Revisiting hospitality internship practices: A holistic investigation

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

Academic Papers

Revisiting hospitality internship practices: A holistic investigation Anastasios Zopiatis n, Antonis L. Theocharous 1 Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Cyprus University of Technology, Spirou Araouzou 115, P.O. Box 50329, 3036 Limassol, Cyprus

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords: Internships Hospitality students SEM Cyprus

abstract Hospitality internships are integral part of almost all reputable hospitality programs worldwide. Despite their universal recognition as an essential component of hospitality education, their value is often superseded by the challenges facing hospitality stakeholders in providing such an experience for the next generation of hospitality professions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate—with the utilization of structural equation modeling and after a thorough investigation of the existing literature—the causal relationships of the key issues that define modern hospitality internships and the practice's perceived impact on students' intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation. Crucial elements before, during, and after the experience were accounted for, as well as students' overall internship perceptions. Findings prove to be of considerable interest to hospitality stakeholders by confirming some theoretical notions pertaining to the efficacy of the practice, as well as by enhancing understanding and opening new research horizons for those wishing to advance our collective knowledge of the experience. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In an era of uncertainty, constant changes and attempts to internationalize hospitality degrees (Brookes & Becket, 2011), crucial elements that define the practice of the internship, still remain unknown. The absence of a universallyacknowledged definition, purpose and scope, has driven hospitality educators to develop a pedagogically sound experience while juggling the challenges associated with discovering commonalities amongst the internship's primary stakeholders; the student, the educational institution and the industry. While reviewing the internship-related literature, one can sense the progressive nature of the discourse that reflects the conditions of the era under investigation. Scholars in the 80s and 90s mostly explored procedural issues since the imperative at the time was to find the best possible way to assimilate internships into the hospitality curriculum. Based on this premise, numerous scholars investigated internships from an array of ‘administrative’ perspectives. At the start of the new century, the focus shifted towards a more explanatory mindset, as attempts were made to investigate the internships' key components, relationships, associations and success factors. A quick foray into the most popular academic databases (e.g., Emerald, ProQuest, Sage, and Science Direct) reveals the scarcity of internship-related empirical articles which convincingly investigate this crucial but most often forgotten element

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 25 002502; fax: +357 25 002653. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Zopiatis), [email protected] (A.L. Theocharous). 1 Tel.: +357 25 002561.

1473-8376/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.04.002

34

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

of hospitality education. Reinforcing this fact, numerous scholars (e.g., Airey & Tribe, 2005; Walmsley, Thomas, & Jameson, 2012; Zopiatis, 2007; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012) highlight the need for further scientific investigation into the efficacy of hospitality internship practices. In an attempt to enhance the stakeholders' collective knowledge and provide new insights that might more accurately address contemporary internship issues, this study sets out to investigate the causal relationships that define modern internship practices. The findings may prove fruitful for researchers grappling with the concept's tri-partite relationships, that is the pre-, actual-, and post-internship experience. 2. Review of literature The following section provides the conceptual background upon which the study was grounded, starting out with a definition, followed by a holistic review of the existing internship-related literature through the years. 2.1. Towards a definition Irrespective of which definition one espouses, certain key words are evident throughout much of the existing internshiprelated literature, such as, students, supervised work practice, experiential learning, academic credit, etc. Zopiatis (2007) defines the internship experience as: … a structured and career-relevant supervised professional work/learning experience, paid or unpaid, within an approved hospitality agency/organization/corporation, under the direct supervision of at least one practicing hospitality professional and one faculty member, for which a hospitality student can earn academic credit. (p. 11) In general terms, an internship is viewed as a short-term period of practical work experience wherein students receive training as well as gaining invaluable job experiences in a specific field or potential career of their interest. For their contributions, students may or may not earn money depending upon the specific circumstances. This experience enables students to apply classroom theories within the actual world of work, thus bridging the gap between theory and practice. Internship practices are sometimes referred to as practical work experience, work placement, field work practicum, professional placement, cooperative education, or experiential learning activity. Today almost all reputable hospitality programs include at least one internship experience in their curriculum. Table 1 exhibits the internship requirements of twenty educational institutions offering hospitality or tourism management degrees worldwide. The twenty programs were randomly selected in order to provide an indicative picture of the current practices. It is important to note that almost all institutions consider internships as a mandatory requirement for their students' graduation, thus reaffirming their conviction in the practice's overall pedagogic value. Moreover, the trend is set to increase the duration of the experience which in some cases may last a year, via the utilization of different internship schemes. 2.2. The early days (1980s and 90s) Beginning with the early 80s, scholars sought to uncover the fundamentals of the experience. Welch (1984) suggesting that the students' hospitality internship experience can be more valuable when specific performance goals are established, proposed a four-step model (self-assessment, development of competency statements, establishment of performance objectives and evaluation) as an apparatus for ensuring the attainment of specific hospitality skills. Schmelzer, Costello, and Blalock (1987) investigated internship practices within the context of hospitality curricula, while Loftus' (1988) investigated the concept from the perspective of the hospitality industry. A number of other studies (Cargill & Fried, 1990; Pauze, Johnson, & Miller, 1989) provided specific instructional and administrative recommendations pertaining to the internship practice, whilst Ciofalo (1989), and Parilla and Wesser (1998), investigated the value of internships as a learning tool. Along the same lines, Alm's (1996) study provided valuable insights as to the necessity for effective internship evaluation methods. During this time period, only a handful of studies actively tapped on the students' experience while undergoing the internship. Barron and Maxwell's (1993) research findings suggest that, prior to their internship, hospitality students had positive perceptions in terms of the industry's career opportunities, monetary rewards, training prospects, and job satisfaction, but, unfortunately, those perceptions became negative upon the students' return from their actual internship experience. The authors restated that the differences between students' expectations and their internship experience perceptions could be attributed both to the educational institution's inadequate practices, as well as to the industry's problematic induction programs. They concluded that a negative internship experience substantially influences students' perceptions regarding their future hospitality career. Students' internship expectations and perceptions have also been investigated by other scholars from an array of perspectives. Waryszak (1999) presented a number of research studies that assessed students' expectations, whereas Charles (1992) states that hospitality students were “…generally satisfied with their career choice, although their satisfaction appeared to be decreasing with time, and they had been more influenced in their view by their internship experience” (p. 13). Going a step further, Nelson (1994) examined students' internship perceptions in terms of the overall effects of job dimensions and supportive relations on the interns' level of satisfaction. Findings suggest that students were more satisfied with internships that “…provide relevant work, some autonomy, and timely feedback” (Nelson, 1994, p. 133).

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

35

Table 1 Internships requirements in 20 hospitality schools worldwide. University (in alphabetical order)

Degree title

Ben Gurion University (Israel)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Tourism Management

Internship specifics


1000 h minimum



(Summer or school year) Mandatory Supervised

Bournemouth University (UK)

Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management (Hons.)


