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