Journal of Marketing Education 2002 Davis 218 24

http://jmd.sagepub.com/Journal of Marketing Education

http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/24/3/218The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0273475302238044 2002 24: 218Journal of Marketing Education

Richard Davis, Shekhar Misra and Stuart van AukenA Gap Analysis Approach to Marketing Curriculum Assessment: A Study of Skills and Knowledge

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Marketing EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/24/3/218.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2002Version of Record >>

at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on March 30, 2014jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on March 30, 2014jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DECEMBER 2002JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION

A Gap Analysis Approach to Marketing CurriculumAssessment: A Study of Skills and Knowledge

Richard Davis, Shekhar Misra, and Stuart Van Auken

The need for continuous improvement in a marketing curricu-lum requires periodic outcomes assessments. Part of the pro-cess includes a monitoring of the relevance of a marketingcurriculum to a graduates work environment. This articledescribes a process for conducting an outcomes assessmentand the results of an actual alumni assessment encompassingskill and knowledge areas. Specifically, a gap analysisapproach was employed in which the importance of key skilland knowledge areas to ones current employment were con-trasted with perceptions of their own academic preparationin these areas. Our results indicate that marketing alumniperceive that they are underprepared in skills and over-prepared in designated knowledge areas. The implications ofthe findings are discussed as well as the utility of the gap anal-ysis in outcomes assessment.

The continuous improvement process for a marketingmajor calls for an examination of marketing curricula in sev-eral respectscoverage of theory, application, currency ofinformation, and relevance to the careers of marketingalumni. The relevance aspect of curriculum improvement canbe assessed in part by asking marketing graduates about theextent to which their marketing education prepared them fortheir marketing careers. This article examines the relevancyof marketing curriculum through a gap analysis applied tomarketing alumni.

Gap analysis is a concept that has received much attentionsince it was presented in the services marketing literature byParasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985). These authorsdescribed a gap as a divergence between either an expectedservice and a perceived (delivered) service from a customerspoint of view or the difference between a service providersspecified level of service and the service actually delivered.Overall, measurement can be made objectively in terms ofwhat the consumer receives as a result of his interactionswith a service firm (Lewis and Klein 1986, p. 33). In the con-text of our study, we measure the difference between the ser-vice that was deliveredmarketing curriculumand the stu-dents or consumers perceptions of the relevance of that

service to their careers. The variables that we employ encom-pass skill and marketing knowledge areas.

GAP STUDIESGap analyses may take several forms. To illustrate,

Nordstrom and Sherwood (1997) compared undergraduateand graduate perceptions of the adequacy of skills and char-acteristics required by the work environment. Winer (1998)described a gap analysis approach to assessing the adminis-tration of a business school, including the design of curriculato meet employers expectations. Giacobbe and Segal (1994)also used a gap model to explore the performance interrela-tionships that existed between marketing students, marketingresearch educators, and marketing research practitioners.Their study examined perceptions of performance skills andabilities desired by practitioners relative to the extent of theirdelivery. Lundstrom and White (1997) also used a gap analy-sis to measure perceptual differences between practitionersand academicians on curriculum content and research areas ininternational marketing.

GAP ANALYSES VERSUSOTHER ASSESSMENTS

A gap analysis is an outcomes assessment tool in that itlends itself particularly well to the measurement of alumniattitudes and perceptions. It can provide an indirect indicatorof student satisfaction and/or program quality. It is indirect inthe sense that one can surmise that underpreparation in someareas versus overpreparation in others signifies that the

218

Richard Davis is a professor in the College of Business, Department ofFinance and Marketing, California State University, Chico. Shekhar Misra isa professor in the College of Business, Department of Finance and Mar-keting, California State University, Chico. Stuart Van Auken is a professorand the Alico Chair in the College of Business, Department of Marketing,Florida Gulf Coast University.Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, December 2002 218-224DOI: 10.1177/0273475302238044 2002 Sage Publications

at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on March 30, 2014jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

appropriate educational product may not have been delivered.Of course, there are many outcomes assessment approachesincluding the following: recruiter and employer perceptionsof graduates; exit examinations; the nature and number of jobplacements; student retention rates; student perceptions ofcurriculum, instructional techniques, and faculty; and alumniperceptions of value. Studies have also been made of theattributes of an institution or department important to studentsatisfaction (Gwinner and Beltramini 1995; Juillerat andSchreiner 1996), and pedagogical techniques have beenrelated to an overall attitude toward the marketing major(Davis, Misra, and Van Auken 2000). All of these approacheshave utility. According to Halpern (1988), there is no best sin-gle indicator of program quality.

