journal of hospitality and tourism management ranking

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Established in 1976, the Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research ( JHTR ) plays a major role in incubating, influencing, and inspiring hospitality and tourism research. JHTR publishes original research that clearly advances theoretical development and offers practical value for hospitality and tourism ecosystems. JHTR strives to publish research with IMPACT – JHTR publications are expected to be I nnovative, M eaningful, P ractically relevant, A cademically rigorous, C ross-disciplinary, and T heory-focused. Read the complete description of our guiding editorial principles .

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  

We follow the guiding editorial principles of IMPACT – JHTR publications are expected to be Innovative, Meaningful, Practically relevant, Academically rigorous, Cross-disciplinary, and Theory-focused.  

Innovative – JHTR strives to be an incubator for original and thought-provoking research. To be considered for JHTR publication, the manuscript must provide new and insightful ways of exploring and conceptualizing an issue; offer different, unique, or controversial perspectives on a research topic; and/or bring together ideas, theories, and concepts in novel and thought-provoking ways. We particularly welcome cutting-edge research that inspires, provokes, excites, and engages our audiences. Research that simply replicates previous work in a different context or geographical location is not generally considered as making a significant contribution unless it presents novel perspectives or interprets the findings in ways that expand our understanding of the phenomena. Likewise, if incremental extensions in the form of replicating previous work with the addition of some elements do not significantly alter the prediction or application of a theory, contribution to knowledge creation is likely limited. Methodological novelty or sophistication in and of itself cannot compensate for inadequate theoretical and practical merits. Interesting research may take many forms, but the surest methods for creating such research is to challenge a commonly accepted theory, proposition, practice, or assumption, or examine new phenomena with a goal to generate new knowledge.

Meaningful – JHTR contributions should appeal to a broad range of academic and non-academic audiences and address issues that are meaningful and significant to scholars as well as non-academic stakeholders such as practitioners, policy makers and/or consumers in hospitality and tourism and related fields. Work published in JHTR may also strive to demonstrate the societal impact of the findings. Studies addressing key societal challenges as related to hospitality and tourism are of particular interest to the JHTR readership.

Practically relevant – Research articles published in JHTR should have practical relevance. Authors must clearly address the “so what” question by highlighting the managerial and policy implications of their research. Although research findings should have translational impact on firms, destinations, communities, governments, society and beyond, submissions that are primarily practitioner-oriented and written with industry managers as the target audience may be more suitable for a practitioner journal.

Academically rigorous – JHTR contributions must be conceptually and methodologically rigorous. Research published in JHTR should have progressed through a rigorous, proper, and stringent knowledge development process that ensures that the output is academically sound. At the conceptual level, authors must identify a clear theoretical approach and articulate how the research advances our understanding of particular topics, concepts, or theories. We welcome a variety of methodological approaches, as appropriate to the research conducted. For quantitative research, authors should provide detailed information pertaining to data collection, sampling strategies, survey design, experimental manipulations, and measurement. Qualitative research should be conducted under the tenets of a specified research tradition. Regardless of the approach, all methodologies should be described in a manner that allows for replication and the research demonstrate evidence of reliability and validity in their corresponding methodological traditions.

Cross-disciplinary – Hospitality and tourism research is often enriched by exploring phenomena through the lens of other disciplines. Likewise, hospitality and tourism offer interesting and rich contexts that can help to shape the content and boundaries of studies in allied fields. Accordingly, where applicable, JHTR supports and encourages cross-disciplinary collaborations as well as contributions from scholars in other disciplines.

Theory-focused – JHTR strives to be a powerhouse for the cultivation of concepts, frameworks, models and theories that extend our understanding of relevant hospitality and tourism phenomena and inform the direction of future research. We particularly encourage and champion the development of theories and frameworks that originate from the hospitality and tourism field. Accordingly, contributing authors should pay particular attention to the interplay between concepts and contexts to create opportunities for theory building that captures the complexities, intricacies, and dynamics of hospitality and tourism phenomena.

• Articles in Hospitality and Tourism
• CAB Abstracts Database
• CABI: Global Health
• CIRET - Centre International de Recherches et d'Etudes Touristiques
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• Emerald Management Reviews
• Hospitality & Tourism Index - EBSCO
• Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition
• Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Abstracts (in CAB Abstracts Database)
• Rural Development Abstracts
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Soils and Fertilizers
• World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Abstracts (in CAB Abstracts Database)

JHTR Manuscript Submission Guidelines

To submit your manuscript please go to the following link:   http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jhtr

New Submission Requirements:  https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JHT/JHTR%202024%20New%20Paper%20Submission%20Guidelines%2001172024-1705519313.pdf

Revision Submission Requirements:  https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JHT/JHTR 2024 Revision Submission Guidelines 01172024-1705519313.pdf

Author Guidelines for Insight & Foresight Featured Section:  https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JHT/Submission Guidelines for Insight Foresight 06015022-1655480308.pdf

JHTR Policy for Special Issues:  https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JHT/JHTR%20Policy%20for%20Special%20Issues_v2023-1676335435.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JHT/Registered%20Research%20Policy-1711551855.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/page/jht/registered-research-policy

Please note that this journal does not allow submissions from papers that are already available as a preprint.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, special issues in hospitality and tourism management journals.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

ISSN : 0959-6119

Article publication date: 2 February 2023

Issue publication date: 2 August 2023

The purpose of this paper is to develop insight into the scholarly communications trends in hospitality and tourism management by looking at the practice of publishing Special Issues (SIs) in top-ranked hospitality and tourism management (HTM) academic journals: examining the relationship of SIs to journal impact as a measurement of quality, identifying some principal topics of SI and the trend of publishing SI as monographs.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper consists of an analysis of 22 top-ranked HTM journals from 1995 to 2020, in-depth case studies reviewing studies in two top-ranked HTM journals and an examination of which publishers supplement their revenue by selling their special issues as monographs. This paper includes a substantial review of literature regarding special issue publishing within business academic journals.

