































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 4, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 
1. Bradley M. Coleman, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Education, Communications and Leadership, 

Oklahoma State University, 238 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, b.coleman@okstate.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747   
2. J. C. Bunch, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 307A 

Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349 
3. Brian E. Myers, Professor and Chair, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 305 

Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bmyers@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159 
 

14 

Entering the Agricultural Education Professorate: Hiring 
Authorities’ Perceptions of Tenure-Track Faculty Needs 

 
B. M. Coleman1, J. C. Bunch2, B. E. Myers3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: July 9, 2024 
Accepted: September 16, 2024 
Published: October 11, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
early-career faculty competencies; 
Delphi; developing scholars;  
SDG 4: Quality Education 
  

Abstract 
The purpose of this Delphi study was to identify the competencies 
needed by first-year, tenure-track faculty in the profession of agricultural 
education and its related specializations (i.e., teacher education, 
Extension education, leadership development, and agricultural 
communication) as perceived by hiring authorities. The expert panel was 
composed of 31 individuals across 25 states who were hiring authorities 
of agricultural education faculty. At the completion of the third round, 
there were a total of 52 competencies that reached consensus with the 
panel. The competencies were situated into three thematic categories: 
(a) professional skills, (b) technical skills, and (c) personal attributes. A 
visual framework, including the competencies, categories, and 
subcategories is presented. We recommend that this framework be used 
by graduate programs of agricultural education and related 
specializations as a potential framework for evaluating their 
programming. The time is ripe for a profession-wide conversation around 
the development and preparation of future faculty, and how to establish 
a community of scholars. Future research should be conducted to 
examine the best practices, such as mentorship and collaboration, to 
sustain and support faculty over their career and how such practices may 
be effectively implemented across the agricultural education 
professorate. 

 

mailto:b.coleman@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747
mailto:bunchj@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349
mailto:bmyers@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   15 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Early-career, tenure-track faculty are often met with several challenges associated with their 
multidimensional roles, including an abundance of responsibility, vague performance 
expectations from university administration, and insufficient support systems (Greene et al., 
2008; Love et al., 2023; Nir & Zilberstein-Levy, 2006). These challenges are often heightened 
during the transition period from graduate school into a tenure-track faculty role (Gosling et al., 
2020; Larson et al., 2019). Larson et al. (2019) suggested several strategies for early career 
faculty to be successful in the professoriate. Some strategies included knowing the expectations 
for tenure and promotion and being proactive in areas of scholarship, especially research. 
However, expectations may vary by academic discipline, and clarifying expectations for those 
entering the professoriate could guide how we prepare those entering tenure-track lines.  

Career advancement and educational development are often the primary purposes of obtaining 
a graduate degree in agricultural education settings (Bowen & Miller, 2010). It is the philosophy 
of many graduate programs that their overarching purpose is to produce scholars, and at the 
doctoral level, future faculty (Shinn & Baker, 2010). While the purpose of graduate education 
may remain consistent across programs, approaches may vary across contexts (Gardner, 2008). 
With a potential looming faculty shortage in agricultural settings (National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2021), it is imperative that programs of 
agricultural education and related specializations (i.e., teacher education, agricultural 
communication, Extension education, and agricultural leadership) produce graduates who meet 
the needs of the tenure-track faculty role. These four specializations make up one cohesive 
academic discipline (i.e., the agricultural education professorate), with the exception that 
agricultural communication differs most in its theories and philosophical paradigms (Harder et 
al., 2021). Therefore, a national study to determine the needs of those entering the agricultural 
education professorate, especially from the perspective of the profession’s hiring authorities, is 
warranted.  

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study was framed with the theory of human capital (Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1971) and 
Tyler’s (1949) four fundamental questions. Human capital theory (HCT) is the process of 
developing personal characteristics, such as specific knowledge, skills, and competencies. This 
process leads to individuals’ (often employees) increased motivation and productivity. Investing 
in human capital through preparation programs (i.e., graduate education) or on-the-job training 
can lead to increased returns for employers and the larger social, economic, and environmental 
systems (Schultz, 1971).  