40 weeks minimum

Cornell University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel Administration


800 h (2 Summer










(3rd year) Mandatory Paid

periods) Mandatory Part-time employment accepted Paid or unpaid

Source of information

〈http://web.bgu.ac.il/Eng/eilat/AcademicPrograms/ Hotel+and+Tourism+Management.htm〉

〈http://courses.bournemouth.ac.uk/courses/ undergraduate-degree/hospitality-management/ ba-hons/77/course_content-course_content/〉

〈http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/academics/ ugrad/requirements/practice.html〉

Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Tourism Management


1200 h
Mandatory

〈http://www.cut.ac.cy〉

Emirates School of Hospitality (Dubai, UAE)

Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in International Hospitality Management


6 months at the

〈http://www.emiratesacademy.edu/ Your-Study-Programmes/Undergraduate/〉

Florida International University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management


1,300 Hours (300 h in

Florida State University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management


1000 h minimum
Mandatory

〈http://registrar.fsu.edu/bulletin/undergrad/pdf/ 2012_gen_bulletin.pdf〉

Glion Institute of Higher Education (Switzerland)

Bachelor Degree in Hospitality Management


Two six-months

〈http://www.glion.edu/glion_education/en/en-en/ home/academic-programs/hospitality-management/ bachelor-degrees〉

Haaga Helia (Finland)

Bachelor of Hospitality Management










Bachelor of Science (BSc) (Hons.) in Hotel Management (3 years)

Advanced Internship) Mandatory

internships (semester 2 and 5) Mandatory


560 h minimum (280 h


Hong Kong Polytechnic (China)

beginning of 2nd year Mandatory

of basic training at 1st year, and 280 h in summer between 1st and 2nd year) Mandatory


10 weeks (summer-end







of 1st year) or 400 h of cumulative work experience (October to May–1st year) 10 weeks (summer-end of 2nd year), or a 48week sandwich year placement, or 400 h of cumulative work experience (October to May–2nd year) Mandatory

Johnson and Wales University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Lodging Management


Rotational internship

New York University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Tourism Management


600 h
Mandatory




〈http://hospitality.fiu.edu/programs.asp? programs=bachelor_science_hospitality_manage ment〉

〈http://www.haaga-helia.fi/en/ education-and-application/ bachelor-degree-programmes/hotel-and-restaurant/ dp-in-hotel-restaurant-and-tourism-managemen t-haaga-campus-youth-education/courses〉

〈http://hotelschool.shtm.polyu.edu.hk/eng/academic/ programs_overview.jsp? ID=23&Tag=5&Program=bsc&SubProg=hm&SA=post hk〉

〈http://www.jwu.edu/content.aspx?id=10382〉

earning—11 Weeks Mandatory 〈http://www.scps.nyu.edu/academics/departments/ tisch/career/internships.html〉

36

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

Table 1 (continued ) University (in alphabetical order)

Degree title

Internship specifics

Purdue University (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hospitality & Tourism Management


400 h
Mandatory

〈http://www.cfs.purdue.edu/HTM/undergraduate/ index.html〉

Swiss School of Tourism & Hospitality (Switzerland)

Bachelor in International Hospitality Management with integrated Swiss Higher Diploma (3 years)


6 month operational

〈http://ssth.ch/en/programs/ undergraduate-programs/ ba-in-international-hospitality-management/ ba-curriculum.php〉

University of Guelph (Canada)

Bachelor of Commerce in Tourism Management


Verified work







internship (Semester 3) 24 weeks supervised work experience (Semester 6)

experience in the hospitality and tourism industry is required for students to be eligible to graduate Mandatory

Source of information

〈http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/ undergraduate/current/pdffiles/c10bcomm.pdf〉

University of Nevada, Las Vegas (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management


1000 h
Mandatory

〈http://www.unlv.edu/hotel/undergrad-studies/ fall-2012〉

University of Surrey (UK)

Bachelor of Science in International Hospitality and Tourism Management


1 year
Elective
Paid

〈http://www.surrey.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/ ihtm/index.htm〉

University of Texas, Houston (USA)

Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management


600 h (2 Summer

〈http://www.hrm.uh.edu/ACADEMICS/ Degree-Requirements/Undergraduate/〉

University of Waikato (New Zealand)

Bachelor of Tourism (Tourism and Hospitality Management)


Opportunities to gain

University of Western Sydney (Australia)

Bachelor of Science in Tourism Management


400 h
Mandatory
Supervised work







periods) Mandatory

practical field work experience During their degree, tourism students can work directly with businesses and have the chance to travel on research trips

〈http://www.waikato.ac.nz/study/qualifications/ btour.shtml〉

〈http://future.uws.edu.au/future_students_home/ug/ social_sciences/tourism_management〉

experience

Several recommendations evolving from this study, argue that the student's experience should be governed by a specific internship curriculum which should be an integral element of the overall program's academic syllabus. Moreover, educational institutions should appoint a dedicated faculty member as an internship coordinator who oversees the internship practice. The curriculum should highlight the intern's role and responsibilities with regard to their own learning, as well as the importance of communication between them and the internship coordinator. In return, the industry must recognize the “…students' need for guided practice with timely feedback, and ensure that proper autonomy and feedback are provided during every approved internship”, in addition to, “…placing equal emphasis on the practice and integration of cognitive, motor, and affective skills of student interns” (Nelson, 1994, p. 134). Probably the most cited internship-specific studies of the early days era were conducted by Downey and De Veau (1987, 1988) which investigated both hospitality educators' and hospitality professionals' perceptions as to what constitutes a successful internship experience. The studies revealed that although guidelines and experiences vary among hospitality programs, the vast majority follow a skills-oriented internship format. The objectives of the experience focus on relating theory to practice, gathering on-the-job knowledge and applying it to the classroom, providing the opportunity to train with hospitality professionals, and becoming more competitive in the job market. Moreover, both studies revealed substantial disagreements between hospitality educators and hospitality corporate recruiters in internship specific characteristics, such as duration, and intern's recruitment path. Findings suggest that although hospitality educators were satisfied with the status of the internship experience, only few of the participating hospitality professionals shared this feeling. The authors

