Multiple Meanings of Calling: Next Steps for Studying an Evolving Construct

Abstract

Research on work as a calling has rapidly increased in recent years, yet the lack of consensus regarding the construct’s definition presents key challenges to researchers, most notably the potential lack of coherence as research on calling accumulates. We begin with a brief overview of current definitions in the literature to illustrate the overlapping yet distinct conceptualizations of the construct, placing them along a continuum of “neoclassical” to “modern.” Next, we explore strengths and shortcomings of the two most commonly employed methodological strategies for studying calling, the “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. We invite researchers to adopt a third strategy, the typological approach (and the taxometric method in particular), to offer much-needed conceptual clarity by empirically investigating whether there are distinct types of calling or whether the construct is best conceptualized as dimensional in nature. Finally, we present recommendations to guide researchers, reviewers, and consumers of research related to work as a calling on a path that reduces its ongoing conceptual murkiness.

Keywords

calling meaningful work taxometric analysis typological methods

One pathway through which meaningful work—arguably a fundamental human need (Yeoman, 2014)—is frequently expressed is the sense that one’s work is a calling (Dik & Duffy, 2009). The concept of calling has been described by scholars as “the ‘strongest’ (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985, p. 66), most ‘extreme’ (Dobrow, 2004, p. B1), or ‘deepest’ (Hall & Chandler, 2005, p. 160) route to truly meaningful work” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, p. 32). Indeed, individuals who say that they are currently living their calling are typically among the happiest, most committed, and most engaged employees (Duffy & Dik, 2013; Wrzesniewski, 2012). Furthermore, a sense of calling is perhaps surprisingly prevalent among both college students and working adults, for whom between roughly one third and one half of research participants endorse a sense of calling as relevant to how they view their careers (Duffy & Dik, 2013). Such results have likely helped fuel the rapid increase in research on a sense of calling over the last decade. For example, a recent (2017) PsychINFO search (using the terms “calling and work,” “career,” or “vocation”) generated more than 150 relevant articles published in 2007 or later, compared to just 21 articles on the topic published prior to 2007 (White, 2018).

Despite this increased interest in the topic and the considerable progress in investigating calling that has resulted, the diverse conceptualizations of the term “calling” have the potential to cause confusion and create an increasing lack of coherence for research in this area. The purpose of this article is to explore the potential ramifications of this and establish recommendations for proceeding with research in ways that effectively navigate the concerns that result from these diverse definitions and the evolving construct that they reflect. More specifically, after a discussion of the key differences across the most frequently cited definitions of calling in the literature, we describe the two general research strategies that have dominated research on calling to date. Next, we introduce a third, currently underutilized research strategy that may point to a fruitful path forward in calling research, one that has the potential to effectively account for the diverse conceptualizations of calling as research on this construct moves forward. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, reviewers, and readers of this research to consider in the meantime, as the next wave of scholarship on the construct commences.

The Challenge of Definitions

The sociologists Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985), in their classic book Habits of the Heart, proposed that people generally hold one of the three dominant orientations toward work: job (i.e., a focus on financial rewards), career (i.e., a focus on advancement and achievement), or calling (i.e., a focus on fulfilling, socially important work). These categories were described as having very little overlap, and one study of university employees found that roughly an equal number endorsed each category as most relevant to themselves (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997). Research since then has typically examined calling separately and on its own terms, without necessarily contrasting it with the other two work orientations. Scholars have conceptually and/or empirically differentiated calling from related constructs such as work centrality, work commitment, work and job involvement, career salience, personal engagement, flow, psychological participation, the protean career, work values, workplace spirituality, and meaningful work, among others (e.g., Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dobrow & Tosti Kharas, 2011; Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010). They also have established differences between seeking, perceiving, and living a calling (Duffy & Dik, 2013), as well as having the motivation to pursue a calling (Duffy, England, Douglass, Autin, & Allan, 2017). Most scholars also agree that a sense of calling reflects one’s psychological approach to work, regardless of the context in which the work occurs (e.g., Dik & Duffy, 2015). However, despite these clarifying developments, calling research remains challenged by a persistent lack of consensus regarding the definition of the construct (e.g., Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dik & Duffy, 2009, 2014; Elangovan et al., 2010; Wrzesniewski, 2012).

Underlying the current definitional diversity among researchers is the reality that “calling” means different things to different research participants as well (e.g., Hirschi, 2011; Hunter, Dik, & Banning, 2010). Most definitions advanced in the research literature include a sense that one’s work can express or provide a sense of purpose and meaning. Beyond that, some definitions suggest that a calling originates beyond the self (e.g., Dik & Duffy, 2009), whereas others point to an internal source (e.g., Hall & Chandler, 2005); some suggest that a calling is principally about advancing prosocial or other-oriented ends, whereas others focus on its potential personal benefits; and some describe calling as unidimensional, whereas others offer multidimensional conceptualizations (Duffy & Dik, 2013). The diverse usage of “calling” in modern English suggests that the term is broadening in meaning and shifting in emphasis. This undeniably is the case for the term “vocation,” a one-time synonym of calling that conveyed a deep sense of religious purpose but has since broadened to the point where it now often refers simply to one’s occupation (e.g., What is your vocation? or, I am attending a vocational school. Schuurman, 2004). Linguists refer to this shift in the meanings of a word over time as catachresis, a phenomenon that is “as widespread as it is curious” (Bryson, 1991, p. 78). Reasons for such a drift in meaning are seldom obvious. In the case of “calling,” one might hypothesize that the growing secularization of Western culture, or a shift in societal values from an emphasis on the common good to the best interests if the individual, may be factors–but one can only speculate in the absence of relevant data. Regardless of its cause, it is evident that the meaning of calling is evolving. Yet this evolution has not been uniform; some scholars prefer definitions that align with the way the term has been used historically (e.g., Dik & Duffy, 2009), whereas others advocate for a less traditional, more progressive approach (e.g., Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011).

