Hi Mathew,

It's not clear to me how you're making a distinction between "vocation" and "calling" - certainly in the past the terms would have been used interchangeably. Perhaps the differentiation you're seeking is between vocation and job, or between vocation/profession/job? This isn't just a semantic exercise but, rather, an important exercise in clearly articulating the construct you want to examine. hope this is helpful.

Hi David,

Thank you for your response, and I'm flattered that you took the time to write. I've been doing a bit of research on vocations and callings and I totally understand why you responded the way you did. Wrzesniweski et al. (1997) differentiates work orientations as follows: job/career/ calling (practically identical to how you broke it down). Not to mention others express the conceptual propinquity as Dik & Duffy (2009..I believe) do, who differentiate callings from vocations simply by a transcendental summons dimension (i.e., callings). Otherwise they, too, treat them the same. So all that to say: I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that the scholarly literature would take issue with my question as well.

My problem however is that I do not see vocation and calling as interchangeable in the slightest. To me it poses the same conceptual problem as interchanging craft with art, and though many do, I take issue with this. I guess to express the conceptual difference in the way that I see it is as follows: A carpenter is known around town for building fences, and no one does it better than him. This provides him with a sense of pleasure and enjoyment and one might say this is his calling. However, what is the "transcendental summons"? The summons is a directive from him (whether someone else asks him to do it he still directs his tools in such a way) and he molds and fashions the wooden structure to his liking. This relationship towards one's work is better defined as a vocation since he is particularly well suited for this task. This same carpenter then all of a sudden feels something inside and it is related to somewhere out there in the world. Eventually he sees what must be done to restore some sense of harmony. No one else can see this problem in the way that he can, and no can attend to the solutions in quite the same way either. Because he is so in tune with the object that calls on him, one day he acts as a healer to the sick, the next day he turns water into wine, and then finally he sacrifices himself to absolve his peers of all sin. In other words, the object of the calling remained the same and the individual was shaped and crafted to meet the various needs of the call.

In other words I see a vocation to be the concept of having a relationship towards work where the craft remains the same in changing the identity of the object (e..g, worker always does carpentry to build a fence); as opposed to a calling where the worker's behavior changed in the face of a constant ( aside: in truth not constant but rather a developing) object that calls (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr. gave talks at rallies, marched in protests, wrote letters, counseled families etc etc etc - he did what was needed to answer the call of social justice).

So I guess I'm interested in seeing who is working in academia because they are particularly good at understanding and contributing to academic interests, or who acquired the academic profession because that is what is required to serve the need of a transcendental call?

Mathew - I can perhaps give you a slightly different point of view. I am an early retiree from the Engineering sector who now is a bought in lecturer at my local University covering a number of topics in the Business School. I would say that what I am now doing through choice (not for financial gain athough I do get paid) goes somewhere close to your definition of "calling".

I see two very differing styles within the academic environment and on top of that there are, to me, two differing requirements - namely research orientated and teaching. The way I interpret your comments seems as though you tend to link academia with research. Some of the peope I have met or know over the years who have been very much research orientated tend to be very drawn to their topic. Even with the right skills I think you need to identify with your chosen subject otherwise you would not "stay the course". Not sure if this fits your "calling" definition.

I then see others who enjoy the teaching (maybe their calling), do the research but given a choice would rather teach! Unfortunately I beleive our system (please correct me if I am wrong) means you are judged more by the research that you do and this is how you are judged to gain promotion. SOme people will argue that you need to be at the forefront of a topic to teach - it helps but doesnt make you a good teacher!

To attain the heights of Professor I would have no arguement regarding the research expertise and focus - but few reach this grade and I wonder of those that dont how many are in it for the research or for the teaching? Interestingly being very generalistic the really good researchers do not necessarily make good lecturers!

Hi again to you Matthew, and hi to Andy, who has added some important perspectives to the discussion. One of the things your respective commentaries highlight is the importance of dealing with the semantic issues up front, by "calling" I mean X, by "profession" I mean Y, by "job" I mean Z, then sticking scrupulously to the definitions throughout your discussion/research. I think, Matthew, you're right to make the point that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, if you were to represent the 3 constructs schematically, a useful representation would be a set of 3 intersecting circles in a Venn diagram. It's also worth noting, Andy, that really good teachers don't necessarily make good researchers. My experience though, is that people who are good scholars are very often good representers of their scholarship, whether in writing or in the classroom. I'm looking forward to any further comments you may care to put forward. Cheers!

David I agree with your sentiments entirely. Whilst we must be very careful not to pigeon hole people, the skill sets for teaching and researching are very different. However, to get to be a really good scholar means that you inevitably have to be able to communicate with others or as you put it "represent your scholarship". Perhaps the differentiator I am looking for lies within the ability to make a subject interesting enough for people to sit up and notice even though they may not be either experts or even interested in it!

In any field you choose to name good enlightening and entertaining communication is a real skill and is not mutually exclusive but can be quite rare!

Thank you David and Andy. David, I'm intrigued by your comments, and Andy I appreciate you bringing the question of "skill" to the debate. Since skill is very much , though not completely, socially determined it makes me wonder how much of environmental factors play into concepts of calling and vocation. Thanks for your great comments. This is an exciting forum to express ideas and learn from you guys.