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

37

concluded that “…when internship programs meet industry expectations, the students will be the primary beneficiaries” (Downey & De Veau, 1988, p. 20). Internship strengths and weaknesses were also investigated, most notably by Petrillose and Montgomery (1998), who revealed that the top five internship program strengths, according to hospitality educators were: (1) real life experiences that enhance students' professional development; (2) internship program content, duration and format; (3) strong and supportive quality site (host organization); (4) faculty involvement; and (5) the provision of career opportunities after graduation. Moreover, prominent hospitality educators indicated five weaknesses that potentially threaten the quality of internships, including: (1) lack of control over students and the difficulty to monitor and evaluate the internship practice; (2) scarcity of funds for on-site student visits; (3) absence of support from the hospitality industry, indicating their low level of motivation and commitment to the internship practice; (4) lack of flexibility and variety of internship opportunities; and (5) confusion between work experience and internship experience (Petrillose & Montgomery, 1998, p. 48). Along the same lines, Girard (1999) reported that lack of growth opportunities, scarcity of incentives for exceptional work, and puzzling work assessments heavily diminished the overall internship experience of college seniors. The majority of the 80s and 90s discourse focused mainly on procedural issues such as the internship's academic requirements, types of reports required, hours needed, and the need for a full-time program coordinator. Exploratory investigations on the students' expectations have been conducted. Nevertheless issues such as, how those expectations are shaped, and whether those expectations are met were rarely investigated. Overall, the focus of most scholars of the era was to explore internship-basics, thereby neglecting the investigation of crucial causal relationships between internship-specific elements and potential benefits. When measuring complex phenomena, where multiple populations affect the overall outcome, the research design must collect and analyze the views and opinions of all primary stakeholders involved. Surprisingly, students' views and opinions although collected, were rarely contrasted with the opinions of the other primary stakeholders, such as hospitality educators and industry professionals. The majority of the studies (e.g., Downey & De Veau, 1987, 1988; Petrillose & Montgomery, 1998) presented only the views of hospitality educators and professionals, consequently revealing the substantial disagreement between these individuals in relation to the content, structure, and administration of hospitality internships. 2.3. Internship studies in the new millennium A limited number of hospitality researchers took up the gauntlet to further investigate hospitality internship practices into the new millennium. Their primary objective was to move one step further from internship exploration in an attempt to investigate causal relationships that might enhance the overall understanding of the experience. Utilizing inferential statistical techniques, their discourse focused on relationships, causes and effects. This section provides a review of notable internship-specific studies published over the past 12 years. Lee, Lu, Jiao, and Yeh (2006) study investigated the provision and industry preferences of different internship schemes. Six types of off-school internship practices were evaluated according to the perceptions of hospitality professionals in Taiwan. Findings suggest that sandwich internship programs, lasting at least 6 months following the completion of the first year of academic study, were more appreciated by hospitality stakeholders, who believed that benefits to students were enhanced in comparison to the traditional internship practice. In a different study, again conducted in Taiwan, Lee, Chen, Hung, and Chen (2011) suggest that internships enhance the individual's ability to adapt to unfamiliar circumstances in the workplace. In addition, they concluded that pre-internship hospitality experiences positively affect the intern's socialization process. This, in association with the specific workplace labor conditions, has a significant impact on students' future career intentions. The study also examined whether the personality traits of the individual intern, measured via of the ‘Big Five’ model—extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness—have an impact on the experience. A notable association was revealed between agreeableness, defined by Robbins and Judge (2007) as the extent to which the individual is cooperative, caring, warm, and trusting, and internship socialization. McManus and Feinstein (2008) who also investigated the association of internships with occupational socialization, argue that students' motivation to be engaged and learn during the experience is influenced by their need for autonomy, relatedness (defined in the study as the feeling of being connected with and cared for by others) and competence attainment. 2.3.1. The benefits frenzy Upon reviewing the existing literature, a multitude of internship related benefits for all stakeholders involved, can be identified. In a ‘perfect’ world, the ‘ideal’ internship may produce benefits, ranging from financial (Singh & Dutta, 2010) to career development (Coco, 2000) and academic advancement (Beggs, Ross, & Goodwin, 2008; Chi & Gursoy, 2008). Recently, an Australian study found that internship benefits go beyond the existing literature in areas such as knowledge exchange and engagement with the destination (host) network (Ruhanen, Breakey, & Robinson, 2012); a notion also supported by Breakey, Robinson, and Beesley (2008). Nevertheless, reflecting on the pragmatic conditions of the industry, such claims may have to be revisited, since, if unsubstantiated, they may inflate students' expectations and further serve to enhance the industry-academia gap.

38

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

2.3.2. Comparisons between stakeholders In an attempt to fill the gap of the previous era, numerous scholars actively compared the views, opinions, and perceptions of stakeholders towards specific internship dimensions. Beggs et al. (2008) undertook an empirical analysis by comparing the perception of college students and industry practitioners in four distinctive internship dimensions; role of the internship, role of the internship agency, the intern's abilities, and factors for selecting the internship. Significant differences between the two groups under investigation were revealed within numerous variables, most notably their disagreement on the factors for selecting a host organization, and the interns' abilities. Along similar lines Zopiatis (2007) revealed major disagreements between the practice's three stakeholders on variables such as the intern's placement, rewards, reporting requirements, legal administration and on-the-job rotation. Moreover, Zopiatis (2004) compared the perceptions of hospitality professionals and students on the following four dimensions: (1) the role of the educational institution, (2) the role of the host organization, (3) the value of the internship experience and stakeholders' motivation, and (4) students' growth and development. Again, significant differences between the two groups were evident, especially on the internship's impact on student growth and development. Finally, Yiu and Law (2012, p. 391), by exploring internships from the perspective of students, employers and educators, concluded that “…there is certainly an imbalance between the expectations of students and employers regarding internships”.

2.3.3. Expectations vs perceptions Contrasting students' pre-internship expectations with post internship perceptions in Hong Kong, Lam and Ching (2007) concluded that “…overall, students' expectations are unmet” (p. 348). Indicative is the fact that 17 differences, out of a total of 27 internship specific variables, were revealed when contrasting students' pre-internship expectations with postinternship perceptions. In all instances, students' expectations were considerably greater than the actual perceptions, whereas when investigating the internship factors most associated with overall student satisfaction, ‘team spirit and involvement’ emerged as the most important followed by ‘autonomy and help from superior (supervisor)’. Similar in nature was the study conducted by Singh and Dutta (2010) in India and the United Kingdom. With the utilization of the ServQual instrument, the authors empirically investigated and compared the interns' actual perceptions with their pre-internship expectations. Findings, in accordance with similar studies (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2007; Kim & Park, 2013), not only suggest notable differences between interns' perceptions and expectations, but also differences between the Indian and the UK internship experience, thus introducing cultural specificity and the uniqueness of each hospitality environment as important elements to internship success.

