It is an oft cited truism that the labour market is changing rapidly.  However, this idea is a contested one.  The first discussion challenges some of the most common assumptions and gives pointers to related resources.

A view commonly expresssed in recent policy documents is that guidance has a key role to play in addressing skills shortages.  This second debate considers whether or not this is a reasonable expectation or at odds with the underpinning principle of impartiality in guidance.

Observations on the theme of the new information age:

Comment 1: Castells' ideas as a challenge to thinking about careers

Drawing upon the work of Manuel Castells, Nick Frost presented a paper at the SCUTREA conference in 2000, relating to the network society and lifelong learning. He states that the nature of economic change from industrialisation to information means that lifelong learning is integral to an individual’s effectiveness within the labour market. We live in a society that looks for measurement of potential and effectiveness as divisional tools. Knowledge is a pre-requisite for inclusion, without such awareness there is being created a huge barrier between classes in the UK (some may suggest an expanding underclass).

Castells suggests that individuals need to develop 'project identities' in order to respond adequately to the rapid changes within the economy and the effects of globalisation upon our working practices and environments.

Do career advisers need to adopt the same philosophy?

Such rapid change and re-constructed labour forces should require a heightened level of responsibility from providers of career guidance. Perhaps advisers are clinging onto more stable practices from the past rather than re-inventing their role within the new world order? But are they?

Career guidance needs a wake-up call - not through Connexions or IAG's or even through F/HE or any systemic influence. This needs to come from within. Changes will create fractures within our society and career advisory services are ideally placed to prevent perceived damage, but are they willing to embrace the need to re-think their approach? LL and its importance to the UK's competitiveness is but one element in this re-education.

References

• Frost N. (2000) The network society and lifelong learning - the work of Manuel Castells and theories of adult education at: SCUTREA, 30th Annual Conference 3-5 July 2000. Paper presented at Conference by Nick Frost, School of Continuing Education, University of Leeds.
• Castells M. (1997) The Power of Identity, Oxford, Blackwell
• Castells M. (1996) the Rise of the Network Society, Oxford, Blackwell

More on Castells' ideas

For more info and a short introduction to Castells' ideas follow this link.

The publications of Castells include a three-volume trilogy on the Information Age:

• Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society;
• Volume II: The Power of Idenitity,
• Volume III: End of Millennium:

Castells describes his work as follows: 'So in that sense, my trilogy is one, two, three: The Network Society is the new techno-economic system; The Power of Identity is the key -- the salient trend, in terms of social movements and politics, adapting, resisting, counteracting the network society; and then the result of these two elements expresses itself in the macro transformations of the world, which I described in the third volume, End of Millennium. The network society itself is, in fact, the social structure which is characteristic of what people had been calling for years the information society or post-industrial society. Both 'post-industrial society' and 'information society' are descriptive terms that do not provide the substance, that are not analytical enough. So it's not a matter of changing words; it's providing substance. And the definition, if you wish, in concrete terms of a network society is a society where the key social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks. So it's not just about networks or social networks, because social networks have been very old forms of social organization. It's about social networks which process and manage information and are using micro-electronic based technologies.'

Comment 2: Request for more debate on the nature of education/learning, labour markets, and the relation between them:

Both the now conventional wisdom that the labour market is undergoing unusual long term structural change and the value of the concept of ‘lifelong learning’ have been contested quite significantly by others in the recent past. I recommend, for example and balance the following sources:

• Bradley, H., Erickson, M., Stephenson, C., & Williams, S. (2000) Myths at work, Polity Press, Cambridge:

The authors argue that many of the widely made claims about the pattern and structure of employment and the organisation of work in contemporary societies are mythical.

• Taylor, R., (2001?) ‘Britain's World of Work - Myths and Realities’, ESRC, Swindon

Taylor argues that ... 'a disturbingly wide gulf exists between the over-familiar rhetoric and hyperbole we hear daily about our flexible and dynamic labour market and the realities of workplace life' (P7).