There was growth in the publication of HTM SI from 1995 to 2020, both in numbers and as a percentage of total issues. There is no evidence that SI are reducing impact within HTM journals; impact has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s. In one case, there was a significant increase in SI publication as well as in impact. The number of Regular Issues (RI) published increased during the same period but at a marginally lower rate. There is no evidence that SI are negatively affecting RI. The in-depth analysis of the two journals concurred with the above findings and suggested that SI studies discuss topics of the highest impact. SI increased the revenue of the publisher through monograph publishing. This practice also furthered the field by making SI available to be purchased as a monograph by nonsubscribers.

Research limitations/implications

This study provides a deeper understanding of scholarly publishing in top-ranking HTM journals and provides a foundation for future research on HTM publishing practices. Its practical implications extend to practitioners who rely on HTM scholarship for dissemination of vital research that can guide or drive decision-making. This study also informs the critical question as to whether such research is compromised by publishing practices. Other practical implications include providing reassuring information to editors who publish SI that these issues do not appear to contribute to lower journal impact. For researchers who are considering submitting manuscripts to SIs, this study similarly implies that their paper should not be considered of lower value and that there is no indication that its impact will be lessened. Furthermore, the authors hope that this study encourages would-be guest editors to publish SI if they have held back because of quality/impact concerns. Finally, this paper may provide evidence to journal editors who do not regularly publish SI because of quality and impact concerns that they may reconsider this choice. Implications for HTM journal editors and guest editors include adding or increasing SI in their publishing practice will not decrease the journal’s quality, while SI publishing also could contribute to the goals of their publication and increase revenues for the publishers. Researchers who may have been reluctant to publish in SI should be more inclined to submit to them or endeavor to become guest editors to explore avenues of developing their field.

Originality/value

SI publication and impact within the field of hospitality and tourism scholarly communications are rarely discussed. Literature reviews on SI publication in business are also limited. Investigation into publication practices of focused/special issues can help inform researchers, publishers and editors and provide a state of the industry.

• Scholarly communications
• Special Issues
• Journal impact factor

Steinberg, R. and Boettcher, J.C. (2023), "Special Issues in hospitality and tourism management journals", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 3154-3171. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2022-0243

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Home > M3 Center > JGHT

Journal Information

Journal of Global Hospitality and Tourism (JGHT) is an international non-profit, open access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal. The main objective of JGHT is to provide an intellectual platform and ideas for international scholars, by promoting studies related to global hospitality and tourism. JGHT publishes original research articles, review papers and communications that identify, explain, analyze and review real-world business phenomena/issues.

JGHT is published bi-annually by the University of South Florida (USF) M3 Publishing. USF M3 Publishing is a service of the USF M3 Center for Hospitality Technology and Innovation (M3 Center). We encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research relating to global hospitality and tourism in as much detail as possible in order to promote scientific predictions and impact assessments of global change and development. Full experimental and methodical details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.

Anyone may submit an original article to be considered for publication in Journal of Global Hospitality and Tourism provided he or she owns the copyright to the work being submitted or is authorized by the copyright owner or owners to submit the article. Authors are the initial owners of the copyrights to their works (an exception in the non-academic world to this might exist if the authors have, as a condition of employment, agreed to transfer copyright to their employer).

Coverage of JGHT includes but is not limited to the following:

• Accounting & Finance
• Entrepreneurship
• Food and Beverage Management
• Sustainability
• Hospitality Management
• Travel Management
• Tourism Management
• Human Resource Management
• Innovation, IT & E-Business

Benefits of publishing with JGHT

• Open access: Completely free for readers and the authors. There are no fees charged for submission, subscription and article processing. All costs are absorbed by the University of South Florida M3 Center and USF Library
• Rapid publication: JGHT is committed to getting the manuscripts peer-reviewed, and a first decision provided to authors approximately 6-8 weeks after submission.
• Recognition of reviewers: Reviewers who provide timely, thorough peer-review reports shall receive credits.
• Multi-lingual abstracts: JGHT will also help translate the abstracts into the Chinese language to help Chinese researchers.

Current Issue: Volume 3, Issue 1 (2024)

Leveraging ChatGPT for writing in scholarly publications-guidelines and recommendations for hospitality and tourism researchers Faizan Ali

Refereed Articles

Meaningful work and job burnout among frontline employees of classified hotels in Nairobi City County, Kenya: Does gender identity matter? John Kahuthu Gitau, Rosemarie Ayuma Khayiya, and Vincent Nyamari Maranga

Influencers of resident attitudes towards tourism: The shortfall in our assessment methods Christopher S. Dutt

Tourist engagement model of regenerative tourism destinations: A case study of Egon Buluk tourism village, Sikka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara province Michael Rudolfus Sawu and Muhammad Ridla

Designing experiences: Unveiling passenger perspectives through service design at an airport İnci Polat, Ahmet Ozturk, Ruveyda Koc, and Yudem Inel

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in hospitality and tourism marketing: Perceptions, risks, benefits, and policy implications Usman Khan and Kashif Ali Khan

View Points

The art of artificial intelligence illusion: Exposing digital deception in the hospitality industry Mohamed Youssef Helal and Mahmoud Ibraheam Saleh

The impact of sharing economy platforms on tourism: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions Mehmet Bahar

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Author Guidelines
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Special Issues:

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2771-5957 (Online)

Scholar Commons | About This IR | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10080282

Hospitality and tourism management student satisfaction with their majors and career readiness amid the COVID-19 pandemic

Chanmi hong.

a Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS, 38677, USA

Inna Soifer

b College of Merchandising, Hospitality and Tourism, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, #311100, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

Eun-Kyong (Cindy) Choi

Tanya ruetzler.