Examining the six articles with the highest Google Scholar citation counts (as of 2017) that formally propose a definition of calling offers an illustrative sampling of major differences between definitions (see Table 1). These definitions can be understood as spanning a continuum anchored by the poles of “modern” and “neoclassical” callings, a distinction introduced by Bunderson and Thompson (2009) in their remarkable study of zookeepers. They described modern callings as a secularized concept, emphasizing self-actualization, personal fulfillment, and passion and framing the construct as an internally driven approach to work. For example, Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) define calling as “a consuming, meaningful passion people experience toward a domain” (p. 1005). Similarly, Hall and Chandler (2005) describe calling as “work that a person perceives as his [sic] purpose in life” (p. 160). These unidimensional definitions demonstrate how some scholars view calling as having shifted away from its religious roots, reformulating as a highly personal, meaningful, intrinsically motivated approach to work.

Table 1.
Calling Definitions and their Primary Dimensions.

Neoclassical Modern

Possible Components Dik & Duffy (2009) Bunderson & Thompson (2009) Elangovan et al. (2010) Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) Hall & Chandler (2005) Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas (2011)

Purposeful/Meaningful X X X X X X

Prosocial Motivations X X X

Transcendent Source/Destiny X X

Note. X indicates incorporation of this component of calling in the authors’ formally articulated definition of calling. As noted in the text, “Modern” refers to callings conceptualized as an internally driven, secular approach to work, emphasizing self-actualization, personal fulfillment, and passion. “Neoclassical” callings share the core element of calling as a meaningful and purposeful approach to work, but tend to preserve the historic notion that a calling is motivated by a prosocial desire to use one’s gifts toward positive societal impact, often originating from an external or transcendent caller (e.g., God, salient social needs, a family legacy) or a sense of destiny.

In contrast, neoclassical callings share the core element of calling as a meaningful and purposeful approach to work but tend to preserve the historic notion that a calling is motivated by a prosocial desire to use one’s gifts toward positive societal impact, often originating from an external or transcendent caller (e.g., God, salient social needs, a family legacy) or a sense of destiny. An example of a neoclassical formulation is Dik and Duffy’s (2009) definition of calling as “a transcendent summons, experienced as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation” (p. 427). This definition, while aligning with the term’s historical origins as being called to serve God (Hardy, 1990), acknowledges that the external call may be rooted in other sources as well, such as a salient social need, a sense of duty to serve one’s country, or a desire to honor a family legacy (Dik & Duffy, 2012). Another neoclassical example is Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) definition of calling as “that place in the occupational division of labor in society that one feels destined to fill by virtue of particular gifts, talents, and/or idiosyncratic life opportunities” (p. 38). This approach appeals to destiny of the source of a calling, although discerning that calling presumably requires attending to personal abilities or opportunities.

While some scholars assert that the term calling implies the existence of a caller (Floyd, 1998), others take a more “middle-of-the road” approach and endorse calling as purposeful/meaningful work engaged with prosocial motivations without the need for an external call. These are illustrated by Elangovan, Pinder, and McLean’s (2010) definition of calling as a “course of action in pursuit of prosocial intentions embodying the convergence of an individual’s sense of what he or she would like to do, should do, and actually does” (p. 430) and Wrzesniewski et al.’s (1997) framing of a calling as one’s “focus on enjoyment of fulfilling, socially useful work” (p. 21). As is apparent from this brief overview of highly cited definitions, although there is overlap, there are also clear differences in what scholars consider the core features of a calling.

This kind of conceptual disagreement creates challenges for ongoing research, which may lack coherence and engender confusion. For example, several measurement instruments have been developed to assess a sense of calling, each corresponding to a particular definition of the construct (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dik, Eldridge, Steger, & Duffy, 2012; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Which scale should new researchers interested in the topic use? How should readers interpret differences that may emerge in research that uses different scales—as due to differences in the conceptualization of the construct, the psychometric properties of the scale(s), particular characteristics of the samples, or some combination of these? On a more fundamental level, if there is disagreement about the meaning of the construct, what exactly can be concluded from research about the basic nature of calling, how it is experienced by people, and its implications for individuals and organizations? These are extremely important questions in this area of research, but the most dominant research strategies in the calling literature are not well equipped to answer them. In the next section, we review these research strategies and then describe a third approach that may help resolve some of the challenges introduced by the current definitional diversity.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Research on Calling

Thus far, empirical research on calling within the work role has almost exclusively taken one of the two forms: quantitative studies that adopt a top-down approach or qualitative studies that employ a bottom-up approach. These sections briefly review these strategies, noting their strengths and shortcomings.

