By Author:
Shoshana R. Dobrow – London School of Economics and Political Science
Hannah Weisman – Harvard Business School
Daniel Heller – Tel Aviv University
Jennifer Tosti-Kharas – Babson College
Interviewers:
Xiaoxia Zhu – Salisbury University
Daniya Kamran-Morley – University of Pittsburgh
Article link: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231159641
**Note: these interview responses are from two of the study authors, Shasa Dobrow and Hannah Weisman.
- What inspired your categorization of calling as internal and external focused?
In the process of collecting data for this paper, we examined a substantial portion of the calling literature—which at that point comprised hundreds and hundreds of articles. We noticed that from the very start of the calling literature, a persistent dialogue has swirled around the nature of callings: are they primarily outwardly oriented, like doing something for the greater good, or inwardly oriented, like doing something for the enjoyment or passion of it? Some studies adopt one or the other view of calling while some others, including recent conceptual reviews, grapple with both. This dialogue in the literature has been aptly labeled a “stalemate” between two distinct camps (Thompson and Bunderson, 2019: 429).
So, this fundamental debate within the calling literature motivated some of the core questions of our study: Is the focus of calling ultimately internal or external? How do these two types converge and/or diverge in their relation to the good life? Are they equally predictive of the two indicators of the good life that we explore—namely, eudaimonic (meaningful and purposeful) and hedonic (pleasure-oriented) well-being? Or does one type exert a stronger influence than the other, and if so, why?
Early in our research process, our co-author team engaged in extensive dialogue about terminology. Given the existing dichotomies in the literature, we aimed to select terms that were both comprehensive and precise enough to encompass the full spectrum of definitions—and this led to our choice of “internally focused” and “externally focused.”
Interestingly, on the methodological front, as we examined the scales used to measure callings, we expected to find a continuum—from extremely internally focused to extremely externally focused callings. However, our findings surprised us in that the scales predominantly fell into one category or the other, without much of a continuum or blending of types. To us, this pattern helped solidify our view that the distinction between internally and externally callings is a meaningful one in the literature.
- How do you think calling fits into the broad scheme of meaningful work, prosocial/decent/good work, moralized work, or passion?
This question is wide open in the field right now. These concepts are “conceptual cousins”—and also have distinctions among them, including the extent to which they are enduring versus fleeting, cognitive versus emotional, and refer to something inside of versus outside of individuals.
This question connects to the previous question about the distinction between internally and externally focused callings, as each of the two types may relate—both conceptually and empirically—more strongly to some of these other concepts than others. For instance, internally focused callings should be more connected to passion than are externally focused callings while externally focused callings should be more related to moralized work.
Although we addressed calling’s relationship to its conceptual cousins briefly in the paper, our focus was to take the calling construct as a starting point, of sorts, and to attempt to take stock of the rapidly-growing calling literature. When we were initially considering the idea of doing a meta-analysis of calling—in 2016—the first question we had was whether a critical mass of studies existed to justify doing this (i.e., to examine to calling on its own vs. as part of a broader literature including some of the other constructs that you mentioned). We were completely shocked to discover that not only did a critical mass of papers for meta-analysis purposes exist, but we ultimately found over 200 quantitative (or mixed-method) papers that measured calling. And since our study’s timeframe ended a few years ago, that number is likely far bigger today. This discovery gave us confidence that there was a body of research on calling that was sizable, distinct, and important enough to stand on its own and be worthy of synthesis.
- Prior studies believe calling is a double-edged sword. Do you think this work can help shed light on that?
Yes and no. On the one hand, with a meta-analysis, we have to go with what the data tell us—and what we found in the quantitative calling literature was that calling’s relationships to career and life outcomes were even more positive than expected. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge what a meta-analysis can—and cannot—do. Even within the quantitative calling literature, some negative effects of calling have been documented, implying that callings might actually be double-edged swords. A primary reason why these findings did not feed into our paper’s main very positive story would be if a particular “dark side” variable was included in only one or two studies, thereby not meeting the minimum requirements to be included in a meta-analysis. Then, we also note our meta-analysis, by definition, could not include findings from qualitative studies. Many examples of intriguing double-edged sword findings about calling come from such papers and have, in our view, rightfully shaped our beliefs that callings are a double-edged sword.
Thus, our paper’s findings do not mean that the double-edged sword does not exist for callings; rather, they mean that these results did not exist in a very comprehensive meta-analysis of quantitative calling studies.
One of our hopes is that our paper will encourage future calling research. Our paper highlights the need for a wide range of methodologies to be used in research, as varied methodologies shed light on different kinds of questions. With the baseline of understanding that our paper provides about the quantitative calling literature, we hope researchers will truly build on and extend what has already been done in the calling literature—including looking at calling as a double-edged sword.
- What is the most difficult part of this meta-analysis? Is there anything you would do differently if you had gone back to the initial stage of this project?
Where do we start?! From start to finish, this paper was a colossal undertaking. For instance, assembling the papers that would comprise our meta-analytic dataset was a big challenge. In addition to tracking down unpublished papers, we also encountered instances where the data we needed were missing from papers. So, we contacted individual authors to get those missing data. We cared very deeply about being as thorough as humanly possible in our quest to analyze the extant quantitative calling literature—and that was hard work, but we wouldn’t do it differently.
Initially, our goal was to be comprehensive in our analyses of calling’s relationships to other variables—antecedents, correlates, and outcomes—and so that meant we coded anything and everything calling was measured in relation to. As the paper progressed through the review process, we focused in on calling’s relationships to a set of theoretically significant outcomes only—and the ideas and analyses about calling’s relationships to other variables ultimately moved into appendices in the paper. Our approach meant that our undertaking, data and coding-wise, was much “bigger” than some other meta-analyses that start off with a focus on a core construct’s relationship with a few select variables.
Another thing we found difficult was that we were striving to capture the state of a living, breathing literature. While we were working—over many years—new papers continued to be published. So, we were simultaneously engaged in a massive undertaking that required time-intensive analyses and thoughtful theorizing, while also feeling the time pressure to get our work out there before the underlying body of research became less representative of the current state of the field. We wanted our findings to still be helpful and meaningful by the time our paper reached publication.
Going through the review process at ASQ presented us with another interesting challenge, namely the need to make a theoretical contribution that would meet the expectations of a journal of this caliber. We became aware that the last meta-analysis published in the journal was in 1987—likely because of the perception, and often reality, that meta-analyses are not as theoretical as would be necessary. So, we take pride in innovating to produce a novel and theoretically relevant contribution in our paper, challenging the notion that meta-analyses are inherently less theoretical. We are grateful to our Associate Editor, Mike Pratt, for his willingness to take a chance on something unconventional—that is, a meta-analysis in ASQ—as well as the expert guidance he and our reviewers provided throughout the review process.
- What do you think are some of the big questions that remain around calling? Perhaps your prediction on what would be the next big challenge?
As scholars who have been studying calling for many years, we are excited that calling research is at an important juncture—shifting from examinations of many foundational ideas about calling in the last two decades or so into new possibilities around the intricacies, subtleties, and complexities of calling and its relationships to other constructs. We laid out many of these ideas about future directions for calling research in the paper and we’re excited to see how these develop. We expect that digitization, the future of work, and the rise of artificial intelligence are contextual factors that will (re)shape how people experience the meaning of their work, including callings.
How might people’s experience of callings change—or not—in this new world? We can’t wait to find out.
Interviewer bios:
Xiaoxia Zhu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Salisbury University. She earned a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States in 2024. Her research interests include calling and meaningful work, workplace relationships, diversity, and artificial intelligence (AI). Xiaoxia is passionate about supporting students and employees in pursuing and realizing their career and life callings. She is committed to providing essential resources and creating equal opportunities for everyone to progress in their careers and life aspirations, especially in the age of AI.
Daniya Kamran-Morley is a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, in the United States. Her research is on disenchantment and disillusionment with work, and on issues related to idealization and moralization of work. She has a background in sociology and behavioral interventions, and is particularly interested in how society influences the moral and ideological mandates of various kinds of work and occupations, and how that serves (or does not serve) the people working in those occupations.