Tradition in college student affairs: How mental models influence hiring managers' screening of applicants for entry-level positions.

摘要

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to understand how mental models influence hiring managers' screening of applicants for entry-level positions in college student affairs at traditional schools in the Carolinas (North Carolina and South Carolina) region of the United States. Two research questions guided this investigation: First, what are hiring managers' mental models for entry-level positions in college student affairs at traditional schools in the Carolinas (North Carolina and South Carolina) region of the United States? Second, what is the screening process for entry-level positions in college student affairs at traditional schools in the Carolinas (North Carolina and South Carolina) region of the United States? The primary data for this study included semi-structured, in-depth interviews with seven student affairs hiring managers. Additional data for the study included field notes, observations, and documents collected during the interviews. Data collected was analyzed using a general inductive analysis, which included constant comparison, multiple coding strategies, and triangulation. Participants consisted of hiring managers employed at public and private, traditional not-for-profit colleges and universities. Participants' range and variation included years of experience, job title, gender, ethnicity, location of institution, and enrollment at institution. Findings showed that participants identified five mental models when screening entry-level applicants: 1) traditional education backgrounds are most credible, 2) practical application of required knowledge, 3) personality aligns with job expectations, 4) ability to adapt to campus environment, and 5) career continuity. These mental models play a critical role in the five-phase screening process: Phase 1) construction of job description, Phase 2) activation of student affairs network, Phase 3) filtering applicants for preferred qualifications, Phase 4) assessment of candidates' fit, and Phase 5) synthesis to recommend finalists. From these findings, three conclusions were drawn: 1) Bias exists in the student affairs hiring process toward traditional schools, which may exclude candidates from proprietary schools in the screening process; 2) Subjective aspects of applicant screening reflect a mixture of dynamic contextual factors influenced by the attitudes and opinions of hiring managers and other campus stakeholders; and 3) The mental models of hiring managers in college student affairs at traditional schools include preference for applicants with traditional career paths.