Strategy 1: The Top-Down Approach

Traditional quantitative research in the social sciences follows a fairly straightforward set of steps. First, the researcher must clearly define the construct being studied and hypothesize particular patterns of its relationships with criterion variables. Next, researchers must operationalize the construct by designing a measurement instrument that translates the abstractions into quantifiable units. Usually researchers do this using a combined rational and statistical approach in which they write items that carefully sample the domain, use factor analytic techniques to examine its structure and remove items that contribute little to total score variance, and then examine patterns of convergent and discriminant correlations of the scale’s scores with carefully selected criterion variables. This strategy is both common and fundamental to quantitative social science research but is a top-down approach in that it imposes a researcher’s definition of the construct on research participants.

There are many examples of this approach in research on calling (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Hagmaier & Abele, 2012; Dik, Duffy, Eldridge, & Steger, 2012; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Among first was Wrzesniewski et al. (1997), who quantified Bellah et al.’s (1985) definition of calling using a paragraph that described an individual with a calling orientation, inviting research participants to indicate the extent to which the paragraph described their approach to work. Others have developed multi-item scales designed to assess specific elements of a particular definition. For example, Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) used 12 items (e.g., I am passionate about my work, I would sacrifice everything to do my job) to assess the extent to which people endorsed their definition of calling as a “consuming, meaningful passion” (p. 1001). Similarly, Dik, Eldridge, Duffy, and Steger (2012) introduced the Calling and Vocational Questionnaire (e.g., My work helps me live out my life purpose), a 24-item instrument, which yields scores for subscales designed to assess the extent to which people are seeking versus currently perceive a calling, measured across the three dimensions of their definition (e.g., transcendent summons, purposeful work, prosocial orientation). They also established psychometric support for a brief, unidimensional measure called the Brief Calling Scale, in which respondents can appeal to their own idiosyncratic definition of calling when responding to the items (e.g., I have a calling to a particular kind of work).

Studies using these measures of calling, along with others (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Hagmaier & Abele, 2012; Praskova, Creed, & Hood, 2014), have contributed substantially to the knowledge base of research on calling by investigating the correlates and consequences of the construct. For example, this research strategy has revealed that a sense of calling is linked to a stronger sense of vocational self-clarity (e.g., Domene, 2012; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Hirschi & Hermann, 2012) and career and organizational commitment (e.g., Cardador, Dane, & Pratt, 2011; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011). People with a calling also are more likely than others to view their work as meaningful (e.g., Hirschi, 2012) and to experience satisfaction in academic (Duffy, Allan, & Dik, 2011) and work domains (e.g., Davidson & Caddell, 1994; Harzer & Ruch, 2012; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). The benefits extend beyond the work role to general well-being, with a sense of calling positively related to life satisfaction, zest, and meaning in life as a whole (e.g., Duffy, Allan, & Bott, 2012; Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009; Steger, Pickering, Shin, & Dik, 2010).

Research also has examined the mechanisms that may explain these relationships, for example, noting that meaning in life and domain satisfaction mediate the relationship between calling and life satisfaction (e.g., Duffy, Allan, & Bott, 2012; Steger et al., 2010). More recent research by Duffy and colleagues (e.g., Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012) has identified living a calling as a key mediator; people who perceive a calling are much more likely to experience benefits if they feel they are currently living it out. Curiously, despite diverse definitions underlying these studies (which, accordingly, use different measures of calling), research has been remarkably consistent in demonstrating these generally positive results, even cross-nationally (e.g., Domene, 2012; Dumulescu, Opre, & Ramona, 2015; Praskova, Creed, & Hood, 2014; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012; Van Zyle, Deacon, & Rothmann, 2010; Zhang, Hermann, Hirschi, Wei, & Zhang, 2015). That is not to say that each instrument measures the construct in the same way; Duffy, Autin, Allan, and Douglass (2015) demonstrated that the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire and Brief Calling Scale (Dik et al., 2012) yield scores that are most strongly associated with endorsing a calling, whereas the Calling Scale (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011) and multidimensional calling measure (Hagmaier & Abele, 2012) yield scores that are more strongly predictive of scores on outcome variables. However, the patterns of relationships found between criterion variables and these diverse measures of calling differ only in strength; the direction is nearly always the same.

There are key advantages to this top-down approach to research. It offers a standardized means of investigating research questions that can be easily replicated in independent samples by independent researchers. It also establishes evidence for the validity of one’s particular definition of a construct, to the extent that the observed characteristics of the construct expressed in scores on a measurement instrument (e.g., its dimensionality and relations with other constructs) reflect its latent structure and hypothesized nomological network. Furthermore, it provides a straightforward method for exploring the extent to which diverse groups differ in their expression of a construct (e.g., by assessing measurement equivalence or mean differences). However, beyond the standard psychometric analyses, this approach offers limited empirical strategies for actually testing a construct’s meaning, as understood by research participants. Logistic regression can be used to predict having a calling from scores on various calling instruments (Duffy, Autin, Allan, & Douglass, 2015), or unidimensional presence of calling scores can be regressed on subscales representing multidimensional conceptualizations to examine the variance accounted for by each dimension (Eldridge & Dik, 2008). However, these methods are ultimately limited in that self-report scales essentially assess participants’ level of agreement with or adherence to the researchers’ particular definition of the construct. They do not directly investigate how participants themselves define it.

