Project Report : Careers management and the Careers interview
Produced for: Centre for Career Management Skills, Reading University
Written by: Angus McKendrick
Date: July2009
1) Project aims:
Students commonly book a careers interview to discuss their career ideas, or because they are concerned at their lack of them. I intended to give a sample of clients (from amongst those who are at the early stages of careers thinking without firm ideas about their future) prior to such an interview a short handout outlining some theories of career choice and development along with suggestions for further reading if the client so desires. The consequent careers discussion would, as part of the more general interview process, consider the relevance of this learning for the clients own career progression. This report gives a brief account of the progress of the project, and concludes some comments on whether this approach “worked” and has value for other Careers Services.
2) Stage One: Prior to interviewing students:
In order to write my handout for students I read various books and articles related to theories of career choice. I also looked at the overlap and separation between careers education and careers guidance. I also attended a workshop run by Bill Law “Using narrative in careers guidance” at Derby CEGS. I then wrote my draft handout, got advice and feedback from Phil McCash and from colleagues in the Careers Service and then finalised my handout How do people choose and build careers? I also consulted with colleagues about how to identify students for this project, and arranged a small “library” of resources for the use of any students who wanted to follow up in depth any of the references in the handout. I wrote a questionnaire to give to students shortly after the interview. This stage of the project took longer than I expected. I felt I had to get to grips with quite a large careers theory literature- often aimed at a specialist academic audience of fellow “career theorists” with much impenetrable language which seemed to require knowledge of various debates within different social science fields (sociology, psychology, business, philosophy). I needed to do this, both to write my handout (I was, and am, unaware of any similar attempt to outline four major career theories in three pages in a way that wasn’t unduly simplistic!), but also in order to feel confident talking about career theory with students in individual discussion.
3) Stage Two: Interviewing students:
Numbers:
The project aimed to interview 30 students. There were various problems which meant this figure was never achieved. Initially, due to the project starting later than expected, and the pre-interview stage being more time consuming that I had envisaged, the “interviewing stage” started in late Spring 2008- a period when we see fewer students than at other times of the year. I then decided to conclude interviewing in Michaelmas term 2008, but faced various difficulties. It proved more difficult than I had expected to get “referrals” from my colleagues. I think this was less a consequence of any misgivings about the project (my colleagues were keen supporters) but rather a combination of busyness leading to forgetting about it but also students reluctance to engage with the project. As noted in Stage One, prior to an appointment students were expected to spend time (not necessarily a long time- I reckoned a student would not have to take longer than an hour reading the handout, and answering the questions asked). But our students lead very busy lives, and I found that because this required a greater time commitment from students, than our usual “bookable” long discussions, students were often reluctant to participate. It could also be that students had a natural hesitation to be involved in this project- feeling that they wanted the usual “tried and tested” careers interview rather than taking part in an “experiment”. My rough estimate is that five students were informed about the project, and invited to participate, for every student who did then choose to take part.
A further problem was that once interviews started I began to realise that the process of transcribing these interviews was extremely time consuming, and I would have insufficient time allocated to the project to complete all the tasks. Hence I only had sufficient time allocated to the project to conduct 16 interviews. While this is a smaller number than I had hoped for, I do think this is sufficient to evaluate whether this approach to the guidance interview has value. These sixteen students came from a wide range of subjects including Fine Art, Biology, Classics, Engineering, Philosophy and Chemistry.
The interviews
I conducted 16 interviews with a range of students. The majority (10) were undergraduates with four postgraduates and two contract research staff. Their subject of study ranged from Fine Art to Biology, Classics to Engineering.
But, a further problem was encountered. While all 16 had agreed to read the handout prior to the interview, only 11 had done so. The reason given by these five was once again busyness or forgetfulness. In these cases, I did record the interview and used the handout to illustrate, as appropriate, points I had made. Two of these five did subsequently let me know they had then gone away and read the handout and found it useful. All participants signed consent forms allowing for the taping of the interview and subsequent anonymous reporting of these interviews.
