Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Academic Environments in Detail: Holland’s Theory at the Subdiscipline Level

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies of change in colleges and universities often consider faculty support a key influence on the success of academic reform efforts. Scholars, however, have given relatively little attention to the role of disciplinary environments (e.g., culture, values, and habits of mind) on educational innovation and change. Using data from 1,272 faculty members in 203 engineering programs on 39 campuses, this study examined whether engineering faculty from different academic environments (defined by Holland’s typology) vary in their responses to changing curricular and pedagogical requirements. Findings suggest that the broad disciplinary groupings often used in higher education research fail to capture the subtleties of within-field variations in faculty values, customs, and dispositions relating to curricular and pedagogical change and provide moderate support for using Holland’s theory for studying organizational change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABET. (1997). Engineering criteria 2000 [Electronic version]. Baltimore: ABET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 07-136. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Austin, A. E. (1991). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 61–74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 68).

  • Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (pp. 99–111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 131).

  • Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research (Vol. XI, pp. 1–46). New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., & Tschichart, M. (1992). Post industrial environments and organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. Journal of Higher Education, 63(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. H., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(3), 441–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, P., Hill, B., Green, M., & Mallon, B. (1999). Taking charge of change: A primer for colleges and universities. On Change: Occasional Paper, No. 3. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

  • Einarson, M. K. (2001). A comparative study of personal, disciplinary, and organization influences on undergraduate faculty use of teaching methods that promote active student involvement in learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  • Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 28 No. 4).

  • Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000 final report. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects student (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R. (2004). Raising response rates: What works? In S. R. Porter (Ed.), Overcoming survey research problems (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 121).

  • Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, D. M., & Bradshaw, C. C. (2002). A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. (2002). The political economy of curriculum-making in American universities. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 260–289). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. D., & Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 580–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 49–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 64).

  • Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., Ryan, M. P., Martens, G. G., Genthon, M. L., Wren, P. A. & Shaw, K. M. (1990). Planning introductory college courses: Influences on faculty. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

  • Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Sharp, S., & Arnold, G. L. (1997). Program-level curriculum planning: An exploration of faculty perspectives on two different campuses. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 99–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (Fourth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, R., & Wallace, J. (1998). Cyber research: The impact of the internet on data collection. Marketing Research, 10(3), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the members of the research team who participated in the development of the design, instruments, and databases for this project: Dr. J. Fredericks Volkwein, co-PI; Dr. Linda C. Strauss, senior project associate; graduate research assistants Vicki L. Baker, Robert J. Domingo, Amber D. Lambert, and Javzan Suhkbaatar; as well as Suzanne Bienert, project assistant. This study was funded by the Accrediting Board of Engineering and Engineering Technology (ABET).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University, 400 Rackley Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Lisa R. Lattuca, Patrick T. Terenzini, Betty J. Harper & Alex C. Yin

Authors
  1. Lisa R. Lattuca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick T. Terenzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Betty J. Harper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alex C. Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa R. Lattuca.

Additional information

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of ABET, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lattuca, L.R., Terenzini, P.T., Harper, B.J. et al. Academic Environments in Detail: Holland’s Theory at the Subdiscipline Level. Res High Educ 51, 21–39 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9144-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9144-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation