View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Leaving the Ivory Tower: Vocational Application Orientation of Early Career Academics

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Leaving the Ivory Tower: Vocational Application Orientation of Early Career Academics
Language: English
Authors: Lerche, André D. S. (ORCID 0000-0002-1189-7322), Burk, Christian L., Wiese, Bettina S.
Source: Research in Higher Education. May 2023 64(3):402-422.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Graduates, Employees, STEM Education, College Students, Industry, Career Choice, Scientists
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-022-09702-x
ISSN: 0361-0365
1573-188X
Abstract: This study reports on the development and validation of a new construct of application orientation (AO), which we defined as a vocational orientation concerning the interest for certain principles, values, and activities that are common for university graduates working in applied (i.e., industrial) fields. Using a multi-study program with different samples, the new construct was conceptualized (Study 1) and validated (Studies 2-4). In a qualitative content analysis with N = 102 professionals (all of them having an academic degree mostly in the STEM disciplines), four central facets of applied (i.e., industrial) work were identified ("process orientation," "customer focus," "product focus," and "economic focus"). In a study with N = 200 university students and professionals with mixed disciplinary backgrounds (i.e., STEM but also non-STEM fields), the AO facets correlated with the RIASEC dimensions (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional; Holland, 1997) mostly as expected, and the AO facet "product focus" was predictive of the preference for applied work settings, supporting convergent validity assumptions. Discriminant validity of the AO facets was largely supported, examining average variance extracted by the AO factors compared to the RIASEC factors. In a known-groups validation study, AO was higher in N = 108 professionals from industry compared with N = 40 scientists (all from STEM fields) working at a university. In a sample of N = 128 early career scientists from the STEM fields, the AO facet "product focus" predicted applied work behavior in an assessment center.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1374490
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF6LkDmZj1ruERhOaHYTjIGAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLmGlqn4x78B17z11gIBEICBmzmcx5ytuolrzziB-Mr8_sO6GmAxEy1Ek6o-mLWr1x6lcIPGZADzytoua-0E-fzEtjQDzkkD-B9biJYejlXGWuOL05mckRZPmoc5LDOWKLp7WcfjXQEhygbYzrwSqO0TJXBP9yydvncVwTZ5sypsWhOwdh7o_dYC0TCgqBBZq3Y540m-YBzRNDnw3OD9Z8DE15WOFoGmr-zo49fJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163256209;rhe01may.23;2023Apr25.06:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163256209-1">Leaving the Ivory Tower: Vocational Application Orientation of Early Career Academics </title> <p>This study reports on the development and validation of a new construct of application orientation (AO), which we defined as a vocational orientation concerning the interest for certain principles, values, and activities that are common for university graduates working in applied (i.e., industrial) fields. Using a multi-study program with different samples, the new construct was conceptualized (Study 1) and validated (Studies 2–4). In a qualitative content analysis with N = 102 professionals (all of them having an academic degree mostly in the STEM disciplines), four central facets of applied (i.e., industrial) work were identified (process orientation, customer focus, product focus, and economic focus). In a study with N = 200 university students and professionals with mixed disciplinary backgrounds (i.e., STEM but also non-STEM fields), the AO facets correlated with the RIASEC dimensions (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional; Holland, 1997) mostly as expected, and the AO facet product focus was predictive of the preference for applied work settings, supporting convergent validity assumptions. Discriminant validity of the AO facets was largely supported, examining average variance extracted by the AO factors compared to the RIASEC factors. In a known-groups validation study, AO was higher in N = 108 professionals from industry compared with N = 40 scientists (all from STEM fields) working at a university. In a sample of N = 128 early career scientists from the STEM fields, the AO facet product focus predicted applied work behavior in an assessment center.</p> <p>Keywords: Application orientation; Career preferences; Vocational interests; Multi-study validation approach; Early career academics</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Whereas the use of standardized measures of vocational orientations is common for educational and early-stage career choices, they are rarely used for 'high-stakes' decision-making. Likewise, much of the literature on career exploration and vocational orientations focuses on high school students (Pike, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]). However, research has shown that career decision-making is also challenging for many highly educated professionals (Mangematin, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]), and many are undecided about which career trajectory to pursue (e.g., academia, private industry; Sauermann & Roach, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref3">53</reflink>]). Thus far, only one study has taken an in-depth look at an academia orientation (i.e., 'taste for science'; Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref4">52</reflink>]). Yet, little is known about the motivational and ability-related characteristics regarding an aspiration for non-academic careers.</p> <p>Our primary goal is to introduce the newly developed concept of application orientation (AO) to the higher education literature. We outline and empirically test its distinct components, which go beyond what has been suggested in previous conceptualizations. Our study advances the literature on vocational orientations regarding a specific occupational field (i.e., applied work) in a specific target population (i.e., early career academics). This 'diversification' of vocational orientations research has been frequently demanded (Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]; Wille et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref6">57</reflink>]) but has rarely been pursued (Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref7">52</reflink>]). Further, we suggest a self-report approach to make it measurable for both research and counseling purposes. Considering the relatively great indecisiveness of young scholars regarding whether to pursue a career inside or outside academia (Hancock & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]; Mangematin, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]), the demand for vocational guidance is high (Neumann & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). Policymakers in higher education, however, have criticized that career counseling for young scholars is often mainly concerned with academic aspirations (Borrell-Damian et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2018). Closing the knowledge gap concerning those who aspire toward "careers outside of the ivory tower" (Gemme & Gingras, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>], p. 680) is not only relevant theoretically but is also of practical importance for career counseling in higher education, as we should help young scholars to better understand their vocational aspirations and to improve informed career decision-making.</p> <p>We conceptualize and validate the new construct of AO and define it as a vocational orientation concerning the interest for certain principles, values, and activities that are common for university graduates working in applied (i.e., industrial) fields. Our studies are largely based on samples of highly educated individuals from STEM disciplines (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) as we suggest AO to be particularly characteristic for the work tasks these professionals face when entering industrial employment settings. Conducting four studies with different designs, each comprising a different sample, we conceptualize (Study 1) and validate (Studies 2–4) the new construct of AO. In Study 1, in a qualitative content analysis with employees holding a university degree and working in an industrial field (<emph>N</emph> = 102), we identified facets of applied work by categorizing open-format statements about what made their work an applied one (construct conceptualization). In Study 2, in a sample of university students and professionals (<emph>N</emph> = 200), based on self-report survey items, we analyzed similarities and differences (convergent and discriminant validity) of AO facets in relation to other concepts of vocational orientations (i.e., Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional [RIASEC] dimensions; Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). In Study 3, we investigated whether an AO scale adequately distinguishes between scores of highly educated professionals working in industry (<emph>N</emph> = 108) or academia (<emph>N</emph> = 40) by deploying a known-groups validation approach. Lastly, in Study 4, in a sample of early career scientists (<emph>N</emph> = 128), we used the AO facet <emph>product focus</emph> to predict actual applied work behavior as demonstrated in an assessment center one year later (i.e., criterion-related validity).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-3">Vocational Orientations of Early Career Academics</hd> <p>Most research on vocational orientations is conducted within the framework of person–environment fit. The investigation of vocational orientations has a long tradition, with the RIASEC typology (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]) constituting the most prominent and widely used framework for research and counseling purposes (Nauta, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]). Despite its unequivocal usefulness for examining broad interest types (e.g., social type, artistic type), scholars have recommended taking a 'fidelity' instead of a 'bandwidth' approach (see Cronbach & Gleser, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]) to not ignore variance within broad types (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]). For instance, if a person has a high score on the social dimension, this indicates a general interest to work with people but gives little information about specific social interactions, such as in customer service. Measures of vocational orientations that are domain-specific are expected to lead to incremental validity beyond the broad RIASEC types in predicting specific criteria (see Wille et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref18">57</reflink>]). Hence, 'fidelity' measures contribute to the advancement of the field of vocational orientations.