Pathways to the Professoriate: The Role of Self, Others, and Environment in Shaping Academic Career Aspirations

Abstract

Since the 1950s, there has been much written on how personal and environmental factors shape people's career choices. Theories that examine vocational outcomes from the perspective of the individual have included developmental approaches (e.g., Ginzburg, 1951; Gottfriedson, 1981; Super & Bohn, 1971); personality-based theories (e.g., Roe, 1956); trait and factor approaches (e.g., Lofquist, & Dawis, 1969); typological theories (Holland, 1973, 1985); and self-concept theories (e.g., Super, 1954). In the 1970s and 1980s, new perspectives on vocational decision-making emerged including social learning theory (e.g., Krumboltz, Mitchell, & Jones, 1976) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Scholarly work on the career development of women (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987) and racial and ethnic minorities (Smith, E. 1983) also proliferated. Very little theory or research, however, has focused specifically on the vocational development of college and university professors. This is particularly true with respect to the forces that shape individuals' decisions to pursue academic careers. Most of the empirical work on academic career choice was conducted during socio-historical times that were very different than today's (see e.g., Clark, 1987; Clark & Corcoran, 1984; Finkelstein, 1984; Gustad, 1960; Roe, 1951; West, 1971). Since the mid to late 1980s, research and writing on academic careers has focused primarily on issues related to the underrepresentation of women and minorities within faculty ranks (e.g., De La Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1996; Mickelson & Oliver, 1996; Smith, D.G., 1996); the professional socialization of graduate students and new faculty (e.g., Austin, 2002; Kirk & Todd-Mancillas, 1996; Menges & Associates, 1999; Nyquist et al., 1999; Schuster, Wheeler, & Associates, 1990); and challenges presented by the changing academic labor market (e.g. Nelson, 1997). Also prominent is a topically diverse body of literature on faculty roles, rewards, and renewal (e.g., Baldwin, 1990; Fairweather, 1996). Most recently, Fox and Stephan (2001) have studied the career development of young scientists, focusing on the types of careers doctoral students prefer and how they judge their various employment prospects. Graduate student perspectives on faculty careers in particular have also been examined (e.g., Golde & Dore, 2001). The inherent complexity of career decision-making processes, coupled with the paucity of empirical research on academic career development makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the interplay between individual and environmental factors in shaping academic career choice. Consequently, there remains much to learn about the developmental paths of college and university professors. What attracted them to faculty work? When did they decide to pursue academic careers? What people and experiences were most influential in their decisions to become professors? Today, the answers to these questions are especially important given that projected increases in student enrollments coupled with widespread faculty retirements over the next decade will create a need to recruit large numbers of new faculty. Moreover, we are beginning this new century amidst a rapidly changing national and, indeed, international landscape; one that holds inescapable implications--and opportunities--for higher education. Historically, society has placed its trust in colleges and universities unquestionably and allowed members of the academy considerable freedom to pursue their individual work, needs, and interests. However, society is also voicing more loudly the claim that faculty have a social responsibility to contribute more to the wellbeing of their institutions and the larger community. Calls for a new generation of faculty that is more demographically inclusive of the diverse populations higher education serves are also intensifying. Within this context, consideration of who becomes a professor and why assumes added significance. …