1.5: Through the eyes of others - Students

As a culinary educator, we tend to see life through the ‘eyes’ of educators. Educational discourse tends to gather human activity, relations, and sense making into the educator’s gaze. However much we resist, as the literature recounts, we are still, and always attempting to configure ourselves in cognition processes as active agents who ultimately manage the ‘processes’ we call learning from various positions. Often we strive to enhance, direct, resist, observe, or analyze for students. If the category of ‘internships’ as experiential learning signifies experiential learning as ‘non-school’ learning then our control and comments as educators would reify the classifying dimension which would subvert the purpose of the book. These findings represent the words and meaning attached by those who will be, or were engaged in internship learning environments.

How internship sites become part of the process

Forward thinking sites. Sites located in urban settings become part of the internship process in various ways. Forward thinking restaurant entities see students’ enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs of study as ‘capable potentials’ to replenish their work force and further the growth of their operations. They actively seek associations with educational institutions to accomplish that aim. Some desirable restaurant operations are approached by the educational institution, or its students, because such entities are seen as ‘up and coming’ foodservice operations within the industry.

Giving back. Some desirable operations seek involvement as a way of giving back to educational programs that help to further their careers or in some cases, they gained their operational knowledge through apprenticeships as culinary programs were not available when they were entering the field and the contact with students who are involve in formal culinary education provides a connection with formal study they desired but was unavailable for participation.

Operational need and seasonality. Other reasons restaurants participate in internships center on operational needs such as seasonality for example. Some well-known entities need additional help during the summer months but require individuals with the higher skill levels that interns possess. As such, they have evolved into training facilities that create win-win situations. They receive the necessary help during their busy season, and in turn, teach interns higher-level skills.

Lowering labor costs. Still other restaurant entities are willing to provide student interns with real world experience but their organizational reasoning for involvement centers on lowering labor costs through the use of individuals with adequate skills to meet their needs but they receive lower wages than the permanent staff as the internship is a transient learning endeavor.

While different selection strategies exist from one educational institution to another, the most commons tactics employed by educational institutions are essentially similar. Educational internship facilitators spend must time maintaining site relationships and on many occasions will speak with the site on behalf of the student in an introductory capacity. It is typically the responsibility of the student to contact the site, arrange for an interview, formalize the internship contract and convey institutional expectations, which will be confirmed by the facilitator. Many programs require the internship facilitator to convey program expectations to site facilitators verbally. However, while verbal overviews are preferred, pamphlets containing educational requirements for assessment and evaluation are normally mailed to the site, or given to the intern who provides them to the site upon arrival to begin the internship.

In most instances, students’ research pertinent sites that offer the skills they desire based on their particular interests. Students initiate the internship selection process personally by contacting the site and arranging the internship. Typically, the only substantive contact between site and the educational facilitator involves confirming the acceptance of the intern, discussing the necessary hours of work the intern must complete, and receiving the assurance from the site that those needs can be fulfilled. For some students the internship is an after-thought and much reliance is placed on the educational facilitator to find a site for them thus suitability for these students becomes a secondary concern. Further, the selection policy of some institutions requires the intern to handle all aspects of site selection and negotiations themselves. They consider this approach as experience and practice for students to engage in productive job searches on their own after graduation thus the educational facilitator function in a follow up capacity alone.

Focus. The first focus of the book presents the lived experiences and events of student interns and their perceptions of whether they were able to acquire durable knowledge useful to future endeavors and equally what personally constructed meanings those students attached to the internship experience.

Six consistent overarching themes that directly affected the success of any internship emerged from the responses of each participant student group: involvement, environment, evaluation, higher education mandates, the ability of the student to effectively socialize, and symbolic capital (practical work experience gained under the auspices of the educational institution and in for profit restaurants), and, as the findings indicate, these factors were not mutually exclusive to students. The utilization and interaction of all six of these themes, or their lack of, by the participating students were apparent outcome determinants.

Participants. The participants in the study consisted of three student groups stratified by virtue of their culinary program course progression. The first respondent group comprised twenty male and female incoming freshmen enrolled in an introductory culinary survey class with no prior exposure to the culinary arts program. The second student group had completed their first internship and entering their junior year of study engaged in advanced coursework leading to their final internship prior to graduation from the program. The final group consisted of students with some small amount of remaining course work but had completed their second capstone internship. The responses of the freshmen students are treated separately from the sophomore and senior student responses for the purposes of clarity in understanding the themes that surfaced from the lived experiences of all internship completers. The decision was to combine both sophomore and senior responses was made at the end of my data analysis because the positive and negatives themes of their responses followed consistent patterns and perspectives of what worked and what did not, which, if presented separately, would have been redundant to readers. Thus the combined responses of these groups provide a seamless yet accurate representation of what the book seeks to explore.

Chapter organization. The participants in the study were students consisting of freshmen in a culinary survey class with no other program participation to that point, sophomores who had completed internships, an senior students who were internship completers; and as such, this section follows the progression of responses situated in that order. The chapter sections begins with the novice freshmen then proceed to the responses of interns themselves.

The headings of each section represent the themes that emerged from deductive and inductive codes used to group the data provided by the respondents. At times, extant socialization theory is presented within areas of discussion to corroborate and connect responses to pertinent extant socialization theory that serves to inform that section of the findings and to provide further clarity to the conclusions.

Students

First Year Students

Unity spurs hope. First year student respondents were predominately freshmen participating in an introductory survey course on national and international food cultures prior to actual involvement in classroom study and the practice of culinary methods and execution skills in the laboratory setting. As such, they were particularly entwined as a student group through their engagements, activities, interaction, commiserations, and the avoidance of permanent labeling by others. Equally, knowing was interminably bound with the positive environment with knowledge not emphasized as a substance to be ingested and then transferred to new power-laden social and systemic processes where experience and knowledge are often mutually determined. The participative environment invoked togetherness, solidarity, and commonality, which could provoke more positive risk-taking and inquiry. Therefore, a sense of normalcy prevailed. Their responses were calm, and sheltered; in this context, all options are always open even if he or she carried some history of failure. Agency was plausible and viable because that view carried a future orientation.

The first-year student responses were well-reasoned and quite broad in scope. Surprisingly, the depth, clarity, and focus of their responses, and the importance of what was, and was not discussed, to some extent, overshadowed many of the sophomore and seniors responses which will become somewhat noticeable points of comparison as the discussion of all students ensues.

Themes

Evaluation

Internships as practical experience. Many of the first-year students recognized that a working environment is different from the classroom and acknowledged the value of combining classroom theory with practical experience to gain knowledge. “Practical experience is important – what works and what doesn’t – it’s reality versus theory.” Further, they felt that the working environment would probably drive additional questions to consider. Many saw the first internship as an opportunity to hone their social skills through interacting with kitchen staff, dining room staff, and the actual customer. “It’s an opportunity to learn and demonstrate professionalism in different situations.” Some students intended to utilize the experience to test “likes and dislikes” realistically. The majority of students, though stating it in different ways, expressed awareness that classroom and laboratory learning was obviously different from a professional operation and that maximizing both components would lead to better preparation for entering the culinary field. “I may use a cooking method a time or two in the laboratory, but using that method day after day in a restaurant will help me perfect it.”

The purpose of an internship was seen by most as a form of evaluation. “My first internship will be, in many ways, for me a career test.” Others felt that actually working in industry could “help me to decide what area I would want to specialize in.” Some student saw hard work as closely linked with respect and self-confidence. Some students indicated that: “motivation on my part will lead to the site being motivated to teach me.” Others offered that: “Experience is important to success and feeling able.” Thus, the overarching theme expressed by these students, situates the internship as “an important determining factor” which could aid in the crystallization of long tern career decisions.

