The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds Author(s): Burton R. Clark Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 5 (Jun. - Jul., 1989), pp. 4-8 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176126 Accessed: 29/11/2010 03:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Researcher.
http://www.jstor.org
The Small
Life Academic Worlds, Different Worlds BURTON R. CLARK
The American professoriateis enormouslydifferentiatedby disciplineand typeof institutionon such primarydimensionsof as patternsof work,identification, authority,career, professionalism andassociation. acrosstheprofessoriate no longercomes Integration primarilyfrom similarityof functionand commonsocialization, and the mediatinglinkages butfromtheoverlapof subcommunities and institution. the ties of discipline providedby Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 4-8 Educational Researcher,
oday,nearthe end of the 20thcentury,the American
system of higher education is highly diversified, steadily dividing along the two basic lines of disciand pline type of institution. As the system goes, so does the academicprofession reap, evolving into a multisided occupation composed of many different professions, semiprofessions, and nonprofessional fields. I want to explore the natureof this extremedifferentiation,particularlyits selfamplifying tendency, and then suggest some largely hidden links that may yet connect academics one to another even as common values and experiences recede.
The Growing Division of Labor The modern differentiation of the American professoriate means straightawaythat we deceive ourselves, and others, every time we speak in simplistic terms of the professor in the university, or the college professor. Disciplinary differences alone demand a more exacting approach in which the field of competence and study is front and center. In the leading universities, for example, the clinical professor of medicine is as much a part of the basic work force as is the professorof English. The medicalacademiccan be found in a cancerward, interactingintensively with other doctors, nurses, orderlies, laboratory assistants, a few students perhaps, and many patients in a round of tightly scheduled activities that may begin at seven in the morning and extend into various evenings and weekends. Such academics are often under considerable pressure to generate income from patient-carerevenues: They frequently negotiate with third-partymedical plans and need a sizable administrative staff to handle patient billing. Salary may well depend on group income that fluctuates from year to year and that is directly affected by changes in the health-careindustry and by the competitive position of a particularmedical schoolhospital complex. Hence salary may not be guaranteed, even in a tenured post. Sizable research grants must also be actively and repetitively pursued, and those who do not raise funds from research grants will find themselves loaded up with more clinical duties.' -4
The humanities professor operates in a totally different environment: Teaching "loads" are in the range of four to six hours a week. Office hours are at one's discretion; administrativeassignments vary considerablywith one's willingness to cooperate. The humanities academictypically interactswith large numbers of beginning students in lecture halls, in an occasional turn in introductory classes; with smaller numbers of juniors and seniors, in specialized upper division courses; and then with a few graduatestudents in seminars and dissertation consultation, around such highly specialized topics as Elizabethanlyric and Icelandic legend. Much valuable work time can be spent at home, away from the "distractions" of the university office. About what is one thinking and writing? Attention may center on a biography of Eugene O'Neill, an interpretation of what Jane Austen really meant, an effort to trace Lillian Hellman's political passions, or a critique of Derrida and deconstructionism. Professors seek to master a highly specialized segment of literature and to maximize individual interpretation. The interests of humanities professors are reflected not only in the many sections and byways of such omnibus associationsas the Modern Language Association, but also in the specificities of the Shakespeare Association of America,the Dickens Society, the D. H. LawrenceSociety of North America, the Speech Association of America, the Thomas Hardy Society of America, and the Vladimir Nabokov Society. Tocqueville's famous comment on the propensity of Americans to form voluntary associations is nowhere more true than in the academic world. Disciplinary differences are of course not limited to the sharp contrast between life in a medical school and in a departmentof English. The work of Tony Becherand others on the cultures of individual disciplines has shown that bodies of knowledge variously determine the behavior of individuals and departments (see especially Becher, 1987). Disciplines exhibit discernible differences in individual behavior and group action, notably between "hard" and "soft" subjects and "pure" and ""applied"fields; in a sim-
R. CLARK is AllanM. CartterProfessor BURTON of HigherEducation and Sociologyat the GraduateSchoolof Education,University of California-LosAngeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024. He specializesin the cross-nationalstudy of highereducation.This is an editedversionof a paperpresentedat the annual meeting ofAERAin New Orleans,April1988.Thepaperhighlightsseveral centralpoints in his bookThe Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds (1987), winnerof a 1989AERAOutstanding BookAward.