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak impacted hospitality and tourism management (HTM) program offerings that typically attract students, such as experiential learning courses, field trips, and internships, which were canceled or postponed. This transition has raised concerns about whether student satisfaction with their major and their perceived career readiness were impacted by the modified curriculum. Therefore, this study investigates how perceived curriculum, campus support, and self-efficacy affect HTM student satisfaction with the major and career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, perceived curriculum, campus support, and self-efficacy positively influenced student satisfaction with their major. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on career readiness.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected the hospitality industry, thus influencing students' career decisions and willingness to continue pursuing hospitality degrees ( Seyitoğlu et al., 2022 ). Moreover, the hospitality labor shortage of 2022, combined with the nationwide trend of declining student enrollment, is prompting questions about the recruitment and retention of hospitality program students ( American Hotel and Lodging Association, 2022 ; Weissman, 2021 ). Therefore, higher education institutions feel the urgency to create relevant academic programs that meet industry and student needs ( Griffin, 2021 ), which means producing high-quality graduates for hospitality businesses while simultaneously ensuring student satisfaction with their chosen course of studies and campus environment.

Traditionally, higher education is associated with in-person learning ( Galvis, 2018 ), but the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many institutions to adopt other modalities, such as virtual and hybrid instruction. This transition has raised concerns about instructional quality, despite demonstrated flexibility and accessibility of remote instruction ( Bart, 2008 ). Additionally, hospitality management program offerings that typically attract students, such as experiential learning courses, field trips, internships, and others, have been canceled or postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Zhong et al., 2021 ). Therefore, whether hospitality student satisfaction with their major and their perception of being prepared to thrive in the industry are affected by the modified curriculum remains an open question.

Previous research suggests that in addition to a well-developed curriculum and instructional effectiveness, a student-centered campus is a significant determinant of student satisfaction ( Elliott, 2002 ). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, students' expectations evolved, anticipating student support services to operate in a hybrid mode and provide more flexibility ( Reale, 2022 ). As a result, many universities have been redesigning their student support systems. However, there is still limited understanding of how campus support contributes to student satisfaction with their chosen major and student perception of career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recently, student self-efficacy has emerged as an influential factor affecting student satisfaction with their majors and their academic and professional success ( Van Dinther et al., 2011 ) Self-efficacy can be defined as students' belief in their ability to succeed in reaching their goals ( Schunk & Mullen, 2012 ). Considering the transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the changing learning environment, the question of whether the role of student self-efficacy has changed has emerged. To fill these gaps, this study aims to investigate how perceived curriculum, campus support, and self-efficacy affect hospitality and tourism management student satisfaction with the major and their career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study should provide hospitality educators with insights to increase hospitality program competitiveness and navigate new challenges of student recruitment and retention in the context of post-pandemic recovery.

2. Literature review

2.1. the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on hospitality/tourism management students.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted the significant disruption in hospitality and tourism education. Many of hospitality hands-on experience courses, including culinary lab classes, guest lectures, class field trips, study abroad programs, professional work experiences, and internship programs, were suspended or canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Zhong et al., 2021 ). Due to these limitations, hospitality students have encountered fear or concern for their continuous education. In order to overcome this crisis, the direction of hospitality and tourism education is necessary to adopt innovative methods to provide a better education system for students due to COVID-19 ( Benaraba et al., 2022 ).

The virtual meeting-based learning method has completely shifted the academic learning mechanism in hospitality and tourism. All in-person hospitality and tourism courses during the pandemic were converted into a virtual or hybrid format to meet continuous student learning outcomes ( Dopson et al., 2021 ). Researchers have reported contradictory findings on the effectiveness of virtual learning. According to Dziuban et al. (2015) , the students' positive satisfaction has been influenced by the virtual learning environment as far as practical e-learning tools are provided. The previous studies indicated that students were proficient at utilizing virtual learning platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet ( Annaraud & Singh, 2017 ; Patiar et al., 2017 ). Additionally, a recent study suggested that students had higher learning satisfaction with their online delivery methods ( Choi et al., 2021 ). In contrast, Zhong et al. (2021) reported students raised the issue of limited learning and interaction with their academic community and industry outreach. Furthermore, young adults' stress and negative emotions have increased due to economic and social stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Shanahan et al., 2022 ). As such, the pandemic has contributed to student concerns about starting their careers in the hospitality and tourism industry. It is uncertain how the pandemic has impacted students’ willingness to pursue their hospitality and tourism degrees and seek their future careers in the hospitality and tourism industry throughout such a global crisis.

2.2. Perceived curriculum and career readiness

Moore (2006) broadly defined curriculum as all learning interaction planned and guided by a school that students can carry out in groups or individually through instructional content, materials, resources, and processes for evaluating the attainment of educational objectives. Similarly, Alexakis and Jiang (2019) claimed that “curriculum refers to a program of study as defined by the set of required and elective courses/classes that a student must take at an institution of higher education to graduate with an earned academic degree” (p. 2). This study follows this definition; however, measuring the quality of a curriculum objectively is challenging. To overcome this, researchers have often relied on students' perceived curriculum to evaluate it ( Lee et al., 2022 ). Therefore, the current study measures students' perception of the curriculum, building on the practices of previous research.

Higher education institutions spend countless amounts of time and effort on curriculum development to meet college student satisfaction ( Prakash, 2018 ). To enhance students' learning satisfaction, the curriculum is vital to meeting students' needs and wants ( Farahmandian et al., 2013 ; Hunter et al., 2022 ; Martirosyan, 2015 ). Supporting this notion, Martirosyan (2015) and Farahmandian et al. (2013) identified a positive relationship between perceived curriculum and student satisfaction. Specifically, once students recognize that the curriculum's organization and delivery are useful, they are satisfied with their education experience ( Gibson, 2010 ). Similarly, DeShields et al. (2005) found that business students have higher satisfaction when they perceive that the major curriculum equips them with future employment prospects. Given the previous findings, the current study assumes that perceived curriculum positively affects student satisfaction with the major.