Environment

Future sense-making as a practical advantage. Regarding the general expectations of what could or should be learned on a first internship, the predominant perspective centered on the positive practical implications of learning in a real work environment. The acquisition of broad knowledge, the big picture, was an important concern for a majority of students. The work should be basic jobs at first, learning to understand the setting and situations they might confront, and getting a general feel of the entire operation. Most wanted to learn the scope of involvement of people and place and “How do I feel about that?” The driver was adaptive learning of skills and knowledge which could be transferred to their future studies - what should be retained and brought to bear on future studies and the elements they considered unproductive and left behind. Understanding the importance of future class work and making sense of what they would be learning by applying their time spent in industry was seen as a considerable benefit.

Learning new techniques through interaction with others from different culinary backgrounds was considered a potential positive as well as developing ways to address those from different backgrounds and possibly different work ethics was also seen as a positive byproduct of such interaction. Some students would rather focus on more specific areas, improving their ability to multitask, or deeper into the social mechanics of the operation such as time management, and the pace of the operation, “who” is actually taking charge, and attention to honing, socialization skills. Personal learning themes addressed agency, seen as essential, tempered with humility which they felt would be more indicative of their willingness to learn and do whatever was necessary. Further, they could begin to explore their “style” of cooking, and test interest in specific areas of specialization. In sum, the majority saw the internship’s potential for building and confirming confidence and ability which would provide momentum to both future class work and career.

Involvement

Personal involvement in site selection. Most of these students were quite adamant regarding their primary involvement in all phases of the internship process and site selection. “I would like to talk with the site myself because I could ask important questions and get to know what I will be looking forward to, and how to prepare myself for the experience.” Most of these students saw personal involvement as indicative of responsibility. “The site will be investing money and time on me – I want them to know that I’m worth it.” Many of these students had personal agendas regarding the knowledge they wanted to attain in addition to a general learning experience in a working environment. They believed that hands on involvement would help to address “who” would they working with, and confirm “what” would be available to learn? As such, their responses were generally proactive seeing the internship as both a course requirement and an opportunity that could benefit their future studies and beyond. “I want to take control of both school and life” was the response of one student. Another noted “Culinary Arts is an applied science – so a good place to start would be to ‘apply’ myself to each task at hand.” Still other students felt that “personal attention to details could raise additional questions that I may not have considered.”

It is important to note that these students were aware of the program’s internship facilitators and their availability to help guide them through the process and they were quite willing to utilize their expertise in securing a site, general guidance, and advice. They indicated a sincere appreciation for any wisdom the program facilitator’s might render, which could also include: negotiating the terms of the internship, the quality of their choice, and goodness of fit, but the leg work and actual site discussions were their responsibility. Of note, the one key element that a majority of these students expected their instructors and the facilitator to provide was an honest appraisal of their ability which should be driven by their demonstration of a constant high level of involvement in both class and laboratory learning. Thus these student enter the program with a rudimentary understanding of “symbolic capital" [practical work experience gained by the student under the auspices of the educational institution and practical work experience obtained in for-profit restaurants]. Additionally, the importance of input from previous students who might have completed an internship at a site under consideration, or in general, was also considered a ‘high priority conversation’ towards securing a good learning environment.

Wanting personal control. Clearly, the overarching theme of the first-year students was personal control with regard to contacting a site, or following up on a program facilitator’s initial contact with a site. The majority of these students felt that, to whatever extent possible, major learning experiences should be pre-determined and negotiated with the site prior to the internship. The response of one first-year student might best collectively summarize the feelings of most of the students’ reasoning that: “I have to attack my first internship as the ‘only chance’ being provided to me to learn in a real life environment. If I stand out on the job, I can get a good recommendation that will help me later. If I get a good recommendation from the site, my professors will see that I’m a serious student.” Other students viewed the internship as a potential long-term “networking” opportunity. In sum, an overwhelming majority felt that engaging in personal negotiations with a site would demonstrate agency, interest, responsibility, and willingness to make key decisions - coupled with a high degree of faith in the program and those who have gone before them. A majority also felt the primary responsibility of selecting a site that best fit their personal schemes and agendas should be researched personally then interaction with the facilitator and others who could provide insight should follow.

The linkage of site and city. These students noted the importance of personally researching different urban internship sites and cities of interest paramount to the selection process. Additionally, the significance of culture was apparent as many considered learning the culture of the people of the site city to be an important aspect of the experience. There was the clear recognition that community and site constitute an inseparable linkage. Most were looking to achieve a complete experience and clearly stated their belief that “research aids preparation.” The best decision would culminate from viewing all aspects of the experience from an ontological way of thinking: What is there to know? Several students suggested that while speaking with the site would help to get a feel for the location, visiting the site and city could help to confirm which would be the best choice as every learning environment is unique.

Socialization

Inexperience created apprehension. Many of these students expressed a degree of fear and anxiousness due to their inexperience but the stronger feeling was excitement to begin. This might better be expressed as simple apprehension, the fear of the unknown. Some were concerned with fear of acceptance by the site. As first year students, they have not engaged in many of the classroom and laboratory elements that would greatly enhance their ability to perform. Further, having not encountered these elements, there are no successful experiences and confidence builders that would instill a more confident response. Thus, these responses were reasonable given their freshman status. However, other students pushed past any personal insecurities suggesting that the intern should: “just jump in and do it – figure it out as you go!” The confidence levels exhibited were predominantly in the normal range of what could be expected given the absence of practical knowledge and experience that more advanced students would have encountered before reaching the decision process of selecting a site. However, they can and often do surface later as embedded social constructs that can in various ways, drive or hinder a student’s ability to actualize their success as the discussion of sophomores and seniors demonstrated.

Managing impressions and anticipating expectations. Two important socialization connections emerged during the first-year student interviews. The first was an obvious connection to Erving Goffman’s ‘impression management’ (Hughes, Krehler, and Vander Zanden, 2002). Goffman pointed out that only by influencing other people’s ideas of us can we hope to predict or control what happens to us. These students, as a collective, believed that it was important to present themselves to others in ways that would lead them to be viewed in a favorable light. In line with the tenets of Cooley, Mead, and Goffman (Michner, DeLamater, and Myers, 2004), the formation of ‘self’ for these students began with the way they viewed and were willing to test their attributes, capacities, and behavior.

Secondly, as a prelude to organizational socialization, they engaged in "anticipatory socialization" (Shepard and Green, 2003), by developing expectations and knowledge about possible jobs and positions. Their positions were in line with Arnold’s (1985) argument that students who know more about working life before they enter into an organization are better able to find the type of employment that fits their personalities and skill sets and thus produce more accurate overall expectations.

Sophomores and Seniors

It is crucial to note that all student recounts and subsequent outcomes of these experiences were regarded by the internship program facilitators from all of the institutions involved in the study as ‘successful.’ The minimum criteria necessary for a satisfactory grade for the interns’ experiential coursework essentially turns on the following factors:

1. The completion of the institution’s required number of hours of work at the internship site;
2. The submission, in most cases, of a journalized representation the experience and/or the compilation of the experience in the form of a final portfolio; and
3. A satisfactory evaluation submitted by the site’s internship coordinator.

At the end of all student discussions, aspirations, and tribulations, the minimum criteria for site inclusion in the institutions internship program, and the evaluation process mirrors these minimum requirements.

Symbolic Capital and Involvement – Practical Experience

For those students who amassed sufficient "symbolic capital" (practical work experience) and displayed academic excellence, their demeanor conveyed ‘enlightenment’ regarding their possibilities with each step providing greater empowerment towards self-actualization and entrepreneurship evidenced by their actions and self-confidence. They further maintained the ‘hope’ elements expressed by the freshmen entering the program. Having established themselves, they exerted agency, believed in their ability to find answers to the things they questioned, and they felt calm and sheltered in their ability to perform within the institutional environment and equally in the real world. Others who did not reach such levels of success by lacking symbolic capital and institutional recognition were to some, or greater extent, in chaos. Their lack of self-confidence, surfaced in the form of fear or confusion exemplified by their lack of organization, and at times students experienced anger focused inwardly when they failed to initiate action. It also surfaced externally, when they waited for direction that did not materialize.

