Nestlé Library
Hospitality Programs
Most of the article links appearing on the Hospitality Rankings web site are restricted to the Cornell community. See Using Library Resources Off-Campus for more information.
"Assessing Hospitality Programs using Objective Criteria: An Exploratory Study". Pearlman, D., K. Ryu and J. Schaffer.; Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. Vol. 10, Iss. 2. 2010. p. 103.
The purpose of this study was to suggest an approach to assessing bachelor's-level hospitality programs using objective criteria. This study attempted to suggest a way to solve the controversies associated with previous college ranking reports such as survey respondent bias. Only published data were used to ensure an objective measurement of program characteristics. Six variables (e.g., industry accessibility, total faculty-student ratio, terminal-degreed faculty-student ratio, and percent of faculty with terminal degrees, cost, and university resources) were used in assessing the quality of programs. Findings of this study provided an objective approach for assessing hospitality programs.
"A Taxonomy of Academic Quality Indicators for U.S.-Based 4-Year Undergraduate Hospitality Management Programs". Assante, L.M., L. Huffman and S.S. Harp.; Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. Vol. 34, Iss. 2. May, 2010. p. 164.
The purpose of the study was to classify quality indicators into unique construct groups. Seventy-two quality indicators were investigated as predictors of undergraduate hospitality management program excellence. A multidimensional approach was used on a sample of 277 stakeholders to answer relevant research questions. By cluster analysis of primary quality indicators for undergraduate hospitality management programs, three construct groups were identified: (a) students/alumni, industry support, faculty; (b) facilities, curriculum; and (c) research. Furthermore, results showed these groups to be unique in quality indicator characteristics. Implications for hospitality management program planning and assessment and suggestions for further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.
"A World Ranking of the Top 100 Hospitality and Tourism Programs". Severt, Denver E.; Tesone, Dana V.; Bottorff, Timothy J.; and
Carpenter, Monica L.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research; Nov. 2009, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p451-470, 20p, 5 charts.
The article provides an analysis of scholarly contributions to 11 hospitality and tourism refereed journals for the years 2002 to 2006. It presents the top 100 programs as ranked by instances of publications across 11 journals for a recent 5-year period. For the 5-year period, results indicate The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in the top position based on sums of instances, authors, and articles. Second, the researchers updated, modified, and extended a previous study published by the Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research for similar information for the years 1992 to 2001. Following the update, an additional 15-year aggregate snapshot of research output for top producing institutions provided a top 18 over the last 15-year period. Next, researchers provide an updated analysis by contribution and world region among the specific journals with results indicating a large growth in the number of articles produced in Asia going from 6% of all publications over the earlier 10-year period from 1992 through 2001 to nearly 15% of published articles over the past 5-year period from 2002 through 2006. The article concludes with suggestions for the extension of similar studies and provides implications for hospitality and tourism educators.
"Current Convention Course Offerings at the Top 25 Ranked Hospitality Management Undergraduate Programs: An Analysis of Objectives, Instructional Delivery, and Assessment Methods". Phelan, K.V., R.R. Kavanaugh, J.E. Mills and S. Jang.; Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. Vol. 9, Iss. 1. Jan, 2009. p. 37.
In an effort to keep abreast of convention industry demands for a more qualified workforce, some hospitality and tourism undergraduate programs have implemented courses to prepare students for employment in the business. However, limited information exists regarding the content and quality of these programs and whether they are designed to adequately meet the needs of the industry. This current study evaluates the convention course offerings at the top 25 ranked hospitality and tourism undergraduate schools (Brizek & Khan, 2002). Course objectives, assessment and teaching methods, topics of instruction, and textbooks were analyzed using nonparametric statistics and CATPAC software to determine the similarities and differences among the various course offerings. Results revealed statistically significant differences among courses characterized as General MICE (Meetings, Incentive Travel, Conventions, Events) Industry, Convention and Meeting Planning, and Event Management. Limitations and suggestions for future research in convention education are provided.
"An Examination into the Customer Service of U.S. Hospitality Programs in the Initial Stages". Hein, S., A. Ehlers and M. Grand.; Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism. Vol. 11, Iss. 1. Aug, 2006. p. 55.
The following study examines how hospitality programs in the United States utilize customer service as a recruiting tool when initially contacting a prospective student. To conduct the study, a high school junior sent letters requesting information to 155 hospitality programs. The mailed recruiting materials of 96 responding programs were analyzed for the initial response time, the completion of the information request, and the utilization of personalized and follow-up correspondence. After analyzing the materials of each program, 10 programs fully completed the student's information request in a personalized manner and are ranked based on response time and utilization of follow-up materials.
"An Analysis of Institutional Contributors to Three Major Academic Tourism Journals: 1992-2001". Jogaratnam, G., K. Chon, K. McCleary, M. Mena and J. Yoo.; Tourism Management. Vol. 26, Iss. 5. Oct, 2005. p. 641.