</p> <p>Research has revealed that fewer than half of PhD students are aiming for an academic career (Neumann & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]). For a disciplinary perspective, STEM PhD students are less interested in an academic career than PhD students from other fields (e.g., humanities, social sciences; Haley et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]). Likewise, the share of graduates from science and engineering working in academia is comparably low (Lin & Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]). Despite the increasing employment rate of graduates in private industry (National Science Board, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]), young scholars have been suggested to not receive sufficient industry-related career guidance during graduate school (Borrell-Damian et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]; Main et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]). Careers in private industry are no longer a backup plan for many but the preferred path. Etmanski ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) concluded that higher education should provide young scholars with "optional initiatives geared towards career exploration beyond academia" (p. 355).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-4">Application Orientation: Conceptual Construct Definition</hd> <p>The starting point of our process of construct development and validation is a conceptual definition. The theoretical context of our newly proposed construct is the literature on vocational orientations (Schermer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref26">54</reflink>]), relating to an individual's preferences for specific career-related choices and activities reflecting certain positions ("what they care about and what they are looking for in a job"; Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref27">52</reflink>], p. 424). Vocational orientations are seen as dispositional trait-like factors that were found to be relatively stable across the lifespan (Low et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]). We define AO as a vocational orientation consisting of preferring tasks that are most commonly found in applied working fields. These tasks are typical for industrial work settings, which many STEM graduates enter. We further define AO as an aggregate multifaceted trait complex of vocational preferences that are functional for applied work. Moreover, we suggest AO to be an additive construct, consisting of facets that are tied together by their relevance to applied work settings (see MacKenzie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>We acknowledge that a substantial number of faculty members conduct both basic and applied research (Bentley et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]). Further, also higher education science managers 'apply' their knowledge for the benefit and success of universities and research institutions. Still, from the perspective of institutional culture differences (de Wit-de Vries et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]; D'Este & Perkmann, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]), applied research and work is prototypically associated with industry (i.e., the private sector/for-profit businesses as compared to academia/higher education, government, and non-profit organizations; Stephan, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>]). In industry the paramount objective is the generation of products and services that users can apply in real life (Agarwal & Ohyama, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]). As put by Perkmann and Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref36">47</reflink>], p. 1046), "appliedness" is mostly conceptualized as the "proximity to market" and in that sense as the occupational goal of generating "market-ready products or services". Accordingly, applied research commonly relates to market-oriented product development and technological innovation (Bentley et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]). That is why we conceptualize AO as a vocational orientation consisting of preferring tasks that are most commonly found in industrial settings that represent a typical employment environment for STEM graduates.</p> <p>But, of course, applied research does not only take place in disciplines which commonly engage with the generation of tangible products or technologies that are relevant to users (e.g., engineering). It is also found in, for instance, the social sciences (e.g., improving educational programs; Bentley et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]). Further, graduates of very different disciplinary fields (e.g., social sciences, medicine, law etc.) who leave academia to become practitioners (e.g., working as a counselor, physician or lawyer) often do so to work towards the goal of direct and concrete practical utility. An analysis on employment sectors of doctorate recipients, however, indicated major differences between disciplines: whereas industry was the largest employment sector for graduates from the STEM disciplines, the majority of graduates from the humanities, arts, education, psychology, and social sciences were employed in academia (National Center for Science & Engineering Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref40">41</reflink>]). Therefore, we define AO as a vocational orientation that is most relevant to professionals from the STEM disciplines.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-5">Study 1: Initial Explorative Content Analysis on Applied Work</hd> <p>In addition to defining the focal construct in reference to the relevant literature, MacKenzie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]) advise consulting practitioners and/or subject matter experts, thereby identifying "key aspects (or attributes) of the construct's domain" (p. 298). Hence, we conducted a qualitative content analysis with practitioners from applied work fields. We inductively explored the aspects that practitioners working in applied fields reported as representing their applied work. The qualitative analysis served the conceptualization of the construct.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-6">Materials and Methods</hd> <p>We focused on professionals in industry who met the formal requirement to enter different career options (e.g., academia, industry). Therefore, the sample consisted of <emph>N</emph> = 102 practitioners (4.9% doctoral degree holders) working in private industry (30.4% female, <emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 37.5, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.8) and having an academic degree (96.1% in STEM fields). Invitation emails were sent directly to potential study participants, and invitations were posted on (work-related) social media platforms. We asked participants to state comprehensively what made their work an applied one (open-format questionnaire). We evaluated their statements based on a content analysis approach involving two steps (Prior, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref42">51</reflink>]). First, three raters with extensive knowledge in I/O psychology discussed approximately half of the statements. Based on converging content, the statements were structured into facets of applied work. This structuring process was continued until no further facets were identified. Facet definitions were derived based on shared content of the statements. Next, the raters individually elaborated on the remaining statements. In the process, no additional facets were derived; thus, all remaining statements could be assigned to the existing facets. Because we believe that more pertinent facets would be mentioned more often, we calculated frequencies indicating the number of statements placed in each category.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-7">Results</hd> <p>As expected, the qualitative content analysis revealed applied work in industrial settings to be characterized by a heterogeneous set of facets. In sum, 16 facets of applied work were derived from the practitioners' statements (see Table 1). The four most frequently mentioned facets were <emph>business organization</emph>, <emph>customer focus, product focus</emph>, and <emph>quality control</emph>, with each of the four facets accounting for more than 10% of all statements.</p> <p>Table 1 Facets, Frequencies, and Definitions of Applied Work Facets (Study 1)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Facet and frequency (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Definition</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Business organization (22.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Organizing entire business processes, from planning to implementation and evaluation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Customer focus (15.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interacting with customers and focusing on customer satisfaction</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Product focus (14.1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Striving towards the production of (tangible and sellable) products</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality control (13.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Controlling quality standards of offered products, services, and systems</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working in interdisciplinary teams (6.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working on tasks together with people from diverse disciplines</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working with available on-site systems (5.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working with the technologies, systems, or software that customers work with</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Economic focus (4.1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Striving towards and adjusting one's own activities towards the generation of commercial profits and being cost effective</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Optimization (3.8)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improving one's own products and processes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working on multifaceted tasks (2.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working on tasks that go beyond the scope of one's own professional background</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personnel focus (2.7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Train employees and manage employee-related tasks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working with machines (2.