Approximately thirty percent of sophomore and senior students, both male and female, interns interviewed reported stellar internships. I discuss sophomores and senior interns together because the purpose of the study was to note successful tendencies and progressions rather than class levels and as such, to discuss the success aspects of either student level separately would be redundant. The following student recollections chart the course through a successful internship from its initiation to conclusion highlighting the productive tactics of both sophomore and senior interns. Of note, many of the astute tactics utilized by sophomore respondents were obtained through discussions with successful senior interns regarding their approaches to accomplish their personal goals for the internship.

What constitutes good preparation. For successful sophomore and senior students the preparation process for their internships began in their freshman year of study. The required investment was pre-calculated. Common factors among these students were their persistence and hard work in the culinary classroom. Additionally, they also excelled in the courses pertaining to other areas of university study maintaining high overall grade point averages. In the laboratory they spent additional hours perfecting the methods they were taught. All worked in the culinary field during the school term and summers to gain more experience. While many already possessed the social capital required, others identified such deficiencies and improved those skills, and of great importance, the ‘symbolic capital’ necessary for success in an applied field had been systematically amassed over time. Three minor themes became obvious during these student interviews: It is important to have ‘agency’, the ability to advocate for one’s self, to be inquisitive, and above all, to have confidence in your ability.

It is important for students to contact the site. One sophomore student indicated, “I think it’s important to prepare for the interview to understand what that is like. So, I started there. I went in for my interview with the chef and I explained to him that I was willing to do anything he asked me to do, but I also told him that I was interested in getting a well-rounded experience. I want to see the kitchen from both sides: front of the house [dining area], and back of the house [kitchen]. The student was asked to return for a second interview and the chef agreed to provide a complete look at the operation. “We talked a little and he said: I’m going to give you exactly what you are asking me for. We talked a bit more and set up a schedule for him and me that covered fifteen weeks to give me a full picture of the business. We decided nine weeks back of the house (kitchen) and six weeks in the front of the house(dining room). In a week I started just doing the basic jobs then moved to the other positions."

Another sophomore student indicated that at a proper site, the chef would allow students to acclimate to the new work environment by observing the operation in action for a while. "The chef made me do one thing for each station. First, he made me watch the station being operated. When I worked service, there was one spot that no one could stand, well, he made me stand there and watch my whole first night. That night I learned all the waiter calls. In this restaurant, the kitchen terminology was different from the last place I worked. Understanding those calls [when specific customer orders should be started] are really important to keeping the kitchen in sync. It keeps you from fumbling around if you understand when to begin preparing food.” This sophomore student was allowed to become not only familiar with the recipes he would have to prepare, but also the terminology of the kitchen for beginning and finishing customer orders. Being able to observe a station prior to working it was important to him. “Watching was incredible - I wish I had done that before. I could look at the station [area for preparing specific dishes on the menu]; see which items were busy, where everything was located, and how the person working the station did the work.”

Did the chef have an agenda for teaching or were decisions regarding what students learn left to their own construction? A common student response indicated that in general, most chefs do not have an agenda for teaching interns: “No, the chef really didn’t have anything in particular to tell me, but if I asked a question, he was more than happy to tell me anything I want to know. If I didn’t ask any questions, he didn’t bother telling me anything. But if I said, “I have a question for you,” He would say all right let me hear it. If he didn’t have the time at that point, or if he wasn’t sure of the answer at the moment, he would tell me that he would get back to me – and he always did. What I found worked really well was at the end of the night I would pull him aside and ask him - how did I do tonight? He would always say ok let's talk about your weaknesses and then we’ll talk about your strengths.”

A History of Work Experience. Deciding what information would or could be learned was carefully thought out well in advance and was often the result of years of thinking for most of the student interns who excelled prior to, during, and after an internship experience. They accurately assessed their ability by seeking unbiased assessment from others in their cohort, from their teachers, and, of importance, from the professional culinary mentors for whom they worked. These students either possessed or developed an innate sense of “Who am I? What is my skill set? Where am I now? And where do I want to be and what steps do I need to take to achieve my goals?” They were attentive in the classroom. The laboratory was their training ground for honing their abilities. They did not simply cook the recipe, they centered their concentration on learning and executing the cooking method – the rules that would apply to cooking any similar dish in which only the ingredients would be changed. As explained by one senior student: “If I were asked to make a cream of broccoli soup, in reality, I don’t need a recipe to do that. It’s a “cream” soup so I apply the method for making cream soups – I don’t need a recipe because I know the method cold. If you know the method you can make ‘any’ cream soup. My only question for the Chef would be about what spices, if any, he wanted me to include, or the intensity of the seasoning. If I have to ask the Chef for a recipe, I haven’t mastered the basics – why would he take me seriously?” The essential mindset was to first prepare yourself - be positioned to seize an opportunity to advance what you know. These students understood the value of learning from some of the best professionals in the culinary field and the need for a certain level of competency to acquire the site.

Another sophomore provided a summary view of what exemplary effort could accomplish: I did my first internship with a Master Chef in Chicago because I was prepared and as ready as I could be. I went in to the restaurant and ‘staged’ [work for no compensation, similar to an audition] for two days so the Chef could see my skills and attitude – that got me the internship. I worked hard, studied after my shift. I came in early and stayed late to ask questions – I did everything I could do every day I was there. I can’t begin to tell you how much I learned because I showed the interest and willingness to take away everything I could. I networked. I received a great evaluation and letter of recommendation. Now I have a much stronger resume and the personal recommendation from a nationally known Chef if I need it, to get me into an even better situation for my second. I look at some of the other student and I don’t get it. No real motivation or direction. I mean, just how loud does opportunity have to knock? I think some of my classmates are passing up some really good chances.”

Pre-negotiation of the work schedule leads to success. The most successful outcomes came from students that engaged in some form of pre-negotiation process with the site prior to arrival. From their perspective, this allowed time for reviewing basic skills that would be utilized during the internship, research the location for interesting things to try to experience and to prepare questions that would help drive their inquiry. “I took the time to research the Chef to get a better feel for his background. Since I was doing my internship in Maine and knew little about that State, I also researched the food and a bit of history about that area of the country which helped me learn quite a bit about the lobster industry and New England cuisine in general.” However, not all pre-negotiations panned out exactly as discussed. “I got there and was dealt a different card that I hadn’t planned for but regrouped, put in extra work to show I wanted it, could be trusted, and deserved to be there and by the end of the first week the plan was back on track. Thinking back, they were testing me to see if I could do what I said I would do.” I didn’t plan for that.”

Many student respondents took less formal and more candid approaches to preparing and planning their internships and the tactics utilized, or the lack of some form of preparatory method and depth of personal commitment when factoring in the different levels of engagement and willingness of the site to invest in the intern yielded varying results. Many students’ confronted ‘role conflict’ as they moved from the systematic teaching they experienced in the classroom to the working world where they were forced to become their own teachers. A common intern theme was the acknowledgement that the classroom and working world would be different but many failed to consider how such differences would affect their ability to learn – and who would have to be the initiator. “No there really was no learning agenda. I learned whatever I set out to learn. Had I not gone to the line during service to see what was being done I couldn’t have even begun to tell someone how anything on the menu was made. I had to put myself out there to gather information. I was an extra hand to them. Sometimes the guys would call me over to watch something or to show me something but not too often.” Some students made the transition by understanding what adjustments were required to learn. “They will teach you whatever you want to learn but will not come and find you. You have to step up and show interest. You have to control what happens next.” However, some students considered the challenge of taking on a personal leadership role to be untenable. “I did make a list of the things I wanted to learn, but, needless to say once I got there they just had me doing busy work that anyone could have done. I resigned myself to just finish what I started but I didn’t learn very much at all.”