Strategy 2: The Bottom-Up Approach

Some efforts have been undertaken to more directly investigate the meaning of calling based on how participant populations understand or use the term. To date, this approach has focused on qualitative studies that use either interviews (e.g., Duffy, Foley, et al., 2012; French & Domene, 2012) or responses to open-ended questions such as “…how do you define the word ‘calling?’” (Hunter et al., 2010; Zhang, Dik, Wei, & Zhang, 2015). Once open-ended survey responses or interview data are collected, coding strategies (e.g., grounded theory, emergent qualitative document analysis) are applied to identify themes that emerge. Results from the studies that have directly assessed participants’ definitions have revealed that a sense of calling is perceived as originating from both internal and external sources, is accompanied by a sense of unique fit and well-being, has prosocial features, is associated with a tendency to be highly active, and extends to multiple life roles (Hunter et al., 2010; Zhang, Dik, et al., 2015).

Interview studies have investigated a considerable range of participants including counseling psychologists (Duffy, Foley, et al., 2012), Christian mothers in academia (Oates, Hall, & Anderson, 2005; Sellers, Thomas, Batts, & Ostman, 2005), Germans with PhDs in diverse fields (Hagmaier & Abele, 2012), zookeepers (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), female Christian college students (French & Domene, 2010), Roman Catholic adults perceiving a religious calling (Hernandez, Foley, & Beitin, 2011), and adult career changers (e.g., Ahn, Dik, & Hornback, 2017). Results from these studies highlight the sense of purpose and meaning that accompanies a calling, while also describing calling as intimately tied to participants’ sense of identity. Yet, results from these studies also reveal the unique and complex ways that people discern and interpret their callings, offering a very personal and in-depth look at participants’ lived experiences, which may or may not describe broader processes that are shared by others who similarly perceive their work as a calling. The bottom-up strategy’s obvious advantage is that it allows research participants to “speak for themselves,” a very intuitive and important basis for studying the meaning of calling. However, qualitative research purists note that its “thick description” cannot generalize from a sample to a population in a traditional (positivist) sense, which points to the need to follow the “What does calling mean?” question with “For whom?”

It is worth mentioning here that corpus linguistics offers another, currently still untapped investigative strategy with clear implications for the meaning-of-calling question (McEnery & Hardie, 2012). Whereas qualitative research uses participants’ open-ended responses to researchers’ questions as data, corpus linguistics uses written text. Corpus linguists specify a corpus—that is, a particular domain of “natural text,” such as articles and books written about career development—and then (with the assistance of concordancer software) subject all incidences of a particular word in that corpus to a process of annotation, abstraction, and analysis (Wallis & Nelson, 2001). Of interest are usage patterns in the corpus and what they reveal about language usage in general. This approach goes beyond anecdote and intuition to offer a more objective understanding of the meaning of words based on how they are typically used including contextual factors that influence usage variability. Of course, it is possible that a gap exists between the language usage of published authors who have contributed to the work included in the corpus and the language usage of the general population. Nevertheless, the variability and contextual factors that can be examined in corpus linguistics may prove very helpful in ongoing research on calling.

A New Approach at a Critical Juncture

Top-down and bottom-up approaches remain important strategies on which research on calling must continue to rely. Yet as the conceptual disparities in how calling is defined and measured become increasingly salient, we believe effort is needed to carefully examine the extent to which such differences are reflected not just among researchers, but among participants themselves. A typological strategy such as taxometric analysis offers an important means of examining this possibility.

Strategy 3: The Typological Approach

The typological approach employs (usually) quantitative methods designed to examine the number and characteristics of different groups. Typically, these methods assume the existence of discrete categories or types and then group objects (e.g., people) together based on multivariate similarity (Gore, 2000). A common application of the typological approach occurs in clustering methods, which frequently aim to create a typology, or classification system, where one does yet not exist. This goal makes clustering methods well suited for application within calling research because they can examine the personal qualities of individuals with a calling and group people based on those key characteristics. Then, additional analyses such as linear regression can be employed to explore how the groups may differ in terms of their identification with a particular type of calling or their relative endorsement of particular dimensions of calling. Conceptual similarities that are shared by distinct clusters may point to essential or common elements of those who have a calling, whereas characteristics that are unique to particular clusters may reflect “optional” characteristics that are represented only within a particular group. If a pattern of results like this was identified (and later replicated) in a cluster analytic study of people identifying as having a calling, it could lay the groundwork for programmatic study of developmental processes from which distinct types of callings may arise.

In the only published typological study of calling to date (of which we are aware), Hirschi (2011) used cluster analysis to find that people who thought of their careers as a calling could be divided into three groups: one focused on their own self-enhancement, one highly religious with strong prosocial values, and one who felt work was important but otherwise had diverse values with no obvious pattern. Hirschi used these results to differentiate essential components (those shared by all three groups) from nonessential components of calling (those specific to a particular group). These results may also suggest that there exist different ways of approaching a calling that may have unique antecedents. In Hirschi’s sample, the self-enhancement group curiously had somewhat negative views of themselves, suggesting that their quest for self-enhancement may have been driven in part by insecurity, whereas religion was likely a motivating factor for the second group. Despite these differences, all three groups showed advanced career development status relative to participants without a sense of calling. These results are consistent with research suggesting very similar correlates and consequences of calling regardless of the particular definition of the term (cf. Duffy et al., 2015; Duffy & Dik, 2013; Wrzesniewski, 2012), while also suggesting the presence of more than one type or taxa of calling. The study also raises the question of whether the calling construct may best be understood as consisting of types rather than dimensions.