After the interviews participants were followed up with a questionnaire. All who had read the handout found it interesting, with 82% also finding it useful (9 of the 11). This is an interesting variation.
I have written an account of the project, “Encouraging students to engage with Career Theory”[1], which focuses on the content of these interviews and student views as to the projects usefulness to them.
4) Dissemination of project
To date this has taken a number of forms. I have discussed the project with my colleagues, culminating in a presentation given to my colleagues in June 2009. Through informal contacts/AGCAS the handout I have produced has been requested by (to date) nine other University Careers Services. The project has also featured in the HEA booklet by Phil McCash “Career studies handbook: career development learning in practice (2009). I have written an article intended for publication in Pheonix later in 2009 and hope to present my findings elsewhere. My report “students thinking about career theory as part of their own career journey” will be on the CCMS website shortly. I also will run a lunchtime session at Biennial 2009 later this summer.
5) What I learnt from the project
I am exceptionally grateful for CCMS for sponsoring this project. It has given me the time to become more familiar with career theory, which I believe is having real benefit for my discussions with students, and which has helped me develop my understanding of how careers are built. It has allowed me to conduct an interesting experiment where I think the findings are mixed but mostly positive. I have also begun to realise that everything takes far longer than you anticipate, and that while optimism might be a good thing, perhaps I needed a little more realism as to the scope of the project at the outset.
6) Finance
The bulk of the funding was spent on salary costs. In fact the days allocated to the project proved insufficient, and approximately an additional ten days has been spent on this project than was funded by CCMS. As well as the equipment and book purchases, this project also funded attending several seminars held at Reading, CCMS/ course, at Derby Centre for Guidance Studies, and will finance my attendance at the forthcoming AGCAS biennial conference.
6) Concluding remarks- could this approach to the careers interview have wider application?
I think there are some problems with this approach to the Careers Interview. One is that the number of services offering long appointments is declining, and hence the possibility of this sort of intervention is limited[2]. It may be more relevant to private careers counselling, where usually a counsellor does spend significant time with their client. It could also be useful as part of a series of interventions using a “careers coaching” model as has been adopted by some Careers Services.
A secondary, though important problem, is also that students are very busy people, and anything that takes additional time to do is likely to prove less popular than other alternatives. We may appreciate that making good career decisions involves a significant time commitment, but this is a hard message to sell to students. Encouraging students to recognise the value of having to do a task (in this case read the handout and think about it), prior to having a careers interview is not easy.
However, despite these problems, I feel that this approach can demonstrate real value. While the sample was small, those who did engage with it found it useful. Students did recognise the relevance of the material to their own future lives, and I believe that this led to more productive career discussions. Jenny Ambrose and her colleagues have noted how Careers Interviews tend to follow an approach modelled on a matching paradigm- this method of conducting careers discussions very much challenges this approach partly by bringing career theory out into the open and sharing it with our clients. Doing this, helps ensure our role in the careers discussion is one of career facilitator rather than career solver.
I think that using a short career theory handout could also be useful outside the careers interviews. As well as a stand-alone resource for students (we now have this handout in a slightly revised form on our website), it could also be useful as a starting point in careers workshops and seminars for students following careers education courses.
I think the project was a qualified success, pioneering an innovative approach to the Careers Interview which has the potential for wider application. I also feel that the handout I produced will successfully operate as a “stand-alone” resource- this would never have been developed without the time I was given to learn more about Career Theory. I envisage continuing to use Career theory more explicitly in my interviews with students- at this stage with students I have first seen for short “drop-in” interviews- where I think it would be helpful I will ask them to read the handout prior to our subsequent appointment. I am also encouraging my colleagues to use this approach as appropriate with their students.
APPENDIX ONE:
Encouraging students to engage with Career theory- a small-scale research project; DRAFT
How many times in your Careers discussions with students have you explicitly referred to Careers theory? I must admit that until recently I never had, and yet theory- whether we are aware of it or not- is never far from the Careers Interview[3]. Frequently in my discussions I have referred to the role of “luck” in building careers, yet never before have I shared with my client the theory of “happenstance” which provides a valuable way for students to think about, and exploit, the role of chance in building successful careers. And we are all aware of various structural constraints that can often limit opportunities, yet talking about this with a client in an interview is sometimes difficult given our natural desire to encourage our students to be positive and optimistic about their future.
