Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.81.2.105-110

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Assessing Faculty Beliefs About the Importance of
Various Marketing Job Skills
Michael R. Hyman & Jing Hu
To cite this article: Michael R. Hyman & Jing Hu (2005) Assessing Faculty Beliefs About the
Importance of Various Marketing Job Skills, Journal of Education for Business, 81:2, 105-110,
DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.2.105-110
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.2.105-110

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 17:54

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

Assessing Faculty Beliefs About the
Importance of Various Marketing Job Skills
MICHAEL R. HYMAN
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO

JING HU
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY
HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK

ABSTRACT. The need to improve the

A

professional skills of those with marketing
degrees has spurred surveys of current students, alumni, practitioners, and faculty
about the importance of various professional
skills; however, previous surveys of marketing faculty have focused only on computer
skills. To address this limitation, the goals of
this study were (a) to identify marketingrelated skills that students, alumni, and practitioners believe to be important; (b) to assess
the importance that marketing faculty currently assign to these skills; and (c) to determine if faculty beliefs about these skills are
longitudinally stable. The results of two original national surveys, fielded in 1995 and
2002, show that faculty view communication
and cognitive skills as relatively more important than other skills and that faculty members’ beliefs about the importance of different skills have not changed since 1995. Also,
faculty beliefs fall into a stable structure of
five basic skills groups—management, cognitive, communication, bridging, and interpersonal—which can be used as a framework
to guide pedagogy and student assessment.
Copyright © 2005 Heldref Publications

fter completing college, most

marketing majors search for jobs
that require a set of skills that they
should have acquired and honed
throughout their education. It is unfortunate that some graduates lack the
skills needed to perform these jobs.
For example, although they believe
their knowledge-related skills are more
than adequate, some graduates report
that they have inadequate technical and
communications skills (Davis, Misra,
& Van Auken, 2002). Moreover, company recruiters report that soon-tograduate students often lack adequate
communication skills, planning and
organization skills, and decision-making skills (McDaniel & White, 1993).
As educators and mentors, marketing
faculty are responsible for helping
their students obtain required job
skills. Thus, identifying the skills that
marketing faculty should foster is
important.
A skill is an underlying ability that can

be refined through practice (Shipp,
Lamb, & Mokwa, 1993). Through
coursework and marketing-related
extracurricular activities, marketing educators help students acquire and develop
professional skills that pertain to academic and career success (Shipp et al., 1993).
Although skill training is important, business schools in general and marketing
programs in particular have been criticized for not developing the skills

deemed important by the business community (Cheit, 1985; McDaniel & Hise,
1984a, 1984b; Stanton, 1988).
This study had three objectives. The
first objective was to generate a comprehensive list of professional marketing skills. Through a review of published work summarizing surveys of
marketing students, alumni, and practitioners, 26 such skills were identified.
The second objective was to assess
the importance that marketing faculty
assign to these skills and whether their
assessment has changed in the last several years. To achieve this objective, we
conducted two original national surveys of U.S.-based marketing faculty.
Because marketing faculty should have
the most global perspective on (a)

needed job skills, (b) the limitations of
current students in these skill areas, and
(c) the best pedagogical exercises to
foster these skills, their assessment—
previously limited to computer skills—
should meaningfully augment the prior
assessments of students, alumni, and
practitioners. The third objective was to
determine if a stable underlying structure in faculty beliefs about necessary
marketing skills exists. The existence
of such a structure would provide faculty and administrators with a clear
framework for developing the best
exercises and student assessment tools,
the latter of clear interest to accrediting
organizations like the Association to
November/December 2005

105

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
Previous Skills-Related Studies
Marketing scholars have tried to
ascertain the most important general
and business-specific skills for marketing practitioners by surveying several
stakeholder groups: employers, alumni,
students, and faculty. Unfortunately, the
results of these scholars’ efforts have
not yielded a clear consensus about the
relative importance of many skills. Furthermore, all previous surveys of faculty ignored general skills, such as information gathering and problem solving.
Employer Surveys
Researchers have queried Fortune
500 executives (Court & Hyman, 1996),
recruiters (McDaniel & White, 1993;
Ursic & Hegstrom, 1985), and employers (Hafer & Hoth, 1981; Kelley &
Gaedeke, 1990) about critical skills for
marketing practitioners. Recruiters and
employers tended to rate oral and written communication, ability to collaborate, organization, and planning as very
important skills but business-specific