• Wolf, A., (2002) ‘Does Education matter? Myths about education and economic growth’ Penguin, London.

The point is that if careers advisers need to change, they should base that change on evidence from the 'real' labour market(s) they and their clients have to deal with. And what is 'real' is a highly contested.

Although lifelong is a very attractive concept because it supplies a very persuasive argument for continued funding of guidance, but what if the need for it is based on contested assumptions?

It seems to me that we have not secured these yet. I would like to see more debate on the nature of education/learning, labour markets, and the relation between them, on which to base the 'rethink' I agree is needed.

Comment 3: Questioning how global are 'global trends'?

One problem about looking at change in the labour market is that these vary greatly within and between countries and that where there is great change, as in Germany, this may be caused more by factors such as unemployment and a reduction in apprenticeship places rather than radical changes due to the advent of the networked society. Thus in Germany uncertainties over the prospects of obtaining work in the field for which individuals have trained have increased the importance of transitions discontinuities and shifting contexts of career development (Heinz, 2002).

Heinz looks at how these processes affect the biographical shaping of early work careers, but in England the situation has been much more open for the last thirty years or so.

All this means is that some of the 'global' trends are only really global in the sense that they are operating to some degree almost everywhere, but they are very far from being universal in the sense of affecting everybody.

Reference:

• Heinz, W. (2002) "Transition Discontinuities and the Biographical Shaping of Early Work Careers." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, no. 2 (April 2002): 220-240. 

Comment 4: Implications for guidance practice:

The key seems to be to try to ensure guidance is available on an individual's terms rather than responding to requirements of institutions. Also the idea of life-wide learning may also be relevant.

Impartiality, values and awareness in guidance practice: discussion

Examining the role of guidance in lifelong learning highlights how, despite the progress over recent decades, the labour market is still full of inequalities. In tailoring guidance to the expectations of the individual, can careers advisers stand accused of perpetuating occupational stereotypes?

Comment 1: Should career guidance be used to address skill shortages?

A recent report on science, engineering and technology (SET) claims that: 'The slow progress in attracting women with an appropriate level of education into a SET career is based on:

• continued lack of information;
• few visible role models & mentors;
• pedagogy of science & technology;
• little hands-on experience

coupled with stereotyping of careers advice and lack of knowledge and experience for girls and young women in non-traditional areas of work'

Peters et al 2002 (p36). The report goes on: '...efforts must be made. Training and an information resource to teachers and careers advisors and perhaps to develop a specialist careers advisory service in SET ...are needed.'

Reference:

• Peters, J., Rees, T., Samuels, G. (2002) A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology from The Baroness Greenfield CBE to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, London: DTI.

This is the latest in a series of reports criticising careers guidance for failing to recruit clients (particularly girls and women) into non-traditional, skill-shortage areas. Is this an appropriate role for guidance in lifelong learning?

Comment 2: Perhaps it depends how it is done

You could assemble evidence on the value placed in the labour market on people with numerate degrees, but getting schools to accept the idea that pupils should take subjects in which they might not do as well as in other subjects is difficult (to say the least). Also getting girls and women into education and training for non-traditional occupational areas like science engineering and technology is one thing - getting equal treatment when they get into the workplace is another. The key might lie in using guidance to give people access to opportunities to review their progress on this path - rather than guidance just setting them down this road.

Comment 3: Is it a valid role for the guidance profession to lobby for change?

Could we and should we have more of a voice in the political and in the economic arguments about equality, about progression, about access and so on. We are not a vocal profession and are rarely quoted in these discussions. Perhaps our role should not just be with clients but that we should be out there pushing for change. Taking up the accusation of bias - it seems that it is because we tend not to be biased but try to be impartial, presenting ALL the facts so that the client can make an informed decision, that we are not seen as changing the status quo.

Comment 4: Though can we really ever claim 'impartiality' when so much labour market information has 'sensitive' information stripped out?