As a student's ultimate goal is to gain employment in their desired field of employment, schools should properly educate and train their students to be ready for their future career. A high-quality curriculum enhances students' beliefs about their career readiness ( Ajao et al., 2022 ; Jackson, 2019 ; Lee et al., 2021 ). An effective curriculum contains advanced academic, technical, and problem-solving skill sets to enhance students' career readiness ( Lee et al., 2021 ). In other words, various coursework should not only cover the background or knowledge of course subjects, but also provide opportunities for students to improve various skills, including critical thinking, problem solving, and written and oral communication skills ( Alshare & Sewailem, 2018 ). Considering the above literature reviews on perceived curriculum, satisfaction, and career readiness, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Perceived curriculum positively influences student satisfaction with their major.

Perceived curriculum positively influences career readiness.

2.3. Campus support

Higher education institutions offer various services and resources to contribute to the personal, academic, and professional development of their students. The extensiveness of such services and resources varies by institution, but common services include academic advising, counseling, mentorship, tutoring, career planning, financial aid, scholarships, study abroad program, and highly-experienced staff member ( Grant-Vallone et al., 2003 ; Lee et al., 2016 ). Numerous studies revealed that such student supportive services, defined as campus support in this study, enhance students’ feeling of campus belonging ( Thompson et al., 2007 ), academic success ( Hassan, 2014 ; McKinney et al., 2006 ), mental and physical health ( Shin & Steger, 2016 ), and satisfaction with the university ( Hassan, 2014 ; Hu et al., 2012 ).

In the pre-COVID-19 era, several studies uncovered that campus support increases student satisfaction with their major. Specifically, Tessema et al. (2012) found that academic advising positively affects student satisfaction with the major. Blau et al. (2019) showed a similar finding that career center service for job opportunity, advising quality, and support from faculty increase major satisfaction. The COVID-19 pandemic was unexpected; consequently, a number of campuses shutdown not to spread virus and protect faculty, staff, and students’ health. Nevertheless, universities have put tremendous effort into altering such services remotely or online by adopting synchronous communication tools, such as Zoom and Google Meets ( Wang & Houdyshell, 2021 ). Zhong et al. (2021) asserted student support services are even more crucial for student academic satisfaction by making students feel secure in an unstable educational environment in a crisis situation. Bae et al. (2022) supported this notion by proving that financial support from university enhanced hospitality and tourism management student satisfaction with the major during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these previous findings, this study anticipates that campus support positively affects student satisfaction with the major.

Additionally, the importance of campus support has been reported in students' career decision-making amid the COVID-19 pandemic ( Zhong et al., 2021 ). Specifically, Zhong et al. (2021) illustrated that campus support services contribute to having a positive psychological status for hospitality and tourism students, which positively influences clear career goals and pathways even in challenging circumstances. Furthermore, Guo and Ayoun (2022) argued that campus support is pivotal to hospitality students because hospitality students largely depend on the faculties’ experience and advice in their career decision, indicating that students perceive campus support as the primary source of acquiring information. Following this view of previous research, the following hypotheses are formulated in this study.

Campus support positively influences student satisfaction with their major.

Campus support positively influences career readiness.

2.4. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to “one's belief of self-ability to complete a task or achieve a specific outcome” ( Guo & Ayoun, 2022 , p. 17). This individual's subjective judgment affects individuals' physiological, behavioral, and psychological responses ( Brown, 2002 ; Schönfeld et al., 2017 ). When people have strong self-efficacy, their efforts, patience, and flexibility tend to be higher ( Bandura, 1986 ) because self-efficacy enables them to realize how much effort they will put into a task, how long they will persevere while facing challenges, and how resilient they will be in challenging circumstances ( Van Dinther et al., 2011 ).

In a more specific approach to students' context, Schunk and Mullen (2012) define self-efficacy as students' belief in their capacity to plan and implement the actions necessary to learn and satisfactorily accomplish tasks and assignments. In other words, students with high self-efficacy tend to maintain a relaxed attitude and mind to cope well with difficult situations, and they are more likely to make decisions with confidence that they can complete any task (Mahmud et al., 219; Park et al., 2018 ). Studies have found that students' self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in increasing their satisfaction with their major in various academic disciplines ( Kim & Lee, 2014 ; Komarraju et al., 2014 ; Lent et al., 2007 ; Park et al., 2018 ). For example, Kim and Lee (2014) uncovered that students with high self-efficacy tend to have a high degree of satisfaction with their major. In a similar vein, Komarraju et al. (2014) demonstrated that psychology students with high self-efficacy are more likely to be satisfied with their major. Park et al. (2018) also confirmed the positive impact of self-efficacy on nursing students' satisfaction with their major. In the hospitality and tourism field, Bae et al. (2022) identified similar findings that self-efficacy positively influenced student satisfaction with the hospitality and tourism program. Overall, these studies consistently indicated that self-efficacy is an important predictor of student satisfaction with their major. Hence, the current study assumes that high self-efficacy elevates hospitality and tourism management students’ satisfaction with their major.

In addition to student satisfaction with their major, previous studies have also indicated that student's self-efficacy positively influences students' career readiness ( Guo & Ayoun, 2022 ; Mahmud et al., 2019 ). Specifically, Mahmud et al. (2019) asserted that students' self-efficacy is closely related to their career readiness because self-efficacy allows students to evaluate themselves positively regarding career-related abilities such as knowledge level, planning skill, and problem-solving ability. By contrast, students with lower self-efficacy tend to feel a lack of such skills and confidence in their careers. Similarly, in the hospitality context, Guo and Ayoun (2022) revealed that those with high self-efficacy, which is mainly established by education and previous industry work experience, are more willing to work in the hospitality industry. As previous studies consistently indicate the positive impact of self-efficacy on students' satisfaction with their major and students' career readiness, the current study develops the following two hypotheses.