skills, such as marketing or financial
modeling, as less important. Court and
Hyman only studied computer skills, so
no assessment of general skills by Fortune 500 executives is available.
Alumni Surveys
In surveys of alumni, researchers
have polled undergraduate marketing
(Davis et al., 2002; Ursic & Hegstrom,
1985) and nonmarketing (Davis et al.;
King & Rawson, 1985) degree holders
with several years of work experience.
Such respondents, who understand
workplace realities yet can easily recall
their university instruction, generally
rated oral and written communication
and ability to collaborate as very important skills, but analytical and businessspecific skills as less important.
Student Assessments
Published studies of current students
entailed surveys of undergraduate marketing majors (Duke, 2002; Hafer &
Hoth, 1981; Kelley & Gaedeke, 1990;

Ursic & Hegstrom, 1985) and masters
106

Journal of Education for Business

of business administration students
(Dacko, 2001). These students tended to
rate oral and written communication,
ability to collaborate, decision-making,
leadership, planning, and organization
as very important skills; they generally
rated business-specific skills as meaningfully less important.
Faculty Assessments
Previous faculty studies entailed surveys of professors (Court & Hyman,
1996; Messina, Guiffrida, & Wood,
1991), marketing department chairpersons (Turnquist, Bialaszewski, &
Franklin, 1991), and business school
deans (McNeeley & Berman, 1988).
Although such respondents may have a
more comprehensive and consistent perspective, all previous faculty surveys

were of limited scope. Court and
Hyman, McNeeley and Berman, and
Turnquist et al. only addressed students’
computer skills. Messina et al. focused
on the gap between faculty and practitioner beliefs about content-knowledge
requirements for entry-level industrial
marketing jobs.
Consensus
Students, alumni, and employers
tended to rate four general skills—oral
communication, written communication, decision making, and ability to collaborate—as the most critical skills for
marketing practitioners. They rated
leadership, planning, and organizing of
somewhat less importance and business-specific skills of much less importance. However, the consensus was far
from perfect. For example, even among
skills they all considered important, students tended to rate some skills as less
important and other skills as more
important than did practitioners and
alumni. Thus, the previous surveys do
not yield a clear consensus about the

relative importance of many professional skills.
Marketing degree programs, and their
associated faculty, focus on widely
applicable skills important for entrylevel and higher level jobs in most
industries. In contrast, students, alumni,
and employers tend to focus on industry
and job-specific skills. As a result of
their more universal perspectives, the

importance of various professional
skills should differ less among faculty
than among students, alumni, and
employers. For example, recruiters who
interviewed for different marketing
positions rated several job skills of different importance (McDaniel & White,
1993). Similarly, in one study of
employers, many responses about skill
importance were inconsistent (Kelley &
Gaedeke, 1990). On skills required for
entry-level industrial marketing jobs,

faculty responses were more consistent
than practitioner responses (Messina et
al.). Thus, a comprehensive survey of
faculty beliefs about necessary job skills
for marketing practitioners could provide clearer insights useful for pedagogy design and assessment that are
more readily generalized.
METHOD
In 1995 and 2002, we asked independent samples of U.S.-based marketing
faculty to answer the same set of skillsrelated and personal profile questions.
These two faculty samples and the
research instrument they received are
described below.
Two Samples
In 1995, we conducted the first survey
via mail, using the 1995 American Marketing Association Membership Directory as the sample frame. A systematic
sample of 400 faculty members was
drawn from this frame. The questionnaire—a center-stapled, 21.6 x 17.8 cm
booklet printed on standard white
paper—and a one-page cover letter were
mailed first class (with postal service
stamps rather than metered postage) to
the sample. A return envelope with
postal service stamps was included.
Reminder postcards were mailed 3
weeks after questionnaires were mailed.
A total of 133 usable responses were
received, representing a response rate of
33.2%.
In 2002, we conducted the second
survey online. We sent an invitation
e-mail, identifying the purpose of the
survey and the link to the survey Web
site, to roughly 3,500 U.S. marketing
faculty. These marketing educators were
either listed in the Prentice Hall Marketing Faculty Directory (Hasselback,