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mechanically working with machines, tools, and other mechanical devices</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Guaranteeing secure functioning of processes and products (2.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prevent work and product-related hazards and ensure safety</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Being up to date on knowledge and skills (1.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Trying to be up to date on current developments and advancing one's own competencies to meet demands</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Broad basic knowledge and skills (1.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Possessing knowledge and skills in different areas relevant to one's own work</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Action focus (1.2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Aiming to realize plans</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generating innovative ideas (0.03)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Generating new and creative ideas</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>.<emph> N</emph> = 102. Participant statements of applied work characteristics were categorized by three raters into 16 facets. Frequency = percentage of statements in each category</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-8">Discussion</hd> <p>While some of the facets of applied work that we found in the content analysis clearly are central to industrial settings, such as a focus on economic issues and profitability (van der Sijde et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref43">56</reflink>]), others seem less specific (e.g., interdisciplinary teamwork). Since broad occupational fields (e.g., academia, industry) consist of various (heterogeneous) domains, it is necessary to focus on the most central ones. Therefore, for further analyses, we focused on the four AO facets that were mentioned most frequently in the qualitative content analysis (i.e., <emph>business organization</emph>, <emph>customer focus</emph>, <emph>product focus</emph>, <emph>quality control</emph>), in addition to the facet <emph>economic focus</emph>. Although <emph>economic focus</emph> was not mentioned as frequently as the other four facets, it can clearly be considered as particularly central to applied work (e.g., van der Sijde et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref44">56</reflink>]). Business logics is primarily concerned with financial profit, and scientists are employed in industry to transform scientific knowledge into economic gain (Agarwal & Ohyama, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]). The need to work towards economic profitability might have been self-evident to many of our participants working in industry and therefore not worth mentioning. Accordingly, due to its pivotal role in industry, we included this facet for further analyses. Of the total practitioner statements from the content analysis, nearly 70% were attributed to one of these five facets. In the following section, we discuss to what extent these AO facets resemble other motivational variables. We link them to theoretical frameworks and empirical findings, thus underlining their relevance for applied fields of work.</p> <p>A focus on the various processes that are relevant to businesses is captured by the facet <emph>business organization</emph>. The applied work facet <emph>quality control</emph> can be viewed as a component in the <emph>business organization</emph> strategy, focusing on evaluation and controlling of processes. A total of 36.0% of participant statements were categorized as either <emph>business organization</emph> or <emph>quality control</emph>. The two facets can be subsumed under the term of <emph>process orientation</emph>, which comprises an operational management perspective (e.g., planning, implementing, controlling; see Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]). <emph>Process orientation</emph> is crucial in industry, given that work units (e.g., R&D, manufacturing) consist of different personnel (e.g., researchers, manufacturers) and that places of work are spatially divided (e.g., laboratory, factory). To work efficiently, businesses must be systematically managed and coordinated. A systematic <emph>process orientation</emph> is less relevant in academia, where teaching and research are typically not as divided into different work units.</p> <p>Next, 15.4% of participant statements were categorized as <emph>customer focus</emph>. A focus on customers' wishes and needs manifests itself in an emphasis on interpersonal relationships and social interactions, putting effort into conveying information comprehensibly and a commitment to customer satisfaction. Customer orientation is a centerpiece of market-oriented businesses (Blocker et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]). In contrast, even though in higher education students are sometimes compared to customers, customer orientation is not seen as a defining feature of academic work settings in higher education.</p> <p>The third most commonly mentioned domain of applied work (14.1%) was <emph>product focus</emph> (aspiration to generate products serving a concrete and practical utility). This facet essentially characterizes market-oriented businesses (Brettel et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]). The desire to produce something tangible is part of the Realistic dimension of the RIASEC model (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]), which was found to be associated with occupations relevant for industry (e.g., manufacturing engineering; Prediger & Vansickle, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref50">50</reflink>]). Opposite to the goal of producing something with practical utility, outputs of academic work often are "measured in great part through prestige, legitimacy, and status and to a lesser degree through more tangible economic metrics" (Mendoza et al., 2018, p. 2).</p> <p>In addition to the four facets of applied work that were mentioned most frequently, we suggest the pursuit of cost effectiveness and commercial success — <emph>economic focus</emph> — to be of crucial relevance to applied work fields. Per definition, industry's chief aim is the generation of financial profits. In contrast, the primary goal of other fields of work (e.g., academia, government) is not necessarily related to commercial success. As expectations about work attributes shape career preferences (Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]) and as industrial work settings are prototypically associated with economic reasoning (van der Sijde et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref52">56</reflink>]), we included this facet in our analyses.</p> <p>In sum, the qualitative content analysis revealed applied work to consist of different facets. When investigating broad occupational fields (here, private industry), it is necessary to narrow down to the principal construct dimensions (Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>]). Thus, we zeroed in on a few domains of applied work for our analyses. Based on the initial findings from the construct conceptualization (Study 1), we next focused on the most central AO facets and investigated these facets with three validity studies, including convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and predictive validity.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-9">Measures of Application Orientation</hd> <p>Our next goal was the development of self-report measures. Item generation was conducted as follows (see MacKenzie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) newly developed items were generated by experts in the field of I/O psychology with extensive knowledge of the literature; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) we formulated items that represented the different facet definitions, which we derived from the empirical content analysis; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) when available, we drew upon and were inspired by related measures. Items for <emph>process orientation</emph> were developed partly building on the Process Orientation scale by Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]). For <emph>customer focus</emph>, we were inspired by the Market Orientation scales (Deshpandé & Farley, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]) and the Sociability scale of the Business-Focused Inventory of Personality (Hossiep & Paschen, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]). The item generation of <emph>product focus</emph> was inspired by the Creativity Styles Questionnaire (Kumar et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]). Lastly, for the items of the facet <emph>economic focus</emph>, we drew upon the Cost Orientation scale (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]) and the Preference Inventory (Amabile et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>]). The items represented each facet's conceptual domain, which was outlined in the content analysis (see Table 1). Although the above scales bear some resemblance to AO, none of them fully captures the different aspects of a vocational orientation towards applied work fields. Hence, our measures exhibit incremental validity over the existing scales, given that they represent the conceptual breadth of the new construct. Since we conducted different validity studies with different samples, items had slightly distinct content, and precise item wording partly varied, even though the central content of the facets was consistently assessed.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-10">Study 2: Convergent and Discriminant Validity in Relation to RIASEC</hd> <p>We investigated AO in relation to other constructs of vocational orientations, and we expected our AO facets to be related to but still be distinguishable from other relevant constructs. Here, we examined convergent and discriminant validity of specific AO facets in relation to the RIASEC dimensions (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]). Each RIASEC dimension is characterized by specific personality-related attributes (e.g., interests, values, beliefs) as well as environmental demands and opportunities (e.g., incentives, working conditions).