Tyler (1949) purported that when developing educational and training programming, it is 
important to consider four questions: (a) What is the overarching purpose of the program? (b) 
What experiences are necessary to achieve said purpose? (c) How should those experiences be 
organized or scaffolded? (d) How might we assess if we have achieved our purpose? These four 
questions can be used to guide programming across a spectrum of educational experiences, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   16 

which may range in time from an individual learning activity to an entire training or educational 
system (Coleman et al., 2024). In this study, we were interested in identifying the human capital 
needs of tenure-track faculty across the system of the agricultural education and related 
specializations professorate. Identifying such needs is well aligned with the first of Tyler’s 
(1949) questions: What competencies and skills are needed when developing future tenure-
track faculty for the agricultural education professorate? We have intentionally included both 
terms, skills and competencies; because, while these terms are used interchangeably in the 
literature, some scholars have offered distinguishing definitions (Boyatzis, 1982; Claxton et al., 
2016; Marin-Zapata et al., 2022; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In this study, we adopted the 
definitions of the terms synthesized by Marin-Zapata et al. (2022, p. 974): “Competence is the 
generic capability of a professional…[and] competency is one of the components of the 
individual’s competence.” Whereas a skill can be defined as “the ability to perform a certain 
physical or mental task that is functionally related to attaining a performance goal” (Marin-
Zapata et al. 2022, p. 974). Competence is inclusive of one’s skills, traits, and knowledge. 

Kezar (2018) developed a framework which outlined four themes of a scholarly educator: (a) 
Mission, goals, and roles; (b) Responsiveness to external forces; (c) Reprofessionalization; and 
(d) Key values (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1 
 
Kezar’s (2018) Model of a Scholarly Educator 

 
 
Kezar’s (2018) framework was developed primarily as a call to action for academia, writ large, 
to expand our views of the roles and responsibilities of faculty – tenure-track and non-tenure-

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   17 

track. This framework is intentionally aligned with Boyer’s (1990) definition of scholarship, 
which included (a) research, (b) synthesis of knowledge, (c) theory-informed practice, and (d) 
teaching and learning. 

While Kezar’s (2018) framework, along with Boyer’s (1990) definition, provides direction for 
developing scholars broadly, it does not address specific competencies needed by faculty, nor is 
it contextualized for the agricultural education professorate. Research that has previously been 
conducted to address the needs of those entering the agricultural education professorate has 
been limited because (a) it focuses on a single university or regional context; (b) it is a decade 
or more old; (c) it is not exclusively focused on first-year, tenure-track faculty; and/or (d) it does 
not examine needs as perceived by hiring authorities (Bowen & Miller, 2010; Goecker, 1992; 
Rocca, 2010; Shinn & Baker, 2010; Welton et al., 1981; Williams, 1997). Therefore, this research 
aims to address such gaps. 

Purpose  
 
The purpose of this Delphi study was to identify the competencies needed by first-year, tenure-
track faculty of agricultural education and its related specializations (i.e., teacher education, 
Extension education, leadership development, and agricultural communication) as perceived by 
hiring authorities. The objectives were:  
1. Describe the comprehensive list of non-duplicated competency statements identified by the 

panel of hiring authorities. 
2. Describe the competencies that were endorsed by the panel of hiring experts. 
 