Still, the degree to which alumni believe that their market-ing education prepared them for marketing careers is cer-tainly a significant indicator of curriculum quality, hence sat-isfaction or attitude. Basically, a gap-based measurement ofalumni perceptions should reveal much about the skills andknowledge components of the marketing option. As Headleyand Choi (1992) pointed out, To improve service quality, onemust listen to the customer since quality is ultimately definedby customer perceptions (p. 8). In the case of the academy,this would include alumni, students, recruiters, and employers.

While all of the assessment approaches have utility, a gapanalysis has many benefits in assessing outcomes. These areas follows:

It has the potential to produce more actionable results thanstudent retention surveys, job placements, student percep-tions of faculty, and exit examinations.

It has the potential to provide deeper insights than mere stu-dent satisfaction surveys.

A basis for comparison or improvement is created. It prompts a systematic process of evaluation versus ad hoc

analysis. Longitudinal trends can be plotted. It provides a quantitative basis for analysis, thus it is scientific

in approach. The variables for analysis can be arrived at through a faculty

consensus, thus creating more of a faculty buy-in or accep-tance of the results.

It is applied to one of the more prime stakeholder groups: amarketing departments alumni.

Some of the liabilities of a gap analysis, however, cannotbe ignored. Therefore, the following is presented:

Surveys may be subject to sampling issues, such asnonresponse bias and inadequate sample size.

The results may be time dependent. That is, recent graduatesmay have different perspectives than nonrecent graduates,and what is important in the short run may not be important inthe long run.

The results may not be generalizable to other institutions dueto faculty, student, and employer differences.

Some variables under scrutiny may become obsolete and newvariables may appear, thus disrupting longitudinal analysis.

The structure of the sample such as sex, ethnicity, and otherdemographic variables may change over the years.

Overall, the gap analysis approach is a useful tool for out-comes assessment, and it can be used as a supplement orprime assessment approach that is supported by other out-comes measures. Table 1 shows how our alumni assessmentfits into our American Assembly of Collegiate Schools ofBusiness (AACSB) accreditation review. Basically, it servedas one of three outcomes measurements.

KNOWLEDGE VERSUS SKILLSBecause of the growing complexity and intellectual

demands of business and growing importance of technologyand globalization, the right balance between knowledge andskills becomes increasingly important. In our assessment ofalumni via a gap analysis, we concentrated on the relationshipbetween skills and knowledge as it presented a dilemma to usas marketing educators. To illustrate, students could have sig-nificant marketing knowledge when they graduate, but with-out certain skills they would not be very effective in terms ofperforming their jobs. Similarly, a marketing graduate withmany skills but limited marketing knowledge may not be veryeffective either. Yet, to compete well in the job market, grad-uates must be equipped with the skills and knowledgerequired by employers (Floyd and Gordon 1998, p. 103).Assessment, therefore, needs to address skills and knowl-edge. In fact, assessment is most effective when it viewslearning as being multidimensional, integrated, and based inperformance over time (Gardiner, Anderson, and Cambridge1997). This is because learning is a complex process.

It entails not only what students know but what they can dowith what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abil-ities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect bothacademic success and performance beyond the classroom.(Gardiner, Anderson, and Cambridge 1997, p. 11)

Of course, defining many of these concepts is difficult, not tomention the issues of measurement.

The study of skills and knowledge also creates definitionalproblems. To help us operationalize the meanings of each, wedefined knowledge as the conceptual and theory-basedaspects of marketing. That is, learning that helps arrive at cre-ative solutions to new problems and is achieved vicariously(Kaplan 1964). Alternatively, skills are abilities that can berefined through practice (Shipp, Lamb, and Mokwa 1993).Definitions facilitate understanding and the creation of vari-ables for study.