For example, the extent of racism in the police force; the 'toxic' effects of sexual harassment on women in non-traditional occupational areas (e.g. construction). Wouldn't true impartiality deal with this information 'head on' - discuss with clients and then perhaps equipping them with strategies/techniques for dealing with these potential problems?

Comment 5: If we were really impartial we would not have any noticeable effect

... careers guidance would just be a catalyst leaving the client uninfluenced and hence support the existing status quo/labour force arrangements. The philosophical stances behind (some) counselling practice assume 'unconditional' support - that is, not seeking to change or alter. However, I doubt whether I know of any careers adviser who is ever impartial in that sense. As soon as any adviser starts to discuss the implications of a decision, she/he is selecting which (of the many) implications to discuss - emphasising aspects - pursuing ideas brought up by the client - etc. This is not being impartial - we are all partial. I doubt impartiality can exist.

What might be a more achievable goal is if advisers are required to act in the client's best interests - and not those of the organisation in which they work or on whose behalf they work. Now - who decides what's in the client's best interests...?!

Comment 6: Impartiality is myth that reinforces the status quo

On the one hand 'of course' guidance should be impartial, and focused on the best interests of the individual. But these concepts are problematic - not least because impartiality can be seen as something of a 'myth' that actually operates to reinforce the status quo. It is nonsense to ignore the realities of e.g. historical sexism or racism within particular occupations and it would probably be a greater service to tackle how to overcome potential challenges in the proposed work place head on within a guidance interview, rather than to sanitise the stories by ignoring what we know about particular working environments. However, this leaves unanswered the question of how to do this?

Can a guidance intervention, however expert, be sufficient to equip clients with the confidence, knowledge and skills they may need to counter discrimination in a workplace to which they are new, and where, however much potential they may have, they are still vulnerable because they may be starting out in relatively unchartered waters? Furthermore, although I applaud the need to be 'honest' with clients about what pressures they may potentially face, there might be an associated danger of presenting the problems as to do with the individual, and not the broader societal context in which they find themselves. Giving individuals coping strategies is a commendable but insufficient response. There is, I would argue a group dimension to disadvantage, and therefore any work with individuals must go hand in hand with attempts to challenge the status quo and take up a more lobbying role as a profession. Unless this happens by e.g. engaging with opportunity providers so they review how they recruit, what happens in their work or study places and their organisational cultures that result in discriminatory experiences among their employees or students, then the focus on individualised solutions may result in even more entrenched inequality. Good female applicants might be deterred from entering professions where they know they will experience particularly pronounced or obvious discrimination after thinking through how that may impact on them personally. In extremis, the focus on the individual might suggest that it is the responsibility of the person being bullied to modify their behaviour to avoid being victimised. (I know that's not what the previous contributor is suggesting, but could it be a logical extension of individually focused solutions?)

If this seems unduly alarmist, it is worth remembering that in terms of practice there is already evidence that practitioners need to examine their own values and behaviours at work, since well-intentioned actions can have oppressive consequences. There is in existence evidence of for example 'protective channeling' i.e. avoiding placing ethnic minority young people in uncomfortable situations with racist employers, which it can be argued is tantamount to collusion with racism. An instance of those who profess to serve the interests of the disadvantaged in fact acting to preserve the values of the status quo. Sadly, the fact that both 'protective channelling' (Cross et al, 1990) and 'anticipatory discrimination' (Cross 1987 in Chatrik 1997) are so well documented suggests neither the careers service as a whole, nor the professionals working within it can afford to be complacent.

So where does that lead? Clearly practitioners need to examine how they can challenge stereotyping in their own interactions with individuals, and that means looking not only at how a VGI is conducted, but also an honest assessment of their own prejudices, culture and value to be aware of how that might impact on how they influence (intentionally or otherwise) their clients. But there is surely an associated responsibility to look externally and attempt to identify and challenge the structural causes of such inequalities.

In terms of the first part of the original question 'should guidance challenge occupational stereotyping' it might be that the answer is 'of course' - but it doesn't follow that that is best achieved through working with individuals, it might be by adopting a more outward looking stance in the interests of social justice.

As an aside, it always amazes me that whenever there is a suggestion that practitioners should adopt an overt stance there will be a significant reaction from those who throw up their hands in horror and profess the need to be resolutely impartial. However, surely the actions of the compliant professional are no more political neutral than those of the social activist. Waking up to the inevitable politics of working at the interface of education and employment with clients means there is a greater likelihood that practitioners (and their managers) will ensure that their actions reflect their own ideals, and don't use words like 'impartiality' as a cloak for failing to confront injustice where it appears.

It is also the case that some employment practices should be challenged in the interests of all workers not just new female recruits. For example family friendly employment practices aren't just popular with women but with their male counterparts. Not so very long ago I was at an event aimed at encouraging recruits to the construction industry and the issue of how to attract more women came up. An employer trotted out the old chestnut about it not being suitable for women because they lack the necessary physical strength. An irritating cop out when surely health and safety requirements require all to use mechanical aids for lifting above a certain weight - besides which the skills shortages link more to brains than brawn in most instances, and yet this recruiter felt comfortable to cite his view in a public arena aimed explicitly at careers professionals.

There was an article in the weekend section of the Guardian this week which referred to a statistic that 70% of women surveyed would rather be at home than in the office. (I have no idea who was surveyed and when but that's not the point). The article suggested that this is hardly surprising because the reality of work for most people (men and women) is so unpleasant it has nothing to do with a desire to return to the ideals of motherhood and apple pie, and a great deal more to do with wanting to be free from being bored and patronised at work.

Perhaps it is the case that unless and until the last bastions of occupational stereotyping look at the institutionalised nature of their sexism or racism no amount of guidance with individuals will lead to change. This is not to say that guidance practitioners shouldn't encourage clients to consider non traditional areas of work, quite the opposite, but getting a foot in the door of a new area is only the start. Perhaps this leads to another whole discourse about whether it is better to challenge injustice from outside or from within - racism and the police force being one of the more obvious contexts as suggested by recent media coverage.

Skills shortages may be the stimulus for certain occupations to consider why people (not just women or people from ethnic minority groups or whatever) find them unappealing. Equally, they provide an opportunity for careers practitioners to offer consultancy to those employers who are in any case reviewing their recruitment strategies in the light of personnel shortfalls. They may be more receptive to examining how they may have been - perhaps unintentionally - excluding certain sectors of the population from their opportunities. That could be a ray of hope - a window of opportunity for those of us who want a more inclusive society.

On the other hand, it's a great irony (my own prejudices coming out here) that the most aggressively exploitative multinationals can have the most inclusive recruitment policies. They may indeed do very well in terms of employing women, people from ethnic minorities, older people etc not because they have a social conscience but because it makes economic sense, and those from disadvantaged groups have fewer choices about where to work and so will tolerate lower wages and exploitative contracts.

I don't want to push for a world of work where everyone has equal access to equally oppressive environments, I'd like to try and challenge for something better. Naive and idealistic perhaps, but I'd rather fall short of an ideal than give up altogether.o that's all for now, sorry to be so confusing as well as confused, but it's funny how such a 'simple' question, leads in so many directions.

References:

• Chatric, B., (1997) New Deal – Fair Deal? Black young people in the labour market, Essex: Barnardo's, The Children's Society and Youthaid.
• Cross, M., Wrench, J., & Barnett, S., (1990) Ethnic Minorities and the Careers Service, An investigation into Processes of Assessment and Placement, Coventry: Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations.

Comment 7: Career guidance has a moral duty to ignore stereotypes

Whilst I understand the views that impartiality is a paradox within career guidance and that stereotypical attitudes remain entrenched deep within the labour market, consider this: 'Guidance' means leadership or instruction, so whoever thought that career guidance was totally impartial needs to reconsider their art! Stereotypical attitudes (whether racist or sexist etc.) can never, nor should they ever, be issues that concern the practice of career guidance. Why? Because - in my humble opinion - the time and prominence given to an individual interaction cannot afford to tackle issues that are greater than the implicit career guidance expected by the client. For example how can you work into the VGI the view that because of globalisation many western countries are becoming more nationalistic (Scotland and Wales are just two local examples) subsequently creating a more bigoted society than our enlightened selves are comfortable to accept? Or that as women now occupy a much greater share of the occupationally active (historically a completely new phenomenon) that the same principles of protectionism will begin the grow in prominence - divisions that may grow to become more socially (and economically) damaging than can be tolerated?