Site selection planned in haste. “The site was chosen on short notice” was a frequent response for many of the students. Some decisions were made by collaborating with the institution’s intern facilitator – and such suggestions went unquestioned. Many of the students selected a site of their own choosing – which went unquestioned by the institution facilitator. In one way or another, a common theme “I selected this site because it was close to home.” also largely influenced the site decision. Most of these students did little to match their skill levels with the site or to inquire about what skill level the site expected them to possess. One intern responded: “I set up an interview with the owner of the site. In the interview, the owner seemed uninterested in my resume as if the information it contained was not important. I think he read all of two pages in mere seconds.” Nonetheless, the student decided to intern at this site even though there was no discussion of what he would learn during the internship. The site did him a favor by allowing him to intern there was the general inference.

Still others went through a formal interview process and performed a cursory inspection of the operation prior to accepting an internship. Some were certain during the selection process that the site would afford an appropriate learning experience. However, many responded “I was so nervous during the interview that I forgot to ask some important questions.” In most cases, those questions pertained to what they would be doing and learning during their time at the site.

What do students invest in internships? The depth in which student respondents addressed what they invested in their internship varied as might be expected. “I put a lot of effort into this internship. It was my first kitchen job, and I was looking to learn a lot from it. Time was heavily invested too; I worked overtime most weeks. I put a lot into this, and got a lot out.” This response represents the encapsulated ‘bullet’ form of summation I encountered from students who felt their internship experiences were productive.

Time. Other responses were equally reflective of the ‘moment’ of the experience and more focused from an ‘actions at the time’ perspective. "Time - I worked well over 360 hours. I averaged fifty-five to sixty hours per week. I was there from June fourteenth to August fifteenth. I always gave a good effort.” Another response: “My investment - I worked when I was scheduled, and sometimes stayed later.” Still another: “My entire summer. I usually went the day after finals and returned the day before school started back. I work a considerable of time on and off the clock about 70 to 80 hrs a week. I learned so much more than I expected I would and it didn’t cost me anything more than a plane ticket there."

Some students failed to grasp the purpose of the internship as it pertains to a field where useful application is both requisite and designed into the educational process. As encapsulated by one student: “I invested a summer of my life. I literally did nothing but sleep, eat, and work. I was exhausted every day and I had no social life outside of work. In terms of effort, I worked my ass off for minimum wage. I think it’s ridiculous that we have to pay for the internship class. Why should we ‘pay’ to’ work’ our asses off? That summer was the hardest I have ever worked and the hardest I ever want to work. It was miserable. The hours were horrible and the pay was crap.” From the perspective of this student, the response made perfect sense. If the internship is viewed as a true learning experience, then the amount of time worked was not the important factor, however, if the internship was considered to be just another course requirement to graduate, then the investment was seen as too extensive in comparison to more traditional institutional offerings.

Many of the student respondents calculated their investment in terms of ‘time’ but how their time was construed and utilized formed a noticeable separation that spoke to what the intern wanted to accomplish; planned goals, if any; self-evaluation, if any; and meeting prescribed standards that different types of venues required for successful inclusion. For students who achieved superior results, the word ‘time’ was more aptly envisioned as ‘timeline’ which conveyed a far different way of thinking about the purpose of an internship, what it disclosed, measured, afforded, and the positive impact on their future it potentially provided the student. For many of the students who embarked on internships, time was marked from the beginning of the experience. For those most successful interns, the beginning of the timeline began years prior to that first day working in a real world operation – time was relative and continual.

When the collective responses of successful students are considered, aspects such as gauging one’s ability, building one’s skills and resume, honing one’s attributes – or acquiring attributes seen as lacking were important student considerations. Additionally, involvement in school and work to build strengths that would allow them to be seen as “competent,” along with detailed preparation strategies such as the contemplation of personal goals and the acquisition of skills and knowledge through the careful selection of sites that would further their purposes were viewed as vital to their future. Thus these students engaged in careful negotiation with the site to gain the assurance that things agreed upon would occur. All of these elements involved time. However, time from their perspective appeared, in and of itself, not to be the overriding factor but rather a marker to gauge, to reflect, to be, or stay, on schedule – it was limited, valuable, and to be used wisely.

What advice would these interns give to a student preparing for their first internship? The sophomore and senior responses were varied but all equally insightful. Most sophomores indicated that a new intern should: “Talk to everyone around you – I mean everyone. You learn things from people you would never think you can learn from. People who have been there forever know a lot. Find out about the topics they like and begin talking to them about that. Eventually, they will open up. Find the storyteller. Find out who is in charge. There is the boss and then there is the person who really calls the shots. I actually saw that! I thought the chef controlled everything. It wasn’t the chef at all. It was the general manager who made the final decisions on everything. He knew the most about the customer. Decisions were about the customer first. Under the general manager, the kitchen had the final authority because they knew more about the food."

All interns suggested that new interns should "get out of your comfort zone. Throw yourself to the wolves every chance you get. If your station is not busy, go to the station that is and try to help. It’s the best way to learn something else. Do not just stay in one spot. They won’t get unset if you are trying to help. It shows initiative. Make the first moves and show interest and work as fast as you can, most importantly – always show interest. You have to want to learn. When they see that, it’s easy from that point on.

Many interns responded that being candid with their site facilitators contributed heavily to their improvement during the internship. “Sit with your boss and tell him that you don’t want fluff; you want to know, really, how you are doing. Tell them not to hold anything back from you. It won’t make you better if you settle for the fluff. I said that several times to be sure I got the truth.

All senior interns and most of the sophomores indicated that: "It’s important that interns ask questions because those questions lead to other questions. You could just look it up, but the scope of everything starts to widen when you have conversations about what you don’t know. So, think about the questions you develop in school, but use them as guides to develop other questions, and then more questions. It’s amazing how much you can learn if you do that.

Interns should begin to immediately become assertive and take action on their own behalf. One senior intern succinctly stated that, "the best thing to do is attack the situation from the beginning. Show them that you don’t have an attitude and you are there to learn and you don’t care who you learn from. Be relentless because they won’t just tell you things, but if you keep asking, the answers get longer and the conversation moves on to other things you want and need to know to be successful in this business." Students felt that it was important to be particular about the internship site choice and the specifics regarding learning opportunities. It was equally important to feel comfortable in the surroundings; being at ease affected learning in their opinion. Humility was seen as a plus when dealing with co-workers. “Nobody likes a know-it-all so even if you know how to do something, ask for directions and look like you got it right the first time you tried – that’s better than appearing arrogant and then messing up. Oh, learn to laugh at your mistakes.” Planning the experience to insure that outcomes were a high priority was also heavily stressed. The planning function also included a thorough investigation of the urban environment of the site city. “Know as much as you can about the city and how to navigate it, where do you want to go and what you want to see and experience. There were so many different cultures and cuisines I could have tried.” Many advised playing to your strengths while concentrating on your weaknesses - and to give extra time without pay if necessary. One senior intern provided this perspective: “I pay for school, I pay for books to learn more about the profession, so if I go in early or stay later and learn something important, so what if I didn’t get paid. It was an opportunity to learn - and for a change, it didn’t cost me anything.” Performance as a key component to success was heavily stressed. Overwhelming, keeping an open mind, and having clarity about your expectations, and theirs [the site] were stressed repeatedly.

