Search

Choosing a course of study is one of the most consequential decisions a university student will make. While there is considerable literature investigating how personality influences students' choice of discipline, there is currently no evidence about how students cluster in disciplines relative to their civic-mindedness. This is an important gap in knowledge for faculty and staff who are increasingly implementing programmes and curricula aimed at developing civic-mindedness. Using data from a survey conducted at a single Dutch university (N = 1514) conducted prior to the start of first-year students' undergraduate studies, we estimated a confirmatory factor analysis model to measure two constructs related to civic-mindedness, Service Motivation and Civic Efficacy, and personality traits included in the five-factor model. We present distributions of these traits across disciplines of study and show large differences between disciplines in both measures of civic-mindedness. We also found that a model including personality, Service Motivation and Civic Efficacy explained a small, but non-trivial (six percent) amount of the variation in discipline selection. A better understanding of the distribution of civic-mindedness across disciplines will help educators and policy makers develop types of civic education that are better suited to the heterogeneity of today's student population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research field of nonprofits and philanthropy has grown exponentially. To what extent do nonprofit scholars share a common language? Answering this question is crucial to assessing the field's intellectual cohesiveness. We studied how coauthor networks, scholarly reputation, and the prevalence of female authors influence consensus formation. We found that the degree of consensus for all major research topics in the field has increased over time—For every 10% growth in the volume of literature, shared language increased by 1.4%. A cohesive research community on nonprofits and philanthropy has been forming since the early 2000s. Female scholars are fewer in number and less cited than males; their presence did not exceed 40% for most topics. The citation counts of scholars and small-world property of networks are positively associated with consensus, suggesting that star researchers and knowledge brokers bridging different intellectual communities are key to sharing research interests and language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]