The two are relative to one another based on the person's upbringing as well. In the book, Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, you begin to see that one's interests and talents lies, not in a natural gift that many people like to belief exist, but rather the focus and direction your parents gave you. A child who is encouraged to study math at a young age may believe that becoming an engineer is what he has always dreamed of doing, when in fact, there might be subtle influences coming from the parents for him to become that.

So taking that example and applying it further to your question, you might look at what influence in your childhood lead you to think that academia was your (predetermined) vocation or your calling. Many people like to believe that what they studied in college is what they always wanted to do, but for those that had extreme expectations from their parents, the concept of their calling falls way to what their vocation should be.

A way to hold constant for their upbringing would be to find out from children who didn't grow up with the constant influence of their parents, i.e., orphans, and find out how they determined their vocation or calling in life. Was it someone that told them? or was it an interest that sparked their need to learn more about something and determine that that lead to their calling.

Hi all, What a wonderful question you bring to this forum, Matthew. I have not studied this in the way that you have but I would still like to offer my layman's version of the possible difference. I have always considered 'calling' to have a more existential basis, the meaning that underpins why one was put on this earth. It is driven by a sense of purpose and might include suffering as part of one's purpose, as well as acting as an agent for social change or a belief system. A vocation may not necessarily have that kind of existential component (but can) but it may be more to do with one's level of involvement in the role that they play, an enmeshment of their selves in their role, more to do with a feeling of identity and worth. I feel as if they might be qualitatively different but still have that overlap.

Hi everyone, thanks so much for your input.

Chris: you bring up two important concepts: (1) one's upbringing, and the subtler (2) "predetermined" nature of one's calling. The former does seem to resonate with a structuralist perspective insofar that one's socio-environment predetermines the behavior of its constituents. However, I like to think that no matter what resources or environment we are given one's ability to be original within constraints (if not overcome constraints) would argue against a predetermined fate. So, yes I would agree that one is influenced or changed by one's environment, be that from parental pressure or peer pressure, however I would find it precarious to cast a causal relationship between the two. Especially since my parents were not academics nor especially desired or expected this road for me. In fact I would say I experienced "in the closet" tendencies being afraid to tell them of this decision. The latter point speaks about callings or vocations as having a 'predetermined' feeling in general (like fate). I think some people might feel this way reflecting upon their journey, but for my own thoughts on the subject matter vocations and callings are systems of conscionable order subject to change, evolution and development that happens to find congruence with a type of work, or sets of tasks for a period of time. Thanks for your thought provoking contributions, they add very important dimensions to the topic. (I am very much rooted in phenomenology, so obviously I would balk at seemingly structuralist points, so this to say: take my amateur comments with a grain of salt)

Alex: you also bring very enlightening points. I especially appreciate your mention of suffering. I think this subject is so important, and is one I hope to explore in the near future (I hope participants in my study bring this up). I agree with your perspective on the 'existential' nature insofar as it is from a phenomenological perspective. And lastly just to comment on the 'overlap' you speak of at the end, my own personal preference is to think of it as 'nested'. One's vocation can be nested in a calling, and vice versa.

Thanks again for your contributions!

Just as a review of the great comments here we have:

- David: Points about different orientations towards work (Vocation/ profession/ job)

- Andy: relationship between work and identity, and skill factors

- Chris: the influence of environmental factors

- Alex: relationship between purpose and suffering, existential qualities.

For further reading on the above points... (off the top of my head)

David's: Wrzesniweski, ...,..., Schwartz, 1997 (can't remember the other names)

Andy's: Hall & Chandler, 2005

Chris's: Csikszentmihalyi, 1994, 1997 ( I might have the dates wrong, "Finding Flow" and "Creativity", even though he is a systems scholar he really lays out relationships between individual and socio-environments nicely... in my opinion)

Alex's: I have a tougher time with this one... so maybe you can let me know!

:) thanks everyone

Hy all.

I refer to Calling as the way people live to do their work. Their work is something that simply fulfills their own lives. They don´t bother with money or advancements within personal career. A calling is work that a person feels called to do by a higher power. Work that is a calling feels like it simultaneously contributes to humanity and aligns with an individual's purpose in life. Typically, people perceiving their work as a calling indicate they would do the work for little or no pay. The work is that satisfying. The work itself provides satisfaction, rather than external recognition or reward. People “find that their work is inseparable from their life” (Wrzesniewski et al, 1997, p.22). Shoshana Dobrow (2004) propose a new calling construct, comprised of seven elements: 1) passion; 2) identity; 3) need to do it/urgency; 4) longevity; 5) engulfs consciousness; 6) sense of meaning; 7) self-esteem. The author presumes that having a calling could be measured, and its antecedents and consequences (behavioral, cognitive, and affective) could be explored.

Due to my case of Aspurger's syndrome, I have been very academically inclined toward my particular field of interest. I have also come to utilize academia as a sort of tool to diverge myself away from being narrow-minded and broadening my worldview (a common issue with Aspurger's syndrome patients).