Interestingly, most of the prior studies that address thepreparation of students for marketing careers have focused onthe skill aspect of entry-level jobs (Deckinger, Brink,

JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 219


Katzenstein, and Primavera 1990; Gaedeke and Tootelian1989; Gaedeke, Tootelian, and Schaffer 1983; John and Nee-dle 1989; Kelley and Gaedeke 1990; Scott and Frontczak1996). This perspective on education indicates that marketingprograms are being encouraged to develop learning with aclear entry-level job market utility. Moreover, it is common tosurvey graduates 3 to 5 years out. This is done because of theireasier accessibility and their ability to recall their marketingeducational experience. Such surveys naturally tend to focuson the requirements of entry-level employment. The findingsof these studies may inadvertently lead to curriculum devel-opment with a bias in favor of skill development at theexpense of knowledge development. Our outcomes studytherefore sought to examine this problem and to further assessits implications for marketing educators. In addition, ourstudy represented our first longitudinal coordinate for curric-ulum analysis and it was fostered by the skill-versus-knowledge debate. To illustrate, Rotfeld (1996) stated,

The fact remains that journals dedicated to marketing educa-tion do not discuss how to inspire students with the wondersof our discipline but how to train and prepare marketing stu-dents for their first jobs. As part of marketing education, thegoal devolved to providing better training and job placement.(p. 1)

One of the problems with this first-job bias is that certainskills, especially technical, can easily become outdated in afew years as new skills replace old ones. However, marketingknowledge is likely to have greater long-term value in termsof effectiveness of job performance. Despite this, supervisorsof entry-level jobs, and the graduates themselves, are likely towant the requisite skills to fulfill initial job requirements.Thus, skills are likely to be valued more highly in the first fewyears of ones employment; marketing knowledge is likely tobe more useful to graduates as they advance in their careers.

Our work builds on a gap analysis platform to provideadditional insights into the controversial issue of skills versusknowledge. As such, it adds to the marketing literature base.

METHODOur study was conducted with marketing alumni from a

teaching-oriented, 6-year university in the Western UnitedStates. The survey instrument focused on perceptions of keyknowledge and skill areas relevant to the marketing major. Itmeasured both the perceptual importance of the degree ofknowledge and skill relative to ones current employment andthe effectiveness of the delivery of skills and knowledge viathe marketing curriculum. Semantic differential scales wereused to measure both item importance and the preparationprovided by the program. Demographic and classificationdata were also collected.

The Sample

The survey was mailed to all 298 alumni who had gradu-ated within a 3- to 5-year time frame. Sixty-six completequestionnaires were returned for a response rate of 22.1%.The authors were interested in this time frame because of itscomparability to other studies (Deckinger et al. 1990;Gaedeke and Tootelian 1989; Gaedeke, Tootelian, andSchaffer 1983; John and Needle 1989; Kelley and Gaedeke1990; Scott and Frontczak 1996). The average respondent agewas 27.2 years, and male alumni made up 69.7% of the sam-ple. The approximate undergraduate grade point average(GPA) was 2.80, and the marketing major GPA was 2.94.Variables

The primary variables of interest ranged from the acquisi-tion of written communication skill to the much more generalability to understand how marketing relates to other func-tional areas in business. These primary variables are listed in

220 DECEMBER 2002

TABLE 1PROGRAM ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Data Collection Type of DataObjective Measure Data Source Timing Start Finish and ConfigurationStakeholder Stakeholder Alumnia Fall-spring November June Ratio scale,satisfaction satisfaction data nominal,

descriptiveStudents exit Fall December December Ratio scalesurveysb Spring May May Descriptive

Benchmarkc Spring February March Nominal,descriptive

Recruitersd Spring February April Descriptivea. The alumni curriculum process includes gathering input from employers and recruiters, designing and modifying the data collection form, col-lecting the data, and analyzing the data.b. Student exit surveys are given to graduating seniors each fall and spring.c. Benchmarking is done against a set of comparable schools.d. Recruiters are surveyed each spring semester.