Environment

The ultimate goal of the internship. Sophomore interns indicated that, from their perspective, their initial internship was success because it provided them with advanced insight and improved skill levels that would aid them in their future university studies and further propel their career advancement on a future more advanced internship. Their internship site had been selected for career building and their resumes were now more substantive. The first internship was a well thought out learning opportunity that would provide them with additional symbolic capital in the form of work experience to open the doors to more advanced levels of practical experience during their next internship, and result in more favorable employment upon graduation. The goal of most senior internships was the selection of a site that could directly further their career path and their intention was to select a restaurant operation for their final internship that would act as a prelude to employment. Thus, the senior internship site was intended to be their first employment upon graduation.

Internships are messy. Student intern responses from the interviews varied broadly in the reasoning, actions, and perceptions held and disclosed by interns who lived the experience which, as such, do not fit neatly into a collective representation of their total experience that emerged from their disclosures. Some responses represent the positive responses of interns who did achieve success while other responses necessarily turn the discussion toward elements at the crux of less desirable outcomes.

The following intern experiences, as comparison responses to the more successful student interns previously discussed differ in a variety of ways that turn on the interns intended internship goals; preparation tactics; their socialization abilities; and the amount of symbolic capital in the form of practical experience they were able to amass prior to the internship. The most successful sophomores saw their first internship as an opportunity to evaluate their abilities, work on weaknesses, and acquire high quality practical experience that would increase their desirability to top tier restaurant operations when applying for senior internships. Senior interns who subscribed to this way of thinking and planning on their first internships engaged in quality networking in the aftermath and focused all attention on their senior internship as the first permanent work position they would hold upon graduation. Most Culinary Arts graduates can obtain a job in the field after graduation but only a few begin their careers with top tier restaurant operations. Thus for the senior interns who thoughtfully prepared for graduation, this goal was quite attainable. They were known to their top tier restaurant internship sites as individuals with proven abilities and as such they were desirable hires. As the following experiences will expose, the combination of planning, agency, social ability and symbolic capital (practical experience) surfaced as profound factors leading to successful internship outcomes while the lack of any one of these elements tended to hinder internship outcomes.

Workplace versus classroom instruction. Several senior respondents echoed that: “The workplace is more high speed. You’re working fast, and thinking faster. You don’t realize how much you take with you from the classroom until you’re in a situation and you say “hey” I know what to do about this. I know how to make this sauce. I know a good way to handle this problem. It just hits you. An overwhelming number of successful senior respondents indicated that good chefs do engage student interns in critical think exercises. Extending the student's capabilities should always be one of the site facilitator’s goals. As recalled by one senior intern: Every day he [the chef] would make me come up with a special for the day. He would say: ‘Ok, today you’re got chicken, come up with something we can sell.” He just constantly made me think.”

Many sophomore and senior interns alike indicated a gap in educational terminology versus industry terminology reflecting on the predominate holding of an Associate degree by most industry professionals currently in supervisory roles within the culinary industry. An overwhelming number of interns at both the sophomore and senior levels of study indicated that: “I would ask the chef questions, but he didn’t understand them very well. So I would have to go home and re-phrase them so he would understand what I was asking. Getting questions formulated and answered amidst the busy work schedules of most restaurant operations was innovatively overcome by one senior intern with an interest in management but working in the kitchen. Another thing I did was to make up some management questions I wanted to know about and I gave a copy of those questions to the different managers and ask them to go over them, and when they had the time, to answer them for me so I could learn about those areas. Anything they could possibly give me. I also highlighted some of the questions that I thought were really important so if they were pushed for time, they would concentrate on the important ones. I gave each manager questions that pertained to their area of the operation.” This proved to be a favorable approach to overcoming time constraints and generate more thoughtful responses. An additional positive byproduct of this approach was an appreciation of the depth of what was being questioned and the creation a productive dialog that that further enhanced the student's inquiry. “My general manager loved my questions. He thought they were knowledgeable things to want to know. He told me that he was happy to see that I was asking those kinds of questions to learn about. So when he had to time to talk with me I would tell him that I also wanted to know about this or that – I would add additional questions so I would get more out of it. My goal was to get the most out of the internship.”

First day realizations. A common response, and equally a normal one, was “My first few days were a little awkward but after the first week, I felt part of the team.” Some responses were more intense. “I felt horrible! I was so nervous that I was shaking and afraid to do anything wrong. I hate not knowing where everything is and having to ask people for help with everything.” Some interns had a rude awakening regarding the site’s organizational culture discovering that “the staff consisted of an experienced ‘family’ and others who filled spaces on the schedule sheet. My heart sank when I realized that I wasn’t part of the family so that meant I was just filling space.”

Some students who were out of their element took a more proactive approach to getting off to a good start. One student with good upscale work experience who travelled to New York by car indicated that: “I arrived, settled in, took a nap and then went in to help with a few banquets I knew they had that night. I figured why waste time. I was rested and it was only for a few hours of work. I didn’t think about it at the time, but I gained an upper hand and impressed my superiors by deciding to work on my own.” Other students went to the site to watch the operation in action, study the layout of the kitchen, and speak with some of the workers to break the ice prior to the day they were scheduled to begin work. These students believed that confronting the pressure of the ‘first day’ before scheduled to begin work would make their initial day of work easier, more productive, convey interest, and of importance to them, possibly eliminate some of the inevitable ‘first day’ mistakes that might question their competency among new peers.

Organizational cultures can and do support gender bias. An alarming theme emerged during two of the interviews I conducted during the study relating to the organizational culture of sites – an imposed limitation of what would be available to learn based on gender. One female intern was given limited duties in the kitchen and another was informed that she would be working in the front of the house [dining room]. These decisions were not based on knowledge, skills, or competency but rather on the a priori determination that the tasks involved were essentially ‘men’s work.’ The second case was taken to the extreme of not allowing the female intern to train in the kitchen during her internship. Gender bias thus exists in the culinary workplace. Though unsettled with these responses, what I found to be more alarming was the nonchalant manner in which they were recounted. I did not confront these interns regarding the issue of bias initially thus allowing them to continue recalling their individual experiences to the appropriate conclusions. The sum of their descriptions told a story in both cases of what they considered to be successful experiences with some regret wishing they had been allowed to delve more deeply into the experience.

Organizational cultures toward females. While most organizational cultures were nurturing, some presented quite different challenges for a few female interns. “I was treated well for the most part. I was the only girl, so at times it was a little uncomfortable. I worked my butt off so they respected me as an employee. However, there was a fair share of sexist comments and things that would definitely be considered sexual harassment. I was referred to as “the girl” by some of the guys. This was ok with me because I have a good sense of humor but it would have been very uncomfortable for some people. Over all I was treated well but there was some days that I hated being referred to as the only "girl.” I asked if the intern had mentioned this situation to the university or site facilitator, or commented on those incidents in her internship journal or final report. The reply was “Why?” What I found to be more alarming than the actual incidents was the students resignation that a discussion of what had occurred with her educational facilitator would be an unproductive waste of time. It also indicated that these recent incidents were clearly not the first time her talents were minimized because she was female. I discussed such incidents with the individual in charge of internships at my institution indicating the need for us to more closely monitor our female interns. As an educational facility, we were indirectly supporting gender bias and it should be made clear that such action on the part of any site would not be condoned or tolerated.

Socialization

Socialization tactics are vital to success. I asked the interns I interviewed if a personal control-orientation was indeed the backbone of their learning approach. The majority of sophomores and seniors indicated that this was so. An additional personal touch of impression management was added by many interns to convey humility and the genuine want to learn by showing respect for the knowledge possessed by their site facilitators. "One thing that really helped me was something really simple. Every time the chef spoke to me I would say: “yes chef”. Finally, he said: “don’t call me chef.” I told him that I was taught from the beginning to show respect to those higher than me, and he was higher than me. He said he had never thought about it that way. But now he understood how I felt about working for him. I didn’t think I was better. It’s always good to be humble I think. Even if I thought I knew how to do something, I would ask somebody to show me the first time so I was sure I would do it the way they wanted it done."