The purpose of this research is to replicate an earlier study that analyzed tourism research contributions during the decade of the 1980s (Sheldon, 1991) using a time frame of 1992-2001, the most recent ten-year period for which complete publication information was available. The three refereed travel and tourism journals, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism Management were the focus of analysis. The results of a productivity analysis pertaining to author affiliation, repeat authorship, and research contributions from different regions of the world are presented. There has been considerable movement in the ranking of employing institutions when compared to the decade of the 1980s as well as significant change in contributions from different regions of the world.
"Considering Specializations: An Alternative for Ranking Hospitality and Tourism Graduate Programs". [Location Information]. Hu, C., S. Jang and B. Bai.; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. Vol. 16, Iss. 3. 2004. p. 18.
The rapid growth of the hospitality and tourism education has intensified a competition among national and international academic programs. Stakeholders in this competitive environment often seek benchmark information for their decisions to participate in the education system. Program/school rankings serve this purpose. However, the most popular and cited sources on such rankings as reported by Business Week and US News & World Report have not recognized hospitality and tourism disciplines in their annual ranking reports. Although some measures have been developed by academic researchers to assess the hospitality and tourism schools/programs, the results have raised much controversy. This paper suggests a need for better ranking systems and attempts to make further contributions in the context of the hospitality and tourism education. The purposes of this study were to (1) review past efforts of school ranking, (2) recommend an alternative approach to rank hospitality and tourism graduate programs by specializations, and (3) explore and suggest meaningful categories of ranking criteria for more effective ranking studies in the future.
"School Rankings Rankle Educators, Leave Hoteliers Wondering". Marshall, A.; Hotel and Motel Management. Vol. 217, Iss. 16. Sep 16, 2002. p. 10.
Comments on the reaction of school officials to the rankings of U.S. hospitality undergraduate programs. List of school rankings; impact of the choice of schools for recruiting; learnings from the international conference for the Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education.
"Ranking Of U.S. Hospitality Undergraduate Programs: 2000-2001". [Location Information]. Brizek, M.G. and M.A. Khan.; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. Vol. 14, Iss. 2. 2002. p. 4.
Within the field of hospitality education, administrators and educators have been searching for and debating a means to compare their own resources and capabilities with those of their fellow peers. Previous research focused on the perception of individual hospitality programs. This study surveyed over 121 four-year hospitality institutions with a response rate of 39.7% in order to quantitatively rank programs based on five main criteria including curriculum, faculty, the student body, resources, and alumni/funding contributions. Results were measured using a predetermined quality point scale and the top 25 undergraduate hospitality programs were ranked according to their overall cumulative score.
(Paper copy only. Periodical room or stacks TX911.5 .H658).
"Exploring Hospitality Program Rankings". [Location Information]. Gould, S.L. and D.C. Bojanic.; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. Vol. 14, Iss. 4. 2002. p. 24.
An increasing number of people in both the public and private sector are demanding that institutions of higher education ought to be held to higher levels of accountability and delivery of services. One of the most popular tools used to meet these demands has been the ranking of academic programs. This study explored the ranking of undergraduate hospitality programs as perceived by industry recruiters. The implications of utilizing rankings as decision-making tools were also researched. Based on the data gathered by surveying more than 100 hospitality industry recruiters, there are clear indications that program rankings would be more beneficial if used as ratings, not rankings, and tailored more to specific attributes of the program being rated. Other studies have demonstrated that results may vary by respondent. Future research should be conducted which tests the "ratings" approach with other industry stakeholders (e.g. academics, hospitality executives, etc.).
"Hospitality Program Rankings Revisited". Withiam, G.; Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. Vol. 38, Iss. 4. Aug, 1997. p. 13.
In December 1993, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly published the results of a survey of hospitality educators and industry executives in which the respondents were asked to subjectively rank the quality of the nation's hospitality programs. An updated listing is presented.
"Colleges' Hospitality Programs: Perceived Quality". Kent, W.E., K. Lian, M.A. Khan and Anene, J. O., Jr.; Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. Vol. 34, Iss. 6. Dec, 1993. p. 90.
The perceptions of deans, directors, and heads of hospitality programs and randomly selected hotel- and restaurant-company presidents and vice presidents concerning hospitality schools were examined and used to rank bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programs in the U.S.A reputational ranking was established by asking educators to complete a questionnaire about their own programs including the age and size of the program, the size of the institution, the size of the faculty, the areas of specialization offered, and the quality of the departmental facilities. They were then asked to list the top 10 bachelor's programs, the top five master's programs, and the top three doctoral programs. The hotel and restaurant executives were asked to rank schools on academic excellence, ability to produce effective hospitality executives and consultants, and the ability to produce top leaders in the industry. Industry executives were found to favor the old, traditional schools, while hospitality faculty members were more likely to aware of recent innovations or initiatives made by a particular program.