Table 2. The 7-point semantic differential scale (1 = low, 7 =high) measured the perceived importance to ones currentemployment of each of the 11 knowledge and skill areas. Sep-arately, the same items were also measured in the context ofhow well the universitys marketing curriculum preparedthem in each of the areas. The 11 variables came from severalsources: secondary data, a general recruiter survey, and a sur-vey of firms that heavily recruited marketing graduates.These sources produced a listing of desirable outcome char-acteristics. This listing was circulated to marketing faculty forreview and comment. A final listing of 11 variables resulted,and they were approved by the faculty, thus leading to agreater acceptance of the study results.

DATA ANALYSIS

The mean ratings of each of the 11 items, relating to theareas of knowledge and skills, were computed. Some interest-ing results emerged. For example, oral communicationskills were rated as the most important area with respect toones current employment (Item 6) but were rated third interms of how well respondents felt they had been educated inthat area. Furthermore, the ability to analyze the relationshipbetween marketing variables (e.g., 4Ps) (Item 3) was ratedthe lowest in terms of importance but came in fourth in termsof their preparedness. Given the anticipated differences, a gapanalysis was conducted for each item. This approach exam-ined the distance between the rated importance of a givenknowledge or skill area to ones current employment and theperception of the alumni as to whether the marketing programhad prepared them for that area.

RESULTS

As can be seen in Table 2, the gap analysis indicates thatout of the 11 variables relating to knowledge and skills thatmany marketing curricula try to impart, 8 showed a diver-gence between perceived importance to ones currentemployment and level of preparedness.

Of these eight items, the alumni felt that they wereunderprepared in three areas in the sense that they ratedtheir importance as being significantly higher than their levelof preparation (p < .05). These areas are the following:

Technical preparation (ability to use software such as spread-sheets, statistical packages, database packages in a marketingcontext)

Oral communication skills Written communication skills

Similarly, in the five other areas, they were beingoverprepared. That is to say, they rated their preparedness

higher than the importance of these areas (p < .05). Theseitems are the following:

Ability to identify a marketing problem Ability to analyze the relationship between marketing vari-

ables (e.g., 4 Ps) Ability to communicate effectively using the language of

marketing Understanding marketing concepts Understanding how marketing relates to other functional

areas in business

It is noteworthy that all three areas of underpreparationinvolve skills, while all five areas of overpreparation involveknowledge. The findings support our expectation that recentgraduates would value skills more than knowledge areas. Theclassificatory data also showed that 15 (22.7%) of the respon-dents were working in fields that were unrelated to marketing.It is reasonable to assume that these respondents would valuetheir marketing knowledge at a level lower than those whohad marketing-related jobs would. Therefore, the data werereanalyzed to include only those whose jobs related to mar-keting. As can be noted in Table 3, the results were revealing.

The areas of perceived underpreparation were identical tothose revealed in the first analysis (Items 1, 5, 6). Yet, twoitems (Items 2 and 9) of perceived overpreparation were notsignificant (p > .05):

Ability to identify a marketing problem Ability to communicate effectively using the language of

marketing

This subgroup concurred with the earlier finding regardingperceived overpreparation on Items 3, 10, and 11 (p < .05). Asevidenced by Items 2 and 9, it appears that one tends to valueknowledge areas somewhat more when ones job is related tothat field, as should be expected.

FINDINGSThe relative importance of knowledge compared to skills,

over time, has not been clearly established. This is becausemost of the past research, including our own study, hasfocused on marketing graduates who have been employed 5or fewer years. It is therefore understandable that generalskills are valued more highly, as we found, rather than mar-keting knowledge. Basically, skills are valued more highly bymanagers of entry-level jobs, and that is transmitted to theinductees. These skills (communication, interpersonal, quan-titative, and so forth) are developed throughout a studentscollege career. The utility of these skills cuts across functionalareas and is useful for most jobs. These skills are also veryimportant from the perspective of students as well as employ-ers. Yet, knowledge of marketing is likely to be more useful



after graduates have been promoted beyond entry-level jobs.Therefore, we hypothesize that marketing knowledge willhave a greater impact on job effectiveness than skills 5 yearsor more after graduation. In other words, both skills andknowledge are important for initial job performance. How-ever, marketing knowledge has increasing utility as oneadvances in ones career. Therefore, it is proposed that futureresearch should also focus on marketing graduates who havebeen working for more than 5 years to assess what they find tobe more important in terms of marketing curriculum.