Assertiveness. Somewhere between those students who were able to overcome site-encountered obstacles and those working at sites unreceptive to the student’s goals by their accounts, were those students who were capable of learning, possessed agency to some degree, but were hindered by their lack of assertiveness to advance their cause. “I was disappointed in that I wasn’t more assertive, because that’s just not the type of person I am, I wish I had been more forceful in pushing what I wanted to learn and be involved in more things going on. They were willing to show me, but I was afraid to ask.” Another student echoed this sentiment: “I wish that I had been more open. I should have pushed harder for them to show me more and let me do more.”

Remorse. Numerous versions of remorse for not taking personal action emerged during the study. Many sat at home and planned the questions they wanted to ask, thought about the areas they wanted to gain experience working in, but, upon arrival at the site, amidst the hustle and bustle, the sights and noise, and the general chaotic atmosphere that defines what a restaurant kitchen is, these questions and thoughts remained nothing more than secret aspirations kept safe and secure on notes in their pockets.

Communication barriers. For others, another roadblock occurred. The questions they complied utilized textbook terminology and the chef or supervisor, who ascended the ranks without the benefit of formal institutional coursework, was unfamiliar with terms such as ‘organizational culture’ or ‘menu engineering analysis’ and the student was ill prepared to transcribe classroom idioms into more understandable inquiries although some form of each of these terms exists in virtually all restaurants – places have particular ways of thinking and acting that are acceptable or unacceptable, and all restaurants evaluate sales from their menu to assess profitability. The knowledge existed but the communication failed to convey discernible questions.

Social agency. Another prevalent recollection expressed by interns centered on a common interest in food and different cuisines. This was always, even for those not as comfortable with starting a conversation as others, an obvious focal point to begin an initial dialog that could extend to more meaningful interaction though in some cases; it proved to be the only existing commonality. “I did fit in with my co-workers but the only thing we really have in common was food and the restaurant. During the time that I was working there, they were the only people I hung out with. It was funny to me because I literally spent all my time with these people. I got very close with a few of the employees and I liked them very much but after the internship, we lost contact.”

Others applied their social abilities: “I performed my greetings every shift, made jokes with everyone and generally became friends. I couldn’t imagine working long hours at a place where I didn’t talk to any other employees. Everyone talked with everyone.” Social ability was a definite ‘plus’ when coworkers were more distant. “I initiated most of the conversations because they had people who did things and were hesitant to show me how to do things. I always tried to be positive and ask questions. I guess you could say that I was pleasantly persistent.” Still others applied the basic power of observation. “You have to learn to do things the way the site wants them done. If you watch and listen, you just pick it up as you go along, figuring out who does what and who you can go to for a specific problem or question.”

Louis (1980) provides guidance for the adaptation of sense making in the context of newcomers and organizational when she defined sense making as attributing meaning to surprise in order to assess the special needs of newcomers through the comparison in general with that of insiders. The experience of newcomers differs from insiders in three important ways:

1. Insiders normally know what to expect in and of a given situation;
2. When surprises do arise, the insider usually has sufficient history in the setting to interpret them more accurately; and
3. When surprises arise and sense making is necessary, the insider usually has other insiders with whom to compare perceptions and interpretation.

In essence, the interaction between intern and site serve to promote or hinder the ease of organizational entry because whether focusing on formal or informal support for socializing the newcomer to the organization, its processes, procedures, and culture, all point to the needs of newcomers to attribute meaning to experiences.

Interaction with coworkers was generally regarded as peaceful coexistence. Some coworkers were thought to be most helpful while some interns experienced both initial and, in some cases, ongoing defensive postures from the existing restaurant staff. Nonetheless, for a majority of the interns interviewed, such interaction was not viewed as a hindrance. As coworker interaction applied to gender, females felt generally accepted and most considered their innate ability to socialize most helpful to learning what they intended to learn. Most experienced receptive organizational norms and felt equality. “Other than the pastry chef, I was the only female in the kitchen and the guys that worked with me treated me equally. The only time I was treated badly was by the Maitre’d [head of the dining area]. The Sous Chef had a talk with him right after the incident occurred and I felt as if the kitchen always had my back.” Some organizational cultures did not live up to that standard.

Weak organizational socialization schemes. Still other organizations lacked what might best be described as a supporting or productive culture for interns, if such a culture existed at all for that matter. Thus what also emerged were deficient organization norms that were, in fact, not suitable for internships. “It was easy to see the relationships throughout the staff. Everyone hated the bartender. There were actually fights during service between the bartender and the executive chef. The whole staff was like a family. Everyone hung out together after work. I began to think they couldn’t have relationships outside of the restaurant. I did adapt easily because I made myself. I drink but I’m not an alcoholic and a lot of the people that I worked with were. Yes the site did facilitate socialization but it was between the staff. On Sunday nights after closing the whole staff would stay and drink late in to the night. I had a short relationship with the Sous Chef so that made things a bit awkward at times. It’s true that you should not mix business with pleasure. If I was the owner I would not allow this. There were a lot of things that went on there that were extremely inappropriate.” This was not the first story relating to improprieties that emerged during the interview process. Again, did the intern bring this situation to the attention of the internship facilitator, the answer was consistently and unfortunately – no. The purpose of an internship did not include the formation of personal relationships with site supervisors. One could construe that the intern acted improperly in this instance but if such discussion turns toward the aspect of ‘responsibility’ for the safety, security, and wholesomeness of the internship experience, then the organizational norms of the site come into question, and equally the controls and guidelines imposed on both interns and sites by institutions should not escape scrutiny – sites should adhere to suitability standards and approval of the site as suitable for experiential learning is an institutional decision.

Anticipatory socialization. Thus, most of the students had some vision of what the internship process would be, how they would perform, and what the subsequent outcomes and effects would result. Some were apprehensive, while some too reassured with initially created hindrances and wrong impressions. Some worked hard and overcame obstacles, some workedhard to no avail. Expectations were created and equally dashed. Some students returned home with ‘what if’s’ having faced the realization that they learned, but could have accomplished more had they engaged in more preparation and practice of skills. But for roughly forty percent of the student respondents, their reply to the question: Was the internship what they expected? the response was “It ‘became’ a whole lot more.” This was a sum statement for those who found the internship to be an ‘evolutionary’ process they felt empowered to heighten and did so.

Fear of the unknown. For most interns expectations were initially, and for some period of time if not continuously, clouded by apprehension, even stronger students fell prey to questioning their ability to perform adequately. One student who received a glowing report from a master chef who subsequently requested more interns from the program recalled: “I was told my skills were up to par with the site, but looking back, I really needed some reassurance. I feel a little silly now because I never anticipated how I would feel if I were out of my comfort zone, but it did happen and I wasn’t sure what to do. It all worked out fine, but I had some questions about myself and not a lot of answers for a while.” The ameliorating factors in such cases became the internal condition of the student and receptiveness of the site to help the student acclimate.

As one student recalled his initial tension breaker laughing softly because he could still hear the chef’s voice in his head: “When I arrived, the Chef told me to look him in the eyes and listen carefully! Mistakes are nothing more than opportunities to learn and I won’t judge you by mistakes because I expect you to make them. If you learn from your mistakes, that’s called growth and that’s what we’re looking for because growth means progress - but if you fail to seize the opportunities presented to you, we’re going to clash.” The student had to repeat the statement back to the chef until the response was verbatim. The student recalled that the Chef was stern, but smiling during that conversation and by the end, the student felt relieved and strangely less tense. “I’m not sure how he did it because he was a pretty fierce guy, but he could get your attention, get his point across, and make you feel relaxed at the same time.” Not all students were quite as fortunate when it came to relieving tension. Some supervisors were better than others while a few appeared disinterested in what students might be feeling or fearing and did little to inquire about either.