Meehl (1992; see also Ruscio, Haslam, & Ruscio, 2006) noted the limitations of using cluster analysis for the purpose of determining the existence of types within a particular construct, instead proposing a system of analytic techniques using “coherent cut dynamics” to detect taxonicity. He referred to this system as taxometric analysis. Although mainly used in research on psychopathology and personality, this taxometric method could be applied, with benefit, to the calling construct. Understanding the research objective of these typological methods requires recognizing the distinction between true classes, nonarbitrary types, and distinct groupings (i.e., taxas, singular taxon) versus continuous variables, solely dimensional groups, and differences in degree. As a commonsense example, there are differences in various dimensions (e.g., size, ear shape, fur length) among dogs. However, there is a distinct difference in type between dogs and cats; no matter how big the cat or how small the dog, they represent two distinctive taxa within the large grouping of common household pets.

These differences in type or taxa can be detected when there are different underlying statistical distributions for the different categories even if apparent surface-level characteristics appear continuous. Meehl (e.g., 1992, 1995) noted that individuals within a taxon have some sort of objective break, division, or line in underlying structure between them and members of the other group, which can be determined using statistical methods. Taxometric procedures take advantage of this presumed division, demonstrating support for its latent structure using a variety of statistical procedures. For example, the mean above minus below a cut (Meehl & Yonce, 1994) procedure attempts to detect an optimal cutting score between possible groups, whereas the maximum covariance (Meehl, 1973; Meehl & Yonce, 1996) procedure examines the covariance and validity between hypothesized groups, repeatedly subsampling and graphing to find a point where members in both groups are roughly equal. All told, 13 taxometric procedures are currently available, and multiple procedures can be fruitfully used together. Ideally, two or more nonstatistically redundant procedures are applied in a taxometric analysis of a particular variable, each potentially providing unique support for the overall interpretation of the latent structure (i.e., as taxonic or dimensional) of the construct in question (Ruscio et al., 2006). Other methods besides taxometrics can be used for this purpose, but these alternatives tend to either underidentify taxonic structures (e.g., examining bimodality of frequency distributions) or presume and overestimate the number of groups (e.g., latent class analysis). Each of these methods (including taxometric analysis) can potentially detect the presence of types where they exist but are not useful in identifying the particular components that comprise each type. Therefore, once the dimensional or categorical structure of a variable is determined, the use of other latent modeling procedures is recommended to investigate the specific dimensions and characteristics that make up the construct (McGrath & Walters, 2012).

We suggest that taxometric analysis offers one way to empirically examine the question: Do the differences in definitions of calling reflect the presence of discrete calling types or is calling dimensional in nature? If taxometric analysis is applied and data reveal that there are discrete types or categories of calling, perhaps along the lines of Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) “modern” and “neoclassical” distinction, future research on calling should acknowledge the plurality embedded in the concept and focus on better understanding these overlapping but distinct approaches to work. Put another way, the question may not be which definition of calling is the “right” one, but rather what are the predominant types of callings and how do they differ (or not) in terms of antecedents, correlates, and consequences? If data instead indicate that calling is a dimensional rather than taxonic construct, the question becomes one of identifying the most essential dimensions. This result may lend support to Hirshi’s (2011) suggestion that there exists core elements of calling that are shared across diverse definitions (purpose in work being the most likely candidate) that participants hold, with a set of “optional” components (e.g., prosocial orientation, religious framing, personal fulfillment, absorption) that give calling a different form or “flavor” for different people who identify with the construct.

In either case, as the nature of calling’s latent structure becomes more clearly understood, further research will benefit from careful consideration of differences between different types or forms of calling. For example, are some ways of understanding one’s calling more predictive than others of particular outcomes? One might anticipate that religiously contextualized callings may be more closely associated with spiritual well-being than are other ways of understanding calling, for example. Or, perhaps callings focused on passion and self-fulfillment are more closely associated with scores on hedonic measures of well-being than are duty-driven or other-oriented callings, which instead may be more closely associated with eudaimonic well-being. Research may also investigate differences in the manner in which callings develop across different types or forms of calling. When a taxonic structure is found for a psychological construct (e.g., a particular personality characteristic or psychological disorder), it is often due to a specific etiology with just a few influential factors. When dimensional findings are supported, it is often due to a multitude of contributing factors (Waller & Meehl, 1998). Hence, when there are distinct differences (e.g., a statistically relevant discontinuity) in kind, researchers become very interested in investigating antecedents (Ruscio et al., 2006). This has clear implications for career development interventions; understanding the structure of calling can lead to more effective strategies for increasing a calling in those who endorse a low sense of calling, and also for maximizing the benefits for those who already endorse living a calling. Currently, little is known about the development of callings over time (Duffy & Dik, 2013), but an initial study suggests that people who discerned a calling from external sources described a higher power as the strongest influence in their callings; those who discerned a calling from internal sources described personal qualities and goals as particularly influential; and both categories of participants pointed to family as having a profound influence on their callings (White, Olivas, & Dik, 2016).