With our sample, we found that the alumni felt under-prepared in terms of technical preparation as well as writtenand oral communication skills. Interestingly, the need for

good communication skills has been emphasized in the litera-ture (Deckinger et al. 1990; Gaedeke and Tootelian 1989;Gaedeke, Tootelian, and Schaffer 1983; John and Needle1989; Kelley and Gaedeke 1990; Scott and Frontczak 1996)as well as by recruiters. On the other hand, alumni felt theyhad been overprepared in terms of the ability to identify mar-ket problems, to analyze the relationship between marketingvariables, and to communicate effectively using the languageof marketing. Other areas of overpreparation related to anunderstanding of the marketing process and how marketingrelates to other functional areas of business.

In the second analysis of the data, which included onlythose alumni whose jobs related to marketing, with two

222 DECEMBER 2002

TABLE 2A GAP ANALYSIS OF ALUMNIS PERCEPTION OF SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE IMPORTANCE

CONTRASTED WITH PREPARATION PROVIDED BY THE MARKETING PROGRAM (N = 66)Knowledge and Skill Means

Variable Importance Preparation t-Value Probability

Technical preparation (ability to use software such as spreadsheets, statisticalpackages, database packages in a marketing context) 5.16 3.88 4.60 .000*

Ability to identify a marketing problem 4.86 5.32 2.43 .018*Ability to analyze the relationship between marketing variables (e.g., 4 Ps) 4.19 5.55 7.03 .006*Ability to develop workable solutions to marketing problems 4.92 5.13 0.91 .360Ability to work effectively in teams 5.84 6.07 1.21 .231Oral communication skills 6.50 5.72 5.81 .000*Written communication skills 5.78 5.31 3.14 .003*Quantitative skills (ability to work with numerical data) 5.15 4.80 1.76 .084Ability to communicate effectively using the language of marketing 4.59 5.31 3.30 .002*Understanding marketing concepts 4.69 5.39 3.61 .001*Understanding how marketing relates to other functional areas in business 4.92 5.73 3.81 .000*NOTE: 1 = low, 7 = high on the semantic differential scale.*p .05.

TABLE 3A GAP ANALYSIS OF ALUMNIS PERCEPTION OF SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE IMPORTANCE CONTRASTED WITH

PREPARATION PROVIDED BY THE MARKETING PROGRAM (RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED IN MARKETING = 51)Knowledge and Skill Means

Variable Importance Preparation t-Value Probability

Technical preparation (ability to use software such as spreadsheets, statisticalpackages, database packages in a marketing context). 5.08 3.82 3.90 .000*

Ability to identify a marketing problem 5.22 5.49 1.44 .155Ability to analyze the relationship between marketing variables (e.g., 4 Ps) 4.51 5.75 5.97 .000*Ability to develop workable solutions to marketing problems 5.35 5.24 0.056 .579Ability to work effectively in teams 5.78 6.12 1.46 .151Oral communication skills 6.47 5.73 4.87 .000*Written communication skills 5.76 5.25 3.15 .003*Quantitative skills (ability to work with numerical data) 5.16 4.71 1.86 .069Ability to communicate effectively using the language of marketing 5.00 5.41 1.86 .068Understanding marketing concepts 5.14 5.55 2.35 .023*Understanding how marketing relates to other functional areas in business 5.24 5.84 2.58 .013*NOTE: 1 = low, 7 = high on the semantic differential scale.*p .05.


exceptions, findings were identical to the first analysis. Mostskillswritten or oral communication, for examplearevaluable in jobs in any area of business. Knowledge areas ofmarketing, in contrast, are likely to be of greater importanceto people who are actually working in jobs related to market-ing. We found graduates working in marketing did not feelthey were overprepared in two of the knowledge areas (Items2 and 9), contrary to what we found in the first analysis.Future research should look at this phenomenon in othermajors, too, for example, accounting, finance, and manage-ment. We would hypothesize that skills are valued morehighly by recent graduates in all majors than are knowledgeareas.

