188) = –2.320, p = .021, but the results were counter to the expected outcome (see Table 2). Administrators at public universities held a slightly more negative opinion of online education (M = 2.66, SD = .510) than administrators employed at private institutions of higher learning (M = 2.84, SD = .537). These results are in conflict with Allen and Seaman (2007a), who stated that southern public institutions are consistently more likely to offer online opportunities when compared with private southern colleges. In their 2007 study, the authors reported that nearly 47% of public southern colleges offered online degree courses and programs compared with just 19.6% of private southern colleges. The data obtained by the researchers imply that even though a smaller percentage of private universities offer online degree programs, they maintain an unsure opinion of online degree platforms as opposed to a negative view.

TABLE 2 Test Results for Comparing Online Attitude With Online Degrees, Type of School, and Administrative Position

Online degree program Yes No Type of school Public Private Administrative position Dean Chair ∗p

< .05.

M

SD

t

d.f.

2.53 2.82

.524 .506

−3.63∗

206

2.66 2.84

.510 .537

−2.32∗

188

2.67 2.94

.513 .518

−3.29∗

205


82

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER

In addition, an independent samples t test was run to determine if a significant relationship existed between academic administrators’ opinions of online education based on their official position of school/college dean or division/department chair. Results of this test were significant (t[205] = –3.294, p = .001) and revealed that academic deans (M = 2.67, SD = .513) demonstrated a slightly more negative opinion of online learning compared with division/department chairs (M = 2.94, SD = .518). These results concur with the findings for Research Question 1 pertaining to the general opinion of administrators concerning online education; the majority opinion was unsure (2.68–3.32). An ANOVA test was run to determine if a significant relationship existed between the number of faculty employed within a department and the administrators’ perceptions of online education (see Table 3). The independent variable represented the different numbers of college/department faculty with six groups represented: (1) 2–6, (2) 7–10, (3) 11–15, (4) 16–25, (5) 26–35, and (6) over 35. The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[5, 200] = 1.60, p = .164) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The one-way ANOVA of administrative perceptions of online education based on college/department size revealed a statistically significant main effect (F[5, 200] = 2.94, p = .014) indicating that not all of the six different-size groups perceived the same level of acceptance of online education. The ω2 = .045 indicated that approximately 5% of the variation in perception of online education is attributable to differences between the six different-size groups of colleges/departments. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey/Kramer procedures were used to determine which pairs of the six group means differed. These results are illustrated in Table 4 and indicate that only Group 6 (over thirty-five faculty) held a negative opinion of online education (M = 2.63) with all of the other groups having an unsure opinion of education (M = range of 2.98–2.72) utilizing an online platform. The effect sizes for the groups (Q1–3, Q1–4, Q1–6, Q2–3, Q2–4, and Q2–6 ) were significant effects and ranged from .89 (Q2–3 ) to 1.34 (Q1–6 ) indicating that the groups differed from less than 1 to slightly greater than 1 standard deviation.

TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Different-Size Colleges/Departments and Different School Associations

Number of faculty 2–6 7–10 11–15 16–25 26–35 Over 35 School association Arts and Science Business Education

N

M

SD

27 23 29 20 23 84

2.98 2.97 2.73 2.72 2.79 2.63

.559 .600 .501 .422 .686 .456

81 58 67

2.88 2.69 2.65

.500 .593 .527


83

TABLE 4 Tukey/Kramer Post Hoc Results for Different-Size Colleges/Departments and Different School Associations


Pairwise Q values

Number of faculty 1. 2–6 2. 7–10 3. 11–15 4. 16–25 5. 26–35 6. Over 35 School association 1. Arts and Science 2. Business 3. Education

M

1

2

3

4

5

2.98 2.97 2.73 2.72 2.79 2.63

.140 2.55∗ 2.63∗ 1.93 3.63∗

2.41∗ 2.49∗ 1.79 3.49∗

.076 .620 1.08

.700 1.00

1.70

2.88 2.69 2.65

3.02 3.65∗

0.63

Note: QNumber of Faculty .05; 5, 200 ≈ 2.26. QSchool Association .05; 4, 204 ≈ 3.04. ∗ p < .05.