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

2001) or on the marketing department
Web pages of the 716 U.S. institutions
listed in that directory. Only professors
and administrators were invited to participate; lecturers were excluded. Several weeks later, we posted a request for
U.S.-based faculty to participate in the
survey on the Electronic Marketing
(ELMAR) Listserv (elmar@ama.org),
an international e-mail network for marketing academicians. This second
request was meant to encourage participation by faculty who mistook the optin e-mail for spam. Only 24 additional
qualified respondents submitted questionnaires after the ELMAR posting. It
is impossible to know if any of these 24
respondents were motivated by the
ELMAR posting, the original invitation,
or both solicitations.
The e-mail invitations and ELMAR
request induced 218 faculty members to
complete the online questionnaire. Two
respondents were eliminated from
analysis because they failed to answer
more than half the questions. Although
low, the effective response rate—based
on initial invitations—of 6.2% is
acceptable given that response rates are
lower for online surveys than for postal
mail surveys (Schuldt & Totten, 1994;
Tse, 1998; Weible & Wallace, 1998).
Table 1 shows a profile of the two
samples on five basic characteristics:
gender, age, level of accreditation for
their affiliated colleges, highest degree
received, and discipline of highest
degree. Respondents in both samples
tended to be male (roughly 75%), be at
least 45 years old (roughly 70%), possess terminal degrees in marketing
(roughly 80%), and work at non-PhDgranting institutions (roughly 70%).
Although the sample frame and questionnaire administration differed markedly between the two surveys, the profile
data were quite similar; the only possibly
noteworthy difference is the slightly
lower incidence of respondents from nonAACSB-accredited institutions for the
2002 survey. Thus, no meaningful systematic intersample bias was indicated.
The Instrument
The questionnaire included 26 items
meant to assess marketing faculty beliefs
about the general and business-specific

skills required for marketing practitioners. We compiled these items from the 13
previously reviewed articles on the topic.
We used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not at all important to 7 =
extremely important. The scale was negatively skewed because prior literature
suggested that most of the responses
would be toward the positive endpoint
and data from congruently unbalanced
scales should produce cleaner factor
analysis results by increasing interrespondent variation (Hyman, 1996).
RESULTS
Univariate and factor analyses of the
marketing skills ratings provided by
respondents to the 1995 and 2002 surveys could indicate the stability of faculty skill ratings and the underlying structure of faculty beliefs about those skills.
Univariate Analysis
Table 2 summarizes faculty beliefs
about the importance of 26 different
marketing skills suggested by prior
research. The skills are listed from highest to lowest mean importance rating by
respondents to the 2002 survey.

All skills were considered at least
somewhat important (M > 4, SD = 0.55
to 1.34) by faculty surveyed in 1995 and
2002. Ten of the 26 skills were rated
very important (M ≥ approximately 6.0,
SD = 0.55 to 1.03) in both surveys;
these skills were oral and written communication, critical thinking, problem
solving, decision making, analytical
skills, planning, marketing, computer
skills, and working well with others.
Table 2 shows that the standard deviations for the more important skills are
meaningfully less than the standard
deviations for the less important skills;
thus, marketing faculty rated the most
important skills more consistently than
they rated the less important skills. Foreign language and manufacturing or
production skills were clearly rated as
least important; only these skills had
mean ratings of less than 5 in both surveys (SD = 1.12 to 1.29).
Independent sample t tests were conducted to test the consistency in faculty
beliefs at the beginning and end of this
7-year period. The results showed no
significant difference (p > .05), except
for a drop in the importance of qualitative-thinking skills, M = 6.12 vs. 5.87,

TABLE 1. Characteristics of Faculty Completing Surveys on Needed Job
Skills for Marketing in 1995 and in 2002
1995
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Age
Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Level of accreditation for affiliated college
Undergraduate
Master’s
Doctorate
Not accredited
Highest degree received
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctorate
Discipline of highest degree
Marketing
Other

2002

N

%

N

%

100
29

77.5
22.5

154
51

75.1
24.9

0
5
43
55
18
8

0
3.9
33.3
42.6
14.0
6.2

0
8
51
81
50
17

0
3.9
24.6
39.1
24.2
8.2

6
36
35
27

5.8
34.6
33.7
26.0

11
93
64
36

5.4
45.6
31.4
17.6

0
8
98

0
7.5
92.5

1
19
192

0.5
9.0
90.6

108
22

83.1
16.9

170
45

79.1
20.9

November/December 2005

107

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

TABLE 2. Faculty Ratings of Marketing Skill Importance for 1995 and
2002 Surveys
1995
(n = 133)
M
SD