To clarify, we are not arguing that top-down, bottom-up, or some combination of these two strategies should take a backseat to a typological or taxometric approach. There are obviously many more paths forward for research employing these approaches to pursue. Rather, we suggest that for a full understanding of the nature of the calling construct, attention to the possibility that there are different calling types (identified using typological research strategies such as taxometric analysis) is critical. Indeed, clarifying the nature of these diverse understandings of calling can help set a more refined and coherent agenda for the top-down and bottom-up strategies to pursue. If research supports a distinction between neoclassical and modern callings, for example, it is plausible that distinct theoretical models (or broader theoretical models that account for both types of callings) may be required to most accurately describe the development and expression of these callings. Such models could parse out subtle differences between diverse understandings of calling and ultimately offer greater predictive and explanatory power than more general models in which such nuance is ignored.

Recommendations for Next Steps

Our primary recommendation, to reiterate what we describe above, is for research on calling to use empirical methods (e.g., taxometric analysis, cluster and factor analyses) to clarify the distinctions between different ways that people understand and express their callings. Should distinct types or forms of calling emerge, we suggest adopting clarifying language that specifies the particular type of calling under investigation in a particular study, depending on results (e.g., neoclassical callings vs. modern callings, hedonic vs. eudaimonic callings). In the meantime, there are several practices that researchers, reviewers, and editors would be wise to engage in to minimize ongoing conceptual murkiness in this area of research. These recommendations in many ways simply reflect textbook best practices in research methods, yet we stress them here because they remain frequently ignored in the calling literature, leading to problems that are exacerbated by the challenges of definitional diversity. The recommendations are described in detail below and are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.
Summary of Recommendations for Research on Calling.

Primary recommendation

Use empirical methods (e.g., taxometric analysis, cluster and factor analyses) to clarify the distinctions between different ways that calling is understood and expressed by research participants.

Secondary recommendations

1. Manuscripts should clearly articulate, very early in the introduction, the specific definition used to guide the study, placing it in context by briefly describing the current state of conceptual diversity in the literature.

2. Empirical studies should describe the sample(s) in as much detail as possible, reporting demographic factors (e.g., religious affiliation or commitment, career stage, range of job titles) that may influence how participants conceptualize calling.

3. Quantitative studies should test the measurement model for the scale employed with their sample to examine the extent to which the conceptualizing of calling adopted by the scale fits the participants’ understanding of the construct.

4. Editors and reviewers should avoid unreasonably penalizing manuscripts that use a conceptualization of calling that differs from their own, provided the definition in question is clearly articulated, reasonable, measured well, and acknowledges the existing conceptual diversity in the literature.

5. Researchers should avoid proposing new definitions of calling without compelling new evidence or rationale to justify doing so.

First, any manuscript describing a study conducted on the concept of calling should articulate, very early in the introduction, a clearly stated definition of calling that guides the study. The current state of conceptual diversity related to the construct should also be described at least briefly to provide the reader with context, a practice that allows readers an opportunity to evaluate the study’s approach to calling in a way that accounts for other approaches. We believe it is a disservice to readers (particularly those without substantial background knowledge of calling research) to adopt one definition of calling without also noting that other approaches exist in the literature and even more of a disservice to fail to define calling altogether. Carrying out this recommendation would require researchers to step out of their disciplinary silos to a greater extent than is commonplace now. For example, researchers within vocational psychology should incorporate the work on calling being undertaken by management scholars and vice versa. Both should similarly recognize new research on calling that is emerging within communication sciences (e.g., Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015; Molloy & Foust, 2016).

Second, in any empirical study investigating calling, researchers should make efforts to describe samples in as much detail as possible, particularly in terms of demographic factors that may influence how calling might be understood by participants. For example, while vocational and organizational research does not typically assess religious affiliation or commitment, reporting such characteristics of a particular sample would help readers think through how the sample may be inclined to interpret their callings. Similarly, taking steps to assess the career stage of participants in a sample may shed light on whether their focus may be on discerning, developing, maintaining, or enhancing their callings. Finally, describing the particular range of job titles represented within a study may help the reader anticipate diverse ways that participants may conceptualize a sense of calling within their work environments, given the range of occupations that have been investigated to date (e.g., clergy vs. psychologists vs. administrative assistants).

Third, related to the recommendation immediately preceding this one, any study that uses a measure designed to assess calling should test the measurement model using the scale employed in their study with their particular sample. This practice permits readers to evaluate whether the authors’ conceptualization and measurement of calling fits well with how participants in a particular sample understands the construct. For example, a study using the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (Dik et al., 2012) Presence of Calling Scale should examine the extent to which the three dimensions measured by the scale fit the data provided by participants; if the support is not found for the Transcendent Summons or Prosocial Orientation subscales, for example, a modern rather than neoclassical understanding of calling may be better suited for this particular sample.