2.3.4. Causal relationships In a recently published study Chen and Shen (2012) investigate, with the utilization of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the influence of internships on students' willingness to remain and pursue a career in the industry. By identifying four internship specific dimensions (internship program planning and administration, industry involvement and consultation, students' commitment, and overall satisfaction) the study revealed positive associations between each of the four relationships. Worthy of note, when investigating students' willingness to pursue a career in the industry after graduation, was the revelation that self-commitment was not an important indicator. The internship's impact on the individual's intention to stay in the industry and purse a career were also investigated by Lee and Chao (2012). Findings, reflecting extrinsic theories of job satisfaction, suggest that the provision of benefits from the host organization will positively enhance the individual's desire to stay and commit to the industry. From a pragmatic point of view, this is expected due to the idiosyncrasies and unique work characteristics of the population under investigation. Similar findings were reported by Hsu (2012) who also explored the association between hospitality students' internship perceptions and their future career planning intentions. Adopting the same methodology but with a different research perspective, and with the aim of improving internships, Chen, Ku, Shyr, Chen, and Chou (2009) set out to investigate the relationship between job demand, emotional awareness, and the intern's level of job satisfaction. Findings suggest that the intern's job satisfaction is positively associated with the specifics of the job, the individual's emotional awareness and display rules, and the social support he or she receives from the organization.

2.3.5. The conceptual rhetoric Numerous manuscripts espoused a conceptual rhetoric in an attempt to contribute to the internship related literature. In their conceptual paper Zopiatis and Constanti (2012) present a framework which delineates the fundamentals of designing, monitoring and evaluating students' internship experiences. The authors propound the notion of reflective practice, since the framework introduced is based on Kolb's (1984) theory of experiential learning. With a similar reasoning, Busby (2003) inform us that internships may enhance students' abilities to clarify their future career intentions and goals, whereas Barron and Rihova (2010) posit the complementary nature and potential benefits of such practices with volunteering in the industry.

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

39

3. Hypotheses development Reflecting on over 30 years of internship-specific research, the study sets out to investigate the causal qualities of numerous theoretical beliefs as perceived by hospitality students who have already completed at least one work-related experience. Following the logical sequence of events (pre-actual-post-future), the student's level of readiness to participate in the internship is examined. The stated level of readiness, comprised of both academic adequacy and psychological confidence, may positively influence the benefits gained from the experience (Chen et al., 2009), and the individual's assimilation to the workplace (Singh & Dutta, 2010; Zopiatis, 2007). Such assimilation will alleviate the individual's shock of entering the workplace, by clarifying duties, demands and rewards, such as the role and responsibilities of the intern's on-the-job supervisor. It is important to acknowledge that for many students, this will be their first ‘real’ interaction with both the industry and its human capital. Accordingly, and in accordance with the existing literature, the following two hypotheses are proposed: H1. RED-(+) SUP: There is a positive association between the intern's perceived level of readiness to participate in a hospitality internship and the role and contribution of their on-the-job supervisor. H2. RED-(+) BEN: The intern's level of readiness to participate in a hospitality internship positively affects the perceived level of benefits derived from the experience. The mentality, knowledge, and genuine commitment of the supervisor may prove crucial not only for the successful completion of the specific internship, but also for positively affecting students' intention of pursuing a hospitality career upon graduation. In the study, the role and contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor has been measured in terms of mentoring, interest in the intern's professional development, and responsiveness to the unique, but often neglected studentintern status (Lam & Ching, 2007; Nelson, 1994; Singh & Dutta, 2010, Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012). Overall, the following three hypotheses are postulated: H3. SUP-(+) BEN: There is a positive association between the contributions of the intern's on-the-job supervisor and the benefits derived from the internship. H4. SUP-(+) SUC: There is a positive association between the contributions of the intern's on-the-job supervisor and the overall internship success. H5. SUP-(+) FINT: The contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor will positively affect the intern's intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation. Benefits gained from the experience, as those relate to the intern's pre-internship expectations, may affect both the practice's perceived success, and the student's intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation (Lee & Chao, 2012; Zopiatis, 2004, 2007). In contrast, and as documented by literature (Barron & Maxwell, 1993), a negative experience might urge many to reconsider their career plans and decide to either diversify in other related fields, or even abandon completely their ‘hospitality’ aspirations. Based on that, the following two hypotheses are postulated: H6. BEN-(+) SUC: There is a positive association between the level of benefits derived from the internship and its perceived success. H7. BEN-(+) FINT: There is a positive association between the benefits derived from the internship and the intern's intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation. Finally, it has been documented that a successful internship experience will enhance the intern's intention to purse a hospitality career upon graduation (Barron & Maxwell, 1993; Busby, 2003; Christou, 1999; Chen & Shen, 2012; Jauhari & Manaktola, 2006; Ko, 2006; Petrillose & Montgomery, 1998). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is postulated: H8. SUC-(+) FINT: A successful internship experience will enhance the intern's intention to purse a hospitality career upon graduation. With the conviction of providing, with the utilization of structural equation modeling, a more thorough and integrated investigation of the fundamental causal internship relationships, the theoretical (hypothesized) model tested, including the eight postulated hypotheses, is exhibited as Fig. 1. 4. Methodology Echoing the existing literature, the current study aims to investigate the fundamental causal internship-specific relationships. The objective is to enhance stakeholders' understanding as to the key elements that contribute to internship success and the practice's potential impact on students' intention to pursue such careers upon graduation. Reflecting on the various issues raised by the literature, and the authors' prior research on the subject matter, a foursection quantitative questionnaire was developed. The first section, internship preparation, aimed at determining students' opinions and impressions before the actual internship experience, whereas the second section, concerning the actual

40

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

PRE INTERNSHIP

ACTUAL INTERNSHIP

H1 (+)

Student’s Perceived Level of Readiness to participate in the Internship

Role and Contribution of the intern’s on-thejob Supervisor

POST INTERNSHIP

H4 (+)

H2 (+)

H5(+)

Internship Perceived Success

H3 (+)

Level of Gained Internship Benefits (Development)

FUTURE INTENTIONS

H6(+)

H8 (+)

Future Intention to Pursue a Hospitality Career

H7 (+)

Fig. 1. Theoretical (hypothesized) internship model.

internship experience, gathered students' opinions and impressions as to how their employer – the host organization – organized and managed their internship practice. Section three required students to reflect upon and evaluate the value of their internship experience, whereas, the fourth section gathered general demographic information that would assist in further analyzing the data. The target population of the study included all students pursuing an accredited hospitality degree in a private or government sponsored tertiary educational institution in Cyprus, and who have completed at least one hospitality internship experience. According to the Cyprus Ministry of Education statistics, seven hundred and twenty-nine students pursued an accredited hospitality degree at private educational institutions, and one hundred and sixty-five students at public. Fifty-five percent of all students pursuing an accredited degree in both private and public institutions were first year students who had not yet experienced a hospitality internship. Based on the above calculation four hundred students were included in the study's population. Due to the small number of the overall population, surveys were group-distributed to all 400 individuals. This particular administration technique was preferred due to its convenience, reasonable cost, and the probability for ensuring a high response rate. Researchers were present during the survey's administration thus enabling further explanation of the measurement tool and active clarification to any students' queries. The questionnaire underwent two pilot study activities over an interval of one month prior to its administration. This method, known as testing and re-testing, enhances the reliability of the measurement tool by correlating the responses of the two occasions and calculating their index of reliability. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher was established as the minimum score to maintain an item in the questionnaire (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). In addition, the pilot study respondents were requested to answer the questionnaire and comment on the instructions, timeframe, and language used. This was done to ensure that the statements in the questionnaire were well understood. Students indicated that the questions and directions included in the questionnaire were clear and unambiguous, although some criticized its initial format and wording. In response to the students' criticisms, the researchers excluded a number of questions in order to reduce the instrument's size and to increase the quality of the responses. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a multivariate statistical analysis method that can explore hypothesized relationships in an integrated manner, was utilized for analyzing the data and addressing the postulated hypotheses. SEM has gained notable recognition from hospitality scholars in the past couple of decades as a reliable and valid method for determining whether relationships exist between constructs in the attempt to accept or reject a hypothesized theory. With the utilization of AMOS v.20 software, SEM was conducted on the 16-item study-specific hypothesized model with a sample of 166 hospitality students who have participated in at least one supervised internship experience. The ratio between the sample size and the number of observed variables, essential for the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation, is 10 to 1 which, according to Thompson (2000), is ideal for such an analysis. The 16 items measured five latent (unobserved) variables entitled as: (1) Pre-internship readiness, (2) supervisor's role and contribution, (3) internship perceived benefits, (4) overall internship success, and (5) future hospitality intentions. 5. Findings The students' questionnaires were group-administered to 400 hospitality students pursuing accredited hospitality degrees at six educational institutions in Cyprus. One hundred and seventy-six questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher. Of these, ten survey questionnaires were incomplete and excluded from the study, thereby reducing the number of usable surveys to 166. The overall response rate of 41.5% was viewed as satisfactory considering the low response rates experienced by the majority of hospitality studies conducted in Cyprus. Table 2 exhibits the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of gender, age, status, and class ranking, whereas Table 3 depicts the descriptive statistics of the 16 study-specific variables measured in the hypothesized model. The hypothesized structural equation model was evaluated by examining both its goodness-of-fit indices and its construct validity and reliability qualities. Overall, the indices support the fit of the proposed structural model. In particular, the model yielded a χ² value of 125,562 with 97 degrees of freedom (p ¼0.027). Although current theory suggests that if the

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

41

Table 2 Demographic profile of the respondents. Frequency

Valid percent

Gender Male Female

88 78

53.0 47.0

Respondents age 18–20 21–23 24–26 Over 26

51 79 31 5

30.7 47.6 18.7 3.0

Student status Cypriots International

68 98

41.0 59.0

Student class ranking Sophomore Junior Senior

72 66 26

43.9 40.2 15.9

N ¼166.

Table 3 Variables included in the SEM Model. Variable

SD

Mean

Internship readiness A1 I felt adequately prepared from my college education to participate in the hospitality internship: A2 College courses adequately prepared me for my internship experience: A3 Psychologically I felt adequately prepared to participate in the internship:

0.995 3.48 1.066 3.47 0.994 3.45

Role and contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor B1 My supervisor acted as my mentor, giving me valuable advice for my future in the industry: B2 My supervisor showed interest in my professional development: B3 My supervisor was responsive to my student-intern status:

1.242 3.20 1.165 3.26 1.144 3.16

Level of gained internship benefits C1 The hospitality internship experience improved my supervisory/management skills: (The ability to attain organization goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading and controlling organizational resources) C2 The hospitality internship experience improved my technical skills: (The understanding of and proficiency in the performance of specific tasks) C3 The internship program increased my overall interest towards the hospitality industry: C4 In general, I feel that my internship experience enhanced my professional development:

0.977 3.52 0.836 3.72

Internship perceived success D1 Overall, I felt that I accomplished all of my training/internship program: D2 My actual internship experience met my expectations: D3 All my goals set before engaging in the actual internship were met:

1.065 3.45 1.128 3.29 1.015 2.98

Future intention to pursue a hospitality career F1 The exposure I gained from this experience increased my desire to pursue a career within the hospitality industry: F2 After the completion of my internship experience, I see myself as having a future in the hospitality industry: F3 Hospitality internships improve my prospects for a successful career within the industry:

0.983 3.50 1.084 3.65 0.980 3.63

1.088 3.61 0.809 4.00

Scale: 1¼ strongly disagree; 2¼ disagree; 3¼ no opinion/neutral; 4 ¼agree; 5¼strongly agree

chi-square is not significant the model is regarded as acceptable, many disregard this since chi-square is often reported as significant mainly due to sample size restrictions and its sensitivity to the likelihood test ratio (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Due to this restrictiveness, the CMIN/DF (χ² divided by the degrees of freedom) surfaced as a more appropriate fit statistic with values below 3 indicating acceptable or superior fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The CMIN/DF value of the proposed model was 1,294, whereas other fit indices also fell within the ideal ranges. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) —regarded by many researchers as one of the most informative fit statistic—was 0.042, with a lower boundary of a twosided 90% confidence interval for the population of 0.015 and an upper boundary of 0.062; indices well below the acceptable threshold of 0.07 as suggested by Steiger (2007). Moreover, the probability value associated with the closeness of fit test (PCLOSE) was 0.720; higher than the suggested 40.50 (Byrne, 2010). Comparative fit indices, such as CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index), and IFI (Incremental Fit Index) were also utilized to assess the fitness of the proposed model. The model produced a CFI score of.972 (40.95 as suggested

42

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

SUP 0.38**

RED

(n.s) 0.25**

SUC

0.36**

0.27*

0.86**

0.94**

FINT

(n.s.)