Methods 
 
The Delphi technique can be used to facilitate a group of individuals in prioritizing their values 
and goals (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Skulmoski et al., 2007). Witkin and Altschuld (1995) 
suggested three steps for conducting a Delphi: (a) planning and panel formation, (b) carrying 
out the questionnaire rounds, and (c) summarization and dissemination. The expert panel was 
composed of individuals who were hiring authorities of tenure-track faculty of agricultural 
education and its related specializations. This included department chairs, heads, directors, 
program leaders, and deans of colleges. To obtain a comprehensive list of post-secondary 
institutions at which agricultural education faculty are employed, we used the electronic list of 
agricultural education institutions offered by the American Association for Agricultural 
Education (AAAE). This resulted in a total of 103 possible institutions with departments that 
included faculty of agricultural education. After reviewing the websites for each institution, it 
was determined that 90 of the 103 institutions had active departments or faculty of agricultural 
education. An initial email invitation was sent to the listed hiring authority (e.g., head, chair, 
etc.) at each of the 90 institutions or to a representative who connected us with the 
appropriate individual. In total, hiring authorities from 31 institutions across 25 states agreed to 
participate.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   18 

The first questionnaire round included open-ended questions (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) 
regarding the competencies that were needed and lacking by first-year, tenure-track faculty 
members in their department at their point of entry to the profession (see Instrument). In total, 
490 competency statements were provided by the panel (N = 31). Open, inductive coding via 
the constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Creswell, 2013) was used to analyze 
the statements by one researcher. A list of 90 condensed statements were presented to the 
research team, and a round of open code negotiation occurred, where the statements were 
compared again to the raw data. The team agreed to condense the data further to 67, non-
duplicated, representative competency statements. These statements were situated into three 
overarching themes: (a) professional skills, (b) technical skills, and (c) personal attributes. The 
67 statements were used to develop the round two questionnaire, and panelists were asked to 
indicate their level of agreement using a six-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = 
slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree). Eighty-one percent (n = 25) of 
the panel participated in round two. The consensus level was established a priori at 75% of 
participants who indicated either agree or strongly agree. Seventy-five percent is consistent 
with other research in the profession (Lundry et al., 2015; Ramsey & Edwards, 2011; Ramsey & 
Edwards, 2012), but consensus levels for Delphi studies can vary based on need (Hsu & 
Stanford, 2007). At the end of the round two questionaries, panelists were also asked if the 67 
statements represented of their input from round one, and 96% of the respondents agreed.  

The third round included sharing with the panel the results of round two, which included the 
individual item means, item measures of spread, and the panelist’s own individual round two 
responses (Witkin & Altshuld, 1995). In this consensus-building round, panelists were asked to 
“examine the results and the degree to which their own responses [were] similar to or different 
from those of the group” (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995, p. 197). Round three panelists (n = 24; 77%) 
then rerated each of the items. In some cases, a fourth round of a traditional Delphi is 
recommended (Linestone & Turoff, 2002); however, others consider it to be optional 
(Skulmoski et al., 2007; Witkin & Altshculd, 1995). In this study, there was a high level of 
consensus among the panel, so there was “little benefit in developing and sending [a fourth 
round]” (Witkin & Althschuld, 1995, p. 197). Reminder emails were sent for each of the three 
rounds to increase response rates (Dillman et al., 2014). 

Findings 
 
Three rounds of questionnaires were completed by the Delphi panel to identify the 
competencies needed by first-year, tenure-track faculty of agricultural education and related 
specializations. The 67 non-duplicated competency statements, and their accompanying 
agreement ratings, are presented alphabetically by round in Table 1. The results of the third-
round questionnaire were used to determine if each competency statement reached consensus 
(≤ 75% agree or strongly disagree). At the completion of the third round, there were a total of 
52 competencies that reached consensus by the panel of hiring authorities. The 15 
competencies that were eliminated after round three included: (a) advising and mentoring 
doctoral students, (b) advising student organizations, (c) Extension and outreach program 
delivery, (d) Extension and outreach program development, (e) Extension and outreach 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517
10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   19 

program evaluation, (f) knowledge of broader disciplinary theory beyond one’s specialization, 
(g) knowledge of diverse research methodologies, (h) motivates and supervises direct reports, 
(i) participates in international programs, (j) provides service to the profession, (k) securing 
external funding to support their program, (l) securing internal funding to support their 
program, (m) supervises internships, (n) teaching in an online setting, and (o) understanding of 
the land-grant mission.  

