Introduction As early as eighteenth century, faculty members in colleges and universities began to gather into specialized discipline groups. Observing how these groups have evolved, curriculum theorists have noted that nature and structure of knowledge in traditional domains, such as mathematics or history, give each discipline a distinctive character. Scholars have also noted that, over time, specialized groups of faculty have become more distinct in their interests and communication patterns. The distinctive character of each field means that appropriate and accepted techniques vary not only for inquiry but for teaching, for assessing student learning, for collegial governance, and for organizational structure. Higher education researchers now regularly take these differences into account, arguing that it is not appropriate to generalize from single disciplines, nor to draw conclusions based on data from large aggregations of disciplines. Although differences among arts and sciences disciplines that might affect research results have been extensively explored, characteristics of heavily enrolled American undergraduate fields (ranging from architecture to social work) have received less attention. It is typical to find disparate fields that constitute collegiate level career studies aggregated in both research and practice. Typically, aggregate is labeled professional studies, or the schools. Alternatively, research conclusions are drawn from one or two fields that may poorly represent diversity of undergraduate training in today's universities. In part, failure to disaggregate programs occurs because unique characteristics of these fields, such as linkages with practice communities and development of commitment, are less well known than are characteristics such as paradigm consensus by which disciplines are often classified. In this article I intend to (1) propose that subjects taught to undergraduates in colleges can (and should) be distinguished from one another as major divisions of traditional disciplines have been; (2) argue that within set of fields that may be labeled applied other distinctions may be more meaningful than hard/soft and life/nonlife divisions so often used in research-based classifications; (3) propose a new framework for differentiating and classifying fields; (4) review some evidence that supports resulting classification framework; and (5) suggest some next research endeavors that could validate framework and produce a useful typology of collegiate career fields based on framework. Characteristics of Collegiate Career Studies (Professional Preparation Fields) In most colleges and universities majority of enrollment is not in academic fields that are often considered pure disciplines; rather, most students are enrolled in programs that aim to prepare them for and occupational careers. Despite recent campaigns to establish liberal arts as most appropriate collegiate study, many educators, students, and parents claim that career fields provide an equally appropriate, but quite different, education that meets students' needs and interests. Policymakers, as well, see education in fields as essential to a competitive economy and an international presence. Yet ambiguity about undergraduate programs has been so enduring that scholars have not even evolved a clear nomenclature for them. Although often called fields, some sociologists argue that they do not meet traditional criteria to be called as do learned professions of law, medicine, and theology.(1) For example, in many cases, such as nursing and pharmacy, members are admitted by state licensing rather than directly by group. …
Read full abstract
Jun 16, 2014
Jennifer L Murdock + 3
Open Access