Self-efficacy positively influences student satisfaction with their major.

Self-efficacy positively influences career readiness.

Figure 1 depicts the proposed conceptual framework.

The proposed conceptual framework.

3. Methodology

3.1. data collection.

The target sample for this study was hospitality and tourism undergraduate students studying in the United States, who are 18 years old or older. To recruit survey participants, 10 hospitality and tourism programs located throughout the country were contacted and asked to participate in the study. Universities, which were representative of the east, southeast, west, and southwest regions of the country, were selected based on the authors' affiliations with them. Contacts were sent an introductory, informational letter and a link to the survey which was administered via Qualtrics. As a result, six programs agreed to share the survey invitation with their students. Faculty members at the programs received two email reminders to encourage their students’ participation. The online survey was open from April to July 2022. Out of 136 responses collected, there were 8 insincere answers and 11 responses that failed to answer an attention check question and therefore were excluded. Thus, a total of 117 responses were utilized for further analysis. Given that Bentler and Chou (1987) recommended five individuals for each estimated parameter (i.e., 5 × 22 = 110), this study satisfied a minimum sample size and confirmed sufficient sample size to conduct the structural equation modeling. This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and ethical approval was issued by IRB in April 2022.

3.2. Measurements

Based on the review of the existing literature (i.e., Artino & McCoach, 2008 ; Edman & Brazil, 2009 ; Hu et al., 2012 ; Lee et al., 2021 ; Lent et al., 2007 ; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022 ), the measurement items were developed and slightly modified to fit this study context ( See Table 2 ). A self-administered questionnaire comprised three sections of screen questions, research constructs, and socio-demographic information. Two screening questions were first asked to ensure that respondents' age (i.e., 18 years old or older) and their major. A seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) was used to measure five components in the first part of the survey, namely perceived curriculum, campus support, self-efficacy, satisfaction with their major, and career readiness. In the last part of the survey, respondents were instructed to provide socio-demographic information, such as gender, age, ethnicity, career plan, employment status, and academic level.

Measurement items and standardized factor loadings.

Note . χ 2 (199)  = 286.584, p  < .001, χ 2 / df  = 1.440, CFI = 0.941, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.062 (90% CI: 0.045–0.077), SRMR = 0.060.

3.3. Data analysis

Using AMOS 26, this study followed the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to analyze the collected data. After a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement items, structural equation modeling was used to evaluate six hypotheses. Prior to the primary data analysis, a normality test was conducted using SPSS 27. Consequently, skewness (minimum: 1.589, maximum: 0.100) and kurtosis (minimum: 0.833, maximum: 4.024) were confirmed by showing the values scattered between the acceptable ranges of ±2 and ± 5, respectively ( Bentler, 1995 ).

4.1. Respondents’ profile

Table 1 describes the socio-demographic information of the respondents in this study. Of 117 respondents, 93 were female (82.1%), and 19 were male (16.2%). The majority of respondents were under 25 years old (76.1%) and 60% of respondents were Caucasian. In terms of academic level, most of the respondents were either seniors (52.1%) or juniors (38.5%). Additionally, 38.5% of respondents indicated they have a part-time job in the hospitality and tourism industry, and 30.8% had full-time job, followed by unemployed (29.1%). Regarding their career plan, 75.2% of respondents reported plan to obtain a career in the hospitality and tourism industry, and 17.9% wanted to pursue a higher degree in graduate school.

Profile of respondents ( N  = 117).

4.2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

To evaluate the measurement model, this study conducted CFA by testing the underlying structure of constructs. Consequently, the measurement model illustrated acceptable fit statistics, with χ 2 (199)  = 286.584, p  < .001, χ 2 / df  = 1.440, CFI = 0.941, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.062 (90% CI: 0.045–0.077), SRMR = 0.060. As seen in Table 2 , all factor loadings of the measurement items were confirmed at the significant level ( p  < .001), ranging from 0.585 to 0.925. As the next step, the construct validity was checked. Table 3 describes the results of the construct validity of the measurements. Specifically, composite reliability (CR) coefficients fell between .837 and .906, which indicates good internal consistency of the five constructs ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Convergent validity was also confirmed by checking the average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loadings of each construct. The AVEs dispersed between .581 and .674, surpassing the minimum threshold of 0.05. Moreover, the discriminant validity of each construct was acceptable by identifying that AVEs were greater than the squared inter-construct correlations ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). The AVEs were also higher than the maximum shared variance (MSV). In addition, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, a more conservative tool than Fornell and Larcker's criterion, was used to confirm the discriminant validity of the constructs. As a result, none of the HTMT ratios demonstrated values higher than the suggested threshold of 0.85 by Henseler et al. (2015) , which suggests no validity issue in the current study.

Validity analysis.

Note . CR (Composite reliability), AVE (Average variance extracted), MSV (Maximum shared variance), PC (Perceived curriculum), CS (Campus support), SE (Self-efficacy), SAT (Student satisfaction with major), CR (Perceived career readiness).

4.3. Structural equation model (SEM) and hypotheses test

SEM was performed for hypothesis testing after CFA. The model fit was acceptable with χ 2 (200)  = 286.620, p  < .001, χ 2 / df  = 1.433, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.061 (90% CI: 0.044–0.076), SRMR = 0.060. Fig. 2 displays the results of the hypotheses testing. As illustrated in Table 4 , perceived curriculum ( β  = 0.457, p  < .001), campus support ( β  = 0.143, p  < .05), and self-efficacy ( β  = 0.551, p  < .001) positively affected student satisfaction with major, showing H1 , H3 , and H5 were supported. However, no significant impact of perceived curriculum ( β  = 0.082, p  = .366) and campus support ( β  = 0.150, p  = .052) on perceived career readiness were found, which indicated failing to support H2 and H4 . Instead, self-efficacy had a positive impact on perceived career readiness ( β  = 0.466, p  < .001), supporting H6 .

