Implications for practice

Understanding how these theories of career choice influence practice is crucial.  If, for example, a CA operates from a trait-factor (person-environment fit) theoretical perspective, (Rodger, 1952) then the client is best served by being offered expert diagnosis and assigned a suitable role.  Those who endorse developmental approaches may favour interventions that will move the client on along the areas outlined by DOTS.  Alternatively, if Opportunity Structures are accepted as the over riding criteria then placement activities may predominate practice. Such an approach might seem an anathema to those committed to, for example, the principles of operating as a ‘skilled-helper’ (Egan, 1998) with its goal-orientated, facilitative person-centred values.  How practitioners respond to enquiries may be found to reflect (consciously or unconsciously) these quite divergent perspectives.  Thus practice will always exemplify a theory of career guidance, irrespective of the level of awareness an individual practitioner professes in this respect.  Even if a practitioner does not claim to subscribe to e.g. opportunity structure theory, pragmatism in responding to an enquiry about available employment may act to reinforce inequitable structures.  Careers advisers may find that what they believe is not always evident in what they do.  They may even recognise this, research can sometimes find a difference between what people think and what they do.

Memorably, Strauss & Corbin cite an example of a field researcher who was taken aback when a psychiatrist used in practice a procedure quite different from the one they claimed to belief in.  When the field researcher queried this apparent inconsistency the psychiatrist replied ‘you researchers are so dumb.  You ask on your questionnaire about what we believe, but not (about) what we do!’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998:32).

If the use of particular counselling skills is viewed as pivotal in moving a client on, then it will be important to identify the extent to which these might be utilised within the chosen (or imposed) form of intervention.  For example, is it a face to face encounter, through an ICT self help database, group work or by supplying printed information perhaps without an opportunity for exploratory dialogue?

Theoretical integration and technical eclectisism

There is however, a twist in the tail.  Such is the plethora of theories that abound; it is perhaps unsurprising that practitioners at times struggle to make sense of them.  Kidd et al note that there is evidence to suggest a lack of integration between theory and practice (1994; 1996).  Young & Valach (2000:184) go so far as to call this a ‘rift between career theory and practice’.  More specifically, there is evidence that the activities of advice and information giving can be found to predominate in career helping interactions (Stacey & Mignot, 2000 in Gothard et al 2001:40).  Kidd (1996) describes two broad camps in terms of the practical application of theory: technical eclecticism and theoretical integration.  Essentially:

‘advocates of technical eclecticism use methods and techniques drawn from different sources without necessarily subscribing to their parent theories, while theoretical integrationists attempt to synthesise conceptually diverse theoretical frameworks.’ (Kidd, 1996:204).

The debate on the relative merits of each approach continues.  (See for example, Beitman, 1989; Dryden & Norcross, 1989; Norcross & Grencavage, 1989; Hollanders, 1999).  It is certainly the case that the very existence of both integrated and eclectic perspectives illustrates the level of dissatisfaction with single theory positions.  However, many voices recognise that given the changing context of career, there is a need to extend the search for new relevant theories (Collin & Watts, 1996; Collin, 1998; Collin, 2000:31).  ‘The search is on for new approaches, new techniques, new methods and theories for guidance, which will serve the client more efficiently, equip the practitioner more effectively and enhance the claim to professional status’ (Bimrose, 2000:47).  If no single theory meets the needs of clients and practitioners, then it is perhaps inevitable that pragmatic approaches may predominate with a ‘pick and mix’ approach adopted according to the judgement of the practitioner.  This could be ill-advised.  In that

‘There may be a danger that career counselling comes to be seen solely as a pragmatic activity, and that practitioners lose sight of its overall purpose, or long term direction.  This may be a pitfall in the emerging competence-based approach to skills development, since this seems likely to have the effect of encouraging practitioners to see interviewing simply as a cluster of techniques’ (Kidd, 1996: 206).

Certainly, current practitioner training seems to favour a skills based approach to learning, evidenced by the increasing popularity of the NVQ route which emphasises demonstration of skills in practice, rather than theoretical understanding (Hawthorn, 1998).  In considering how CAs operate, it is important to establish the extent to which they are working from a theoretical base, or using a more ad hoc approach in aiming to meet the guidance needs of their clients.  Research undertaken by Hollanders & McLeod in 1999, suggested 87% of the counsellors they surveyed, could be regarded as taking a ‘non-pure’ approach of some kind.  This research was however limited, in that the results represent the views of only the 309 counselling practitioners responding to an initial random survey of 589.  Nevertheless, the results are of interest.