</p> <p>First, we propose that the Enterprising (E) dimension resembles AO in several ways. E-type individuals are motivated by economic achievements and value materialistic outcomes, which corresponds to <emph>economic focus</emph> with its emphasis on cost-effectiveness and financial success. Industrially working professionals care particularly much for their level of income in comparison to academics (Erez & Shneorson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]). E-type individuals are also suggested to often work in sales, where they can be expected to commonly work with tangible and practically useful products that they sell to others. An aspiration to sell practical objects resembles the AO facet <emph>product focus</emph>. Moreover, E-type individuals commonly possess persuasive competencies that are beneficial whenever others need to be motivated to purchase products. This links the E-dimension to the AO facet <emph>customer focus</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-11">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1a</emph>: The Enterprising dimension is positively associated with the AO facets <emph>economic focus</emph>, <emph>product focus</emph>, and <emph>customer focus</emph>.</p> <p>Second, Realistic (R) type individuals typically value concrete things and practical work outcomes, which closely resembles the AO facet <emph>product focus</emph>. In addition, in an R-environment, people are rewarded for the display of "traditional values", such as a concern for money (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>], p. 43). They are expected to strive for material rewards and to focus on the economic outcomes of their work. Similarly, <emph>economic focus</emph> emphasizes the striving for profitability.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-12">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1b</emph>: The Realistic dimension is positively associated with the AO facets <emph>product focus</emph> and <emph>economic focus</emph>.</p> <p>Third, Conventional (C) environments are suggested to reward people for the display of "conventional... values", such as a focus on monetary issues (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>], p. 47). C-type individuals are expected to frequently work as accountants or bank employees, that is, in jobs related to finance. They are assumed to care about materialistic outcomes and are described as efficient, linking the C-type to the AO facet <emph>economic focus</emph>. Furthermore, they prefer systematic work flows and aim to control work activities. This resembles the AO facet <emph>process orientation</emph> and its focus on systematically organized work processes.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-13">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1c</emph>: The Conventional dimension is positively associated with the AO facets <emph>economic focus</emph> and <emph>process orientation</emph>.</p> <p>Fourth, Social (S) individuals are inclined to work with people, for instance, in jobs where they can inform and advise or take the perspective of others. They are described as cooperative, persuasive, and helpful. Professionals in industry have been found to exhibit a higher preference for persuading others in comparison to non-industrially working professionals (Erez & Shneorson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>]). As the S-dimension consists of heterogeneous aspects relating to various interpersonal interactions, it entails more than a focus on customer interaction. However, regarding the persuasion and advisory components of the S-dimension, it can be suggested to converge with <emph>customer focus</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-14">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1d</emph>: The Social dimension is positively associated with the AO facet <emph>customer focus</emph>.</p> <p>In comparison to academicians, professionals working in industry have been shown to exhibit lower artistic preferences (Erez & Shneorson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]), and artistic individuals are described as impractical and as lacking business competencies (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]). This differs from the AO facets.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-15">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1e</emph>: The Artistic dimension is not or negatively associated with the AO facets.</p> <p>Investigative (I) persons are expected to seek intellectual instead of practical work and are described as being frustrated when having to persuade others (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref71">29</reflink>]). Moreover, academicians care for autonomy of work processes and exhibit comparably low interest in income (Burk & Wiese, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]). This indicates AO to be different from the I-type.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-16">Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>1f</emph>: The Investigative dimension is not or negatively associated with the AO facets.</p> <p>In addition, we investigated the relation between the AO facets as well as the RIASEC dimensions and the preference for applied work settings.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-17">Hypothesis 2</hd> <p>More variance of the preference for applied work settings is explained by the AO facets than by the RIASEC dimensions.</p> <p>To examine discriminant validity, we calculated each facet's average variance extracted (AVE). We then compared AVE coefficients with the variance explained by the RIASEC factors (squared factor correlations). If the variance explained by the respective factor is higher than the one explained by any other factor, this would indicate discriminant validity of the latent construct in relation to the other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref73">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-18">Materials and Methods</hd> <p>The sample of this study (online questionnaire) consisted of <emph>N</emph> = 200 individuals (67.0% female, <emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 27.8, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.9). Given that in this study we investigated general personality-related tendencies and occupational preferences, we did not solely focus on professionals. The sample consisted of undergraduate students (65.5%) and professionals with an academic degree (34.5%). Participants had backgrounds in different disciplines (46.5% law, economics, social sciences; 31.0% STEM; 15.5% humanities; 20.0% other; participants could indicate more than one discipline). Professionals worked in different fields, with private industry being the main occupational field. Participants were recruited via email and announcements on (work-related) social media platforms.</p> <p>Based on structural equations modeling, we conducted a latent correlation analysis and a latent regression analysis. Considering that each latent variable consisted of only three items, and as lower numbers of indicators go along with lower internal consistency, reliability coefficients of the latent variables can be interpreted as adequate (see Cortina, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref74">15</reflink>]; Table 2). The items for <emph>process orientation</emph> were as follows: Responsibilities of work processes should be clearly assigned; The target compliance of work processes should be monitored; Work processes should be precisely defined for employees to have a clear understanding thereof. The items for <emph>customer focus</emph> were as follows: I enjoy advising others; I do not really like to explain things to others, to advise them, or to make recommendations (inverted); I am not very excited about 'selling' my ideas to others (inverted). The items for <emph>product focus</emph> were as follows: My work should have tangible utility and should not solely help find the truth; In my view, my work should always have a direct practical utility instead of solely serving fundamental research; I am particularly motivated if I develop a concrete product. The items for <emph>economic focus</emph> were as follows: I care about the financial profit my work contributes to the organization I am working for; It is important to me that my work translates into economic success; Employees should have an overview of what their work contributes financially to their organization. Responses had to be given on a six-point scale from 1 = <emph>I do not agree at all</emph> to 6 = <emph>I totally agree</emph>. For the RIASEC items, we used a six-point scale (1 = <emph>Does not interest me at all</emph>, 6 = <emph>Interests me very much</emph>) of an established German version of a RIASEC inventory (Bergmann & Eder, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref75">6</reflink>]), with three indicators for each dimension.</p> <p>Prior to hypothesis testing, we investigated the factor structure of our empirical data. We examined whether a one-factor model fitted the data better than a primary-factor model, testing the suggested multidimensional nature of AO. Comparing fit indices of a one-factor CFA (χ2 = 288.40, <emph>df</emph> = 54, RMSEA = 0.15, CFI = 0.46, SRMR = 0.11) to a primary-factor CFA (factors were allowed to correlate) consisting of the four AO facets (χ2 = 81.83, <emph>df</emph> = 48, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.06), we found the primary-factor model to exhibit a much better fit. This supported our expectations about the multidimensional nature of AO. Accordingly, for our analyses, we deployed the four AO facets separately.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-19">Results</hd> <p>For Hypotheses 1a–1f, correlational analyses largely supported our assumptions (see Table 2). Of the eight associations between the AO facets and the RIASEC dimensions that we expected to be significant and positive, seven supported our hypotheses. Only the association between <emph>product focus</emph> and the R-dimension was not significant. Moreover, as expected, the A- and I-dimensions were unrelated or negatively related to the AO facets. Concerning Hypothesis 2, we conducted a latent regression analysis predicting the preference for applied work settings. Of the AO facets and the RIASEC dimensions, only <emph>product focus</emph> significantly predicted the preference for applied work settings (β<subs>strd</subs> = 0.60, <emph>p</emph> <.01).</p> <p>Evaluating discriminant validity, in nearly all cases the variance of the AO indicators explained by their respective factor (AVE) was higher than the variance explained by the other factors. Only for <emph>customer focus</emph>, more variance was accounted for by the Social (62.4%) and the Enterprising dimensions (46.2%) than by the latent construct <emph>customer focus</emph> itself (40.6%).