Results of structural equation modeling.

Structural estimates.

Note. * p  < .05, *** p  < .001.

5. Discussion and implications

5.1. key findings.

This study investigated hospitality and tourism management students' satisfaction with their major and their career readiness amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study demonstrated that students’ self-efficacy is the most important predictor of their satisfaction with the major, followed by perceived curriculum and campus support. This result is consistent with the previous studies (e.g., Kim & Lee, 2014 ; Komarraju et al., 2014 ; Lee et al., 2021 ; Lent et al., 2007 ; Park et al., 2018 ), which shows that students with higher self-efficacy tend to be more satisfied with the major. In particular, this finding corroborates the assertion of Lee et al. (2021) that self-efficacy encourages hospitality and tourism management students to maintain their commitment to their majors in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, one of the significant findings in this study is that perceived curriculum positively affects students' satisfaction with the major. This result aligns with the results of previous studies ( Ayanbode et al., 2022 ; Farahmandian et al., 2013 ; Martirosyan, 2015 ; Zhou et al., 2021 ), which proved that perceived curriculum quality or various course offerings plays an important role in students’ satisfaction with their major. This finding confirms that a redesigned curriculum for the crisis situation still contributes to student satisfaction with the major.

Moreover, this study confirmed the positive impact of campus support on student satisfaction with their hospitality and tourism management major, which indicates that university-level support can be a source of students' satisfaction with their major in an unpredictable learning environment. The current finding corresponds with an existing study conducted by Tessema et al. (2012) , which proved that a university level of support enhanced college students’ satisfaction with the major. As such, this study shows that campus support is still an important predictor of student satisfaction with the major regardless of service delivery format (e.g., remote, face-to-face, hybrid) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regarding career readiness, the current study identified the positive impact of students' self-efficacy on career readiness, which agrees with the extant findings (e.g., Guo & Ayoun, 2022 ; Lee et al., 2021 ; Mahmud et al., 2019 ), illustrating that self-efficacy increases students’ career readiness and career ambitions for a major-related career. This finding implies that self-efficacy helps students feel prepared for a hospitality career.

Surprisingly, the results of this study revealed that perceived curriculum had no significant impact on career readiness, which does not support the earlier findings (e.g., Jackson, 2019 ; Lee et al., 2021 ; Martinez et al., 2017 ). This inconsistency may be explained by the fact that hospitality program curriculums lacked hands-on classes, such as internships, field trips, and culinary lab, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are included in the original curriculum, or shifted into virtual format ( Duncan, 2020 ).

Furthermore, the present study found that campus support insignificantly influences students' career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding is inconsistent with the previous studies, which demonstrated the positive role of campus support in students’ career decision-making (e.g., Zhong et al., 2021 ). A possible explanation for this might be that campus support services (e.g., writing center, career center, counseling) are voluntary, indicating that students should engage by themselves. For example, a survey conducted by Inside Higher ED in 2021 revealed that only 15% of students took advantage of the campus support services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they evaluated the experience negatively ( Ezarik, 2021 ). The survey identified the reason for students not to use the service was the online offering, and they preferred the traditional in-person services.

5.2. Theoretical implications

This study has several meaningful implications for the hospitality and tourism education literature. Notably, the current study adds to the growing body of literature on hospitality and tourism management student behavior in the face of a crisis situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, by conducting an empirical study, previous qualitative findings on the hospitality and tourism management students' response toward the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Guo & Ayoun, 2022 ) were reinforced. In particular, this study contributes to the limited knowledge on hospitality and tourism management students’ satisfaction with their major and career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although hospitality and tourism management programs value the symbiotic link between theory and practice, opportunities to apply theory to a practical environment were limited during the pandemic. Thus, the perception and behavior of the students who experienced different curriculum and university operations under the severe crisis provide new insights into existing knowledge.

Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to focus perceived career readiness of the hospitality and tourism management students who experienced the dramatic changes to their learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although their learning experience largely differs from students who receive face-to-face learning, little research has examined the students’ perceived career readiness. Therefore, by providing a new understanding of perceived career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study made a unique empirical contribution to extant student career readiness literature in the hospitality and tourism management field.

Furthermore, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of student satisfaction with their major and career readiness with micro-meso-macro levels of aspects. Specifically, individual level of attributes, self-efficacy, and departmental level, program curriculum, and university level, campus support, were explored as predictors to investigate diverse levels of aspects influencing student behavior related to their major loyalty and career decision-making, which helps full understanding of the hospitality and tourisms students.

5.3. Practical implications

This study revealed several significant findings which may inform hospitality management program design and serve as a reference for the program directors and other stakeholders involved in the curriculum development. Perceived curriculum, campus support, and self-efficacy were important indicators of student satisfaction with their major. Hospitality management administration should focus on these critical domains when conducting curriculum reviews and redesigning student support services.

First, the study results showed that perceived curriculum positively influenced student satisfaction with their major. Therefore, hospitality programs should educate the students on how the courses they are taking are designed to meet the industry's needs in line with the current trends. That could be done by communicating the relevance of program outcomes, course learning objectives, and content to students' professional goals. Moreover, faculty members should explain to the students how collaborative projects, written assignments, and oral presentations contribute to soft skills development. Also, inviting industry professionals as guest speakers can attest to the relevancy of the topics discussed. Another suggestion would be to invest in designing online courses with experiential learning and laboratory component, typically high-stakes ones for hospitality degrees, for seamless pivoting in case of a crisis similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Second, the study results indicated that campus support has a positive impact on student satisfaction with their major. When designing student support services for the post-pandemic era, hospitality programs should include academic support and well-being support stemming from the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the U.S. Department of Education offers grants under the umbrella of the Federal TRIO programs to higher education institutions aiming to increase college retention and graduation rates ( U.S. Department of Education, n.d. ). Among services eligible for grant aid are academic tutoring, counseling for personal, career, and educational information, mentoring programs, and others ( U.S. Department of Education, n.d. ). In line with the current study findings, such support services contribute to student satisfaction with the chosen major. Therefore, academic advisors and faculty members should encourage students to utilize student support services by distributing flyers, inviting student support staff to classes, and otherwise making students aware of such programs developed to support their professional and personal success.

