Adding Value to the Academic Conference Experience for Marketing Doctoral Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Study This study ascertains how marketing doctoral students perceive attending annual academic conferences offered by marketing professional organizations. Method, Design, and Sample A survey was made available via an AMA ELMAR post announcing its availability in May 2021. The number of doctoral students who completed the survey was 57. A second round of data collection took place in March 2023 resulting in an additional 71 completed surveys. Both instruments were designed to provide greater detail on perceived favorable, unfavorable, and missing academic conference features. Results When it came to attending a conference in general, respondents indicated that hearing advancements in the discipline, informal conversation, and social enjoyment were most valuable. When it came to attending a particular conference, respondents indicated that networking opportunities, peer feedback, maintaining friendships, and social enjoyment were most valuable. Features that could enhance the academic conference experience for marketing doctoral students include a session on navigating the job market process, structured networking, presentations from industry representatives, and a scheduled social time for just doctoral students. Value to Marketing Educators This study makes a valuable contribution to the literature by enhancing our understanding of the marketing doctoral student conference experience. Providing value for them to participate in academic marketing conferences can maintain attendance numbers as seasoned faculty retire from the profession. The focus on value to encourage doctoral student attendance can also grow the membership of the sponsoring professional organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".