Table 1 
 
Agreement Percentages for Rounds Two and Three of the Delphi Questionnaire 

Item 

Round 2 (n = 25) Round 3 (n = 24) 

Endorse 
Agree 

% 
Strongly 
Agree % 

Agree 
% 

Strongly 
Agree % 

Accept and implement feedback 44.0 48.0 41.7 58.3 Yes 
Advising and mentoring doctoral 

students 
24.0 12.0 12.5 16.7 No 

Advising and mentoring master’s 
students 

48.0 20.0 50.0 25.0 Yes 

Advising and mentoring undergraduate 
students 

32.0 44.0 45.8 41.7 Yes 

Advising students for career 
preparation* 

36.0 36.0 41.7 50.0 Yes 

Advising student organizations 32.0 16.0 37.5 8.3 No 
Analyze research data 40.0 40.0 50.0 41.7 Yes 
Assessing student learning 40.0 56.0 25.0 70.8 Yes 
Classroom management 48.0 44.0 70.8 29.2 Yes 
Collect research data 40.0 40.0 54.2 37.5 Yes 
Communicating one’s expertise* 32.0 40.0 50.0 45.8 Yes 
Composing timely and professional 

written correspondence 
60.0 20.0 83.3 8.3 Yes 

Demonstrates empathy 60.0 20.0 87.5 8.3 Yes 
Demonstrates professionalism 20.0 76.0 4.2 95.8 Yes 
Departmental citizenship 48.0 40.0 54.2 37.5 Yes 
Develop a research program/agenda 28.0 56.0 12.5 83.3 Yes 
Developed teaching philosophy 40.0 44.0 45.8 45.8 Yes 
Disseminate research to practitioners* 44.0 28.0 62.5 16.7 Yes 
Disseminate research to scholarly 

audiences 
28.0 48.0 29.2 58.3 Yes 

Encourages high levels of student 
performance 

60.0 36.0 58.3 41.7 Yes 

Encourages student critical thinking 40.0 56.0 29.2 66.7 Yes 
Enthusiastic 52.0 36.0 70.8 29.2 Yes 
Extension and outreach program 

delivery 
48.0 8.0 54.2 8.3 No 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   20 

Item 

Round 2 (n = 25) Round 3 (n = 24) 

Endorse 
Agree 

% 
Strongly 
Agree % 

Agree 
% 

Strongly 
Agree % 

Extension and outreach program 
development 

48.0 8.0 54.2 4.2 No 

Extension and outreach program 
evaluation 

36.0 8.0 29.2 8.3 No 

Foundational knowledge of diverse 
teaching methodologies 

40.0 40.0 58.3 37.5 Yes 

Grant and project management* 52.0 8.0 70.8 4.2 Yes 
Incorporate diversity and inclusion 

competencies* 
48.0 24.0 79.2 16.7 Yes 

Innovative* 40.0 20.0 58.3 29.2 Yes 
Instructional delivery 40.0 56.0 12.5 83.3 Yes 
Instructional design 40.0 44.0 45.8 41.7 Yes 
Interpersonal communication 52.0 40.0 70.8 29.2 Yes 
Interpersonal skills (i.e., collegiality, 

tactfulness, approachable, etc.) 
32.0 60.0 20.8 79.2 Yes 

Implementation of experiential learning 44.0 32.0 58.3 33.3 Yes 
Knowledge of appropriate 