Finally, an ANOVA test was also run to determine if a significant relationship existed between the different schools/colleges and their respective administrators’ opinion of online education. The independent variable represented the administrators of the different schools/colleges with three groups represented: (1) Arts and Science, (2) Business, and (3) Education. The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[2, 204] = 2.32, p = .101) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The one-way ANOVA of administrative perceptions of online education based on different schools/colleges revealed a statistically significant main effect (F[2, 204] = 4.36, p = .014) indicating that not all of the three groups representing schools/colleges maintained the same level of acceptance of online education. The ω2 = .031 indicated that approximately 3% of the variation in perception of online education is attributable to differences between administrators representing the schools/colleges of Arts and Science, Business, and Education. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey/Kramer procedures were used to determine which pairs of the three group means differed. As shown in Table 4, findings indicate that Arts and Science administrators held an unsure opinion of online education (M = 2.88), Business administrators held an unsure opinion of online education (M = 2.69 [note that this opinion was approaching negative]), and Education administrators held a negative opinion of education (M = 2.65) utilizing an online platform. The effect sizes for Arts and Science and Business were .706 and .855, respectively, indicating that the groups differed by less than 1 standard deviation. Hiring Preferences and Online Instruction The third research question examined the relationship between academic administrators’ willingness to hire faculty candidates who possess a doctoral degree employing some form of Web-based


84

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER

instruction and the dependent variable online attitude. The output from the two-factor ANOVA tests indicates that there are differences in the perceptions of academic administrators concerning the method of degree completion when hiring for a faculty position. Statistical tests comparing online attitude with academic administrators and their hiring practices were found to be significant at the .05 level. A two-factor ANOVA was used to examine the variation in hiring practices of administrators when selecting a candidate for a faculty position with a doctorate completed in a traditional program from a traditional university versus a candidate with an online doctorate from a traditional university (see Table 5). The two independent variables were the administrative position (1 = deans, 2 = chairs) and the hiring outcome (1 = not hire, 2 = hire) with 192 administrators providing a definitive answer and 16 responding with “unsure.” The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[3, 188] = 2.163, p = .094) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The ANOVA produced a nonsignificant interaction between administrative position and administrators’ hiring

TABLE 5 Means and Standard Deviations for Different Administrative Hiring Practices

Traditional VS Traditional online Dean Chair Traditional VS Blended Dean Chair Traditional VS Online only Dean Chair Traditional online VS online only Dean Chair

Not Hire

#NH

Hire

#H

N

2.28 (.347) 2.47 (.297)

33

2.82 (.504) 3.06 (.502)

106

139

45

53

2.56 (.403) 2.73 (.495)

64

2.95 (.529) 3.15 (.459)

62

126

30

48

2.76 (.498) 3.04 (.495)

123

141

48

53

2.72 (.497) 3.05 (.450)

96

125

40

47

8

18

2.24 (.436) 2.34 (.308)

18

2.59 (.545) 2.43 (.528)

29

5

7

Note: #NH = number who would not select candidate; #H = number who would select candidate. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.



85

practices when choosing between a candidate with a doctorate completed in a traditional program from a traditional university and a candidate with an online doctorate from a traditional university (F[1, 188] = .081, p = .776). This indicates that any differences between the groups on one of the independent variables did not depend on the level of the other independent variable. Examination of the main effect tests indicated that there were differences between administrators’ hiring practices based on the administrator’s position (dean or chair) when considering potential candidate’s educational background (F[1, 188] = 4.55, p = .034). Examination of the means showed that deans held a more negative view of online education than did chairs, with an effect size of 1.14 and the partial eta squared for this effect of .024. The test of the main effect of hiring practices was also significant (F[1, 188] = 30.56, p = .000). Examination of the means showed that administrators who would not hire a nontraditional candidate held a more negative view of online education when compared with administrators who would hire a nontraditional candidate. The effect size was 1.24 and the partial eta squared for this effect was .140. A two-factor ANOVA was also used to examine the variation in hiring practices of administrators when selecting a candidate for a faculty position with a doctorate completed in a traditional program from a traditional university versus a candidate with a blended doctorate from a traditional university (see Table 5). The two independent variables were the administrative position (1 = deans, 2 = chairs) and the hiring outcome (1 = not hire, 2 = hire) with a total of 174 administrators providing a definitive answer and 34 responding with “unsure.” The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[3, 170] = 1.19, p = .314) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The ANOVA produced a nonsignificant interaction between administrative position and administrators’ hiring practices when choosing between a candidate with a doctorate completed in a traditional program from a traditional university and a candidate with a blended doctorate from a traditional university (F[1, 170] = .143, p = .706). This indicates that any differences between the groups on one of the independent variables did not depend on the level of the other independent variable. Examination of the main effect tests indicated that there were differences between administrators’ hiring practices based on the administrator’s position (dean or chair) when considering a potential candidate’s educational background (F[1, 170] = 8.45, p = .004). Examination of the means showed that deans held a more negative view of blended education than did chairs with an effect size of .51. The partial eta squared for this effect was .047. The test of the main effect of hiring practices was also significant (F[1, 170] = 6.94, p = .000). A two-factor ANOVA was also used to examine the variation in hiring practices of administrators when selecting a candidate for a faculty position with a doctorate completed in a traditional program from a traditional university versus a candidate with a doctorate from an online-only university (see Table 5). The two independent variables were the administrative position (1 = deans, 2 = chairs) and the hiring outcome (1 = not hire, 2 = hire) with a total of 194 administrators providing a definitive answer and 14 responding with “unsure.” The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[3, 190] = .601, p = .615) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The ANOVA produced a nonsignificant interaction between administrative position and administrators’ hiring practices when choosing between candidates with the aforementioned educational