Fourth, editors and manuscript reviewers should avoid penalizing researchers who use a different conceptualization of calling than that favored by the editor or reviewer, provided the definition adopted by the researcher is clearly articulated, reasonable, measured well, and acknowledges the existing conceptual diversity within the literature. More than once, we have encountered reviews (of our own as well as other authors’ papers) that take issue with the paper’s stated definition of the construct and then summarily dismiss the remainder of the paper. A more constructive approach would be to recognize the conceptual diversity in the literature and, when encountering definitions of the construct other than what the reviewer prefers (but that meet the criteria described above), state one’s thoughts about the definition but then review the remainder of the paper on its own terms, granting the authors their preferred definition.

Finally, as the current state of the research on calling has progressed from infancy to toddlerhood, attempts to create a new definition of the construct should be avoided unless the evidence to support one is compelling. This is not to say that as new ways of thinking expressed by new generations of workers emerge, researchers should shy away from investigating the ongoing changes in how a term like “calling” is used by people. However, researchers who aim to forge consensus by proposing a new definition of the concept that improves on existing definitions can expect to be disappointed. At this stage in calling research, empirical efforts to clarify the concept are far more valuable than additional conceptual arguments, given researchers’ propensity to privilege their preferred definitions. More importantly, ongoing debate over which definition is the “right” one has the potential to detract from much-needed development of a more detailed and rich empirical base that will move calling research out of toddlerhood into its elementary stage and beyond. Conceptual debate is important and helpful until it reaches a point of diminishing returns. Our sense is that this point has been reached, requiring a collective focus on typological research strategies such as taxometric analysis that will point to promising pathways forward in this area of research.

	Neoclassical		Modern
Purposeful/Meaningful	X	X	X	X	X	X
Prosocial Motivations	X		X	X
Transcendent Source/Destiny	X	X

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication was supported in part by the Grant T42OH009229, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Department of Health and Human Services.

References

Ahn

Dik

B. J.

Hornback

(2017). The experience of career change driven by a sense of calling: An interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 48–62.

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swidler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berkelaar

B. L.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2015). Bait and switch or double-edged sword? The (sometimes) failed promises of calling. Human Relations, 68, 157–178. doi:10.1177/0018726714526265

Bryson

(1991). The mother tongue: English and how it got that way. New York, NY: Morrow.

Bunderson

J. S.

Thompson

J. A.

(2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57. doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32

Cardador

M. T.

Dane

Pratt

M. G.

(2011). Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 367–378. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.009

Davidson

J. C.

Caddell

D. P.

(1994). Religion and the meaning of work. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 135–147. doi:10.2307/1386600

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424–450. doi:10.1177/0011000008316430

Dik

B. J

Duffy

R. D

. (2012). Make your job a calling: How the psychology of vocation can change your life at work. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

10.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2014). Strategies for discerning and living a calling. In Hartung

Savickas

Walsh

(Eds.), APA handbook of career intervention (pp. 305–317).Washington, DC: APA.

11.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2015). Strategies for discerning and living a calling. In Hartung

Savickas

Walsh

(Eds.), APA handbook of career intervention (pp. 305–317). Washington, DC: APA.

12.

Dik

B. J.

Eldridge

B. M.

Steger

M. F.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Development and validation of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 242–263. doi:10.1177/1069072711434410

13.

Dobrow

(2004). Extreme subjective career success: A new integrated view of having a calling. Academy of Management Conference Best Paper Proceedings, Philadelphia. Retrieved from http://www.bnet.fordham.edu/dobrow/Papers.html

14.

Dobrow

S. R.

Tosti-Kharas

(2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure. Personnel Psychology, 64, 1001–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01234.x

15.

Domene

J. F.

(2012). Calling and career outcome expectations: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 281–292. doi:10.1177/1069072711434413

16.

Dumulescu

Opre

Ramona

(2015). “Is your career meaningful?” Exploring career calling on a Romanian students sample. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 553–558. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.103

17.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Bott

E. M.

(2012). Calling and life satisfaction among undergraduate students: Investigating mediators and moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 469–479. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9274-6

18.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Dik

B. J.

(2011). The presence of a calling and academic satisfaction: Examining potential mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.00

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

(2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 219–227. doi:10.1037/a0031934

20.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

Allan

B. A.

Douglass

R. P.

(2015). Assessing work as a calling: An evaluation of instruments and practice recommendations. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 351–366. doi:10.1177/1069072714547163

21.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 50–59. doi:10.1037/a0026129

22.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006

23.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

(2011). Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 210–218. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.013

24.

Duffy

R. D.

England

J. W.

Douglass

R. P.

Autin

K. L.

Allan

B. A.

(2017). Perceiving a calling and well-being: Motivation and access to opportunity as moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 127–137.

25.

Duffy

R. D.

Foley

P. F.

Raque-Bodgan

T. L.

Reid

Dik

B. J.

Castano

Adams

(2012). Counseling psychologists who view their careers as a calling: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 293–308. doi:10.1177/1069072711436145

26.

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 590–601. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.007

27.

Elangovan

A. R.

Pinder

C. C.

McLean

(2010). Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 428–440. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.009

28.

Eldridge

B. M.

Dik

B. J.

(2008). Calling vs. vocation: The role of a transcendent summons. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

29.

Floyd

T. W.

(1998). The practice of law as a vocation or calling. Fordham Law Review, 66, 1405. Retrieved from http://repository.law.ttu.edu/bitstream/handle/10601/566/tfloyd3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

30.