specialization’s theory 
56.0 28.0 70.8 20.8 Yes 

Knowledge of broader disciplinary 
theory beyond one’s specialization   

40.0 4.0 37.5 4.2 No 

Knowledge of diverse research 
methodologies 

32.0 20.0 41.7 8.3 No 

Motivates and supervises direct reports 36.0 20.0 54.2 8.3 No 
Networking with stakeholders 52.0 36.0 66.7 25.0 Yes 
Organized 48.0 44.0 58.3 37.5 Yes 
Participates in international programs 24.0 8.0 4.2 4.2 No 
Participates in professional societies* 32.0 40.0 50.0 29.2 Yes 
Personal resiliency 36.0 60.0 33.3 66.7 Yes 
Plan and design research 32.0 52.0 25.0 66.7 Yes 
Positive supervisor-subordinate 

relationship 
36.0 48.0 50.0 41.7 Yes 

Possesses sound moral character 32.0 64.0 25.0 75.0 Yes 
Practices attentive and active listening 72.0 20.0 70.8 25.0 Yes 
Prioritize competing demands for 

attention 
40.0 52.0 33.3 66.7 Yes 

Proactive and strategic relationship 
building with colleagues 

28.0 68.0 29.2 70.8 Yes 

Produces journal publications 36.0 48.0 37.5 50.0 Yes 
Program and course 

assessment/evaluation 
48.0 28.0 70.8 20.8 Yes 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   21 

Item 

Round 2 (n = 25) Round 3 (n = 24) 

Endorse 
Agree 

% 
Strongly 
Agree % 

Agree 
% 

Strongly 
Agree % 

Provides service to the profession 8.0 24.0 8.3 12.5 No 
Provides timely and appropriate student 

feedback 
44.0 52.0 25.0 70.8 Yes 

Recruit students* 44.0 24.0 54.2 20.8 Yes 
Scholarly writing abilities 24.0 64.0 12.5 83.3 Yes 
Securing external funding to support 

their program 
32.0 16.0 29.2 12.5 No 

Securing internal funding to support 
their program 

32.0 16.0 33.3 12.5 No 

Self-care 44.0 48.0 45.8 54.2 Yes 
Self-directed 44.0 56.0 20.8 79.2 Yes 
Specialization's specific skills (Ag 

education, communication, Extension, 
and/or leadership) 

40.0 36.0 58.3 25.0 Yes 

Supervises internships 24.0 24.0 41.7 12.5 No 
Teaching in an online setting 32.0 36.0 33.3 37.5 No 
Teamwork and collaboration 40.0 52.0 20.8 75.0 Yes 
Time management 44.0 52.0 37.5 62.5 Yes 
Uses research to inform one's own 

practice* 
44.0 28.0 58.3 25.0 Yes 

Understanding of student services and 
ethical responsibilities* 

40.0 32.0 75.0 16.7 Yes 

Understanding of the land-grant mission 20.0 24.0 29.2 12.5 No 
Note. *Indicates item had a change in endorsement from round two to round three.  
 
The hiring-authority endorsed competencies were situated into three thematic categories: (a) 
professional skills (17 items), (b) technical skills (22 items), and (c) personal attributes (13 
items). The endorsed competencies, situated into categories and subcategories, are presented 
as Figure 2. Professional skills were those employability skills that span multiple dimensions of 
an individual’s role as faculty. Technical skills were those that best aligned with research, 
teaching, or Extension and outreach. Lastly, personal attributes, sometimes referred to 
employability skills, generic skills, soft skills, or non-technical skills, were the traits and skills 
that can be innate to one’s personality or disposition, but can also be learned behavior (Claxton 
et al., 2016; Marin-Zapata et al., 2022). Personal attributes are transferrable across multiple 
contexts.   

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517   22 

Figure 2 
 
Framework of Competencies and Skills Needed by Tenure-Track Faculty in Agricultural Education and Related Specializations 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517  23 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Bowen and Miller (2010) suggested that graduate programs in agricultural education and 
related specializations should develop individuals’ career readiness and progression, their 
research experience, and the skills needed to be a productive member of society. The 
competencies that emerged through this study are in direct alignment with Bowen and Miller’s 
(2010) suggestions. 