86

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER

background (F[1, 190] = .485, p = .487). This indicates that any differences between the groups on one of the independent variables did not depend on the level of the other independent variable. Examination of the main effect tests indicated that there were not significant differences between administrators’ hiring practices based on the administrator’s position (dean or chair) when considering a potential candidate’s educational background (F[1, 190] = 2.20, p = .139). However, the test of the main effect of hiring practices was significant (F[1, 190] = 21.85, p = .000). A two-factor ANOVA was also used to examine the variation in hiring practices of administrators when selecting a candidate for a faculty position with an online doctorate from a traditional university versus a candidate with a doctorate from an online-only university. The two independent variables were the administrative position (1 = deans, 2 = chairs) and the hiring outcome (1 = not hire, 2 = hire) with a total of 172 administrators providing a definitive response and 36 indicating they were “unsure.” The dependent variable, online attitude, was a scale measuring the perceptions of academic administrators regarding online education. The test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (Levene’s test F[3, 168] = .228, p = .877) indicating that the assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was met. The ANOVA produced a significant interaction between administrative position and the administrators’ hiring practices when choosing between a candidate with an online doctorate from a traditional university and a candidate with a doctorate from an online-only university (F[1, 168] = 4.59, p = .034). This indicates that any differences in the hiring practices of administrators are dependent upon the administrator’s position of dean or chair. Simple main effects analyses were conducted testing the differences between administrators and their subsequent position. These results indicate that there are no significant differences in the means of deans (MNot Hire = 2.59, MHire = 2.72); however, there were significant differences in the means of chairs (MNot Hire = 2.43, MHire = 3.05) when deciding between candidates with a nontraditional educational background. Chairs who would not hire a candidate from an online-only university had a much lower acceptance of online education versus chairs who would hire a candidate with a nontraditional educational background. Data indicate that the majority of the time administrators will choose a candidate with the traditional doctorate over the candidate with a doctorate earned through any form of distance learning. Specifically, 106 of 139 deans (76%) and 45 of 53 chairs (85%) responding indicated that they would select “a candidate with a doctorate in a traditional program from a traditional university over a candidate with an online doctorate from a traditional university.” However, when determining the level of agreement with selecting “a candidate with a doctorate in a traditional program from a traditional university over a candidate with a blended doctorate from a traditional university,” 62 of 126 deans (49%) and 30 of 48 chairs (63%) indicated agreement. Although administrators’ preference is still in favor of a traditional degree, their responses indicate they are not as stringently against candidates with doctorates from blended programs as those with fully online degrees. This may imply that a blended degree program is considered by administrators to be more equivalent to a traditional degree due to students completing some of their required coursework on campus. When administrators were asked to choose between two different online degrees, one completed from a traditional university and one completed from an online-only (or virtual) university, the data indicate that the administrators would select the candidate with the online degree from a traditional school at a much higher rate than a candidate from a virtual, online-only school. Specifically, 96 of the 125 deans (77%) and 40 of the 47 chairs (85%) responding indicated that they would select the candidate with the online degree from the traditional college (see Table 5).