BEN Fig. 2. Internship SEM Model. Note: RED¼ intern's perceived level of readiness to participate in the internship; SUP ¼role and contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor; BEN ¼ level of gained internship benefits (development); SUC ¼internship's perceived success; FINT¼ future intention to purse a hospitality career. *Significant at p o 0.05; **Significant at p o 0.01; n.s. ¼non significant (Dotted lines indicate non-significant paths).

by Bentler, 1990), a TLI score of.966 (40.95 as suggested by Hu & Bentler, 1999), and an IFI score of.973 (40.95 as suggested by Hu & Bentler, 1999); all falling within the ideal ranges for acceptable fit. It is important to note that NFI (Normed Fit Index) was not taken into consideration due to its sensitivity to underestimate fit for small samples of less than 200 despite the fact that in this instance it was borderline (0.892) to the minimum acceptable fit of 0.90. Moreover, parsimonious fit indices such as PRATIO (0.808) and PCFI (0.786) also indicate an acceptable fit; parsimonious fit indices run from 0 to 1 which suggest that the more complex the model the lower the fit index (for more information please review the work of Mulaik et al., 1989). Structural Equation Modeling's path analysis of the model (see Fig. 2 below) revealed a significant positive association between students' readiness to participate in the internship and both the role and contribution of their on-the-job supervisor (standardized path coefficient β¼ 0.38; po0.01), and the level of gained internship benefits (standardized path coefficient β ¼0.27; p o0.05). Supervisor's role and contribution exhibits a positive association with both the level of gained internship benefits (standardized path coefficient β¼ 0.36; p o0.01) and the internship's perceived success (standardized path coefficient β¼ 0.25; p o0.01). The level of gained internship benefits, as perceived by the respondents, exhibits a significant positive association with the internship's perceived success (standardized path coefficient β¼0.86; p o0.01), whereas the later exhibits a positive relationship with the student's future intention to purse a hospitality career (standardized path coefficient β¼0.94; p o0.01). Finally, no causal relationships were supported between the role and contribution of the interns on the job supervisor, and the level of gained internship benefits, with the student's future intention to purse a hospitality career. Reflecting on the above (see Table 4 below), Hypotheses 1–4, 6 and 8 were supported whereas 5 and 7 were not. It is important to note that the model was also tested for mis-specifications with the utilization of modification indices. In regards to the standardized residuals, none of the produced values exceed the cut-off point of 2.58 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998), whereas several suggestions for loosening constraints on certain parameters, which were theoretically meaningful, were adapted from modification indices. Finally, it is acknowledged that according to Fan, Thompson, and Wang (1999), when dealing with samples of o200 cases, RMSEA and CFI seem to be the most reliable fit statistics; which, in this instance, both support the fit of the proposed hypothesized internship-specific model. 5.1. Evaluating the model Following the results for the goodness-of-fit measurements which indicated an acceptable fit, a number of measurements were conducted with the aim of assessing the construct validity of the proposed theory. The construct validity—the extent to which the measured items actually reflect the theoretical latent construct proposed—was evaluated in terms of convergent validity. As exhibited in Table 5, the conditions for convergent validity—the extent to which indicators of a specific construct share a high proportion of common variance—were satisfied based on factor loadings (all 40.50), average variance extracted (AVE40.50 as suggested by Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), and reliability (40.70). It is acknowledged that the construct reliability of the internship readiness factor is slightly below the threshold of 0.70, nevertheless, the decision was made to include it as minimally acceptable (DeVellis, 1991) due to its explained content and the model's overall AVE score. 6. Discussion/industry implications Findings aim to enhance our internship-specific knowledge by realistically portraying, in an integrated manner, the perceptions of students actively involved with such an experience. Investigating the hospitality-related literature, and consistent with the study's objectives, a model depicting the student's pre-actual-post internship experiences was hypothesized and proposed. Such model may prove useful for enhancing our understanding, and even changing some of our stereotypical long-standing convictions, thereby realistically elevating internship practices to their true potential.

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

43

Table 4 Summary of hypotheses. Hypotheses

H1: RED-(+) SUP

There is a positive association between the intern's perceived level of readiness to participate in a hospitality internship and the role and contribution of their on-the-job supervisor The intern's level of readiness to participate in a hospitality internship positively affects the perceived level of benefits derived from the experience. There is a positive association between the contributions of the intern's on-the-job supervisor and the benefits derived from the internship. There is a positive association between the contributions of the intern's on-the-job supervisor and the overall internship success. The contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor will positively affects the intern's intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation. There is a positive association between the level of benefits derived from the internship and its perceived success. There is a positive association between the benefits derived from the internship and the intern's intention to pursue a hospitality career upon graduation. A successful internship experience will enhance the intern's intention to purse a hospitality career upon graduation.

H2: RED-(+) BEN

H3: SUP-(+) BEN

H4: SUP-(+) SUC

H5: SUP-(+) FINT

H6: BEN-(+) SUC H7: BEN-(+) FINT

H8: SUC-(+) FINT

Standardized path coefficient

t-value

Results

0.376

3.342nn

Accepted

0.271

2.318n

Accepted

0.363

3.397nn

Accepted

0.248

3.081nn

Accepted

–

n.s.

Cannot be supported

0.860

5.304nn

Accepted

–

n.s.

Cannot be supported

0.942

6.078nn

Accepted

Note: RED ¼ intern's perceived level of readiness to participate in the internship; SUP¼ role and contribution of the intern's on-the-job supervisor; BEN ¼level of gained internship benefits (development); SUC¼internship's perceived success; FINT ¼future intention to purse a hospitality career. n.s. ¼non significant. n Significant at p o 0.05; nn Significant at po 0.01;

Table 5 Model's convergent validity qualities.

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 F1 F2 F3 Variance extracted Construct reliability

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

Item reliabilities or squared factor loadings (communalities)

Eigenvalue

Delta (standardized error variance)

0.656 0.628 0.545 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 37.39% 64.04%a

– – – 0.854 0.881 0.783 – – – – – – – – – – 70.62% 87.79%

– – – – – – 0.608 0.534 0.692 0.683 – – – – – – 40.00% 72.53%

– – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – –

0.430336 0.394384 0.297025 0.729316 0.776161 0.613089 0.369664 0.285156 0.478864 0.466489 0.370881 0.509796 0.439569 0.466489 0.619369 0.603729 – –

– – 1.121745 – – 2.118566 – – – 1.600173 – – 1.320246 – – 1.689587 – –

0.569664 0.605616 0.702975 0.270684 0.223839 0.386911 0.630336 0.714844 0.521136 0.533511 0.629119 0.490204 0.560431 0.533511 0.380631 0.396271 – –

– – 0.609 0.714 0.663

44.01% 70.13%

– – – 0.683 0.787 0.777 56.32% 79.39%

Note: Model's average variance extracted (AVE) ¼0.50. a The authors acknowledge that the construct reliability of F1 (Internship Readiness) is below the generally acceptable threshold of 0.70. Nevertheless, the factor is included due to its explained content and the model's overall AVE score of 0.50.

The intern's pre-internship level of readiness, both in terms of academic knowledge and psychological confidence, are crucial both in the attainment of specific internship benefits, and in paving the way for a smooth workplace transition and assimilation. By nourishing realistic expectations and interconnecting curriculum offerings with industry's demands, faculty can adequately prepare students to apply theoretical knowledge in the workplace, thus gaining significant benefits. Moreover, the revealed positive association between the intern's level of readiness and the perceived role of their workplace supervisors matches students' pragmatic perceptions as to the realities of supervision in the hospitality workplace.

