An analytical framework for career research in the post-modern era

Abstract

Career psychology has witnessed a shift from approaches informed by tenets of the modern world to include approaches informed by the post-modern world as it strives to remain relevant. This shift is most evident in career theory and practice where developments reflect the influence of constructivism, but it is less evident in career research which has remained dominated by methodologies of the positivist worldview. These predominantly empirical methodologies seem incongruent with post-modern tenets. This article applies the constructivist Systems Theory Framework of career development as an analytical framework within which to consider career research in the post-modern era.Résumé. Un cadre de référence analytique pour la recherche carriérologique à l'ère post-moderne. La psychologie carriérologique a été le témoin d'une rupture entre des approches imprégnées par des principes du monde moderne et des approches informées par le monde post-moderne tandis qu'elle s'efforce de maintenir son niveau d'adéquation. Ce décalage est tout à fait évident dans la théorie et la pratique carriérologique où les développements reflètent l'influence du constructivisme, mais il est moins clair dans la recherche carriérologique qui est demeurée dominée par des méthodologies reflétant une conception du monde positiviste. Ces méthodologies principalement empiriques ne semblent pas être en harmonie avec des principes post-modernes. Cet article applique le Cadre constructiviste de la Théorie des Systèmes du développement de carrière comme cadre analytique de

Chaotic careers: a narrative analysis of career transition themes and outcomes using chaos theory as a guiding metaphor

“…However, such approaches continue to have a significant impact on careers research and practice of today but are increasingly criticised for their potentially limiting perspective (e.g. McMahon & Watson, 2007;Savickas, 1997;Whiston & Brecheisen, 2002). …”

“…Bloch, 2005;McMahon & Watson, 2007;Patton & McMahon, 2006;Pryor & Bright, 2003a, 2003bSchultheiss, 2007). The narrow focus of traditional vocational development theories and trait-factor approaches to career decisions has been increasingly criticised as failing to adequately capture the complexity and dynamism of the present-day (e.g.…”

“…The narrow focus of traditional vocational development theories and trait-factor approaches to career decisions has been increasingly criticised as failing to adequately capture the complexity and dynamism of the present-day (e.g. McMahon & Watson;Miller, 1995;Mitchell, Levin, & Krumboltz, 1999;Pryor, Amundson & Bright, 2008;Pryor & Bright, 2003b). Arnold (2004) points to weaknesses in Holland's theory and RIASEC model of careers, itself one of the longstanding dominant models in career psychology, referencing meta-analytic studies which demonstrate poor congruence between job and environment fit, and outcome measures such as performance and job satisfaction.…”

“…Other integrative theories include Savickas' (2001) four level model, which builds on McAdams' earlier work, incorporating personality dispositions, self-regulatory career concerns, career narratives and a process for continuity and change in career development. Systems Theory Framework (STF) (McMahon, 2005) provides a metatheoretical view of career development (Harrington & Harrigan, 2006;Patton, 2007) by bringing together modern and post-modern career theories (McMahon & Watson, 2007). Pryor and Bright (2003a;2003b;Bright & Pryor, 2007) extended systems thinking by proposing the Chaos Theory of Careers (CTC), which holds that an individual's career is a complex system, capable of self-organising but at the same time susceptible to unpredictable change (Pryor & Bright, 2007a).…”

The Consideration of a Constructivist Evaluation Framework in Adult Guidance Practice

“…Young & Collin (2004) identify four dominant discourses in career guidance, namely the dispositions discourse, the contextualising discourse, the subjective discourse and the process discourse. The critical dimension of the study stresses the need for career practitioners and researchers to be more reflexively aware of their own and other powerful discursive practices (McIlveen & Patton, 2006;McMahon & Watson, 2007;Sampson, 2009;Stead & Bakker, 2008). Critical research rejects naturalism, rationality, neutrality and individualism and argues for a dialectic between individual agency and structural determinism (Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997;Rogers, 2004).…”