This brings us to the debate about nature-nurture. Are we trying to engineer social and economic equality whilst ignoring innate drives and motivations? I was in a meeting with two teachers the other day who just could not understand why a very academically able year 11 young girl was choosing to do a CACHE Childcare course post 16 rather than the A levels that engineered social enlightenment would suggest is the right route? Career guidance has a moral duty to ignore stereotypes and to appear to be impartial to all clients. Perhaps the more a barrier is ignored the less it is seen as a barrier?

Comment 8: The debate about impartiality lies at the soul of practice, doesn't it!

It takes guidance very close to teaching - having done both - I am sure of this. - I doubt we can ever be impartial. We take a stance and are partial. It might help to consider the last contribution at several levels:

• there is the personal, that is, considering ones own prejudices/stances and to what extent they are influencing practice - for example I had a bias about some forms of animal research and had to be consciously 'professional' about dealing with youngsters wanting to do lab work;
• at an organisational level - do we question colleges/univs or employers about their recruitment/promotion/staff development strategies? - if so we are not impartial - we can choose not to;
• at a societal level - in which the big institutions are sanctioned in being both racist and sexist (and ageist!) - for example, I am aware of some research being undertaken in the UK currently that reveals a big (16%) differential in graduate pay between men and women several years after graduation, and after variables such as 'career gaps' have been taken into account - this is replicated globally - do we just say 'oh well that's what its like for women - as a woman you can expect this' - I hope not; if we accept stereotypes we cannot alter them or progress. I am all for guidance as a critical intervention - however large or small scale (that's my bias) because I think if we are not critical we are only revealing half the story and concealment is one way in which disadvantages are perpetuated. However, I do have my doubts about using young people to undertake social engineering and would never encourage someone to do something they did not want to do. However, I would recognise that their structure for 'wanting to do something' is learned (here is the link with teaching again) - but individual guidance interventions may not be a good medium for the criticality I seek. Instead guidance professionals can use their knowledge and information to raise important questions - to challenge - to provoke - to encourage thinking (and learning). The difficult thing for new practitioners to grapple with - is when to challenge - at which of the three (crude) levels above is it appropriate to say 'just a minute...!' Its a moral maze!

Comment 9: Practitioners are not always aware of their prejudices

Picking up the above point that having to be 'consciously professional' when working with a client re lab work. One of our problems as guidance workers must be therefore that we are not fully aware of the prejudices we are holding. This has made me think about guidance training for both new and experienced staff and the need to help them identify and maybe challenge their prejudices.

Comment 10: The practitioner operating as a 'conscious professional'

Just wanting to endorse the above point. I can think of instances when I've had to be 'consciously professional' if a client is pursuing a goal that might sit uneasily with my own political values and perspective . Ironically, I think that's a lot easier than when you find yourself caught off guard by issues that you are less conscious of having personal prejudices or assumptions around. For instance, as a probationary careers adviser, imbued with ideals around giving primacy to individual choice, I remember being stumped by a situation with a client for whom her cultural values meant that her primary goal was to fulfil family expectations, and that in her instance was entirely valid. However, my model of guidance didn't really equip me to explore that very well, and it did wake me up to the fact that I was operating from a set of unstated, but real, assumptions that weren't always going to be appropriate and might be actually discriminatory and oppressive. I agree, we do all need to examine our own prejudices, but that's a very hard thing to do. I wonder if precisely because we all 'sign up' to ideals of promotion of equality of opportunity' that makes it difficult and uncomfortable to find safe ways of challenging our own prejudices. By definition, we won't necessarily know what they are, and it requires not just an intellectual understanding of how discrimination and inequality operate and reproduce themselves, but the ability to see how that is manifest in our own personal practice.