44

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

The study reinforced those advocating the crucial role on-the-job supervisors have on internship success. Theoretically, the intern's on-the-job supervisor is the “least controllable variable in the internship equation” (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012, p. 47). Findings verify the vital role supervisors have on both the attainment of the internship-specific benefits and on the overall success of the practice as perceived by the interns. Despite the fact that supervisors positively affect both the previously stated variables, no relationship could be confirmed with the intern's future hospitality career intentions. It seems that operational imperatives supersede other ‘theoretical’ aspects, such as mentoring and guidance, essential in the development of the next generation of hospitality professionals. Students acknowledge the contribution of their internship supervisors in the attainment of the benefits but fail to recognize their role in shaping their future career intentions. The internship model unequivocally confirms the significant positive association between the interns's perceived level of benefits gained and the experience's overall success. The intern's self-realization that the experience has made a significant positive impact on their supervisory, managerial, and technical skills boosts their confidence and enhances their level of satisfaction. Feelings of self-development, contribution, achievement and growth are essential in realizing the pure essence of the experience, and in alleviating any pre-internship doubts regarding the necessity, value, and importance of the experience. Finally, echoing the views and opinions of many hospitality scholars (Chen & Shen, 2012; Jauhari & Manaktola, 2006; Ko, 2006) findings suggest that a successful internship experience will positively influence students' hospitality career intention. 6.1. Industry implications Traditionally, the industry has a vital role to play in students' internships, although its role is often undermined by other operational imperatives. Crucial to internships is the intern's on-the-job supervisor, which, according to research findings, has a significant impact on both the internship-derived benefits and the practice's overall success. Over time, numerous scholars (Lam & Ching, 2007; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012) have provided invaluable insight as to how the industry can enhance the role and contribution of individuals assigned to oversee interns in the workplace. Interns' on-the-job supervision presents a unique opportunity for the industry to actively engage and positively influence the developing managerial styles, values, and norms of future hospitality professionals. In an era of uncertainty and constant financial hardship, most hospitality professions are often portrayed as ‘unattractive’ (Hsieh, Pearson, Chang, & Uen, 2004), anti-social (Pratten, 2003), with mediocre remuneration (Lucas, 2004), and detached from the ‘new’ work-values mindset of members of the newest generation (Generation Y) entering the industry. Furthermore, the notably alarming ‘leakage’ of hospitality graduates to other non-related industries, a growing ‘trend’ in many countries, including Cyprus, may endanger the quality and the quantity of future supervisory leadership with detrimental effects for the industry. Investing in internships may assist in re-establishing the industry as an employer of choice, and not an employer of necessity for the newest generation, thus minimizing the ‘loses’ to the outsiders in the midst of the ongoing talent ‘recruitment war’. 6.2. Academic implications Findings suggest that the intern's perceived readiness to participate in such an experience, which includes both academic and psychological elements, positively affects both the level of benefits gained from the experience, as well as the manner in which students perceive the support and contribution of their on-the-job supervisors. Educational institutions must strive to prepare prospective interns as to what to expect from such an experience, by fostering a genuine hospitality mentality, thus nurturing realistic expectations that can enhance the overall success of the internship. Educators must project a pragmatic picture of the industry's demands and rewards, and justify their rationale guiding their internship related decisions and actions. Individual students should be actively involved in all stages of the experience (pre-actual-post), and foremost, they must accept responsibility for their own learning in the workplace. They must be engaged in the direct transfer of learning from their academic environment to the actual hospitality environment. College-based learning and work-based experiential learning are not similar, yet students must comprehend the clear connection between them. Ideally, college-based learning is the foundation providing hospitality students the basic blocks of hospitality competencies while the actual practice enables them to adapt those core skills to the actual environment. Educational institutions must invest time, resources, and goodwill in enhancing the triangular partnership between the internship's three primary stakeholders; students, the industry, and academia (Zopiatis, 2007). At a time in which this partnership is in doubt (Cooper & Shepherd, 1997), internships, through innovative practices, commitment, and a genuine hospitality vision, may prove invaluable in revitalizing and preserving a long-term relationship with a multitude of benefits for everyone involved. The industry will gain a significant role in the human, technical and conceptual development of the next generation of its professionals, whereas institutions will minimize the gap between theory and practice. Finally, students will receive an authentic experience enabling them to “… broadening their horizons, their ambition for a prosperous career and, especially, their desire to learn and experience new things” (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012, p. 47). Both the literature review and current research underline the consensus that internship practices constitute a valuable learning experience complementary to students' academic studies. Numerous stakeholders embrace the notion that the more practical experience students receive before graduating, the more prepared they will become to meet the challenges