I recently had the opportunity to run a small project which aimed to see whether raising “career theory” in my individual discussions with students could be valuable, by encouraging such students who were themselves in the process of making career plans think more widely about Career theory. I was very lucky to receive funding from the Centre for Career Management Studies, Reading University, to whom I am extremely grateful.
What did I do?
Students who participated had first had a short “drop-in” discussion with an adviser, were selected as they were at a relatively early stage of Career thinking (e.g. “I don’t know what to do when I finish my course”), and asked if they minded participating in the project. The aim wasn’t that they had a forty five minute “career theory tutorial” but that at this longer careers appointment, some time would be given to explore their own views about “career” as part of a wider discussion. Students who agreed to participate, were prior to this appointment, asked to read a four page handout I wrote titled “How do people chose and build careers”. This outlined four different careers theories: matching, developmental, structural and happenstance. Students were also asked to consider prior to the appointment four questions I posed in the handout[4].
As could have been expected, when presented with the choice between a follow up longer appointment with no significant work required beforehand, or an appointment which would first require some hard thought, the majority offered the choice chose not to participate! However sufficient students (16) did opt to participate for me to offer some thoughts as to the value of this novel approach to the Careers Interview. Students came from a wide range of disciplines including Engineering, Fine Arts, Chemistry, Classics and Philosophy.
What did students think of the Career Theories outlined?
At each interview I asked the participant early in the interview if they had read the handout and what they made of it. We then discussed any implications of this, for their own career future. Students who participated frequently wanted to talk in some detail about the theories outlined in the handouts, and talked of its relevance to their own views and ideas for their future career. In the handout I had asked students to decide if any particular career theory they felt particularly attracted to. Several students pointed out that the different theories aren’t always incompatible :
I think all of the theories here are compatible, its not a case of choosing between structuralism or development theory or whatever. In a way elements of each theory can be incorporated into- its not a matter of choosing between competing theories
or that all had something to offer : It wasn’t that there was one (theory/approach) that particularly struck me but that there were parts of each one that interested me….
One student pointed out I think distinguishing so sharply between the different approaches is a little artificial….
Matching theories
Different students, as you could expect, felt more positive about different theories. Generally though matching theories were least popular:
I did find the ideas of John Holland silly. I think its an outdated way of thinking, isn’t it?.. how can you easily differentiate between say, social and artistic what if you are both….
…the difficulty with this is its hard to say that there is just one career that’s right for anybody…I think it’s a bit strict to say that, like, that for this career you have to have these
Although there was an awareness that employers do tend to use matching approaches to selection:
….five qualities and if you don’t have them you need to go and find something else. Well surely that’s not right?
One student commented on how we can then try to turn ourselves into something different from what we are to become suitable for certain job roles. Her account can demonstrate the link between matching and developmental theories:
something that struck me about this approach is that it seems to me we form ideas about what we should aspire to be, its more kind of the abilities that we emphasise the skills which correspond to our alter-ego. I feel I have got a certain idea of where I would like to see myself in the next ten years. I really don’t know if this is based on an image of the skills I have or me talking myself into thinking that I should have these skills…
Developmental theories
In general students made fewer mentions of, and identified less, with development theories although one student commented:
I find this somewhat uplifting to think that the decisions I make are not in any sense final. Its about a process.
This, though, was countered by another who made the pertinent comment that:
development (theory) is an interesting one but it doesn’t help me with the step I need to take now
Another student commenting on development theory made the interesting point that retrospectively looking at ones career based on how successful one had been could lead to different theories seeming more appropriate:
(development) is more realistic..most people use chance and fate and then they develop themselves rather than saying “I want to do this because I have such and such skills” Most of the people who are successful haven’t planned their career with a Prospects Planner approach, I don’t think… (but then she mentions that perhaps the “failed” Richard Bransons where things didn’t work out, would have been better off using a Prospects Planner approach))….