EDUCA TIONAL RESEARCHER
pie fourfold classification, between hard-pure (physics), hard-applied (engineering), soft-pure (history), and softapplied (socialwork). Across the many fields of the physical sciences, the biological sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts, fieldwork reveals varied work assignments, symbols of identity, modes of authority,career lines, and associational linkages.2 More broadly, great differences in the academic life often appear between the letters and science departments and the many professional school domains in which a concern for the ways and needs of an outside profession must necessarilybe combined with the pursuit of science and truth for its own sake. Far from the popular images of Mr. Chips chatting up undergraduates and of Einsteinian, white-haired, remote scholars dreaming up esoteric mathematical equations are the realities of academic work that helps prepare school teachers, librarians, social workers, engineers, computer experts, architects,nurses, pharmacists,business managers, lawyers, and doctors-and, in some academic locales, also morticians, military personnel, auto mechanics, airport technicians, secretaries,lathe operators,and cosmetologists. As Robert Wiebe (1967) and Walter Metzger (1987) have noted in historical detail, American higher education has been generous to a fault in admitting former outside fields into the academy, thereby administering a dose of legitimacy. Because researchis the first priorityof the leading universities, the disciplinary differentiation of every modern system of higher education is self-amplifying.The American system is currently the extreme case of this self-amplification: Its great size, decentralization,diversity, and competitiveness magnify the pursuit of new knowledge. The reward system for this self-amplificationbegan to emerge a century ago, when Johns Hopkins and other new upstart universities competitively prompted Eliot at Harvard and others in the old colleges of the day to speed up the nascent evolution from the age of the college to the age of the university. This evolution turned professors loose to pursue specialized research and to teach specialized subjects at the newly created graduate level, even as students were turned loose to pick and choose in an array of undergraduate courses that was to become ever more bewildering. The reward system of promoting academics on the grounds of research and published scholarship has become more deeply rooted in the universities, and would-be universities and leading 4-year colleges, with every passing decade. The many proliferatingspecialties of the disciplines are like tributariesflowing into this mammoth river of the research imperative. The most serious operational obstacles to this researchdriven amplification are the limitations of funding and the institutional need to teach undergraduates and beginning graduate students with packages of introductory materials that they can understand. Then, too, there remains in the Americansystem the long-standing belief in the importance of undergraduate liberal or general education. The saving remnant of academics who uphold the banners of liberal and general education are able to sally forth in full cry periodically-the 1920s, the late 1940s, the 1980s-to group some specialties into more general course offerings, narrow the options in distribution requirements from, say, 400 to 100 courses, insist that teaching take priorityover research, and in general raise a ruckus about the dangers of the
specialized mind. Meanwhile, however, campus promotion committees continue their steady scrutiny of the record of research and scholarship. Central administratorswork actively to build an institutional culture of academic firstrateness as that is defined competitively across the nation and even internationally on the basis of the reputation of noted scholars. Sophisticated general educators and liberal arts proponents in the universities recognize the primacy of the substantiveimpulse and learn how to work incrementally within its limits. Institutional Differentiation As powerful as are the self-amplifying disciplinary differences in dividing the professoriate,institutionaldifferentiationnow plays an even more importantrole. Useful classifications of the 3,400 accredited institutions in American higher education now run to 20 categories of majortypesand still leave unidentified such important subtypes as historicallyblack colleges, women's colleges, and Catholic colleges (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987). The creation of individual niches within the types has become a high art, especially among private universities and colleges but not limited to