- Email: [email protected]
Extending the Reach of Vocational Psychology: Toward an Inclusive and Integrative Psychology of Working
Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 171–182 (2001) doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Extending the Reach of Vocational Psychology: Toward an Inclusive and Integrative Psychology of Working David L. Blustein Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College This article, which represents a contribution to the 30th anniversary issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, seeks to extend the reach of vocational psychology by charting the course for an integrative and inclusive psychology of working. Building on Richardson’s (1993) foundation of work as a location for counseling psychology practice and inquiry, I employ a sociopolitical analysis and a theoretical and methodological framework to further the development of a psychology of working. The goal of a psychology of working is to include the work lives of all citizens in our scholarship, not simply the well educated and affluent. Using both a moral and intellectual rationale, I present several key elements of an inclusive and integrative psychology of working that emerge out of the strengths of current vocational psychology, such as the focus on diversity and the advent of feminist thought. The article concludes with a discussion of how a psychology of working can serve to advance the integration of existing social scientific studies of work as well as to promote greater application of our efforts in practice and public policy. °C 2001 Academic Press
By most standards, vocational psychology is a vigorous and relevant scholarly domain, with sophisticated research studies, elegant theories, and a rich set of implications for counseling and assessment practice. The strengths of vocational psychology are evident in the development of new theoretical models (e.g., Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Reardon, Lenz, Sampson, & Peterson, 2000), important new psychological measures of interests and related attitudes (e.g., Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996), and exciting practice directions (e.g., Meara & Patton, 1994; Patton & McMahon, 1999). However, building on the quiet rumblings and criticisms that have appeared in journals and books (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999; Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000; Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1995), I believe that our field is in need of a major transformation. The rationale for this transformation is based on the observation that we have developed an elegant science about the work lives of a small proportion of individuals who live in relative affluence in Western countries. Yet, our research has essentially neglected the work lives of the rest of humanity who work primarily to fulfill their basic needs The author expresses his gratitude to Anna P. Chaves, Matthew A. Diemer, Laura A. Gallagher, and Donna P. Schultheiss for their helpful comments on this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to David L. Blustein, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Campion Hall-315, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: [email protected]. 171 0001-8791/01 $35.00 C 2001 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
172
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
and/or to care for their children and other family members. Building on the position advanced by Richardson, I believe that our field has not adequately attended to most of the people who work on our planet for whom questions of job satisfaction are secondary to the fundamental desire to secure their place of residence and obtain nourishment. In this 30th anniversary issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, I seek to expand on Richardson’s recommendations by offering a sociopolitical analysis and a wider theoretical and methodological framework to strengthen the nascent infrastructure of an inclusive psychology of working. For this assignment, the authors of this special issue were asked to focus on “the study of vocational behavior and its development in careers, particularly emphasizing issues of occupational choice and work adjustment” (M. Savickas, personal communication, August, 2000). As I propose in this article, I believe that our mission needs to be expanded considerably to generate an inclusive and integrative psychology of working. My argument is based on both moral and intellectual considerations. The basic assumptions of much scholarship in our field are that people exercise volition when making vocational choices and that they have an opportunity to express their self-concepts in the world of work (Holland, 1997; Super, 1957). In my view, the notion that people seek out occupations that are consistent with their interests and values represents one of the few mutually consensual tenets that scholars from diverse theoretical positions can endorse (Brown & Brooks, 1996). However, the opportunity to express one’s inner values, interests, and abilities at work is actually a very recent phenomenon in human history. As work tasks expanded and automation reduced the need for manual labor in many industrialized nations, a small minority of the human population developed vocational lives that have allowed for meaningful self-expression consistent with interests and abilities. However, most people in the world engage in work that is often not