I'd be interested to know what sort of relevant training exists?. This seems to me to be a really key issue, how can we be helped to be more self-aware? Further, how can challenging prejudices be done in a positive way that offers a way forward and transforms practice, rather than lead to a sense of inadequacy, powerlessness, or even worse, stubborn refusal to admit to blind spots in our work. Such training needs to be particularly supportive I think, and move beyond the 'understanding the legislation' type event that is (I think) relatively commonplace.

Incidentally, relating to the broad categories of disadvantaged groups (based on gender, race, ethnicity, disability etc) other issues could be that:

• problems can be reduced to membership of those particular groups when it may not be the real issue. (Dangers of unhelpful stereotyping and labelling as opposed to useful generalising in order to understand potential relevant issues)
• in some organisations I've worked in there has been a designated staff member responsible for 'equal opportunities' or for e.g. 'students with disabilities' and although that ought to be a helpful awareness raising opportunity, it can backfire as any issues arising end up as being the personal responsibility of that particular staff member rather than something of concern to everyone involved in delivering a service.

I suppose it's about getting a balance between having someone who has a sufficient interest and commitment to build up specialist expertise, and ensuring that this doesn't lead to an abdication of responsibility for those issues by others in the organisation or indeed the organisation itself. What are others' views and experiences on this topic?

Comment 11: One model that can be used for increasing awareness of values was developed by Ibrahim (1985)

...and quoted in Sue & Sue (1999, p167) outlines the main characteristics of three different value orientation models. For each of these three models, values relating to the following four dimensions are described: time focus, human activity, social relations and the relationship between people and nature relationship. These value models can be used to increase your own self-awareness in various ways. For example, take each of the four dimensions and try to describe your own personal values against each using table 1. What is your time focus (e.g. do you tend to focus on the past, the present or the future?); what type of human activity or `state of being' do you value most (e.g. doing, being or becoming?); how do you view social relations (e.g. hierarchically, relationally or individualistically?); and finally how would you define the relationship of people to nature (e.g. subjugation, harmony or mastery?).

Once you have tried to describe your own value model in this way, compare it with the following summary of Ibrahim's three models, which suggest coherence across the four dimensions:

• For the first model, the time focus is on the past which is all important; we should learn from history. Human activity should focus on being; it's enough to just be. Social relations (lineal) are conceptualised as linear and vertical; there are natural followers and leaders in society. The people/nature relationship emphasises subjugation to nature; life and destiny are largely determined by external forces (God, genetics, fate, etc.).
• In contrast, the time focus of the second model stresses the present and the importance of living for today; the future is not a concern. Human activity is expressed as `being and in-becoming' meaning that the purpose of life is to develop the inner self. Social relations emphasise the importance of consulting with friends and families when problems arise (collateral, relational). The people/nature relationship advocates harmony with nature; people should strive to co-exist in harmony with nature.
• The third value model focuses on the future and stresses the need for planning; making sacrifices today will ensure a better tomorrow. Human activity focuses on `doing'; being active and working hard ensures that efforts will be rewarded. Social relations stress individual autonomy and individualism; it is assumed that everyone controls their own destiny. The people/nature relationship advocates mastery over nature; the challenge is to conquer and control nature.

To what extent does your personal value system correspond with one of these three value models? If there are differences, how might you explain these? Do these value systems correspond - in your view - to ethnic difference? Have they any relevance for value systems which differ along gender lines? Perhaps you are able to discern differences which link to membership of various social class groups?

