Variation among Academic Disciplines: An Update on Analytical Frameworks and Research

As the number of subjects taught at American colleges and universities has continued to increase, many scholars have examined how the academic practices and experiences of faculty differ across scholarly disciplines. Since the publication of Braxton and Hargens’ 1996 book chapter, however, this research has not been comprehensively reviewed. This paper examines research on the impact of academic disciplines on college and university faculty published after 1996. The findings of this review suggest that while there is much that is currently known about differences among academic disciplines, there remains a need for increased scholarship in this area. Scholarly research on the professoriate has yielded significant evidence that two factors compose the primary means by which differences among American academics are created and reinforced (Clark, 1997; Light, 1974). The first, institutional type, is a manifestation of America’s inordinately large, uniquely competitive system of higher education (Clark, 1997). American faculty are dispersed among over 5,000 institutions of higher education. Some are public and some are private, some are research universities, while others are liberal arts colleges, and many are for-profit colleges while many more are non-profit institutions. Institutional diversity is also evident by categories such as Historically Black College and Universities, women’s colleges, fundamentalist colleges, and catholic colleges (Clark, 1997). Of no less importance in the differentiation within the academic profession are academic disciplines. Before the beginning of the 1850s, Willis A. Jones is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation Department at the University of Kentucky. Copyright © 2011 by The Journal of the Professoriate, an affiliate of the Center for African American Research and Policy. All Rights Reserved (ISSN 1556-7699) Journal of the Professoriate (6)1 10 most American institutions of higher learning offered classes in only a few basic academic disciplines such as mathematics, classical languages, and philosophy (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). Today, institutions such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) offer courses in over 170 fields of study including preathletic training, interior design, and dance. Differences in the academic profession attributable to differences among academic disciplines are the focus of this article. As the number of subjects taught at American colleges and universities has continued to increase, many scholars have examined how the academic practices and the experiences of faculty differ across scholarly disciplines. One of the first comprehensive surveys of this research was performed by John M. Braxton and Lowell L. Hargens in their 1996 book chapter titled Variation among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research. In this chapter, Braxton and Hargens reviewed a diverse body of research on both the development of frameworks for classifying academic disciplines and the observed differences between various academic fields in such areas as journal acceptance rates, research productivity, and faculty beliefs about general education requirements. The findings of this review lead Braxton and Hargens to conclude that “the differences among academic disciplines are profound and extensive” (Braxton & Hargens, 1996, p. 35). Since the publication of this book chapter, however, many additional studies have examined variation among academic disciplines. This proliferation of new research has created a need to update the work of Braxton and Hargens. In this paper, I summarize research published after 1996 which examines variation in academic disciplines. I begin by reviewing research on the conceptualization of academic disciplines in an attempt to uncover whether new frameworks for studying differences in academic disciplines have developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The second section of this paper reviews recent empirical assessments of academic disciplines. This section reviews the findings of studies published after 1996 which have examined disciplinary differences in areas such as teaching methodologies, disciplinary structure, and the experiences of scholars. The paper concludes with a summary of the findings and recommendations for future research on academic disciplines. Variation among Academic Disciplines/Jones 11 Recent Frameworks for Classifying Academic Disciplines Of the eleven academic discipline classification schemes detailed by Braxton and Hargens (1996), five were found to have received the most empirical attention: the Hagstrom (1964) model based on the idea of disciplinary consensus, the Hargens (1975) model based on normative and functional integration, the Zuckerman and Merton model based on disciplinary codification, the Lodahl and Gordon (1972) model based on levels of paradigm development, and the Biglan (1973) model based on the hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/non-life distinction (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). Each of these classification schemes, all of which developed outside of the higher education research community, is based upon the notion that individual fields of study have different levels of paradigmatic development based on their level of consensus. High paradigmatic fields have high levels of agreement among their practitioners with regard to issues such as appropriate research topics and methods (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). Low paradigmatic fields, on the other hand, exhibit less agreement with regard to the appropriate research questions for their field and even less agreement on the appropriate methodology for addressing these questions (Alise, 2007; Braxton & Hargens, 1996; Kuhn, 1962, 1970). Since 1996, only one other significant attempt to classify academic disciplines has been introduced within the higher education community. This classification attempt, however, is not a “new” typology but rather a reintroduction an earlier schema which had not yet found its way into the higher education literature at the time of the Braxton and Hargens (1996) study. This classification system was introduced by John Smart and his colleagues and is based on the Holland Theory of Occupational Classification (Smart, Feldman & Ethington, 2000). The Holland theory is a personality-based career development framework which proposes that individuals at the time of their occupational choice have various skills and abilities due to their inherited characteristics and their environmental circumstances. These skills and abilities can be used to classify individuals into six personality types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Individuals of different personality types are better equipped to deal with certain occupational environments (Holland, 1973, 1997). As individuals begin the process of choosing an occupation, Holland proposes that he/she will search out Journal of the Professoriate (6)1 12 those occupational environments which best fit with their personality. For example, an individual who is very practically-oriented, enjoys physical, hands-on activities, and works well with tools (i.e., the realistic personality type) will seek occupations where these skills are valuable, such as farmer or carpenter. On the other hand, an individual who is very creative, individualistic, and enjoys somewhat chaotic environments (i.e., the artistic personality type) is likely to seek occupations such as musician, actor, or interior designer. Smart et al. (2000) used Holland’s framework as the foundation for their classification of academic disciplines. They did this by classifying various academic disciplines using the Educational Opportunities Finder (Rosen, Holmberg & Holland, 1994). Table 1 provides the results of this classification. Table 1 Academic Disciplines by Holland Types Type Academic Disciplines Investigative Biology and life sciences, economics, geography, math/statistics, physical sciences, finance, aeronautical engineering, civil engineering, chemical engineering, astronomy, earth science, pharmacy, anthropology, ethnic studies, geography, and sociology Artistic Architecture, fine arts (art, drama, music), foreign languages, English, music, speech, theater, and environmental design Social Ethnic studies, home economics, humanities (history, philosophy, religion, rhetoric), library science, physical and health education, psychology, social sciences (anthropology, political science, social work), education Enterprising Business, communications, computer/information science, law, public affairs, journalism, marketing, industrial engineering, Source: (Holland, 1973, 1997); Smart et al. (2000) Variation among Academic Disciplines/Jones 13 One of the first things one notices about this chart is the fact that two of the original categories of the Holland classification scheme are missing. This is because Smart et al. excluded the realistic and conventional categories due to the fact that very few college students and faculty fit into these categories. Smart et al. also postulate that many academic disciplines have a primary category and a secondary category. A field such as ethnic studies, for example is primarily a social field, but also has qualities of an investigative field. Recent Findings Regarding Disciplinary Differences Though there has only been one major classification scheme introduced since 1996, research on the differences among academic disciplines has been plentiful. The vast majority of this work has used either the Smart at al. (2000) theory of disciplinary classification or the Biglan (1973) model of disciplinary classification. This section will review the findings of this research. Research using the Holland Classification Scheme The Socialization Hypothesis Research on college faculty using the Holland classification scheme is based primarily on the idea that “faculty create academic envi