intrinsically interesting and may even be denigrating to their self-concepts (Smith, 1983; Thomas, 1999). Rather than continuing to focus on the work lives of well-educated and affluent middle- and upper middle-class workers, I propose that we apply the evident talents of our field to the rest of humanity, who very likely struggle with many aspects of their work lives. To continue to ignore workers whose lives do not follow the career narrative of the latter part of the 20th century would risk creating a line of inquiry that does not serve the full breadth of human experience. From an intellectual perspective, extending the reach of vocational psychology to the realm of a psychology of working may help our field become conceptually richer, more explanatory, and ultimately more applicable to a wider array of individuals. In addition, a psychology of working has the potential to provide the overarching rubric that may allow for greater integration between vocational psychology, organizational psychology, and other related lines of inquiry in the social sciences (e.g., occupational sociology and labor economics). Furthermore, the movement from vocational psychology to a psychology of working will foster greater appreciation of diverse methodologies as well as an appreciation of new theoretical ideas. The transformation that I advocate does not seek to disavow the
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
173
stellar contributions that we have made in our first century. Instead, I seek to place existing vocational psychology within its implicit social and economic context. My hope in this article is to create a compelling vision for our discipline that embraces the full gamut of work experiences. Embarking on this journey will help to reinvigorate vocational psychology for the 21st century, rendering contributions that are increasingly central in future scholarship and maximally useful for practitioners and policy analysts. The conceptual foundations for an inclusive psychology of working exist both within the early beginnings of vocational psychology (e.g., Davis, 1969; Parsons, 1909; Savickas, 1999) and in current discussions about the impact of race (e.g., Helms & Cook, 1999), social class (e.g., Blustein, Juntunen, & Worthington, 2000), gender (e.g., Brooks & Forrest, 1994), disability status (e.g., Szymanski, & Parker, 1996), and sexual orientation (e.g., Fassinger, 1996) in human development. As part of this anniversary issue of Journal of Vocational Behavior, I explore the potential within vocational psychology for a transformed vision that is broadly inclusive with respect to its demographic scope, conceptual foundations, research methods, and policy and practice agendas. The Lessons of Frank Parsons One useful place to begin mapping out the mission of a psychology of working is actually in the origins of our discipline. As Hartung and Blustein (in press) articulated, Parsons (1909), who is often credited with contributing to the development of vocational guidance, initiated his work within the social reform efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. For Parsons, vocational guidance was embedded in an agenda that sought to empower poor and working-class individuals. In addition, Parsons was very much concerned with the maldistribution of wealth that left so many individuals with few resources to negotiate a rapidly changing workforce (Davis, 1969). His early innovations in vocational guidance were offered, in part, as a means of helping immigrants and other marginalized groups gain access to a meaningful place in the labor market. Following the groundbreaking work of Parsons (1909), a significant body of early vocational psychological research was devoted to the work experiences of poor and working-class adolescents and adults (see Savickas, 1999, for a review of some of this research.) Yet somehow, the focus of vocational psychology had shifted in the second half of the 20th century. The decades that followed World War II years led to a sort of “tunnel vision” for our field, with the majority of scholarly attention devoted to the work lives of middle-class students and adults who have access to resources and the opportunity structure (cf. Richardson, 1993). The result of this dramatic circumscription of our focus in vocational psychology has been a reduction in our overall inclusiveness. The development of vocational appraisal tests, career choice and development theories, and intervention strategies in most Western countries tended to assume that people had considerable choice in their lives, regardless of their circumstances. In effect, this transition decontextualized Parsons’ early contributions by ignoring the social reform aspects of his work in
174
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