</p> <p>Table 2 Correlations between Factors of AO Facets and RIASEC Dimensions (Study 2)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Factor</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>AO facets</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process orientation</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Customer focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.66</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Product focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.20*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Economic focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.20*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RIASEC dimensions</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Realistic</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.14</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.34</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Investigative</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Artistic</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.20*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.27**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.79</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.29**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enterprising</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.68</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.28</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.24</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Conventional</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.37</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>0.28</bold>**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.18*</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.21*</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. AO = Application Orientation, RIASEC = hexagonal model of vocational personality types. Hypothesized positive associations between the latent AO facets and the RIASEC dimensions are printed in bold. Coefficient Omega is in the diagonal *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-20">Discussion</hd> <p>We found the results to largely support our hypotheses. Corroborating convergent validity, nearly all AO facets correlated with the RIASEC dimensions in the expected manner. Only the hypothesized association between <emph>product focus</emph> and the R-dimension was not significant. This result was unexpected, as R-type individuals are assumed to strive towards the production of tangible products. However, the R-type is also defined by preferences for technical and mechanical activities. This component is not necessarily related to the desire to produce something tangible and might explain why <emph>product focus</emph> did not significantly correlate with the R-dimension. In general, however, the study supports our multifaceted conceptualization of AO, with each facet representing a distinct aspect. The multifaceted approach captures AO more accurately than a typological approach and allows revealing facet-specific variance that would not have been possible if we had relied on the RIASEC types (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>]). This study contributes to the literature by heeding recommendations to investigate specific domains of vocational orientations (Wille et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>]), which are functional for predicting specific work-related criteria.</p> <p>The latent regression analysis revealed <emph>product focus</emph> to be the factor leading to the highest prediction of the preference for applied work settings. Thus, the interest to produce something tangible with practical utility that can be sold is indicated to be of particular relevance for applied work interests. This result is supported by empirical findings, suggesting a focus on sellable products with concrete customer value as one of the defining characteristics of market-oriented (i.e., industrial) organizations (e.g., Brettel et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref78">10</reflink>]). In addition, <emph>product focus</emph> might have been the only significant predictor of the preference for applied work settings, because the emphasis on product manufacturing links <emph>product focus</emph> to work environments where tangible goods are generated (i.e., industry). The other three AO facets, in contrast, are not as exclusive to private industry. Moreover, the broad applicability of the RIASEC dimensions, which are not tailored for one specific work field, might explain why none of these dimensions predicted the preference for applied work.</p> <p>Supporting discriminant validity assumptions, the variance explained by the respective latent constructs was higher than the variance explained by any other latent construct. Only for <emph>customer focus</emph>, more variance was explained by the S- and E-dimensions. This reveals the AO facet to possess a substantial amount of variance that is not unique to the latent construct but to other constructs. Although in the initial content analysis we found a focus on interacting with customers to be relevant to industrially working individuals, the focus on customers might be less distinct from social interactions taking place in other professional settings than we had expected.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-21">Study 3: Known-Groups Validity in an Applied vs. Academic Sample</hd> <p>If our conceptualization of AO represents applied fields of work, scores of AO should differ between university graduates working in an industrial setting compared to those not working in an applied setting (i.e., academia). This form of validity is termed 'known-groups validation' (e.g., Cronbach & Meehl, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref79">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-22">Hypothesis 3</hd> <p>Scores on AO facets are higher in applied working professionals in comparison to non-applied working professionals.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-23">Materials and Methods</hd> <p>The sample of the study (online questionnaire) consisted of <emph>N</emph> = 166 professionals with an academic degree (30.1% female, <emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 37.8, <emph>SD</emph> = 12.0). Participants had backgrounds in different STEM fields: 59.6% engineering, 25.9% sciences, 7.8% computer science, 4.2% mathematics, and 6.0% other STEM field (participants could indicate more than one discipline). Participants were recruited via email or responded to announcements posted on (work-related) social media platforms. While <emph>N</emph> = 108 participants were employed in an applied field, <emph>N</emph> = 40 were employed in academia (the remaining sample reported other fields). We used a short AO questionnaire with three items per facet. <emph>Process orientation</emph>: Work processes should be precisely defined for employees to have a clear understanding thereof; The target compliance of work processes should be monitored; Occupational success should be measured based on specific sub-goals for work processes. <emph>Customer focus</emph>: It is important to closely follow customer's needs; I focus on regularly exchanging with customers; If the customer is satisfied with my work, I am satisfied, too. <emph>Product focus</emph>: My work should have tangible utility and should not solely help find the truth; In my view, my work should always have a direct practical utility instead of solely serving fundamental research; I am particularly motivated to work towards a sellable product. <emph>Economic focus</emph>: It is important to me that my work translates into economic success; When making career decisions, I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself; I need to feel that what I do is financially worthwhile. Responses had to be given on a six-point scale from 1 = <emph>I do not agree at all</emph> to 6 = <emph>I totally agree</emph>.</p> <p>For hypothesis testing, we split the total sample into two subsamples (industry employment <emph>N</emph> = 108, academia employment <emph>N</emph> = 40). This led to relatively small sizes of subsamples (especially regarding the academia subsample). Therefore, latent analyses could not be executed. Hence, we conducted one-way analyses of variance testing group differences between industrially vs. academically employed individuals with manifest means of the four AO facets as dependent variables, controlling for age and gender. Internal consistencies (Omega) of the AO facets were satisfactory (<emph>process orientation</emph> = 0.75, <emph>customer focus</emph> = 0.68, <emph>product focus</emph> = 0.74, <emph>economic focus</emph> = 0.77).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-24">Results</hd> <p>As expected, we found scores on the AO facets to differ between industrially vs. academically employed individuals. On all four AO facets, scores were higher in the industry compared to the academia subsample (see Table 3). The effect size (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) for <emph>customer focus</emph> can be interpreted as small, for <emph>process orientation</emph> as medium, and for <emph>product focus</emph> and <emph>economic focus</emph> as high.</p> <p>Table 3 Analyses of Variance comparing Mean Scores of AO Facets in Professionals working in Industry vs. Academia (Study 3)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><underline>Industry</underline></p></th><th align="left"><p><underline>Academia</underline></p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>AO facets</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>d</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process orientation</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.71 (0.80)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.01 (1.16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Customer focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.03 (0.85)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.63 (0.98)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Product focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.40 (0.86)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.58 (1.23)</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Economic focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.21 (0.87)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.22 (1.