Skill
Oral communication skills
Written communications skills
Critical thinking skills
Problem solving skills
Decision-making skills
Marketing skills
Ability to work well with others
Analytical skills
Computer skills
Planning skills
Ability to articulate goals
Organization skills
Information-gathering skills
Time management skills
Leadership skills
Qualitative thinking skills
Quantitative skills
Networking skills
Negotiation skills
Small group skills
Nonverbal communication skills
Etiquette skills
Cross-function competence
Cross-cultural competence
Foreign language skills
Manufacturing/production skills

6.73
6.75
6.65
6.62
6.48
6.31
6.33
6.31
5.98
6.10
5.89
5.95
5.69
5.92
6.03
6.11
5.38
5.38
5.57
5.64
5.47
5.08
5.26
5.07
4.22
4.03

.643
.556
.688
.624
.794
.971
.807
.809
.957
.843
1.024
.932
.961
1.030
.937
1.040
1.119
1.084
1.054
.940
1.152
1.326
1.250
1.216
1.118
1.290

2002
(n = 215)
M
SD
6.73
6.66
6.58
6.56
6.50
6.49
6.38
6.15
6.12
6.00
5.95
5.94
5.93
5.91
5.90
5.87
5.56
5.49
5.48
5.45
5.43
5.16
5.13
5.07
4.20
3.93

.546
.650
.833
.776
.773
.820
.847
.981
.949
.988
.970
.989
1.018
1.033
1.052
1.139
1.121
1.127
1.071
1.126
1.231
1.218
1.261
1.343
1.287
1.273

Note. 1 = not at all important and 7 = extremely important.

t (346) = −2.08, p = .04, and a rise in the
importance of information gathering
skills, M 5.69 versus 5.93, t(346) = 2.20,
p = .03. The drop in the importance of
qualitative-thinking skills might be
reflective of the increased availability
and user-friendliness of software for
statistical analysis and quantitative
modeling, which encourages their use
by even the minimally computer literate. The rise in the importance of information-gathering skills might be reflective of the increased quality and
quantity of online data and Internet
search engines. Regardless, to identify a
consistent latent structure of important
skills across the two survey administrations, these two items were dropped
from subsequent analysis.
Factor Analysis
Table 3 summarizes the results of
maximum likelihood factor analyses
conducted separately on the two data
108

Journal of Education for Business

sets, with a focus on the common variance associated with individual variables. The results show a common latent
structure for marketing faculty beliefs
about the skills needed by successful
marketing practitioners. For both the
1995 and 2002 data sets, retained items
had factor loadings of 0.50 or above.
Based on the pattern of items and loadings, the following factors seemed to
emerge: management skills, cognitive
skills, communication skills, bridging
skills, and interpersonal skills.
Management skills include decisionmaking skills, leadership skills, planning
skills, organization skills, and time-management skills. Most of these skills were
rated as important in previous studies:
decision making in Dacko (2001), Duke
(2002), McDaniel and White (1993), and
Ursic and Hegstrom (1985); leadership in
Dacko, Duke, Hafer and Hoth (1981),
Kelley and Gaedeke (1990), and
McDaniel and White; and planning and
organization in Dacko, McDaniel and

White, and Ursic and Hegstrom. Cognitive skills have been identified as problem-solving skills (Davis et al., 2002;
Kelley & Gaedeke), critical-thinking
skills (Braun, 2004), and analytical skills
(Dacko; Davis et al.; Duke; McDaniel &
White). Communication skills (oral and
written) were assessed as important in
almost all previous studies (Dacko; Davis
et al.; Duke; Hafer & Hoth; Hite, Bellizzi, & McKinley, 1987; Kelley &
Gaedeke; King & Rawson, 1985;
McDaniel & White). Bridging skills (i.e.,
foreign language skills, cross-functional
competence, and cross-cultural competence; Dudley & Dudley, 1995) and interpersonal skills (i.e., small group skills,
negotiation skills, networking skills, and
etiquette skills) are the two sets of skills
considered less important by practitioners and alumni than by marketing faculty.
Table 3 shows that the factor loadings
for the interpersonal skills items are
negative for the 1995 data set and positive for the 2002 data set. This sign
change could be an artifact of factor
rotation or suggest a shift in faculty
opinion. To resolve this ambiguity, we
calculated composite measures for each
set of related skills that loaded on a
given factor, where each respondent’s
score was the sum of the related items
divided by the number of items. We then
calculated correlation matrices for these
five composite measures for both data
sets. If the pattern—signs and magnitudes—of correlations in these matrices
was similar, then the sign change was an
artifact of factor rotation. In fact, the
sign changes for the four skills that load
on the interpersonal skills factor represented such an artifact.
Cronbach’s alpha for all dimensions
was acceptable (α > .70) except for
communication skills in the 2002 survey (α = .664). The reason for the relatively low reliability of this scale was
that another item, ability to work well
with others, also loaded highly on communication skills, but it was deleted
from the factor structure because it did
not load highly on this dimension for
the earlier survey (α = .3).
Univariate F Tests
To test whether faculty beliefs were
related to gender, age, or type of institution (AACSB accredited or not), we