them-a selfamplifying tendency propelledby competitionfor resources, clientele, and reputation.The extensive differentiationplaces most academics in settings other than that of the research university. We find a third of them in public and private 4-year colleges and ""comprehensivecolleges," numbering together about 1,200, that offer degree work as far as the master's. Another fourth to a third are to be found in the nearly 1,400 community colleges. These major locales exhibit vast differences in the very basis of the academic life, namely, the balance of effort between teaching and research. Teaching loads in the leading universities come in at around 4 to 6 hours a week, tailing down to 2 to 3 hours-a class a week, a seminar a weekmore often than rising above 6. The reciprocalis that faculty commonly expect to spend at least half their time in research, alone or in the company of a few advanced graduate students. We need not stray very far, however, before we encounter teaching loads that are 50%, 100%, and 200% universities," higher. What are called "1doctorate-granting rather than "research universities," exact teaching loads of 9 to 12 hours. So too for liberal arts colleges, especially outside the top 50. In comprehensivecolleges, loads of 12 hours a week in the classroom are common. In turn, in the community colleges, the standard climbs to 15 hours, and loads of 18 and 21 hours are not unknown. And as we move from the top of the institutional hierarchy to the bottom, faculty involvement shifts from advanced students to beginning students; from highly selective students to open-door clientele; from young students in the traditionalcollege age group to a mix of students of all ages in short-term vocational programs as well as in course work leading toward a bachelor's degree. In the community colleges, students in the college-transfer track are now numerically overshadowed by students in terminalvocationalprograms,and both are frequentlyoutnumberedby nonmatriculatedadults who turn "college" into "community center." The burdens of remedial education are also much heavier as we descend the hierarchy.The open-door approach,standard in 2-year colleges and also operational in 4-year colleges that take virtuallyall comers, confrontscollege teachers
JUNE-JUL Y 1989
5
with students in the classroom who are still operating at a secondary-school, and even an elementary-school, level. Then, to add insult to injury, as we descend the hierarchy, we encounter more part-time academic work. During the last two decades, the ranks of the part-timershave swollen to 200,000 or so, a third of the total academic workforce, with heavy concentrations in the less prestigious colleges and especially in community colleges, where a half or more of the faculty commonly operate on a part-time schedule. At the extreme opposite end of the institutional hierarchy from those who serve primarilyin the graduate schools and graduate-levelprofessionalschools in the majoruniversities are the full-time and part-time teachers in English or mathematics in downtown community colleges who teach introductory and subintroductory courses over and over again-the rudiments of English composition, the first course in mathematics-to high school graduates who need remediation and to adults struggling with basic literacy. As faculty pointed out in interviews, "scholars" are then transformedinto "mere teachers," serving in a fashion more similar to high school teaching than to university work. With the very nature of academic work varying enormously across the many types of institutions that make up Americanpostsecondaryeducation, other dimensions of the academic life run on a parallel course. If we examine the cultures of the institutions by discussing with faculty members their basic academic beliefs, we find different worlds. Among the leading research universities, the discipline is front and center, the institution is prized for its reputation of scholarship and research, and peers are the primary reference group. A professor of physics will say: "What I value the most is the presence of the large number and diverse collection of scientists who are constantly doing things that I find stimulating." A professor of biology tells us that his university "has a lot of extremely good departments . . . there are a lot of fascinating, interesting
people here." A political scientist adds that what he values most "is the intellectuallevel of the facultyand the graduate students ....
Good graduate students are very important
to me personally and always have been, and having colleagues that are smart is important." And a professor of English told us that his institution "is a first-rate university .
. .