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> AO = Application Orientation. <emph>N</emph> = 108 professionals in industry, <emph>N</emph> = 40 professionals in academia. <emph>d</emph> = Cohen's <emph>d</emph></p> <hd id="AN0163256209-25">Discussion</hd> <p>Deploying a known-groups validation approach, we were able to confirm that scores on AO are higher in individuals working in applied settings compared with individuals working in academia. Concerns may arise regarding the origin of these group differences. Theories on career choice suggest individuals to enter specific fields based on vocational orientations (e.g., Holland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>]), but one might also argue that characteristics of the work environment and work-related personality reinforce each other. In other words, both (self-)selection and socialization processes take place. To test whether AO scores are influenced by field-specific work experiences, we conducted an additional correlation analysis, which only consisted of participants consistently working in industry (<emph>n</emph> = 70). If vocational orientations are the result of organizational socialization and preferences for one's current job, professionals with more work experiences (as measured here with the proxy variable of age) should exhibit higher scores in AO compared to less experienced professionals. The empirical findings, however, revealed that field-specific work experience was not associated with scores on AO in professionals consistently working in industry. This suggests that even though work-related personality dimensions may become more firmly established over time, vocational orientations are not merely the result of organizational socialization processes but start forming earlier and get more stable gradually (see Low et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref81">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>A limitation of this study concerns the relatively small sample size, particularly regarding academically employed individuals. Nonetheless, we found significant grouping effects (industry vs. academia employment) on all four AO facets, with particularly large differences in <emph>product focus</emph> and <emph>economic focus</emph>. Thus, the results clearly underline the validity of the AO facets.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-26">Study 4: Predictive Validity for Actual Behavior</hd> <p>As vocational orientations should influence real-life outcomes, we tested the criterion-related validity of one particularly relevant AO facet by investigating its predictive power for actual performance in an applied work task. As the AO facet <emph>product focus</emph> was by far the strongest predictor of the preference of applied work settings in the previously conducted latent regression analysis (Study 2), due to parsimony and practical reasons, we only measured <emph>product focus</emph> as a predictor in Study 4. We assessed this AO facet by self-report at the first measurement point and conducted an on-site assessment center at the second measurement point. In the assessment center, we collected behavioral data by actively confronting participants with specific environmental cues as part of a behavioral simulation task that they were required to perform. It is widely acknowledged that for the assessment of specific observable phenomena, behavioral measures as implemented in an assessment center are particularly suitable.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-27">Hypothesis 4</hd> <p>The AO facet <emph>product focus</emph> predicts individuals' behavior in applied work interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-28">Materials and Methods</hd> <p>The sample for this study was drawn from a larger longitudinal survey project with more than 3,500 early career scientists from the STEM fields (for further details on the project, see Alisic & Wiese, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>]; Burk & Wiese, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]; Claus et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref84">14</reflink>]; Lerche et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref85">33</reflink>]; Noppeney et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>]). Participants of the larger project were invited to take part in an on-site assessment center. A total of <emph>N</emph> = 128 individuals participated (77.6% doctoral students, 22.4% doctorate holders, 49.2% female, <emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 30.6, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.4; STEM fields: 40.6% sciences, 39.8% engineering, 7.0% computer science, 3.9% mathematics, 8.7% other). The assessment center served the purpose of helping young scientists learn about personal strengths and potential for improvement as well as vocational preferences. As an incentive, participants received individual performance feedback.</p> <p>Data for the analysis of predictive validity were collected at two measurement points, with an average interval of 12.8 months in between (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.4): (T1) three-item self-report measure on <emph>product focus</emph>, and (T2) behavioral simulation at an assessment center. Due to space restrictions in the T1 survey, we focused on only one AO facet. The three-item measure for <emph>product focus</emph> revealed satisfactory internal consistency (ω = 0.71). The items for <emph>product focus</emph> were as follows: My work should have tangible utility and should not solely help find the truth; My work makes particular sense to me if I can produce something that can be sold or is valued amongst individuals outside my subject area; In my view, my work should always have a direct practical utility instead of solely serving fundamental research. Responses had to be given on a six-point scale from 1 = <emph>I do not agree at all</emph> to 6 = <emph>I totally agree</emph>.</p> <p>The behavioral simulation consisted of a face-to-face interaction in which we assessed two dimensions indicative of applied work: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>) conveying and communicating an understanding of industry-related activities, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>) enthusiasm for business collaboration. The first indicator focuses on a cognitive component, that is, participants' understanding of and insight into industrial working conditions as well as goals and principles as to be observed in an interaction with a client. The second indicator puts emphasis on enthusiasm for business collaboration, thus on a dimension with a distinct motivational and behavioral focus. To be rated as enthusiastic for business collaboration, participants needed to clearly demonstrate that they actively promote and are even keen on gaining practical industry experience and collaborating with industry partners.</p> <p>Based on their personal interests, participants could choose one out of two scenarios (i.e., civil engineering scenario or electrical/mechanical engineering scenario). In the role play, participants had to act like a young engineer working at an academic institute. They had to represent the institute in a negotiation with a female business representative. Her enterprise wanted to launch a newly developed product. The enterprise approached the institute to gain positive marketing effects out of an independent scientific product evaluation. The interaction partner was a professional actor (four different actors in total), who was trained to consistently set certain behavioral prompts. They played a profit-oriented, competitive, self-confident, and provocative business representative with good negotiation skills, aiming for quick yet satisfying results produced at minimal cost. Prior to the actual role play, participants received a message from the head of the institute, outlining the importance of high standards of scientific work (e.g., need for basic research, methodological soundness). Contextualization of this message (i.e., embeddedness in an authentic framework) was achieved by a richness of detail and a realistic setting.</p> <p>The assessment center tasks were videotaped and rated by three psychologists and students majoring in psychology. Assessors were provided with a behaviorally anchored written coding system and received coding training. Codings had to be made on six-point scales, indicating the extent of participants' applied behavior. Mean scores were computed based on individual assessor ratings. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using a one-way random, average-measures intra-class correlation, indicating acceptable reliability (> 0.40; Cicchetti, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref89">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>To predict actual applied work behavior, we conducted a latent regression analysis in a structural equations framework. Prior to hypothesis testing, we examined several control variables that might affect our central outcome variable. First, we controlled for career level, expecting PhD students to exhibit more interest in applied work in contrast to PhD holders who already decided to continue working in academia after graduating. In addition, we controlled for STEM field, as we suggested engineering and computer scientists to show a stronger preference for applied work in comparison to other STEM scientists (e.g., mathematicians). Furthermore, regarding the behavioral simulation, we controlled for the performance of the different actors, participants' experience in negotiation situations, and observers' overall positive impression of participants (with generally more skilled participants potentially receiving more favorable ratings).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-29">Results</hd> <p>Because two of the control variables significantly correlated with the outcome (i.e., observers' overall positive impression of participants, <emph>r</emph> =.70, <emph>p</emph> <.01; participants' experience in negation situations, <emph>r</emph> =.22, <emph>p</emph> <.05), they were included as additional predictors in the regression analysis (χ<sups>2</sups> = 18.12, <emph>df</emph> = 12, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.05). Over and above the control variables, <emph>product focus</emph>, which we assessed approximately one year before conducting the assessment center, significantly predicted participants' applied work behavior (β = 0.25, <emph>p</emph> =.01).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-30">Discussion</hd> <p>In the regression analysis, we clearly demonstrated the predictive validity of the short measure of <emph>product focus</emph>. It predicted how people behaved in an applied work role play regarding an affinity for and understanding of industry-related tasks and their enthusiasm for business collaboration. Past research has shown that associations of the same variable assessed with different measurement formats (e.g., self-report questionnaire vs. behavioral simulation) are comparably low (Bowler & Woehr, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>]). The more impressive is the size of the time-lagged association between the short scale of <emph>product focus</emph> and the behavioral criterion.