Conceptualizing calling: Cluster and taxometric analyses

Research on work as a calling has proliferated within the last decade, but researchers continue to conceptualize the construct in diverse ways, potentially creating confusion and a lack of coherence as research accumulates. This study applies two typological research strategies to better understand the latent structure of calling, and differences among people who find the construct personally relevant. First, using a sample of 588 U.S. undergraduate students who self-identified as having a calling, the taxometric method was used to test the presence of discrete types or categories within calling's latent structure. The indicator set was analyzed using three statistically non-redundant taxometric procedures (i.e., MAXEIG, MAMBAC, and L-Mode). Results revealed that calling is not represented by discrete taxa (categories), instead the differences in calling lie along a continuous (dimensional) latent structure. While having a singular latent structure, evidence suggests calling is likely a multidimensional construct, which allows for different points of emphasis expressed by people who perceive a calling. A two-step cluster analysis was then applied to examine participants' vocational identity characteristics. A two-cluster solution was supported, differentiated by the relative importance placed on work and self-enhancement values versus religion and prosocial work values. Implications for research on calling and career counseling practice are discussed. • Differing conceptualizations of calling by researchers may cause confusion. • 2 typological methods clarified identities of those with calling, and its structure. • Calling was dimensional rather than typological in latent structure. • The 2 clusters differed on work/self-enhancement vs. religion/prosocial. • Calling may resonate differently for those with different identity characteristics.