French

J. R.

Domene

J. F.

(2010). Sense of ‘calling’: An organizing principle for the lives and values of young women in university. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 44, 1–14. Retrieved from http://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/index.php/rcc/article/viewFile/484/743

31.

Gore

P. A. J.

(2000). Cluster analysis. In Tinsley

H. E. A.

Brown

S. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 297–321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

32.

Hagmaier

Abele

A. E.

(2012). The multidimensionality of calling: Conceptualization, measurement and a bicultural perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 39–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.001

33.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

(2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 155–176. doi: 10.1002/job.301

34.

Hardy

(1990). The fabric of this world: Inquiries into calling, career choice, and the design of human work. Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans.

35.

Harzer

Ruch

(2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s signature strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 362–371. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.702784

36.

Hernandez

E. F.

Foley

P. F.

Beitin

B. K.

(2011). Hearing the call: A phenomenological study of religion in career choice. Journal of Career Development, 38, 62–88. doi: 10.1177/0894845309358889

37.

Hirschi

(2011). Callings in career: A typological approach to essential and optional components. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 60–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.002

38.

Hirschi

(2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 479–485. doi: 10.1037/a0028949

39.

Hirschi

Herrmann

(2012). Vocational identity achievement as a mediator of presence of calling and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 309–321. doi: 10.1177/1069072711436158

40.

Hunter

Dik

B. J.

Banning

J. H.

(2010). College students’ perceptions of calling in work and life: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 178–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.008

41.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

(2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37, 655–685. doi:10.1177/1059601112461578

42.

McEnery

Hardie

(2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

43.

McGrath

R. E.

Walters

G. D.

(2012). Taxometric analysis as a general strategy for distinguishing categorical from dimensional latent structure. Psychological Methods, 17, 284–293. doi:10.1037/a0026973

44.

Meehl

P. E.

(1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00269.x

45.

Meehl

P. E

. (1973). MAXCOV-HITMAX: A taxonomic search method for loose genetic syndromes. In Meehl

P. E.

. (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers (pp. 200–224). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

46.

Meehl

P. E.

(1995). Bootstraps taxometrics. Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. The American Psychologist, 50, 266–275. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.4.266

47.

Meehl

P. E.

Yonce

L. J.

(1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.

48.

Meehl

P. E.

Yonce

L. J.

(1996). Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091–1227.

49.

Molloy

K. A.

Foust

C. R.

(2016). Work calling: Exploring the communicative intersections of meaningful work and organizational spirituality. Communication Studies, 67, 339–358. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1148751

50.

Oates

K. L. M.

Hall

M. E. L.

Anderson

T. L.

(2005). Calling and conflict: A qualitative exploration of interrole conflict and the sanctification of work in Christian mothers in academia. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 210–223.

51.

Peterson

Park

Hall

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2009). Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 161–172.

52.

Praskova

Hood

Creed

P. A.

(2014). Testing a calling model of psychological career success in Australian young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 125–135. doi:10.1177/1069072714523089

53.

Ruscio

Haslam

Ruscio

A. M.

(2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Schuurman

D. J.

(2004). Vocation: Discerning our callings in life. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

55.

Sellers

T. S.

Thomas

Batts

Ostman

(2005). Women called: A qualitative study of Christian women dually called to motherhood and career. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 198–209. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.3875&rep=rep1&type=pdf

56.

Steger

M. F.

Pickering

N. K.

Shin

J. Y.

Dik

B. J.

(2010). Calling in work: Secular or sacred? Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 82–96. doi: 10.1177/1069072709350905

57.

Van Zyl

L. E.

Deacon

Rothmann

(2010). Towards happiness: Experiences of work-role fit, meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational psychologists in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S207107632010000100014&lng=en&tlng=en

58.

Waller

N. G.

Meehl

P. E.

(1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59.

Wallis

Nelson

(2001). Knowledge discovery in grammatically analyzed corpora. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 5, 305–335. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6887/680e2cfdf057fd27bd0aef98b63defe14810.pdf

60.

White

M. J.

(2018). Calling in the United States: Prevalence and the role of source. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

61.

White

M. J.

Olivas

N. T.

Dik

B. J.

(2016). Antecedents and sources of calling in the United States. Poster session presented at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Denver, CO.

62.

Wrzesniewski

(2012). Callings in work. In Cameron

K. S.

Spreitzer

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 45–55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

63.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162

64.

Yeoman

(2014). Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 235–251. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1894-9

65.

Zhang

Dik

B. J.

Wei

Zhang

(2015). Work as a calling in China: A qualitative study of Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 236–249. doi:10.1177/1069072714535029

66.

Zhang

Herrmann

Hirschi

Wei

Zhang

(2015). Assessing calling in Chinese college students: Development of a measure and its relation to hope. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 582–596. doi:10.1177/1069072715595804

	Neoclassical					Modern
Possible Components	Dik & Duffy (2009)	Bunderson & Thompson (2009)	Elangovan et al. (2010)	Wrzesniewski et al. (1997)	Hall & Chandler (2005)	Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas (2011)
Purposeful/Meaningful	X	X	X	X	X	X
Prosocial Motivations	X		X	X
Transcendent Source/Destiny	X	X