Changes in Clark-Trow Subcultures from 1976 to 2006 - Implications for Addressing Undergraduates’ Leisure Interests

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni

The study examines how Clark-Trow subcultures of college undergraduates changed from 1976 to 2006, using the Clark-Trow Typology and a Student Interest Survey administered at five-year intervals starting in 1976. Results show statistically significant shifts across subcultures, including declines in the academic subculture and increases in the collegiate subculture. Leisure interests within each subculture are analyzed to support practical approaches for addressing undergraduates’ leisure preferences and planning campus recreation facilities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages16

Reading Time40 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Clark-Trow Typology and Student Interest Survey

Historical Context of Student Change

Subcultures and Core Dimensions

Findings and Implications

Shifts in Subculture Percentages (1976-1996)

Leisure Interests and Definitions

Facility Planning Implications

Changes in Clark-Trow Subcultures from 1976 to 2006: Implications for Addressing Undergraduates’ Leisure Interests * Darwin D. Hendel, Roger Harrold Unrest in the early 1970s stimulated a need to understand undergraduates’ motivations. The Clark-Trow Typology (Clark & Trow, 1966) examined student behavior (i.e., academic, collegiate, vocational, and non-conformist) according to identification with the institution and involvement with ideas. The Student Interest Survey included questions based on the Typology, and was administered at five year intervals beginning in 1976 to undergraduates at a research extensive institution. Results suggested statistically significant shifts in subcultures. For example, the percentage of students in the academic subculture declined from 37% in 1976 to 18% in 1996, whereas the collegiate subculture increased from 17% in 1976 to 34% in 1996. Differences in leisure interests within subcultures are discussed, along with implications for addressing undergraduates’ leisure interests. The 1960s were an extraordinary decade in higher education in the United States. Brubacher and Rudy (1997) viewed the student revolution of the 1960sas ―the most portentous upheaval in the history of American student life‖(p. 349) . Astin (1998) noted that the late 1960s through the early 1970s was a period during which rapid and widespread changes occurred in the perspectives and expectations of entering college students. The study of college students became popular as social scientists attempted to understand the changing perspectives of college students, and by the end of the 1960s, Feldman and Newcomb (1969) published the first systematic summary of how college affects students. One of the major treatises regarding student cultures to be published during this period was Newcomb and Wilson‘s (1966) College Peer Groups, in which Clark and Trow (1966) described four subcultures (i.e., academic, collegiate, * Darwin D. Hendel is an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Roger Harrold, retired, was assistant professor and director of student affairs research at the University of Minnesota. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to [hende001@umn.edu](hende001@umn.edu). THE COLLEGE STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL nonconformist, and vocational) as a vehicle for understanding student behavior. In spite of Clark and Trow‘s (1966) advice that the subcultures not be used to categorize students, Warren (1968) concluded that ―…the need for conceptual schemes to describe students is apparently great enough for the Clark-Trow subcultures to have been used for that purpose in spite of their deficiencies‖ (p. 214) . The two core dimensions of the Clark-Trow Typology (Newcomb & Wilson, 1996, p. 25) are the extent to which a student identifies with the institution and the extent to which a student is involved with ideas. The four subcultures are defined based on the intersection of the two dimensions: (a) Academic subculture defined as much involvement with ideas and much identification with the institution; (b) Collegiate subculture defined as much identification with the institution and little involvement with ideas; (c) Vocational subculture defined as little identification with the institution and little involvement with ideas; and (d) Non-Conformist subculture defined as much involvement with ideas and little identification with the institution. According to Wilder, McKeegan, and Midkiff (2000): ―Clark and Trow can be credited with conceptualizing distinct student types, stimulating a searching for underlying student dimensions, and launching a major body of research in student characteristics and student development‖(p. 527) . The initial studies of the Clark-Trow Typology were conducted over a relatively brief span of years from 1968 to 1981. Several were reliability and validity studies (e.g., Kees, 1971; Kees, 1974; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977; Warren, 1968) tha

FAQs

What framework does the document use to categorize undergraduates?

It uses the Clark-Trow Typology, based on two dimensions: identification with the institution and involvement with ideas, which together define four subcultures.

What time span and survey method are used to study changes?

The Student Interest Survey was administered at five-year intervals beginning in 1976 to undergraduates at a research-intensive institution.

How do the subcultures shift according to the results?

The academic subculture declines from 37% in 1976 to 18% in 1996, while the collegiate subculture increases from 17% in 1976 to 34% in 1996.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jayni