The results must be viewed with some caution. Our find-ings contribute to the discussion of the ongoing knowledge-versus-skills debate (Cunningham 1995; Ronchetto andBuckles 1994; Rotfeld 1996; Sanoff and Daniel 1996;Thomas 1997, 1998). This includes a discussion of whethereducators should aim to prepare students for their entry-leveljob or for their longer-term careers. Entry-level positions mayemphasize skills more than knowledge, while management-level positions would emphasize knowledge relatively more.Thus, alumni who have been employed for 5 or fewer yearswould be more likely to see preparation in skills areas moreimportant than preparation in knowledge areas. Corporationsspend substantial sums of money every year in trainingemployees, and some believe they are trying to pass on someof their training cost to educational institutions. Yet, knowl-edge has a more long-term value to the individual. Which oneis more important from the perspective of an institution ofhigher learning, especially ones that are subsidized by taxdollars? We hope that this research and other outcomesassessments will provide a catalyst for a discussion on thistopic.

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Gap analysis has been used by marketers to identify pref-erence gaps in the marketplace (Brown and Swartz 1989;Davis and ONeill 1999; Headley and Choi 1992). This arti-cle applies such an analysis to curriculum development andrelevancy assessment. This has been done for both knowledgeand skills relevant to the marketing curriculum. It essentiallyreveals areas of underpreparedness and overpreparedness.These kinds of identified gaps could be the starting pointfor a discussion among faculty members regarding possiblemodifications of the curriculum and how class formats areconfigured. It would be interesting to determine whether mar-keting knowledge is evidencing a decline in importance asmarketing educators respond to the market need to createadditional skill enhancements. In the case of our program,some faculty began to adjust individual pedagogies, espe-cially incorporating more skill building through in-class exer-

cises that revolved around key knowledge components. Ulti-mately, a portfolio approach was adopted where some facultyconcentrated more on skills and others focused more onknowledge, depending on the course being taught. As East-man and Allen (1999) pointed out, As assessment programneeds to develop slowly and to be revised as the departmentexperiments (p. 8). The marketing faculty members willcontinue to assess the curriculum and make changes appro-priate to the findings.

Other areas in need of future research include a gap analy-sis of knowledge and skills based on the perceptions of theentry-level employee and their immediate supervisor. A sec-ond area of inquiry would include an identical gap analysis ofthe perceptions of the same supervisors contrasted withhigher levels of management. These studies may contribute toa thoughtful discussion and potential resolution of a festeringarea in need of inquiry.

Of course, these areas where the gaps are found mayrequire a reassessment as to curriculum emphasis, and effortmay be needed to address the areas of underpreparation. Wedo recognize that the current findings may be idiosyncratic toour faculty mix, program, as well as students. Others may findgaps in quite different areas. We also caution curriculumdevelopers to validate their findings with multiple (longitudi-nal) surveys before undertaking major curriculum change. Itwould be interesting to compare findings from institutionswith similar characteristics to see if some systematic patternsemerge. We recognize that the mix of employers where ourstudents are placed is one of the key drivers of the perceptionregarding over- and underpreparation. If the mix of employ-ers is significantly different at another school, differentresults could be expected. Overall, the limitations of conduct-ing this type of gap analysis research cannot be overlooked.We hope that our article will stimulate the addressing of theseissues as well as a discussion of the utility of skills relative toknowledge at various points of career development amongmarketing graduates.

REFERENCESBrown, Stephen, and Teresa A. Swartz. 1989. A gap analysis of professional

service quality. Journal of Marketing 53 (April): 92-98.Cunningham, Anthony C. 1995. Developing marketing professionals: What

can business schools learn? Journal of Marketing Education 17 (2): 3-9.Davis, Richard, and Michael ONeill. 1999. Predicting customer perceptions

A gap analysis. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences 6 (1): 58-71.Davis, Richard, Shekhar Misra, and Stuart Van Auken. 2000. Relating peda-

gogical preference of marketing seniors and alumni to attitude toward themajor. Journal of Marketing Education 22 (2): 147-54.

Deckinger, E. L., James M. Brink, Herbert Katzenstein, and Louis H.Primavera. 1990. How can advertising teachers better-prepare studentsfor entry-level advertising agency jobs? Journal of Advertising Research29 (6): 37-46.

Eastman, Jacqueline K., and Ralph C. Allen. 1999. Assessing a marketingprogram: One departments journey. Marketing Education Review 9 (2):7-13.