87

These findings suggest that the stigma associated with online degrees is relative depending on the situation: a traditional degree is perceived to be better than an online degree, but an online degree from a traditional school is perceived to be better than an online degree from an onlineonly institution. These findings are consistent with the findings of Adams and DeFleur (2005, 2006); Baltzer, Lazaros, and Flowers (2007); DeFleur and Adams (2004); Flowers and Baltzer (2006a, 2006b); Good and Pecca (2007); Peat and Helland (2004); Thirunarayanan (2010); and Tinnerman (2008).

DISCUSSION


Implications for the Educational Community Although results point toward an overall negative outlook of Web-based instruction, it is only slightly negative. The large number of differing-opinion responses indicates that many administrators are still uncertain with regard to their level of comfort when online instruction is a component of degree completion. Based on her data, Levernier (2005) felt that many educational administrators seem enthusiastic about online instruction but are uncertain about what she called “critical issues” (204). For example, educational administrators are accepting of online instruction’s delivery method and agree that online instruction offers courses that are as academically rigorous as face-to-face courses. However, educational administrators disagree when considering Web-based learning equivalencies and whether online integrity is equivalent to traditional face-to-face instruction. The lack of acceptability of online degrees is quite troubling. This study is among numerous others (Adams and DeFleur 2005, 2006; Baltzer, Lazaros, and Flowers 2007; DeFleur and Adams 2004; Flowers and Baltzer 2006a, 2006b; Good and Pecca 2007; Peat and Helland 2004; Thirunarayanan 2010; Tinnerman 2008) demonstrating that there is a distinct limit to how much employees and stakeholders in higher education are willing to accept online learning. According to Good and Pecca (2007), the negativity toward Web-based instruction is hypocritical considering the large number of online programs currently available. Limitations One limitation of this study is that the population of academic administrators was restricted to states located in the southeastern region of the United States. Another limitation could be the strict utilization of the online method of survey completion. Although online surveys are inexpensive and can be distributed quickly, numerous potential survey participants often forego providing input. Recommendations for Future Research A nationwide study focusing on academic administrators’ perceptions concerning online degrees is warranted. Such a study should include deans and chairs from all disciplines as well as top school officials (president or chancellor) and faculty members. Additional demographic information regarding ages of survey participants might help determine if there is any relationship

88

DEPRIEST AND ABSHER

between the age of administrators and their acceptance level of online studies. One could speculate that administrators who have spent their careers using computers in the classroom and teaching online courses might be more accepting of Web-based degrees.


REFERENCES Adams, J., and M. H. DeFleur. 2005. The acceptability of a doctoral degree earned online as a credential for obtaining a faculty position. The American Journal of Distance Education 19 (2): 71–85. ———. 2006. The acceptability of online degrees earned as a credential for obtaining employment. Communication Education 55 (1): 32–45. Allen, I., and J. Seaman. 2007a. Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006 southern edition. Needham, MA: Babson Survey Research Group, Sloan Consortium. ———. 2007b. Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Babson Survey Research Group, Sloan Consortium. ———. 2011. Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Needham, MA: Babson Research Group, Sloan Consortium. Baltzer, H., E. Lazaros, and J. Flowers. 2007. Review of doctoral programs in technical education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 44 (2): 37–59. DeFleur, M., and J. Adams. 2004. Acceptability of online degrees as criterion for admission to graduate programs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16 (1): 150–163. Flowers, J., and H. Baltzer. 2006a. Hiring technical education faculty: Vacancies, criteria, and attitudes toward online doctoral degrees. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 43 (3): 29–44. ———. 2006b. Perceived demand for online and hybrid doctoral programs in technical education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 43 (4): 39–56. Good, K., and K. Pecca. 2007. The hidden hypocrisy of university faculty regarding online instruction. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 9 (1&2): 267–278. Levernier, E. 2005. An analysis of perceptions of online instruction by department chairs in the field of higher education administration. Ed.D. diss., Georgia Southern University, Statesboro. Peat, J., and K. Helland. 2004. The competitive advantage of online versus traditional education. University of Tennessee. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED492477. Stewart, C., C. Bachman, and R. Johnson. 2010. Predictors of faculty acceptance of online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6 (3), 597–616. Thirunarayanan, M. O. 2010. Will you hire the services of professionals who completed their professional preparation completely online? International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 7 (9): 13–22. Tinnerman, L. 2008. University faculty expressions of computer self-efficacy and personal attitudes regarding the viability of distance learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 5 (4): 3–36.