SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Conference preference criteria of faculty members

Akademisyenlerin kongre tercih unsurları

Deniz YÜNCÜ KARAGÖZ
Nazmi KOZAK
Pages
19–32
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, leisure and entertainment, conference, monetary costs, infrastructure, time cost, and destination were occurred the effected factors of conference attendance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study to demonstrate the factors of conference attendees’ preference criteria, and to describe the differences according to demographic attributes and conference behaviors of attendance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data was collected from 246 faculty members, attended to one of national or international conference, and have been working in Turkish universities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, leisure and entertainment, conference, monetary costs, infrastructure, time cost, and destination were occurred the effected factors of conference attendance.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of the study to demonstrate the factors of conference attendees’ preference criteria, and to describe the differences according to demographic attributes and conference behaviors of attendance. The confirmatory factor analysis was employed to determine the criteria of conference preference, and t-test was used to analyze differentiations between attendees groups. The data was collected from 246 faculty members, attended to one of national or international conference, and have been working in Turkish universities. The face to face and e-mail survey techniques were utilized to obtain the data. In conclusion, leisure and entertainment, conference, monetary costs, infrastructure, time cost, and destination were occurred the effected factors of conference attendance. Moreover, it was obtained that the preference factors of attendance behaviors differ according to demographic variables.

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı, kongre katılımcılarının tercih kriterlerini belirlemek ve bu tercih kriterlerinin katılımcıların davranışlarına ve demografik özelliklere göre farklılıklarını tanımlamaktır. Kongre tercih kriterlerinin belirlenmesi için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve gruplar arasındaki farklılıkları incelemek için ise t-testi kullanılmıştır. Veriler Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde çalışan ve ulusal ya da uluslararası bir kongreye katılmış 246 akademisyenden toplanmıştır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde yüz yüze ve e-posta ile anket tekniğinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, boş zaman ve eğlence, kongre, maddi maliyet, altyapı, zaman maliyeti ve destinasyon kongre katılımını etkileyen faktörler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca, tercih kriterlerinin demografik özelliklere göre farklılıklar gösterdiği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAGÖZ, D. Y., KOZAK, N. (2022). Conference preference criteria of faculty members. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 19–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/438906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. A comment. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 375-381.
  2. Baloğlu, Ş., & Curtis, L. (2005). Association meeting planners' perceptions and intentions for five major us convention cities: the structured and unstructured images. Tourism Management, 26(5): 743-752.
  3. Choi, J-J., & Boger, C. A. (2002). State association market: relationship between association characteristics and site selection criteria. Journal of Convention&Exhibition, 4(1): 55-73.
  4. Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 420-34.
  5. Crouch, G., & Ritchie, B. (1998). Convention site selection research: A review, conceptual model and propositional framework. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 1(1): 49-69.
  6. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
  7. Gnoth, J. (1998). Branding tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3): 758-760.
  8. Go, F. M., & Govers, R. (1999). The Asian perspective: Which international conference destinations in asia are the most competitive?, Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 1(4): 37-50.
  9. Grant, Y. N. J., & Weaver, P. A. (1996). The Meeting selection process: A demographic profile of attendees clustered by criteria utilized in selecting meetings. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 20 (1): 57-71.
  10. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tahtam, R. L.& Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Jaekyoon, J., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). Classifying US association meeting planners based on international destination selection criteria: a case study of South Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(2): 183-199.
  11. Jago, L. K., & Deery, M. (2005). Relationships and factors influencing convention decision-making. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 7(1): 23–42.
  12. Kotler, P.&Armstrong, G. (2004). Principles of Marketing. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., Bowen, J. ve Makens, J. (2006). Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Lee, M. J., & Back, K. J. (2005). A review of economic value drivers in convention and meeting management research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(5): 409-420.
  13. Lee, M. J., & Back, K. J.