Floyd, Callum J., and Mary Ellen Gordon. 1998. What skills are most impor-tant? A comparison of employer, student and staff perceptions. Journal ofMarketing Education 20 (2): 103-9.

Gaedeke, Ralph M., and Dennis H. Tootelian. 1989. Employers rate enthusi-asm and communicating as top job skills. Marketing News, 27 March, 14.

Gaedeke, Ralph M., Dennis H. Tootelian, and Burton F. Schaffer. 1983.Employers want motivated communicators of entry-level marketingpositions: Survey. Marketing News, 5 August, 1.

Gardiner, Lion F., Caitlin Anderson, and Barbara L. Cambridge, eds. 1997.Learning through assessment: A resource guide for higher education.AAHE Assessment Forum.

Giacobbe, Ralph W., and Madhav N. Segal. 1994. Rethinking marketingresearch education: A conceptual, analytical, and empirical investiga-tion. Journal of Marketing Education 16 (1):43-57.

Gwinner, Kevin P., and Richard F. Beltramini. 1995. Alumni satisfaction andbehavioral intentions: University versus department measures. Journalof Marketing Education 34 (1): 34-40.

Halpern, Dian F. 1988. Assessing student outcomes for psychology majors.Teaching of Psychology 15 (4): 181-88.

Headley, Dean E., and Bob Choi. 1992. Achieving service quality throughgap analysis and a basic statistical approach. Journal of Services Mar-keting 6 (1): 5-10.

John, Joby, and Mark Needle. 1989. Entry-level marketing research recruits:What do recruiters need? Journal of Marketing Education 11 (1): 68-73.

Juillerat, Stephanie, and Laurie A. Schreiner. 1996. The role of student satis-faction in the assessment of institutional effectiveness. AssessmentUpdate 8 (1): 8-9.

Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behav-ioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.

Kelley, Craig A., and Ralph M. Gaedeke. 1990. Student and employer evalu-ation of hiring criteria for entry-level marketing positions. Journal ofMarketing Education 12 (3): 64-71.

Lewis, Robert C., and David M. Klein. 1986. The measurement of gaps inservice quality. In The service challenge: Integrating for competitive

advantage, edited by J. A. Czepiel, C. A. Congram, and J. Shanahan, 33-38. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Lundstrom, William J., and Steven D. White. 1997. A gap analysis of profes-sional and academic perceptions of the importance of international mar-keting curriculum content and research areas. Journal of Marketing Edu-cation 19 (2): 16-25.

Nordstrom, Richard D., and Charles S. Sherwood. 1997. How well are wemeeting the needs of marketing students? A tool for assessment. Pro-ceedings, Western Marketing EducatorsAssociation Conference, 36-39.

Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. 1985. A con-ceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research.Journal of Marketing 49 (fall): 41-50.

Ronchetto, John R., and Tom A. Buckles. 1994. Developing critical thinkingand interpersonal skills in a services marketing course employing totalquality management concepts and techniques. Journal of MarketingEducation 16 (3): 20-31.

Rotfeld, Herbert. 1996. Excuse me, I thought you had a Ph.D. MarketingEducator 15 (summer): 7.

Sanoff, Alvin, and Missy Daniel. 1996. The core of the matter. U.S. News andWorld Report, 25 March, 57-58.

Scott, Judith D., and Nancy T. Frontczak. 1996. Ad executives grade newgrads: The final exam that counts. Journal of Advertising Research 36(2): 40-47.

Shipp, Shannon, Charles W. Lamb Jr., and Michael P. Mokwa. 1993.Developing and enhancing marketing students skills: Written and oralcommunication, intuition, creativity, and computer usage. MarketingEducation Review 3 (fall): 2-8.

Thomas, Susan Gregory. 1997. Wanted: Liberal arts grads. Fortune, 12 May,151.

. 1998. Scoring the best tech jobs: Top-paying employers want morethan just computer skills. U.S. News and World Report, 26 October, 73-74.

Winer, Leon. 1998. Applying gap theory and other good stuff from servicesmarketing literature to the administration of a business school. Proceed-ings, Western Marketing Educators Association, 1-4.

224 DECEMBER 2002


Documents

Journal of Marketing Education 2002 Davis 218 24