we have a fine library, and we have excellent
teachers here, and we have first-ratescholars." Academics in this favored site have much with which to identify. They are proud of the quality they believe surrounds them, experiencing it directly in their own and neighboring departments and inferring it indirectly from institutional reputation. The strong symbolic thrust of the institution incorporates the combined strengths of the departments that in turn represent the disciplines. Thus, for faculty, disciplinary and institutional cultures converge, a happy state indeed. The leading private liberal arts colleges provide a second favored site. Here, professors often waxed lyrical in interviews about the small college environmenttailoredto undergraduate teaching: "It is a very enjoyable setting. The students are-the students we get in physics-a delight to work with"; "I can't put it in a word, but I think that it is one of the least constraining environments I know of"; "it is a better form of life"; or, "My colleagues are fantastic. The people in this departmentare sane, which in an English department is not always the case." These institutions retain the capacity to appear as academic communities, not - 6
bureaucracies, in their overall integration and symbolic unity. But soon we encounter sites where faculty members are troubled by inchoate institutionalcharacterand worry about the quality of their environment. In the lesser universities, and especially in the comprehensive colleges that have evolved out of a teachers-collegebackground,at the second, third, and fourth levels of the institutional hierarchy, the setting was often summed as follows: I thinkthe most difficultthing aboutbeing at an institution like [this one] is that it has a difficulttime coming to termswith itself. I think the more establishedinstitutions with strongacademicbackgroundsdon't have the problemthatan institutionthatprettymuchis in the middle range of higher educationalinstitutionsaround the country does. I'm not saying that [this institution]is a bad institution,but it certainlydoesn't have the quality students, the qualityfaculty,the qualityprogramsof the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale ....
When it talks
about standards,what sort of standards?When it talks aboutpracticality,how practicaldoes it have to be? .... It doesn't have a strong sense of tradition." Compared to the research universities, the overall institutional culture is weaker and less satisfying for many faculty members, at the same time that disciplinary identifications are weakened as heavy teaching loads suppress research and its rewards. In these middle-level institutions, professors often spoke of their relationship with students as the thing they value most. Students begin to replace peers as the audience of first resort. That shift is completed in the community colleges, with the identificationsof facultyreachinga high point of student-centeredness. In a setting that is distinctly opposed to disciplinary definitions of quality and excellence, pleasures and rewards have to lie in the task of working with poorly prepared students who pour in through the open door, for example: "We are a practicalteaching college. We serve our community and we serve .
. .
the stu-
dents in our community, and given them a good, basic, strong education ....
We are not sitting here on our high
horses looking to publish"; and "I really do like to teach, and this place allows me to teach. It doesn't bog me down with having to turn out papers." In the communitycolleges, the equity values of open door and open access have some payoff as anchoring points in the faculty culture. But in the overall institutional hierarchy, where the dominant values emphasize quality, selection, and advanced work, the community college ideology can play only a subsidiaryrole. The limitations cannot be missed: "It would be nice to be able to teach upper division classes." As for work and culture, so go authority, careers, and associational life. To sum the story on authority, at the top of the institutional hierarchy faculty influence is well and strong. Many individuals have strong personal bargaining power; departments and professional schools are strong, semiautonomous units; and all-campusfaculty bodies have dominant influence in personnel and curriculardecisions. University presidents speak lovingly of the faculty as the core of the institution and walk gently around entrenched faculty prerogatives. But as we descend the hierarchy, faculty authority weakens and managerialismincreases. Topdown command is noticeably stronger in the public comprehensive colleges, especially when their genetic imprint
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER -
is that of a teachers college. The 2-year colleges, having evolved mainly out of secondarysystems and operating,like schools, under local trustees, are quite managerial. Faculty then feel powerless, even severely put upon. Their answer has been unionization. The further down the hierarchy of prestige we go, the more widespread do unions become, especially among public-sector institutions. To sum the associational life of faculty: In the leading universities, faculty interactwith one another across institutional boundaries in a bewildering network of disciplinary linkages: formal and informal;large and small; visible and invisible; local, regional, national, and international.When university specialists find "monster meetings" not to their liking, they go to participatein a smaller division or section that best represents their specific interests, or, as of late, they find kindred souls in small, autonomous meetings of several dozen people. The jet set is everywhere, from physicists pursuing high-energy physics to professors of English off to a conference in Paris on