Finally, the study results confirmed that self-efficacy was the strongest factor affecting student satisfaction. Thus, hospitality programs should promote building a culture of self-efficacy as part of the courses through frequent guidance and feedback, faculty members' supporting behavior, and other techniques such as peer modeling ( Ahmad & Safaria, 2013 ).

Moreover, the study results showed that perceived self-efficacy was the only significant factor affecting student career readiness. That finding is essential for hospitality programs because, according to the self-determination theory, fulfilling one's self-efficacy and self-actualization affects the individual's motivation, and faculty and staff play a crucial role in boosting it ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ). Therefore, frequent guidance and feedback, the ability to observe others in the educational setting, and mastery in achieving short-term goals contribute to students' confidence in their ability to succeed in their chosen career path ( Ahmad & Safaria, 2013 ). Thus, hospitality programs must pay attention to this vital educational outcome helping students to develop a stronger sense of self-efficacy, which, in turn, reinforces their perception of career readiness. That could be done by increasing awareness of student self-efficacy among faculty members and student support staff by hosting workshops and creating learning communities. Furthermore, a hospitality program may consider mentoring seminars for students to increase self-efficacy and contribute to their future career success.

5.4. Limitations and future studies

Despite its meaningful findings, this study has limitations. The current study explored students' satisfaction with the major and career readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic as a cross-sectional study. However, universities' strategies and policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic have changed during three years. Thus, longitudinal study would provide more in depth understanding of how students' satisfaction with the major and career readiness have shifted over time. Moreover, as this study focused on the individual, departmental, and campus levels of aspects affecting students' satisfaction with the major and career readiness, other influential factors, such as family and peer support and academic motivation, exist. Thus, further research is recommended to consider additional aspects which could affect students’ satisfaction with the major and career readiness. Additionally, the current study measured perceived career readiness instead of subjective knowledge and skills. It might provide different outcomes if career readiness is measured using objective knowledge and skills.