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

45

associated with their future career endeavors. Nevertheless, a more qualitative rather than quantitative approach is necessary in ensuring that a ‘right’ internship produces well-equipped individuals, by enhancing their maturity, selfconfidence, opportunities, and capability to enter the industry upon their graduation. As suggested by the study's findings, the perceived internship's success positively affects the student's intention to purse a hospitality career in the future. In contrast, a problematic internship will most certainly “damage students' hopes, dreams, and long-term aspirations in pursuing a hospitality career” (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2007, p. 400). 7. Limitations Despite our conviction that the new knowledge has contributed significantly to the internship-specific literature, specific limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the small sample size (n ¼166), since many argue that structural equation modeling should be conducted to samples larger than 200. Despite acknowledging this issue, we support the appropriateness of the sample since the particular population, students who have had at least one internship experience in Cyprus, is itself small and restricted in size; a notion also supported by Barrett (2007). Moreover, and in accordance with SEM guidelines regarding the ideal ratio between the sample size and the number of observed variables (10 to 1), only 16 variables were included in the hypothesized model, thereby restricting to some extent the in-depth investigation of each of the five factors. 8. Recommendations for future studies The findings of this research study may serve as a guide to others beyond Cyprus, wishing to investigate students' hospitality internship experiences. Perhaps the time is right to transgress from purely static exploratory investigations by utilizing mixed methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative), such as longitudinal research activities which can yield more in-depth insights of the various interlocking causal relationships. Even though short-term investigations, such as pre- and post-internship studies, may assist in defining a successful internship experience, long-term investigations, based on both industry and academic feedback, can help elevate the experience to its true potential. Scholars may further investigate the internship's effects 5–10 years after the individual's graduation, such as, for example, whether there is a perceived ‘quality’ difference in the eyes of employers, and in which areas (KSA's), between those who have undergone such an experience and those who haven't. Can we clarify the ‘true’ long-term value and contribution of the experience for the individual's future employability, career development and career success? Furthermore, can we determine the causality between the specific characteristics of the internship and the impact it has on the individual's future development? Ideally, internship success should be judged based on its future impact and value and not on the status quo. References Airey, D., & Tribe, J. (2005). An international handbook of tourism education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, Inc. Alm, C. (1996). Using student journals to improve the academic quality of internships. Journal of Education in Business, 72(2), 113–115. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. Barron, P., & Maxwell, G. (1993). Hospitality management students' image of the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(5), 5–8. Barron, P., & Rihova, I. (2010). Volunteering in hospitality: Toward an understanding of the benefits of a structured volunteering scheme. Paper presented at the 2010 Euro CHRIE (European Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education) Conference, October 25–28, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Beggs, B., Ross, C. M., & Goodwin, B. (2008). A comparison of student and practitioner perspectives of the travel and tourism internship. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 7(1), 31–39. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulleting, 107, 238–246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulleting, 88, 588–606. Breakey, N. M., Robinson, R. N. S., & Beesley, L. G. (2008). Students go a “Waltzing Matilda” – a regional tourism knowledge exchange through innovative internships. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 8(2–3), 223–240. Brookes, M., & Becket, N. (2011). Internationalising hospitality management degree programmes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(2), 241–260. Busby, G. (2003). Tourism degree internships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 55(3), 319–334. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS 2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Cargill, C., & Fried, S. (1990). Developing a successful co-op program: The Widener model. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2), 633–634. Charles, K. R. (1992). Career influences, expectations, and perceptions of Caribbean hospitality and tourism students: A third world perspective. Hospitality and Tourism Education, 4(3), 9–14. Chen, F. C., Ku, E. C. S., Shyr, Y. H., Chen, F. H., & Chou, S. S. (2009). Job demand, emotional awareness, and job satisfaction in internships: The moderating effect of social support. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(10), 1429–1440. Chen, T. L., & Shen, C. C. (2012). Today's intern, tomorrow's practitioner? The influence of internship programmes on students' career development in the Hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 29–40. Chi, G. C., & Gursoy, D. (2008). How to help your graduates secure better jobs? An industry perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(3), 308–322. Christou, E. S. (1999). Hospitality management education in Greece. An exploratory study. Tourism Management, 2(6), 683–691. Ciofalo, A. (1989). Legitimacy of internships for academic credit remains controversial. Journalism Educator, 43(4), 25–31. Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 65(2), 41–47. Cooper, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The relationship between tourism education and the tourism industry: implications from tourism education. Tourism Recreational Research, 22(1), 34–47.

46

A. Zopiatis, A.L. Theocharous / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 13 (2013) 33–46

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications. Downey, J. F., & De Veau, L. T. (1987). Coordinating the hospitality internship. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 38–41. Downey, J. F., & De Veau, L. T. (1988). Hospitality internships: an industry views. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 18–21. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of samples sixe, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56–83. Girard, T. C. (1999). Interns' perception of internships: A look at work, supervision and appraisals. Journal of Co-operative Education, 34(3), 42–48. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis 5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hsieh, Y., Pearson, T., Chang, H., & Uen, J. F. (2004). Spillover between work and personal life for lodging manager. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 3(2), 61–83. Hsu, M. S. (2012). A study of internship attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and career planning of hospitality vocational college students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 5–11. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Jauhari, V., & Manaktola, K. (2006). Comparison of internship experiences in food service firms in India and UK. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9(2/3), 187–206. Kim, H. B., & Park, E. J. (2013). The role of social experience in undergraduates' career perceptions through internships. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 70–78. Ko, W. H. (2006). Training, satisfaction with internship programs, and confidence about future careers among hospitality students: A case study of universities in Taiwan. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(4), 1–15. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. London: Prentice Hall. Lam, T., & Ching, L. (2007). An exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong students. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 336–351. Lee, C. S., & Chao, C. W. (2012). Intention to “leave” or “stay”. The role of internship organization in the improvement of hospitality students' industry employment intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.695290. Lee, D. C., Chen, C. F., Hung, L. M., & Chen, C. C. (2011). Effects of labor conditions, socialization and personality upon student interns' working willingness in hospitality industry. African Journal of Business Management, 4(30), 11813–11825. Lee, M. H., Lu, H. T., Jiao, Y. H., & Yeh, P. H. (2006). Research on correlations between off-school internship systems and work performances in hospitality and tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(3), 69–87. Loftus, M. B. (1988). Internships in embassy suites hotels: Development through management style. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 12(2), 492–493. Lucas, R. (2004). Employment relations in the hospitality and tourism industries. London, UK: Routledge. McManus, A., & Feinstein, A. H. (2008). Internships and occupational socialization: What are students learning?. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 35, 128–137. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445. Nelson, A. (1994). Hospitality internships: The effects of job dimension and supportive relationships on student satisfaction. Dissertations Abstracts International, 56(2), 626. Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory 3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Parilla, P. F., & Wesser, G. W. (1998). Internships and the sociological perspective: Applying principles of experiential learning. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 310–329. Pauze, F., Johnson, A. W., & Miller, J. L. (1989). Internship strategy for hospitality management programs. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 13(3), 301–307. Petrillose, M. J., & Montgomery, T. (1998). An exploratory study of internship practices in hospitality education and industry's perceptions of the importance of internships in hospitality curriculum. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 9(4), 46–51. Pratten, D. J. (2003). The training and retention of chefs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(4), 237–342. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior 12th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ruhanen, L., Breakey, N., & Robinson, R. (2012). Knowledge exchange and networks: a new destination for tourism internships?. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(3), 183–196. Schmelzer, C. D., Costello, P. S., & Blalock, S. L. (1987). A comparative profile of four-year baccalaureate hotel restaurant and institutional management programs. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 11(2), 67–75. Singh, A., & Dutta, K. (2010). Hospitality internship placements: Analysis for United Kingdom and India. Journal of Services Research, 10(1), 85–99. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics 5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandment of structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm, & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understating of multivariate statistics (pp. 261–283). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Walmsley, A., Thomas, R., & Jameson, S. (2012). Internships in SMEs and career intentions. Journal of Education and Work, 25(2), 185–204. Waryszak, R. Z. (1999). Students' expectations from their cooperative education placements in the hospitality industry: An international perspective. Education & Training, 41(1), 33–40. Welch, P. (1984). Designing a competency-based practice. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 52–53. Yiu, M., & Law, R. (2012). A review of hospitality internship: Different perspectives of students, employers and educators. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(4), 377–402. Zopiatis, A. (2004). An exploratory research investigating the status and future of hospitality internships in Cyprus. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (D. Prof), Middlesex University, UK. Zopiatis, A. (2007). Hospitality internships in Cyprus: A genuine academic experience or a continuing frustration?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(1), 65–77. Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2007). ‘And never the twain shall meet’: Investigating the hospitality industry-education relationship in Cyprus. Education & Training, 49(5), 391–407. Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Managing hospitality internship practices: a conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 24(1), 44–51.