We recognize that this panel’s emergent competencies may not be an exhaustive list of those 
needed to begin one’s role as a tenure-track faculty member in the agricultural education 
professorate. For example, the item specialization specific skills is encompassing of numerous 
skills that may be necessary for faculty of a specific programmatic focus (i.e., teacher education, 
agricultural communication, etc.). Future research should examine the specialization specific 
skills needed by beginning faculty based on their programmatic focus. Moreover, it is 
noteworthy that the subcategory, Extension/Outreach, only had one item emerge: networking 
with stakeholders. Faculty specializing in Extension education, and those who maintain an 
Extension/outreach appointment, likely need additional competencies to fulfill their role. 
However, those may be competencies that are learned on the job, and this panel was asked to 
identify the competencies needed by tenure-track faculty at their point of entry to the 
profession. The panel also included representatives from non-land grant and regional 
institutions. Such institutions may not prioritize formalized Extension programming, which may 
also explain why multiple Extension-specific competencies did not emerge. 

We recommend this list of competencies be used by graduate programs of agricultural 
education and related specializations as a potential framework for evaluating their 
programming. In line with Tyler’s (1949) recommendations, it is important for educational 
programs to identify a purpose, then plan and organize appropriate experiences needed to 
obtain said purpose. Therefore, this framework should serve as a tool to accomplish this. Those 
who are seeking tenure-track faculty roles, or those who advise such students, should use this 
framework as an individual development tool for preparing the future workforce within the 
agricultural education professorate.  

In addition to using this model to evaluate university graduate programs and individual 
graduate student’s programs of study, we recommend a profession-wide conversation around 
the development and preparation of future faculty. This discussion should work to develop 
consensus around the profession’s role in this process. Possible systems and programs should 
be identified to help develop a community of scholars in the field. These systems could include 
formalized programs within professional organizations but also informal commitments by 
members of the profession to intentionally focus on the development and preparation of new 
scholars in the discipline.  

As this study sought to identify the competencies needed by first-year tenure-track faculty, it is 
recommended that the farmwork (Figure 2) presented in this research be reviewed for 
alignment with Kezar’s (2018) Model of a Scholarly Educator (Figure 1). The ultimate goal of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517  24 
 

hiring authorities is not only to hire quality first-year faculty but also to support these faculty 
members in their professional growth to a fulfilling and successful career. A comprehensive 
career model may prove useful to early career faculty, and the administrators who support 
them, in the development of their personal career growth plans. Developing such plans can 
equip faculty members with the competencies and skills needed for their position at various 
career stages. Future research should be conducted to examine the best practices, such as 
mentorship and collaboration (Larson et al., 2019), to sustain and support faculty over their 
career and how such practices may be effectively implemented across the agricultural 
education professorate.  

Acknowledgments 
 
Author Contributions: B. Coleman - conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – 
original draft, visualization; J.C. Bunch - conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, 
writing – review & editing; B. Myers - conceptualization, formal analysis, writing – original draft. 
 

References 
 

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference 
to education. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/books-and-
chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-
first-edition  

Bowen, B. E., & Miller, L. E. (2010). The value of the graduate degree. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchel, 
& A. L. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 142–
154). The Ohio State University, Curriculum Materials Service.  

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. Wiley. 

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton University 
Press. 

Coleman, B. M., Bunch, J. C., & Roberts, T. G. (2024). Experiential learning in agricultural 
education: A philosophical discussion. Journal of Agricultural Education, 65(1), 283–302. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v65i1.2479   

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 
developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 

Claxton, G., Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2016). Hard thinking about soft skills. Educational 
Leadership, 73(6), 60–64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1092939 

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches 
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-first-edition
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-first-edition
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-first-edition
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v65i1.2479


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517  25 
 

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 
surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.  

Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: Qualitative study of socialization in 
doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9068-x    

Goecker, A. D. (1992). Priorities for college and university agricultural education faculty. Journal 
of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1992.03002  

Gosling, D. R., Chae, N. M., & Goshorn, J. R. (2020). The tenure-track life: Experiences of new 
faculty in tenure-track positions. The William & Mary Educational Review, 7(1), 72–97. 
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/wmer/vol7/iss1/4  

Greene, H. C., O’Connor, K. A., Good, A. J., Ledford, C. C., Peel, B. B., & Zhang, G. (2008). 
Building a support system toward tenure: Challenges and needs of tenure-track faculty 
in colleges of education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(4), 429–447. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260802433791  

Harder, A., Roberts, T. G., & Lindner, J. R. (2021). Commonly accepted theories models and 
philosophies: The subjective norms of our discipline(s). Journal of Agricultural Education, 
62(1), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01196 

Hsu, C. C., & Sanford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical 
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90  

Kezar, A. (2018). A new vision for the professoriate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 
50(3-4), 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509616  

Larson, L. R., Duffy, L. N., Fernandez, M., Sturts, J. Gray, J., & Powell, G. M. (2019). Getting 
started on the tenure track: Challenges and strategies for success. SCHOLE: A Journal of 
Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 34(1), 36–51. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2019.1589804  

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. 
Addison Wesley.  

Lundry, J., Ramsey, J. W., Edwards, M. C., & Robinson, J. S. (2015). Benefits of career 
development events as perceived by school-based agricultural education teachers. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01043    

Love, A. S., Morris, D., & Sego, A. (2023). Navigating the demands of tenure-track positions. 
Health Promotion Practice, 24(2), 218–222. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399221084225  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9068-x
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1992.03002
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/wmer/vol7/iss1/4
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260802433791
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01196
https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509616
https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2019.1589804
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01043
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399221084225


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517  26 
 

Marin-Zapata, S.I., Román-Calderón, J.P., Robledo-Ardila, C., & Jaramillo-Serna, M. A. (2022). 
Soft skills, do we know what we are talking about? Review of Managerial Science, 16(4), 
969–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00474-9  

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Creating the future 
workforce in food, agriculture, and natural resources: Proceedings of a workshop. The 
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26065  

Nir, A. E., & Zilberstein-Levy, R. (2006). Planning for academic excellence: Tenure and 
professional considerations. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 537–554. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600922725  

Ramsey, J. W., & Edwards, M. C. (2011). Entry-level technical skills that agricultural industry 
experts expected student to learn through their supervised agricultural experiences: A 
modified Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 82–94. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02082  

Ramsey, J. W., & Edwards, M. C. (2012). Entry-level technical skills that teachers expected 
student to learn through their supervised agricultural experiences (SAEs): A modified 
Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(3), 42–55. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03042  

Rocca, S. J. (2010). Determining the professional development needs of faculty in a college of 
agriculture. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 54(1), 69–75. 
https://nactaarchives.org/index.php/vol-54-num-1-march-2010-sp-1909931157/115-
determining-the-professional-development-needs-of-faculty-in-a-college-of-agriculture 

Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. The 
Free Press. 

Shinn, G. C., & Baker, M. (2010). Graduate program design. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchel, & A. L. 
Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 156–178). 
The Ohio State University, Curriculum Materials Service.  

Skulmoski, G. J., & Hartman, F. T., Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. 
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6(1), 1–21.  
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/111405/  

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. 
Wiley. 

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. 

Welton, R., Mokma, A., Foster, D., Cvancara, J., & Byers, C. (1981). Postsecondary agricultural 
faculty inservice needs assessment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 22(3), 36–43. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1981.03036  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00474-9
https://doi.org/10.17226/26065
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600922725
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02082
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03042
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/111405/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1981.03036


Coleman et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517  27 
 

Williams, D. L. (1997). Focusing agricultural education research: An agenda for the graduate 
student. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(3), 28–35. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1997.03028  

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical 
guide. SAGE Publications.  

 
  
 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.517
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1997.03028