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-31">General discussion</hd> <p>The primary aim of this study was to conceptualize and validate a new concept of AO. Using a multi-study design consisting of an open-format questionnaire, standardized questionnaires, and an assessment center study with behavioral data, our validation approach led to convincing results. We investigated various validity aspects of the new construct (i.e., factorial validity, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and predictive validity) with different samples, thereby strengthening the validation approach (MacKenzie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref91">36</reflink>]). Together, this study corroborated specific validity assumptions of the construct. Therefore, we consider AO to be a valid contribution to the literature on specific vocational orientations of early career academics.</p> <p>In the content analysis (Study 1), professionals working in industry indicated applied work to be multifaceted. Based on theoretical frameworks and the empirical results of the content analysis, we found four facets of applied work to be particularly relevant: <emph>process orientation</emph>, <emph>customer focus</emph>, <emph>product focus</emph>, and <emph>economic focus</emph>. The multifaceted nature was supported by a CFA, revealing a model with separate factors of the AO facets to fit the empirical data better than a one-factor model (Study 2). A latent regression analysis (Study 2) revealed the preference for applied work settings to be most strongly predicted by <emph>product focus</emph>. Investigating correlations between the AO facets and the RIASEC dimensions (Study 2), nearly all postulated correlations were significant. We further found support for discriminant validity assumptions, as in most cases the variances of the indicators of the AO facets were explained more strongly by their respective factor than by the other factors. In a known-groups validity approach (Study 3), AO scores were higher in applied working individuals than in individuals working in academia. Lastly, we found a self-report measure of <emph>product focus</emph> to predict actual behavioral performance in an applied work task one year later (Study 4).</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-32">Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Prospects</hd> <p>The conceptualization and validation approach for our newly developed construct had several strengths. Clearly, the complex multi-study mixed methods design is the greatest strength. Concerning measurement, we collected not just written-format questionnaire data (self-report) but also behavioral data in a role play (external rater judgments), thereby strengthening validity assumptions and avoiding common method bias (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref92">49</reflink>]). Relating to sampling, we used different samples for the various validation studies, thereby further strengthening validity evidence (see DeVellis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref93">20</reflink>]). Moreover, the assessment center study was a longitudinal one. Another strength is the primary focus on highly educated professionals, investigating vocational orientations in a group that is pivotal to both academia and industry (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2018).</p> <p>As in any research, there were also limitations to our study. First, we did not have data on actual career transitions or career success. Second, we conducted a behavioral simulation that depicted only one specific work-related situation. Third, for the different validity studies, which were partly conducted simultaneously, we used different samples and somewhat varying AO items. We focused primarily on the initial conceptualization and validation of the construct of AO, not on a rigorous scale development. The latter would entail many different steps (e.g., item analysis, cross-validation, development of norms). But as pointed out by Nunnally and Bernstein ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref94">46</reflink>]), though in the process of a new construct development various steps need to be considered, often not all steps can be realized at once. Since our primary goal was an initial conceptualization and validation of the construct of AO, we needed to prioritize which steps were most relevant, economic, and practical for our principal research aim (MacKenzie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>]). We consider our study to be an important starting point, which next should foster a comprehensive psychometric scale development. For an AO scale to exhibit practical utility in higher education counseling, some of the items need to be tailored more specifically toward the circumstances and conditions that students and graduates face. Customer focus, for instance, should pertain not only to customers in sales but also to funding agencies and third-party sponsors. However, although the AO items were not developed exclusively for PhD students and holders, we propose that even in their current form they are suitable to be used in a higher education counseling context and can contribute to better informed career decision-making of early career scholars.</p> <p>Clearly, applied work is multifaceted. In our analyses, we focused on four AO aspects. Further studies should investigate a fuller range of AO facets to draw a more complete picture of applied work. With respect to sampling, we mainly focused on early career academics from the STEM fields. Future research must show whether AO plays a comparable role in non-STEM disciplines (e.g., social or economic sciences) and whether the concept of AO must be modified to be more applicable for non-STEM disciplines. Finally, the interest in applied work should be more explicitly contrasted with the interest in academic work (see Roach & Sauermann, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref96">52</reflink>]) to ultimately come up with a full-range vocational orientation model in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-33">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Deutschland) under grant number 16FWN009.</p> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-34">Materials and/or code availability</hd> <p>The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-35">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163256209-36">Conflicts of interest/Competing interests</hd> <p>There are no conflicts of interest to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-37">Compliance with ethical standards</hd> <p>Study participants provided informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-38">Author note</hd> <p>This work is part of a dissertation of the first author and was designed and conducted within a research program on STEM-graduates' careers for which Bettina S. Wiese and Christian L. Burk function as principal coinvestigators.</p> <hd id="AN0163256209-39">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0163256209-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref35" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agarwal R, Ohyama A. Industry or academia, basic or applied? Career choices and earnings trajectories of scientists. Management Science. 2013; 59; 4: 950-970. 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref56" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alisic, A, & Wiese, B. S. (2020). Keeping an insecure career under control: The longitudinal interplay of career insecurity, self-management, and self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref57" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM. The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 66; 5: 950-967. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong PI, Day SX, McVay JP, Rounds J. Holland's RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2008; 55; 1: 1-18. 10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bentley PJ, Gulbrandsen M, Kyvik S. The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education. 2015; 70; 4: 689-709. 10.1007/s10734-015-9861-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref75" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bergmann, C, & Eder, F. (1992). Allgemeiner Interessen-Struktur-Test / Umwelt-Struktur-Test [General interest-structure-questionnaire / Environment-structure-questionnaire]. Beltz</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref47" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blocker CP, Flint DJ, Myers MB, Slater SF. Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2011; 39; 2: 216-233. 10.1007/s11747-010-0202-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Borrell-Damian L, Brown T, Dearing A, Font J, Hagen S, Metcalfe J, Smith J. Collaborative doctoral education: University-industry partnerships for enhancing knowledge exchange. Higher Education Policy. 2010; 23; 4: 493-514. 10.1057/hep.2010.20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref90" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowler MC, Woehr DJ. A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006; 91; 5: 1114-1124. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brettel M, Heinemann F, Engelen A, Neubauer S. Cross-functional integration of R&D, marketing, and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2011; 28; 2: 251-269. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00795.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burk CL, Wiese BS. Professor or manager? A model of motivational orientations applied to preferred career paths. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018; 75: 113-132. 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.06.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen H, Tian Y, Daugherty PJ. Measuring process orientation. International Journal of Logistics Management. 2009; 20; 2: 213-227. 10.1108/09574090910981305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994; 6; 4: 284-290. 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Claus, A. M, Arend, M. G, Burk, C. L, Kiefer, C, & Wiese, B. S. (2020). Cross-classified models in I/O psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78; 1: 98-104. 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach, L. J, & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. University of Illinois Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin. 1955; 52; 4: 281-302. 10.1037/h0040957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Wit-de Vries E, Dolfsma WA, van der Windt HJ, Gerkema MP. Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2019; 44; 4: 1236-1255. 10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deshpandé R, Farley JU. Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management. 1998; 2; 3: 213-232. 10.1023/A:1009719615327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Este P, Perkmann M. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2011; 36; 3: 316-339. 10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erez M, Shneorson Z. Personality types and motivational characteristics of academics versus professionals in industry in the same occupational discipline. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1980; 17; 1: 95-105. 10.1016/0001-8791(80)90019-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etmanski B. The prospective shift away from academic career aspirations. Higher Education. 2019; 77; 1: 343-358. 10.1007/s10734-018-0278-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18; 1: 39-50. 10.2307/3151312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gemme B, Gingras Y. Academic careers for graduate students: A strong attractor in a changed environment. Higher Education. 2012; 63; 6: 667-683. 10.1007/s10734-011-9466-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hancock S, Walsh E. Beyond knowledge and skills: Rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate. Studies in Higher Education. 2016; 41; 1: 37-50. 10.1080/03075079.2014.915301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haley KJ, Jaeger AJ, Levin JS. The influence of cultural social identity on graduate student career choice. Journal of College Student Development. 2014; 55; 2: 101-119. 10.1353/csd.2014.0017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, J.-I. C. (2019). Interest inventories. In G. Goldstein, D. N. Allen, & J. DeLuca (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed, pp. 169–190). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802203-0.00006-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hossiep, R, & Paschen, M. (2003). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung [Business-focused Inventory of Personality] (2nd ed.). Hogrefe</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar VK, Kemmler D, Holman ER. The creativity styles questionnaire - Revised. Creativity Research Journal. 1997; 10; 1: 51-58. 10.1207/s15326934crj1001_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee YS. 'Technology transfer' and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy. 1996; 25; 6: 843-863. 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00857-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerche, A. D. S, Burk, C. L, & Wiese, B. S. (2022). Dynamics between applied work demands and related competence beliefs: A 4-year study with scientists. Journal of Career Development, 49(2), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320941593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin ES, Chiu S-Y. Does holding a postdoctoral position bring benefits for advancing to academia?. Research in Higher Education. 2016; 57; 3: 335-362. 10.1007/s11162-015-9388-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Low KSD, Yoon M, Roberts BW, Rounds J. The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131; 5: 713-737. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. Mis Quarterly. 2011; 35; 2: 293-334. 10.2307/23044045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Main JB, Wang Y, Tan L. Preparing industry leaders: The role of doctoral education and early career management training in the leadership trajectories of women STEM PhDs. Research in Higher Education. 2022; 63; 3: 400-424. 10.1007/s11162-021-09655-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangematin V. PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy. 2000; 29; 6: 741-756. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00047-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendoza P, Ocal SD, Wang Z, Zhou E. Faculty norms and university/industry linkages in STEMM. Studies in Higher Education. 2020; 45; 7: 1474-1487. 10.1080/03075079.2018.1541451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2018). Graduate STEM education for the 21st century. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2020 (NSF 22–300). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/report</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Board (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. National Science Foundation. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf">www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nauta MM. The development, evolution, and status of Holland's theory of vocational personalities: Reflections and future directions for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2010; 57; 1: 11-22. 10.1037/a0018213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann R, Tan KK. From PhD to initial employment: The doctorate in a knowledge economy. Studies in Higher Education. 2011; 36; 5: 601-614. 10.1080/03075079.2011.594596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noppeney, R, Stertz, A. M, & Wiese, B. S. (2021). Career goal profiles of early career scientists: A person-centered approach. Journal of Career Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211017235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C, & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkmann M, Walsh K. The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2009; 18; 6: 1033-1065. 10.1093/icc/dtp015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pike GR. Vocational preferences and college expectations: An extension of Holland's principle of self-selection. Research in Higher Education. 2006; 47; 5: 591-612. 10.1007/s11162-005-9008-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88; 5: 879-903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger DJ, Vansickle TR. Locating occupations on Holland's hexagon: Beyond RIASEC. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1992; 40; 2: 111-128. 10.1016/0001-8791(92)90060-D</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, L. (2014). Content analysis. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 359–379). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roach M, Sauermann H. A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy. 2010; 39; 3: 422-434. 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sauermann H, Roach M. Why pursue the postdoc path?. Science. 2016; 352; 6286: 663-664. 10.1126/science.aaf2061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schermer, J. A. (2016). Vocational interests. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_801-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephan PE. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature. 1996; 34; 3: 1199-1235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Sijde, P, David, F, Frederik, H, & Redondo Carretero, M. (2014). University-business cooperation: A tale of two logics. In T. Kliewe & T. Kesting (Eds.), Modern concepts of organisational marketing (pp. 145–160). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04680-4_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wille B, De Fruyt F, Dingemanse SA, Vergauwe J. A closer look at the psychological diversity within Holland interest types: Construct validation of the Career Insight Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 2015; 67; 3: 234-257. 10.1037/cpb0000041</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By André D. S. Lerche; Christian L. Burk and Bettina S. Wiese</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref94"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1374490
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Leaving the Ivory Tower: Vocational Application Orientation of Early Career Academics
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lerche%2C+André+D%2E+S%2E%22">Lerche, André D. S.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1189-7322">0000-0002-1189-7322</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burk%2C+Christian+L%2E%22">Burk, Christian L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wiese%2C+Bettina+S%2E%22">Wiese, Bettina S.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Research in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. May 2023 64(3):402-422.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Graduates%22">College Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industry%22">Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Choice%22">Career Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientists%22">Scientists</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11162-022-09702-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0361-0365<br />1573-188X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study reports on the development and validation of a new construct of application orientation (AO), which we defined as a vocational orientation concerning the interest for certain principles, values, and activities that are common for university graduates working in applied (i.e., industrial) fields. Using a multi-study program with different samples, the new construct was conceptualized (Study 1) and validated (Studies 2-4). In a qualitative content analysis with N = 102 professionals (all of them having an academic degree mostly in the STEM disciplines), four central facets of applied (i.e., industrial) work were identified ("process orientation," "customer focus," "product focus," and "economic focus"). In a study with N = 200 university students and professionals with mixed disciplinary backgrounds (i.e., STEM but also non-STEM fields), the AO facets correlated with the RIASEC dimensions (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional; Holland, 1997) mostly as expected, and the AO facet "product focus" was predictive of the preference for applied work settings, supporting convergent validity assumptions. Discriminant validity of the AO facets was largely supported, examining average variance extracted by the AO factors compared to the RIASEC factors. In a known-groups validation study, AO was higher in N = 108 professionals from industry compared with N = 40 scientists (all from STEM fields) working at a university. In a sample of N = 128 early career scientists from the STEM fields, the AO facet "product focus" predicted applied work behavior in an assessment center.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1374490
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1374490
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11162-022-09702-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 402
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Industry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Choice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientists
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Leaving the Ivory Tower: Vocational Application Orientation of Early Career Academics
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lerche, André D. S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burk, Christian L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wiese, Bettina S.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0361-0365
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-188X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 64
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1