• Ahmad A., Safaria T. Effects of self-efficacy on students' academic performance. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology. 2013; 2 (1):22–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajao H., Alegbeleye D., Westfall-Rudd D. Curriculum design in an agricultural education program in Nigeria: Towards advancing career readiness. Advancements in Agricultural Development. 2022; 3 (2):17–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alexakis G., Jiang L. Industry competencies and the optimal hospitality management curriculum: An empirical study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2019; 31 (4):210–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alshare K., Sewailem M.F. A gap analysis of business students' skills in the 21st century: A case study of Qatar. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. 2018; 22 (1):1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Hotel and Lodging Association . 2022. 2022 Midyear state of the industry report. https://www.ahla.com/sites/default/files/AHLA%20Midyear%20SOTI%20Report%202022.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988; 103 (3):411–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Annaraud K., Singh D. Perceptions of hospitality faculty and students of massive open online courses (MOOCs) Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2017; 29 (2):82–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Artino A.R., McCoach D.B. Development and initial validation of the online learning value and self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2008; 38 (3):279–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayanbode O.F., Fagbe A., Owolabi R., Oladipo S., Ewulo O.R. Students' interactions, satisfaction and perceived progress in an online class: Empirical evidence from Babcock university Nigeria. Cogent Education. 2022; 9 (1):1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae J.I.S., Park H., Kim T.J. Factors influencing student satisfaction and intention to stay in the hospitality and tourism program. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. 2022:1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. (Englewood Cliffs) [ Google Scholar ]
• Bart M. Distance education–Measuring the benefits and costs. Faculty Focus. 2008 https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/distance-education-measuring-the-benefits-and-costs/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Benaraba C.M.D., Bulaon N.J.B., Escosio S.M.D., Narvaez A.H.G., Suinan A.N.A., Roma M.N. A comparative analysis on the career perceptions of tourism management students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2022; 30 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P.M. Multivariate Software; 1995. EQS 6 structural equations program manual. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P.M., Chou C.P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research. 1987; 16 (1):78–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau G., Williams W., Jarrell S., Nash D. Exploring common correlates of business undergraduate satisfaction with their degree program versus expected employment. The Journal of Education for Business. 2019; 94 (1):31–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown D. John Wiley & Sons; 2002. Career choice and development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi J.J., Robb C.A., Mifli M., Zainuddin Z. University students' perception to online class delivery methods during the COVID-19 pandemic: A focus on hospitality education in Korea and Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2021; 29 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. Plenum Press; 1985. Self-determination and intrinsic motivation in human behavior. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeShields O.W., Kara A., Kaynak E. Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg's two‐factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management. 2005; 19 (2):128–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dopson L.R., Lee P.C., Lee M.J., Lara A. Perceived importance of career engagement initiatives in hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2021; 34 (4):291–299. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan N. 2020. Culinary education in the age of COVID. (FSR. fsrmagazine.com/non-commercial/culinary-education-age-covid) [ Google Scholar ]
• Dziuban C., Moskal P., Thompson J., Kramer L., DeCantis G., Hermsdorfer A. Student satisfaction with online learning: Is it a psychological contract? Online Learning. 2015; 19 (2):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edman J.L., Brazil B. Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy and academic success among community college students: An ethnic comparison. Social Psychology of Education. 2009; 12 (3):371–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott K.M. Critical determinants of student satisfaction. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 2002; 4 (3):271–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezarik M. Inside Higher ED; 2021. Next steps, new directions emerge for life beyond college: Part 2. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/22/survey-campus-career-center-supports-during-pandemic [ Google Scholar ]
• Farahmandian S., Minavand H., Afshardost M. Perceived service quality and student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Business Management. 2013; 12 (4):65–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18 (1):39–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvis Á.H. Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: Literature and good practices review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2018; 15 (1):1–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson A. Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2010; 32 (3):251–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant-Vallone E., Reid K., Umali C., Pohlert E. An analysis of the effects of self-esteem, social support, and participation in student support services on students' adjustment and commitment to college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 2003; 5 (3):255–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin W.C. The future of hospitality education: A reflection. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2021; 45 (5):939–941. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Y., Ayoun B. Starting a career during a global pandemic: Telling stories of hospitality management graduates' decision making. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2022; 34 (1):15–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan K.E. Investigating conditions for student success at an American university in the Middle East. Higher Education Studies. 2014; 4 (5):62–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015; 43 (1):115–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6 (1):1–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu Y.L., Ching G.S., Chao P.C. Taiwan student engagement model: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. International Journal of Research Studies in Education. 2012; 1 (1):69–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter A., Griller Clark H., Mason-Williams L., Gagnon J.C. Curriculum, instruction, and promoting college and career readiness for incarcerated youth: A literature review. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2022; 92 (4):418–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson D. Student perceptions of the development of work readiness in Australian undergraduate programs. Journal of College Student Development. 2019; 60 (2):219–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim D.J., Lee J.S. Influence of ego-resilience and self-efficacy on satisfaction in major of nursing student. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2014; 20 (2):244–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Komarraju M., Swanson J., Nadler D. Increased career self-efficacy predicts college students' motivation, and course and major satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment. 2014; 22 (3):420–432. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., Chuang N.K., Lee S.A., Israeli A.A. How COVID-19 influences the future of service management professions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. 2021; 5 (3):2514–9792. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee M.J., Huh C., Jones M.F. Investigating quality dimensions of hospitality higher education: From students' perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2016; 28 (2):95–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee P.C., Yoon S., Lee M.J. Are you ready? Perceived career readiness attributes of the hospitality management students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2022; 34 (3):157–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lent R.W., Singley D., Sheu H.B., Schmidt J.A., Schmidt L.C. Relation of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment. 2007; 15 (1):87–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmud M.I., Noah S.M., Jaafar W.M.W., Bakar A.Y.A., Amat S. The career readiness construct between dysfunctional career thinking and career self-efficacy among undergraduate students. S trategies . 2019; 7 (1):74–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez R.R., Baker S.B., Young T. Promoting career and college readiness, aspirations, and self‐efficacy: Curriculum field test. The Career Development Quarterly. 2017; 65 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martirosyan N. An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 2015; 29 (2):177–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinney J.P., McKinney K.G., Franiuk R., Schweitzer J. The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching. 2006; 54 (3):281–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore A., editor. Schooling, society and curriculum. Routledge; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] 2022. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/us-english.html NSSE 2022 U.S. English version.
• Park H.S., Yun J.M., Lee S.N., Lee S.R., Lee M.S. The relationship between self-efficacy, major satisfaction and career decision level of nursing students. Journal of Health Informatics and Statistics. 2018; 43 (1):35–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patiar A., Ma E., Kensbock S., Cox R. Hospitality management students' expectation and perception of a virtual field trip web site: An Australian case study using importance–performance analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2017; 29 (1):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prakash G. Quality in higher education institutions: Insights from the literature. The TQM Journal. 2018; 30 (6):732–748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reale J.M. University Business; 2022. Reimagining student services: Providing support in a hybrid world. https://universitybusiness.com/hybrid-student-services-support-suny-polytechnic-institute/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Schönfeld P., Preusser F., Margraf J. Costs and benefits of self-efficacy: Differences of the stress response and clinical implications. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2017; 75 :40–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schunk D.H., Mullen C.A. In: Handbook of research on student engagement. Christenson S.L., et al., editors. Springer; 2012. Self-efficacy as an engaged learner; pp. 219–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyitoğlu F., Atsız O., Kaya F., Taş S. The two-way perspective of tourism undergraduates towards (post-) viral world: The future of tourism, and vocational development and career. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education. 2022; 31 [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan L., Steinhoff A., Bechtiger L., Murray A.L., Nivette A., Hepp U.…Eisner M. Emotional distress in young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence of risk and resilience from a longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Medicine. 2022; 52 (5):824–833. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin J.Y., Steger M.F. Supportive college environment for meaning searching and meaning in life among American college students. Journal of College Student Development. 2016; 57 (1):18–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tessema M.T., Ready K., Yu W. Factors affecting college students' satisfaction with major curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2012; 2 (2):34–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson D.E., Orr B., Thompson C., Grover K. Examining students' perceptions of their first-semester experience at a major land-grant institution. College Student Journal. 2007; 41 (3):640–649. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Student support services program. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html
• Van Dinther M., Dochy F., Segers M. Factors affecting students' self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review. 2011; 6 (2):95–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C.X., Houdyshell M. Remote academic advising using synchronous technology: Knowledge, experiences, and perceptions from students. NACADA Journal. 2021; 41 (2):40–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weissman S. Inside Higher Ed; 2021. Not coming, not staying. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/15/new-federal-data-confirm-enrollment-declines#:~:text=College%20and%20university%20enrollment%20nationwide%20fell%20by%20651%2C774,Department%20of%20Education%E2%80%99s%20National%20Center%20for%20Education%20Statistics [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhong Y., Busser J., Shapoval V., Murphy K. Hospitality and tourism student engagement and hope during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2021; 33 (3):194–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou X., Chai C.S., Jong M.S.Y., Xiong X.B. Does relatedness matter for online self-regulated learning to promote perceived learning gains and satisfaction? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2021; 30 (3):205–215. [ Google Scholar ]

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism

Subject Area and Category

• Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
• Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Publication type

15332845, 15332853

2002, 2004-2022

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2022. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy