Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector

Framing the Work of Art: Spirituality and Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector A Journal Article Critique David Owens-Hill Queens University of Charlotte

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector Framing the Work of Art: Spirituality and Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector A Journal Article Critique

Source Mize Smith, J. et al., (2006). Framing the Work of Art: Spirituality and Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector. Communication Studies, 57 (1), 25-46. Summary By asking one pointed research question: how do nonprofit employees in arts organizations discursively construct their careers, Jennifer Mize Smith, Colleen Arendt, Jennifer Bezek Lahman, Gina N. Settle and Ashley Duff seek to explain through empirical data how nonprofit employees frame their career-trajectory decisions to provide meaning outside the standard fiscal reward structure of traditional careers. The authors draw parallels to the emerging protean career which encompasses numerous and varied career experiences (Arthur et al., 1999) ultimately underlining the notion that both environments encourage employees to assist in crafting meaningful work experiences (Mize Smith et al., 2006). The researchs interpretivist approach of interviewing respondents with open-ended questions and appropriate probes (Mize Smith et al., 2006, p. 32) seeks to unearth the spiritual framework created universally among nonprofit workers in the arts sector, specific to a particular community, that allows for psychological reward as a substitute for fiscal reward a particularly interesting note is the authors inclusion of Salmons quote describing non-profits in a state of persistent fiscal squeeze (Salamon, 2002, p. 12). This clear message about the state of fiscal

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector

reward serves as foil to the narratives provided by the respondents when describing their work as their calling (2006). Structure and effectiveness The literature review, much like the paper itself, follows a clear and illustrative narrative arc, beginning with a brief history and context of the nonprofit sector along with employment statistics and continuing through career ideology, including the notion of the protean career (Arthur et al., 1999) and ends with career and spirituality. This arc provides an important and welcome navigation through the basis of the authors argument and lays the groundwork for practical and theoretical implications of the study as it relates to both the nonprofit and for-profit workforces. Many works were cited in the literature review, each one illustrative of an important point from the larger-than-generally-assumed nonprofit workforce at more than 7% of the total American workforce (Mize Smith et al., 2006) to the end of a linear career journey forcing employees to conceptualize their careers in different ways (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Holbeche, 1995; R.H. Waterman, Waterman & Collard, 1994) where the term protean career, which is characterized by numerous and varied career experiences (Arthur et al., 1999) is first mentioned, and subsequently referenced in the rest of the article, and finally the notion of framing as a way to manage meaning (Fairhurst & Saar, 1996, p. 21) which both provide context for the actions of the respondents and maintains the reports footing in communication theory. This research is fundamentally about the sense-making being performed by the employees interviewed, and the literature review is the first comprehensive exploration of why this sense-making is necessary. Lacking oomph in this study is the research question. The one, aforementioned, question is useful albeit vague. The introduction paragraph to this question lays the foundation for what

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector could be an interesting research question 2 by introducing Patrice Buzzanells ethos of self improvement through community enhancement (2000) and opens the door to issues of motivation and measures of success (Mize Smith et al., 2006, p. 31). One would expect to see the measures of success applied by the respondents, as it could be logically argued that if monetary rewards are different, a different measure of success must be applied to justify what money is offered. Epistemologically, the authors make no claim of absolute objectivity. In fact, in footnote # 3 (Mize Smith et al., 2006) the opposite is clarified. By acknowledging engagement in the nonprofit arts sector by two of the researchers, one could posit that the presentation, though not the research, would be inclined to lean towards legitimatizing the careers of these nonprofit workers, regardless of the discursive patterns. The authors do explain on pages 42-43 that the data was parsed first by three different researchers and then by a final researcher under a constant comparative method, which should eliminate the issue of personal input into patterns discovered during the probes. Though the authors are clear in describing their reasoning for a

small sample size in the limitation section (2006), the size of this sample seems disproportionate to the large percentage of the American workforce explained to be employed by a nonprofit organization in the literature review. The interpretive nature of the information gathered seems to be in keeping with the nature of the discourse being studied. When asking someone to examine the frameworks they use, especially the spiritual framework that enables one to invoke a particular way of seeing work (Fairhurst & Saar, 1996), qualitative interview methods executed with psychological skill will be more productive than quantitative methods because the unit of measure is experience (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 139). The patterning process of the data is not well described, other than

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector

that information is coded by three researchers before being passed onto a forth for compare. As a reader not well versed in this type of coding, I would be interested to know exactly which codes were used to mark milestones or keywords in the respondents responses. The authors provided examples of categories that were eliminated (e.g.: staff and training), but did not include the complete list of codes that the results were extrapolated from (Mize Smith et al., 2006). Perhaps another set of eyes could pull out yet another pattern that could further support this research. The mention on page 33 of the emergence of discourse leading away from intrinsic benefits is not particularly surprising, given the previous mention of fiscal challenges suffered by nonprofit employees; the discussion of framing career decisions based on spiritual terms of calling, service, sacrifice, and personal rewards . . . to make sense of and legitimate nonprofit career choices, even when those choices are contrary to traditional career conceptualizations (2006) is a powerful statement of the value of this research, but also represents a decrease in external validity. If, according to the results, career decisions are made on pretenses other than those of the standard-issue employee, by default the study cannot be applied to the workforce-at-large. Internally, the study appears to have high validity, issued further credence by the researchers own involvement in nonprofit associations. This research report followed a traditional outline, but did so with narrative flair. APA citations were peppered throughout, and provided for interesting and accessible reading. Of particular interest were the discussion paragraphs, only when we reach this section do we see the authors lay it on the line: because the benefits derived from nonprofit work are often incompatible with the master narrative of success, nonprofit practitioners may find themselves struggling to justify their career choices (Mize Smith et al., 2006, p. 37). This single statement

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector highlights the need for further discourse in this area. Nonprofits are, as described by Joyce Rothschild and Carl Milofsky (2006): Grounded in their members values and passions and sustained by the bonds of trust that develop within and between them. They are the organizational expression of their members ethical stance toward the world: nonprofit organizations, by way of their very existence and practices, convey a public statement of what their members see as a better, more caring, more just world.

If we, in fact, believe this to be true then the men and women who dedicate their careers to these organizations should be free of the stress that comes from struggling to justify their career choices. If read fleetingly, this article is a cautionary tale. Why would anyone volunteer for the long hours and relatively low pay described by the respondents (Mize Smith et al., 2006)? When taken holistically, the conclusion is counter to this statement. I find this presentation of data, though lacking slightly in development of research questions, presents a valid topic to the overall discussion present in the topic area of Organizational Communication. Though the respondents stopped short of referring to their work as a calling (2006), one must ask themselves: how could it be anything but?

Career Discourse in the Nonprofit Arts Sector References

Arthur, M. B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J. K., (1999). The new careers: Individual action and economic change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: New employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press. Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). The promise and practice of the new career and social contract: Illusions exposed and suggestions for reform. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 209-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137-145. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137 Rothschild, J. & Milofsky, C. (2006). The centrality of values, passions, and ethics in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(2) 137-143. Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press