structuralism. As we move down the hierarchy, however, there is less reason to be involved, less to learn that is relevant to one's everyday life, and the travel money is gone from the institutionalbudget. Then, academics do not go to national meetings, or they go only if the national association comes to their part of the country and develops special sessions on teaching-or they break away to form associations appropriate to their sector. Community college teachers have been developing associations in such broad areas as the social sciences and the humanities and in such special areas of teaching as mathematics and biology, and doing so on a home-city or home-region as well as national basis. Different worlds, small worlds. The institutionaldifferentiation interactswith the disciplinarydifferentiationin a selfamplifying fashion that steadily widens and deepens the matrix of differences. What Integrates? If academiclife in Americais so divided, and the futurepromises even greater fragmentation, does any integration obtain? I mentioned at the outset that common values and experiences recede. When we searched in faculty interviews for common beliefs, we found some possible cultural linkages in widely used expressions. As faculty members attempted to formulatewhat professorshave in common, they turned often to expressions about serving knowledge, searching for answers, and striving for new understanding. We frequently encountered norms of academic honesty in which plagiarism-the stealing of someone else's intellectual property-is the worst crime of all. The ideology of academic freedom was often raised, with personal freedom portrayed as an extremely attractiveaspect of academic life that, like recognition, sometimes serves in lieu of material rewards. But we had to scrap to find values that might still be widely shared, sensing that so often the same words had different meanings. Academic freedom means in one context primarily the right to pursue research and publish as you please; in another, the right to give failing grades and the right not to punch in and out on a time clockfor so many hours on campus each day. The concern about plagiarism drops off sharply among those in all-teaching settings; the norms of academic honesty then more often refer to fair grading and fair treatment of students. In short, the ongo-
ing differentiationnot only erodes common values but also gives stated common values different meanings in different contexts. Because this is the case, a search for common values is not now the best way to identify linkages among professors. The claim that academics must and should find their way back to agreement on core values becomes more unrealistic with each passing year. Instead, as commonness recedes, we have to determine how "unity in diversity" comes about. One path to such unity is normative systems that hook self-interestto larger institutionalchariots. In the normal course of their work, biologists or political scientists or literature professors can serve simultaneously their own achievement, the progress of their department and discipline, and the education of the young, the advancement of scholarship, and other ideals that give meaning to the academicworld. The brightside of modern professionalism, especially its academicversion, is that self-regarding,otherregarding, and ideal-regardinginterests can be blended and simultaneously served. (These three forms of interest have been brilliantlyconceptualized in Mansbridge, 1983.) In an age of specialization, academic callings are constructed primarily in the many cultural homes of the individual disciplines. Tunnel by tunnel, the disciplines qua professions serve as critical centers of meaning and as primary devices for linkage into the larger world. Further,the disciplinesdo not exist simply as isolated tunnels, linking individuals in parallel chains that never meet. Both in their coverage of empirical domains and as modes of reasoning, they overlap. Michael Polanyi (1967) has acutely observed that modern science consists of "chains of overlapping neighborhoods" (p. 72). Donald T. Campbell (1969)has stressed that a comprehensive social science, or any other large domain of academic knowledge, is "a continuous texture of narrow specialties" (p. 328). Multiple specialties overlap much like the scales on the back of a fish. That overlap produces "a collective communication, a collective competence and breadth" (Campbell, p. 330). In attempting to figure out how cultural integration may coexist with diversity in a highly differentiated society, Diana Crane (1982) has observed that the social system of science is an appropriate model: "Contemporary science comprises hundreds of distinct specialities,but each speciality has connections, both intellectual and social, with other specialities ....
Cultural integration occurs because of
overlapping memberships among culturalcommunities that lead to the disseminationof ideas and values" (p. 239). What we find, in science and in academia, are "interlocking cultural communities" (p. 241). In the subcultures of academe, it is a long way from physics and chemistry to political science and sociology, let alone history and literature.As culturalcommunities, however, physics and chemistry overlap with mathematics, which connects to statistics, both of which in turn link importantly to the "hard" social sciences of economics and psychology. They in turn shade into the softer disciplines of political science, sociology, and anthropology, fields that readily shade into the perspectives of history and then further on into the humanities. Also, more broadly, the letters and science disciplines serve as academic links to professional fields. They contributesubstantive materials;and, as the "basic" disciplines, they continue to define what is scholarly.
