{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02230843840931135, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005496281926931782, 'mean_word_length': 5.419087136929461, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Harnessing America's Wasted Talent: A New Ecology of Learning (review)

Elites continued to focus on intense research agendas that met the requirements of an external reward system, while the communitarians considered their research careers finished and turned toward an internal reward system, defining their success through teaching and service. This finding confirms Gouldner’s (1958) differentiation between “local” and “cosmopolitan” professors. The pluralists found ways to balance research and teaching, thus responding to the multiple goals of their institutions. I consider Chapter 4 one of the book’s most important chapters, as it provides the professors’ personal insights into the aging of the professoriate (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Noted differences appear among the elite, pluralist, and communitarian cohorts, as they assess the success of their careers during this lateto post-career phase. The elites continued to work on their research, even after retirement, and expressed ambivalence toward their overall accomplishments and recognition received. Pluralists tended to reduce or stop their research but expressed a positive attitude that their careers had progressed as they expected. The retired communitarians had left their institutions and academic work to pursue other interests. Chapter 5 summarizes and synthesizes the findings of the previous three chapters to further identify patterns within and among the cohorts. Hermanowicz aptly states: “To the people of it, academia, and specifically science, consists of subjective careers that unfold differently across settings in which they work. . . . The meaning of science varies at different times in scientists’ careers” (p. 217). It is not just the environment in which scientists work that has an impact on career patterns, satisfaction, and work attitudes, but also individual expectations and motivations for success over time. Of special note is the fact that women faculty in each cohort had the same motivation and levels of accomplishment as the elite cohort across all life phases. This finding should be explored further to better understand how individual attitudes and values can affect access to opportunities and intellectual resources within existing reward systems and institutional norms (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). What Hermanowicz contributes to previous studies about faculty and work is the evolution of academic careers and shifting commitments. The results of his initial foundational study and this current longitudinal study can be applied to other academic disciplines and across various types of institutions of higher education. All academic careers begin with high expectations that evolve over time, even as faculty tend to be organizationally and professionally bound to both internal and external reward systems. Academic leaders who read this book will gain a better understanding of how scientists and, more broadly, all academics define success at various career phases, as well as how best to guide the different cohorts in their institutions from one phase to the next.