Acclimating to coworkers and social norms. Student interns in larger facilities expressed ease in socially acclimating with coworkers. This, I learned, was a significant advantage of a large established venue that accepts a number of interns on an ongoing basis. “You can watch and listen and pick up on social norms pretty fast. I think I did adapt quite easily. Everyone was friendly there and helpful in showing you the ropes and you do wait around a lot sometimes which gives you a chance to get to know a little about the people there, not to mention teaching and learning from each other, so yes the site did facilitate socialization with peers in a lot of ways.” Interns working at sites utilizing numerous interns cited the benefits of going through the internship with others who collectively felt similar pressure to perform well. They would often compare notes, discuss future plans, and help each other overcome obstacles. Thus, support and motivational mechanisms existed among peers. An additional advantage for interns working in facilities who adopted an organizational culture that emphasized the value of teaching was their constant interaction with a staff acclimated to bringing new constituents into the fold and who, over time, became experienced in assessing and addressing the intern’s particular condition. “My Executive Chef and Sous Chef took an active lead with helping all of the interns socialize. To get things started, they showed us all around the city, and also threw a party for us at the Exec’s house.” Other large venue interns had similar experiences. “I was made to feel at home. The Executive Chef and Sous Chef, as well as the kitchen staff, took an active lead with helping all of the interns get to know each other and the staff.”

Culinary Arts programs lack socialization tactics. When one compares the responses of first-year students to the responses of those who have done internships, and the advice they would give to those entering the internship process which correlates to themes that first-year students have already identified as important successful functions, numerous tenets of the socialization literature appear to hold true. First-year students stressed the need for personal involvement, agency and the control of one’s destiny. Students who achieved successful internships did not stray from those beliefs yet some students, to a greater degree, failed to ascribe to that perspective or achieve their goal expectations. The question becomes: what limitations do students’ face that form inhibitions toward achieving stated ends? This might best be explored through the analysis of the students’ trajectory through a culinary program. First-year student responses present a consistent collective of what should be. However, at that point, they have not engaged in the actual ‘applied’ culinary courses of study. They come from different social settings; some have actual culinary experience prior to entry; and each have different social skill sets, levels of motivation, and confidence. As the actual coursework begins all of these elements converge in the classroom and laboratory. Rotter’s (1954) learning theory posited that the expectation of positive outcomes from behavior and maintaining the belief that a high probability exists for positive outcomes, will be more likely engaged in that behavior.

Bandura (1977) developed a social learning theory that incorporated aspects of behavior and cognitive learning. Behavioral learning assumes that people’s environment causes people to behave in certain ways and cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors such as belief in one’s ability are important for influencing how one behaves. Thus for Bandura, social learning suggests a combination of environmental and psychological factors combine to influence behavior. Students do not equally possess the same motor skills such as eye-hand coordination, a sense of urgency, or outgoing personalities. While the purposes of laboratory assignments are designed to address such inconsistencies, nonetheless they become points of personal comparison for students, and equally noticeable separators by the instructors which go un-ameliorated.

The Thomas Theorem (Thomas and Thomas, 1928) states that if men and women define situations as real, they are real in their consequences – the interpretation of a situation causes the actions of the present. Should students judge their performance to be below their fellow classmates, they begin to question their chances to succeed. They see other classmates begin to pull away from them in their work. The different ‘tracking’ of students is proverbial in the educational literature beginning in elementary and secondary education. Higher education, as an extension of that system, subsequently places no barriers to different ‘tracking’ as segregation according to attributes and abilities of those in its charge- especially in applied fields. Students exhibiting greater degrees of skill are placed in more important roles in school and community functions to encourage their ability thus sometimes reinforcing the weaker student’s view of his or her inability as stated by Rotter, as well as their chances to demonstrate improvement.

Ellis, Lee, and Peterson (1978) developed a research agenda to explore differences in social class finding that lower class parents emphasized conformity in their children because they experienced conformity in their day-to-day activities while middle-class parents were more likely to emphasize creativity and self-reliance. Rosenbaum (1975) on college preparation classes and difference hypothesized that participation in a given higher or lower tracts [levels or types of courses] would result in the adoption of the norms, values, beliefs, skills, and behaviors that correspond to that tract. Thus, tracks socialize these students into their corresponding roles which are especially applicable in the applied sciences. The work of these authors extends to the university setting as well. The quantities of time culinary students spend working together generally create strong personal supportive bonds between classmates. Separations, however, occur internally among students’ based on ability, drive and success achieved in the classroom and laboratory setting and beyond. As such, while the personal connection usually remains constant, tracts do form grouping the more proficient students and those who have not as yet reached their full potential. As such, norms, values, beliefs, skills and behaviors become adopted by those with different skill sets and collectively drive how the student’s view of ‘self,’ over time, becomes fashioned.

It should be noted that, these factors do not necessarily forecast ultimate outcomes for students. Equalization over time is another factor that quite often comes into play. Weaker students upon graduation have gone on to perfect their skills and improve social abilities. As exemplars, several students considered not of the highest caliber have gone on to become high profile personal chefs for internationally known personalities. Others have gone on to successful careers including restaurant ownership. The point is simply that those students placed on the higher tract receive greater near-term opportunities and equally demonstrate the ability to be successful now.

Ellis, Lee, and Peterson’s (1978) argument regarding conformity between classes can be viewed from a different perspective that is in line with Fisher’s (1985) position on role clarity. Interns have been conditioned to conform to their classroom and laboratory regimentation. Teachers teach and students learn according to prescribed tenants – none of which applies to a working culinary operation, which can result in role conflict – the student as teacher and learner. The students who pre-negotiate their experiences reduce such conflict and their adjustment into the organization for the most part occurs without major conflict. The students who fail to negotiate the definable and measurable courses of action, which would occur on their internships, or sites that agree to student learning goals but fail to comply, place students in such conflict as their responses indicate. Thus, the student’s internal condition in more difficult circumstances can serve to ameliorate such conflict, or fail to overcome it. The interaction between student and site thus becomes a prime determinant of how clear or ambiguous the student’s role is defined.

Evaluation

Student and site facilitator partner to frame what should be valued. For these sophomore and senior student interns, agency began with the initial interview conducted for their acceptance as an intern. They asserted control over the situation by inquiring into what the site expected from them, and equally voicing what they expected in return. Verbal agreement was not an acceptable end for these students. The necessary deliverable from the restaurant was an agreed upon schedule of what would occur and an appropriate time frame which accomplished two things: they were responsible for learning at the agreed upon pace to prepare themselves for the next step, and the occurrence of that next step was planned. They asserted themselves and maintained control at every opportunity yet remained humble as they executed their tasks. They indicated interest in learning by questioning, and by requiring that their work be evaluated accurately. These interns played to their strengths but placed heavy concentration on perceived areas of weakness. The scope of knowledge they expected to learn was large, but that attainment was planned in advance. All was willing to expend extra time and effort towards their internship. They were not afraid to try something new, and asserted themselves into situations beyond their knowledge to extend the educational benefits.

It should be noted that these interns had strong partnerships with the restaurant sites where they did their internship. The students excelled through effort, but they also prospered because the internship site was engaged in the learning process. These restaurant facilitators made education a part of the company mission. The assertiveness of these students from the onset was an important factor, but the site exerted equal effort to teach. Agency was evidenced by both intern and site facilitator. Further, while these students negotiated a planned schedule of internship experiences, they repeatedly extended those experiences to further impact the internship outcome.

Not all internships follow the previous pattern. It should be additionally considered that a reversal in site conditions and attitudes could probably have resulted in different outcomes. Many sites do not invest equally in the internship experience, but clearly a more adventurous and inquisitive attitude on the part of the intern could to some extent, ameliorate outcomes in less than stellar learning situations. Thus in good situations these qualities could extend outcomes. In formidable situations, they could equally be helpful to learning, and possible change the contextual nature of the situation at hand. However, not all interns possess this level of social and symbolic capital and equally numerous sites lack organizational socialization schemes that allow them to reciprocate the level of interest expressed by students eager to learn.