Reference:

• Sue, D.W. & Sue, D. (1999) Counseling the Culturally Different: Theory & Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Comment 12: Confronting prejudice

This point about training is really important - it is difficult to confront one's prejudice but confront it we should. As an ex-DCG tutor we used to work around course objectives that formally required this to take place. I do not say it was always successful (I am mindful of the student who admitted at the end of her DCG year that she had censored her comments whilst in the University but hadn't really changed her mind about anything!! - a notable failure - and I know she is still working in guidance) but if the training courses don't do it - I don't know who will. Not employers I fear - far too busy with managing life day-to-day. I also feel that the training courses should look at this academically as well emotionally (or professionally) since there is a lot of persuasive material around about equal opportunities and also reflection as a tool to deeper understanding. Is this happening in training nowadays? I don't know really since I am out of touch with it - but I suspect not, since the NVQ approach under-emphasises the academic in favour of the skilful. Equal Opportunities seems to be one area where knowledge might be the true combatant.

Comment 13: Shift in emphasis in equal opportunities training for the profession

In my corner of HE guidance training I have seen a move from the Equal Opportunties training we were being asked for and supplied a few years ago which was almost 'defensive' EO - how to spot an employers advert that controvened legislation; ensuring we were not discriminating in our offer and in our practice; that we were supplying material in appropriate 'inclusive' language; etc etc. The materials were based very largely on legislation, on case study, codes of practice and quality standards. We have moved on to working more with cultural awareness and more with whole working groups (avoiding the designated specialist track) and more with experienced as well as new staff. This training has been developed more from the academic research particularly into cultural difference and the work being done in the EC to aid cross cultural communication. If I see the first as 'defensive EO' maybe I should consider the later 'aggressive EO' as it is very much more challenging! However do any of these actually work - do peoples attitudes really change? Cultural awareness training balances on a knife edge - how do you encourage participants to use this knowledge to understand rather than to stereotype.

Comment 14: Ultimately the beneficiary of career guidance is the wider economy.

However, the practice of career guidance remains absolutely rooted in the needs of the individual.

I can honestly say that, other than offering some generalised and contextualised LMI within the interaction, I have never considered the needs of the economy at all over the needs of the individual. Neither should career guidance be either seen or used for such reason. Impartiality must remain a cornerstone of practice, for if this is eroded then we become no more than agents of social control. Perhaps Connexions is taking us that way however, with it's absolute need to ensure participation in state sponsored learning it allows no room for vagary by young people and assumes that at a designated point all young people are ready to engage and to make their contribution to the wider economy - they are not!

Comment 15: The needs of the wider economy can't come above the needs of the client otherwise we will soon lose our credibility.

In practice providing information about the economy is a major part of advice and guidance. However, this is entirely about ethics - the reason we provide that information is so that the client makes an informed choice not to influence the choice.

Comment 16: Both responses, here, are 'correct' from a professional practice point-of-view.

Though services have always been (still are) under pressure to deliver in terms of economic needs. Even Connexions, with its distinctive philosophy around social exclusion and a holistic approach to practice regards the placement of a YP in education, training or employment as a 'positive outcome' - rather than using indicator(s) that relate more to, for example, individual development, enhanced self-esteem, etc. Recently, we have the skills gap identified in a national employer survey as a major problem - with an estimated 4 million + employees being regarded by their employers as 'incompetent' to perform in their jobs. Will guidance be implicated, here?

Comment 17: The dilution of links between guidance and the labour market? 

Career guidance providers now have tenuous links with the labour market, concentrating instead on (well you all know by now)! Subsequently, any relationship between demand and supply within the labour market has systematically been diluted to hunting (vainly) for vacancies! Career guidance is rooted in impartiality, it is knowledge driven and works best when it is supported by a strong understanding of the economy that surrounds either occupational choice or local geography.

The CBI report 29% of employers are exporting work overseas with a further 43% pressured to follow suit. The LSC report 20% of job vacancies in England remain unfilled. Clearly there is a big problem with the level of skills available to the economy. Perhaps, however, the fault lies not in the quality of guidance but in the continued 'dumbing down' of qualifications post-16. Current (unrealistic?) policy aims to ensure that everyone 'fulfils their potential' is perhaps the real reason why employers are having to spend significant sums of money training up staff rather than relying upon the education system to support the labour market.