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

TABLE 3. Factor Analysis of Fundamental Marketing Skills for 1995 and
2002 Surveys

Skill
Management skills
Decision-making skills
Leadership skills
Planning skills
Organization skills
Time management skills
Cognitive skills
Problem solving skills
Critical thinking skills
Analytical skills
Communication skills
Oral communication skills
Written communication skills
Bridging skills
Foreign language skills
Cross-functional competence
Cross-cultural competence
Interpersonal skills
Small group skills
Negotiation skills
Networking skills
Etiquette skills

1995
Factor
loading
α

2002
Factor
loading

.881
–.632
.623
.927
.923
.701

α
.854

.583
.547
.899
.904
.761
.825

.935
.743
.633

.867
.834
.849
.456

.781
.749
.865

.664
.531
.500

.734
.601
.694
.694

.770
.678
.572
.936

.749
–.585
–.770
–.689
–.561

.759
.636
.569
.628
.512

Note. Qualitative skills and information gathering skills were excluded because of significant differences in data between 1995 and 2002. Only items that were grouped similarly are included in
this table.

conducted univariate F tests. The results
revealed no significant difference (p >
.05) on gender or age. However, for
respondents to the 2002 survey, computer skills were rated as more important
by faculty from AACSB-accredited
institutions than from non-AACSBaccredited institutions.
Wilks’ lamda is a measure of the variance in the dependent measures not
accounted for by group membership.
Here, Wilks’ lambda for computer skills
was 0.774; that is, only a small part
(roughly 23%) of the variance in the
believed importance of this skill was
explained by faculty affiliation with an
AASCB-accredited institution. The
remaining variance was attributable to a
lack of consensus among respondents in
each group or measurement error
(Messina, Guiffrida, & Wood, 1991).
Furthermore, a t test showed no difference in beliefs about the importance of
computer skills between faculty at
AACSB-accredited and non-AACSBaccredited institution, t(346) = 1.434, p

= .16. Thus, beliefs about the importance of these five basic skills seem
unrelated to a faculty member’s gender,
age, or institutional accreditation.

developing answers to questions such as
the following:
1. How should marketing educators
incorporate professional skills training
into their teaching objectives?;
2. What exercises—both course-related and extracurricular—would be most
effective in fostering professional marketing skills?; and
3. What tools are needed to assess the
adequate attainment of professional
marketing skills?
The answers to such questions can
help marketing educators incorporate
professional skills into their individual
courses and degree programs more efficiently and effectively, make better use
of educational resources to improve student skills, and better prepare their students for the business world. Focusing
on the basic skills sets—management
skills, cognitive skills, communication
skills, bridging skills, and interpersonal
skills—rather than numerous and seemingly different individual skills, will
facilitate course and degree program
changes. This structure can also be used
to develop tools needed to assess the
adequate attainment of professional
marketing skills.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank Shaun McQuitty and Tom
Pilon for their helpful advice.
NOTE

DISCUSSION
Although the social, political, economic, and technological environments
have changed dramatically since 1995,
marketing faculty beliefs about the professional skills their students should
develop have remained stable. This
invariance suggests that there are some
timeless skills that marketing faculty
should foster in their students. The
results of two original surveys of marketing faculty—conducted in 1995 and
2002—indicate that communication and
cognitive skills are consistently viewed
as most important, and bridging skills
are consistently viewed as least important.
A stable latent structure for professional skills of marketing practitioners
can provide a clear framework for

Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Michael R. Hyman, Wells Fargo
Professor of Marketing, College of Business, New
Mexico State University, Box 30001, Dept. 5280,
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8001. E-mail:
mhyman@nmsu.edu.
REFERENCES
American Marketing Association. American Marketing Association Membership Directory.
(1995). Chicago, IL: Author.
Braun, N. M. (2004). Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 232–236.
Cheit, E. F. (1985, Spring). Business schools and
their critics. California Management Review,
27(3), 43–61.
Court, B., & Hyman, M. R. (1996). The undergraduate marketing curriculum and computing
skills: An action grid analysis. In E. W. Stuart,
D. J. Ortinau, & E. M. Moore (Eds.), Marketing: Moving toward the 21st century. SMA conference proceedings (pp. 211–216). Rock Hill,
SC: Winthrop University School of Business
Administration.
Dacko, S. (2001, December). Narrowing skills

November/December 2005

109

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:54 12 January 2016

development gaps in marketing and MBA programs: The role of innovative technologies for
distance learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 228–239.
Davis, R., Misra, S., & Van Auken, S. (2002,
December). A gap analysis approach to marketing curriculum assessment: A study of skills
and knowledge. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(3), 218–224.
Dudley, S. C., & Dudley, L. W. (1995). New directions for the business curriculum. Journal of
Education for Business, 70, 305–310.
Duke, C. R. (2002, December). Learning outcomes: Comparing student perceptions of skill
level and importance. Journal of Marketing
Education, 24(3), 203–217.
Hafer, J. C., & Hoth, C. C. (1981, Spring).
Grooming your marketing students to match the
employer’s ideal job candidate. Journal of Marketing Education, 3(1), 15–19.
Hasselback, J. R. (2001). Prentice Hall marketing
faculty directory. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hite, R. E., Bellizzi, J. A., & McKinley, J. W.
(1987, Summer). Attitudes of marketing students with regard to communications skills.
Journal of Marketing Education, 9(2), 20–24.
Hyman, M. R. (1996). A critique and revision of
the Multidimensional Ethics Scale. Journal of
Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Sci-

110

Journal of Education for Business

ence, 1, 1–35. Retrieved from http://www.empgens.com/A/ethics/ethics.html
Kelley, C. A., & Gaedeke, R. M. (1990, Fall). Student and employer evaluation of hiring criteria
for entry-level marketing positions. Journal of
Marketing Education, 12(3), 64–71.
King, R. H., & Rawson, R. (1985, Summer). An
assessment of employee satisfaction with
undergraduate business-administration education. Journal of Marketing Education, 7(2),
65–73.
McDaniel, S. W., & Hise, R. T. (1984a, Summer).
Shaping the marketing curriculum: The CEO
perspective. Journal of Marketing Education,
15(2), 27–32.
McDaniel, S. W., & Hise, R. T. (1984b, Fall). The
marketing curriculum: A decade of change.
Journal of Marketing Education, 15(3), 2–8.
McDaniel, S. W., & White, J. C. (1993, Fall). The
quality of the academic preparation of undergraduate marketing majors: An assessment by
company recruiters. Marketing Education
Review, 3(3), 9–16.
McNeeley, B. J., & Berman, B. (1988, Fall).
Usage of microcomputer software in AACSBaccredited undergraduate and graduate marketing programs. Journal of Marketing Education,
10(3), 84–93.
Messina, M. J., Guiffrida, A. L., & Wood, G. R.
(1991). Faculty/practitioner differences: Skills

needed for industrial marketing entry positions.
Industrial Marketing Management, 20, 17–21.
Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (1994, Winter).
Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates.
Marketing Research, 6(1), 36–39.
Shipp, S., Lamb, C. W., Jr., & Mokwa, M. P.
(1993, Fall). Developing and enhancing marketing students’ skills: Written and oral communication, intuition, creativity, and computer
usage. Marketing Education Review, 3(3),
2–8.
Stanton, W. J. (1988, Summer). It is time to
restructure marketing in academia. Journal of
Marketing Education, 10(2), 2–7.
Tse, A. C. B. (1998, October). Comparing the
response rate, response speed and response
quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market
Research Society, 40(4), 353–361.
Turnquist, P. H., Bialaszewski, D. W., & Franklin,
L. (1991, Spring). The undergraduate marketing curriculum: A descriptive overview. Journal
of Marketing Education, 13(1), 40–46.
Ursic, M., & Hegstrom, C. (1985, Summer). The
views of marketing recruiters, alumni and students about curriculum and course structure.
Journal of Marketing Education, 7(2), 21–27.
Weible, R., & Wallace, J. (1998, Fall). Cyber
research: The impact of the internet on data collection. Marketing Research, 10(3), 19–31.