The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation

The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation, by Martin J. Finkelstein, Robert K. Seal, and Jack H. Schuster. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. 111+ pp. 32. 50 The New Academic Generation originated as a report on during the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty 1993 (NSOPF 93) contract with the National Center for Education Statistics. I very much looked forward to seeing how Finkelstein and Schuster, two accomplished scholars on issues, working with Seal as a co-author would transform their contractual report into an innovative work that ties historical literature with conceptually important analyses of survey data to inform the debate about the future of the professoriate. Instead, I was surprised to find that the authors had retained the tenor of a report, relying on simple frequencies of standard survey items. The result is a text with useful data but little in the way of innovative proposals, comprehensive strategies, or enhanced understanding of complex phenomena. Through chapters on demographics and background, career preparation, work assignments and working conditions, and attitudes and values, the authors intend to describe the and how they differ from their more experienced colleagues. These chapters seem derived from survey items rather than from a conceptual model of work. Many analytical frameworks for development, careers, and work exist. Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) developed a model combining intrinsic and extrinsic factors in explaining behavior. Tierney and Bensimon (1996) explored the socialization of faculty. Rob Rhoads and I (Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995) examined the relative importance of early socialization, current socialization/motivation, work allocation, and rewards in understanding commitment to teaching and research. Indeed, previous work by Finkelstein (1984) and Schuster (Bowen & Schuster, 1986) led to the development of advanced conceptual models of careers and work, which makes the lac k of a conceptual model in The New Academic Generation especially puzzling. The principal contribution of The New Academic Generation is in its role as a single source of descriptive information about faculty. Particularly important is the finding that one third of all were hired within the past seven years, which dispels the myth of a static academic labor market. Also important is the finding that the cohort is more diverse in gender and race/ethnicity than its senior counterpart. I commend Finkelstein and colleagues for comparing all of their results by gender and race/ethnicity. More problematic are the methods used to obtain and report research results. Relying on Finnegan's (1993) work, Finkelstein, Seal, and Schuster define as individuals holding full-time tenure-track positions for seven years or less. The seven-year line for defining and senior fits the tenure decision-making process in many colleges and universities and has appeal for that reason. However, Finnegan derived her cohorts from external labor market conditions--periods of expansion, periods of contraction--rather than on a dynamic internal to academic settings. As such, her concept of cohort better fits labor market trends potentially affecting hiring, mobility, and so forth. Finkelstein and colleagues' definition of new faculty has value because it matches the classic path of an academic career, but calling this group a new generation requires that the authors relate their definition to some fundamental shift in external labor markets. Consider the following scenarios. Suppose that we say that the tight academic labor market, i. e. , having a high ratio of applicants to available positions, began in 1986, which would coincide with the seven-year period used in The New Academic Generation. We would expect Finkelstein and colleagues' comparisons between this group and a more senior cohort to reflect the different experiences of who found it relatively easy to obtain positions and those who did not. …