JUNE-JULY 1989
7
Our imagery of culturaloverlap is also heightened when we see the academicworld stretchingfrom center to periphery in the form of institutionalas well as disciplinarychains. Institutionally, the hard core of academic values in the American professoriate is found in the leading research universitiesand top liberalarts colleges. The firstexemplifies modern science and advanced scholarship; the second upholds the much-respected tradition of liberal education for undergraduates. These locales are centers whose cultural influence radiates first to adjacent types of institutions and then in weakening rays to institutional sectors more divorced in character.The top 10 universities are a powerful cultural magnet to the second 10, the top 20 to the top 50, the recognized universities to the many comprehensive colleges that so dearly want to be recognized as universities. The many different types of institutions do not operate as watertight compartments-witness the high transferability of course credit-but rather overlap to the point of heavily confusing the efforts of classifiers to draw lines between them. The analytical handle is the idea of integration through overlap. Then we no longer need to think, as observers or participants,that integrationcan come about only by means of some combination of identical socialization, similarityof
task, commonly held values, and united membership in a grand corps or a single association. Academics need not think that they must somehow pull themselves together around a top-down pronouncement of a fixed set of values and a universal core curriculum,swimming agains the tides of history and seeking a return to a golden age that never was. As we probe the nature of the modern academic life, especially in America, it is much more fruitful to grasp that integration can come from the bit-by-bitoverlap of narrow memberships and specific identities. Specialties and disciplines, and whole colleges and universities, may serve as mediating institutions that tie individuals and small groups into the whole of the system. For a profession that is so naturally pluralistic, and for which the future promises an ever-widening complexity of task and structure, a large dollop of pluralist theory is not a bad idea. The many dualities of commitment to discipline and institution,and the many linkagesamong units on these primary lines of affiliation, provide an academic version of the great federal motto: E pluribusunum. Whatever the future unities of the academiclife in America,they will have to be rooted in the developmental differences that inhere in the ways of modern academe.
CALLFOR MEMBERINPUT
Notes
Member suggestions and comments about the programs and activities of the Association are always most welcome. In addition to the President, three Members-at-Large are elected by the entire membership. Therefore, they are particularly well suited to receive recommendations on broad Association issues. The Members-at-Largeare as follows:
'Unless otherwise indicated, all empirical materials reported in this paper come from a 1973-75 study that centered on 170 intensive faculty interviews in the six fields of physics, biology, political science, English, business, and medicine, in 16 universities and colleges, chosen nationally to represent six types of institutions, from leading research universities to community colleges. The interviews, taped and transcribed, led to lengthy protocols that could be variously grouped and analyzed by discipline and institutional type. Some quantitative data from the 1984 Carnegie faculty survey were also available and used. Fuller description of the research study can be found in The Academic Life (1987), Introduction and Appendix A. 2These five categories of work, culture, authority, career, and association, defined as primary dimensions of academic professionalism, are developed as central chapters in TheAcademicLife (1987) to group and analyze the rich materials obtained in the 1983-85 field interviews.
James Pellegrino Graduate School of Education University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805/961-4336 Linda Darling-Hammond The Rand Corporation 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 202/296-5000
References
Jeannie Oakes Graduate School of Education University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90024 213/825-2494 Divisional Vice Presidents are the most appropriate individuals to contact with respect to divisional interest. Their names can be found on the masthead of each issue of ER. Members are reminded that the AERAbusiness meeting at the Annual Meeting represents an opportunity to meet with your elected officers and the chairs of standing committees of the Association.
8
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academicprofession:National, disciplinanr,and institutional settings (pp. 271-303). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationshipsin the social sciences (pp. 328-348). Chicago: Aldine. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987). A classificationof institutionsof highereducation.Princeton, NJ: Author. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Princeton University Press. Crane, D. (1982). Cultural differentiation, cultural integration, and social control. In J. P. Gibbs (Ed.), Socialcontrol:Viewsfromthe socialsciences (pp. 229-244). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyondadversan/democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Metzger, W. P. (1987). The academic profession in the United States. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), Theacademicprofession:National,disciplinarn,and institutionalsettings(pp. 123-208). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Wiebe, R. H. (1967). Thesearchfor order, 1877-1920, New York: Hill and Wang.
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER*