Educational program imposed guidelines for interns. The collective response of students to what program guidelines they followed included the overarching requirement that students’ must complete and document 360 hours of work at the site and present a final evaluation by the site supervisor. Other required deliverables included pictures taken to convey the cuisine and presentation aspects utilized by the site, menus executed, and journaling their experiences for reflection and comparison over time which would aid in a critically-reflected internship ‘portfolio’ providing a synthesis of the experience.

Some students indicated that creative projects were also a part of their requirement such as the creation of menus, or designing items for inclusion on the site’s menu from products available or underutilized. The responses varied among respondents and the general theme that emerged during the interviews indicated a connection between the intern’s ability and the involvement of the site. Stated differently, the level of competence and willingness to be involved the intern displayed related directly to the receptiveness and involvement of the site to engage in advancing the student creatively.

Though this pattern appeared to predominate, there were also instances where these same student evaluation factors were of little consequence. “The only guidelines I followed were that I worked 360 hours. We were supposed to keep a journal four days a week and after the first two weeks of work, I was too tired to keep up with the journal. After working somewhere and standing on your feet for twelve hours a day the last thing you want to do is go home and write about that place. I got to the point where I was worthless by the end of a day.” I encountered various versions of this theme to a greater and lesser extent. Some students organized ways of coping and conquering heavy workloads and program requirements and persisted while others became simply engulfed by what seems unmanageable and unexpected. Somehow, “I was told to act professional and perform to the best of my abilities” failed to provide sufficient insight to those with little or no previous work experience in the field. The gap quickly became insurmountable. The advice to “tough it out” as some recalled also failed to provide ameliorative insight about how to address problems occurring in real time that the inexperienced intern could not clearly define let alone begin to control.

Educational programs found lacking in student-site connections. Some students felt that the list of previously approved sites compiled by the program helped with the student’s selection process. However, others felt that the list should be kept more current especially in terms of the site’s personnel which would directly address who the intern’s mentor might be. Another student added “What good is a restaurant name and address on a page? I needed to know more particulars about the sites.” Other students were not aware that a potential site list had been compiled. “I didn’t know about nearly any of the internship sites before having to choose one and the site I selected did not provide a good experience for me. Now, I feel behind and I’m having a difficult time getting into a good site for my second internship because my resume doesn’t list a place with strong credentials.” Numerous students cited the potential importance of the institution compiling the impressions of interns who had previously worked at sites new interns were considering to provide more breadth about what might be expected from the site. The opinions of previous interns in general were held in high regard as a ‘peer to peer’ trustworthy informational resource.

Student perceptions on what the site invested. The ability of a site to impart the knowledge the student sought or to advance their skills and abilities was viewed differently depending on student and site correlation and at times, where less desirable outcomes occurred, inequality of intentions was an emerging issue. I received positive responses such as “I felt the site helped my education, definitely. There was one worker in particular who was always teaching me, but every other cook there taught me something. It wasn’t a forced situation, it was natural. Everyone wanted to show me a better way if I needed to improve.” and “When I came back from my internship, I was totally a different person. My culinary knowledge changed dramatically. I had more confidence in the kitchen and knew a lot more.” Another student echoed: “Absolutely. It’s a great internship site. They reviewed my work daily to be sure I was accomplishing my goals.” From a slightly broader view: “I did mature because of the work and I did gain some useful knowledge about how to deal with people.” Another student reflected: “I gained confidence for sure. I guess I could say that I came away with a little from a lot of areas. I was able to perform well which made me happy with myself. Success is contagious in a way, the more you get, the more you want so it definitely helped me to commit and try harder. It showed me there is more than what I know and I have to keep pushing to get better.”

Student and site facilitator partner to frame what should be valued. For these sophomore and senior student interns, agency began with the initial interview conducted for their acceptance as an intern. They asserted control over the situation by inquiring into what the site expected from them, and equally voicing what they expected in return. Verbal agreement was not an acceptable end for these students. The necessary deliverable from the restaurant was an agreed upon schedule of what would occur and an appropriate timeframe which accomplished two things: they were responsible for learning at the agreed upon pace to prepare themselves for the next step, and the occurrence of that next step was planned. They asserted themselves and maintained control at every opportunity yet remained humble as they executed their tasks. They indicated interest in learning by questioning, and by requiring that their work be evaluated accurately. These interns played to their strengths but placed heavy concentration on perceived areas of weakness. The scope of knowledge they expected to learn was large, but that attainment was planned in advance. All was willing to expend extra time and effort towards their internship. They were not afraid to try something new, and asserted themselves into situations beyond their knowledge to extend the educational benefits.

It should be noted that these interns had strong partnerships with the restaurant sites where they did their internship. The students excelled through effort, but they also prospered because the internship site was engaged in the learning process. These restaurant facilitators made education a part of the company mission. The assertiveness of these students from the onset was an important factor, but the site exerted equal effort to teach. Agency was evidenced by both intern and site facilitator. Further, while these students negotiated a planned schedule of internship experiences, they repeatedly extended those experiences to further impact the internship outcome.

Not all internships follow the previous pattern. It should be additionally considered that a reversal in site conditions and attitudes could probably have resulted in different outcomes. Many sites do not invest equally in the internship experience, but clearly a more adventurous and inquisitive attitude on the part of the intern could, to some extent, ameliorate outcomes in less than stellar learning situations. Thus in good situations these qualities could extend outcomes. In formidable situations, they could equally be helpful to learning, and possible change the contextual nature of the situation at hand. However, not all interns possess this level of social and symbolic capital and equally numerous sites lack organizational socialization schemes that allow them to reciprocate the level of interest expressed by students eager to learn. Again, the aforementioned is representational of what thirty percent of the interns’ experience which is comfortably less than half of the internship population interviewed. Thus, not all interns share the motivation and exhibit the experience indicated by the aforementioned students, and not all sites value the sharing of knowledge to the extent recanted by the previous intern recollections as the study will now begin to present.

Maybe this is wrong for me. Other experiences produced outcomes that could be construed as positive or insightful in a different but no less important vein: “Maybe it’s important to understand what you don’t want to be able to define what makes you happy. I was able to see what areas excited me and the things I sure now that I don’t want to pursue.” For a few, the internship signaled the need to consider a different professional trajectory: “No. I learned more about what I don’t want to do and what kind of people I don’t want to work with than I did about a restaurant. It’s all politics. I will never own a restaurant and I never want to work for someone else as long as I live. I don’t think I progressed much in the field but I grew as a person.” What also emerged from several student respondents indicated that not all internship sites intend to invest in meaningful ways to better the intern. “They didn’t. They benefited from having me there to work hundreds of hours at minimum wage to help cut their labor.” Another student response summed the point succinctly: “I knew enough to fill employee gaps at a lower labor cost. I was there for the site’s benefit. It was never about educating me. If I learned something - good - but that wasn’t what was important to them.”

The internship was a valuable experience. For most of the interns, the internship experience was considered a worthwhile enterprise. For students who persevered over time, it brought them to new heights of awareness about their field, the opportunities that laid open to them and, of importance, about themselves. They added work experience in strong hospitality venues to their resumes, garnered recommendations from chefs highly respected in the industry, and created networks to advance the careers and knowledge. The rhyme and reason of the classroom generally made more sense to them – they had seen the correlation of strong organizational cultures to success, how knowledge and creativity were prized, and most of all, from their perspectives, they had been measured and not found lacking. What resonated from these students during the interview process was not arrogance in any form, not cockiness, but rather a quiet reassurance, a grateful humility they seemed to feel about what they had successfully experienced – they never saw the outcome as foregone conclusions.