vocational guidance (Hartung & Blustein, in press). If we seek to incorporate the full richness of Parsons’ contributions, we need to ground our study of vocations in a broader understanding of social issues, with a focus on how interventions can help empower clients and change inequitable systems. As I argue next, the foundation for the psychology of working is embedded in a number of relevant lines of inquiry, which, when considered collectively, represent a major strength of our field. Building from our Strengths Despite the focus on careers of middle-class students and adults, a number of scholars and practitioners in vocational psychology have been attempting to widen the net of vocational psychology to include individuals who do not have access to the opportunity structure (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000; Richardson, 1993). An important early contribution by Smith (1983) presented a compelling case regarding the struggles that people of color have had in finding work that allows for self-concept implementation. She argued that many jobs for African Americans and other members of visible racial and ethnic minority groups present a direct challenge to their dignity and self-concepts rather than a means of self-expression. In fact, the multicultural movement has forced psychology in general, and vocational psychology in particular, to rethink some core assumptions about what is considered to be normative behavior and how we actually construct our perceptions of knowledge (Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999). For example, the notion of the individual who works autonomously and behaves competitively in the world of work is viewed in some cultures as inconsistent with collectivist norms (Carter & Cook, 1992). Similarly, the infusion of feminist thinking into vocational psychology has provided our field with a striking lesson about how social mores and prejudices can disadvantage a substantial proportion of workers in our culture (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Brooks & Forrest, 1994). Other criticisms of vocational psychology have emerged from scholars who have examined the work lives of individuals with disabling conditions (e.g., Szymanski & Parker, 1996). Further concerns about the utility of vocational psychology have been voiced in relation to sexual orientation (e.g., Fassinger, 1996). In addition, the recent interest in the school-towork transition for non-college-bound students has immersed our discipline in an area that had been relegated to the sidelines for many decades (e.g., Blustein et al., 2000). Furthermore, the emerging interest in social constructionist and postmodern analyses of vocational behavior has given voice to workers whose experiences have not been center stage in our inquiry (e.g., Savickas, 1993; Young & Collin, 1992). When considered collectively, these critically important contributions facilitated the construction of an explicitly contextualized analysis of the career development process, which has effectively enriched our view of how individuals interact with their work-related tasks and responsibilities across the life span. However, Richardson’s (1993, 1996) contributions, in my view, have been most instrumental in developing a case for a more radical analysis of our efforts,
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
175
methods, and objectives. Richardson argued that vocational psychology needs to open its horizons to embrace work in all of its forms and manifestations as opposed to the study of careers, which she argues is nested in a middle-class and culturally encapsulated framework. In these critically important publications, Richardson articulated a compelling challenge for counseling psychologists to locate their interests and concerns in the realm of work. Richardson (1993) defined work broadly to encompass human activity that is initiated “ ... for individual success and satisfaction, to express achievement strivings, to earn a living ... to further ambitions and self-assertions ... and to link individuals to a larger social good” (p. 428). This definition clearly charts a different direction for our field; Richardson’s position seeks to break out of the middle-class bias that has characterized many of our underlying assumptions in recent decades. Indeed, Richardson’s contributions have fertilized the soil for a transformation in vocational psychology. Building on this foundation, I propose a more explicit sociopolitical analysis and a richer theoretical and methodological framework to facilitate the development of a comprehensive, inclusive, and integrative psychology of working. However, one obstacle in the evolution of a psychology of working exists in our collective collusion about social class issues in our theory and inquiry. Indeed, I believe that our inherent confusion about social class has functioned to create a highly circumscribed scholarly agenda that has not been sufficiently inclusive or relevant. As I argue next, integrating Richardson’s notions about work with a class-based analysis of current scholarship offers the potential to yield a renewed vision of our work that captures the essence of Parsons’ true mission in establishing a science and practice of vocational psychology. The Threat of Classism Richardson’s (1993) critique of vocational psychology opened a needed dialogue about the middle-class bias that is inherent in a study of careers. Despite Tinsley’s (1994) rejoinder to the Richardson position about the prevalence of studies on working-class adults in organizational psychology, I believe that vocational psychology has functioned in recent years with an inherent class bias. In order for a psychology of working to be relevant to the vast majority of individuals who work across the globe, we need to address how social class functions in all aspects of vocational development. In my view, our specialty, like much of applied psychology, has been profoundly shaped by classism, which remains a major stumbling block in the growth of a relevant and comprehensive psychology of working. Classism refers to prejudicial beliefs about individuals based on their social class; typically, it encompasses implicit or explicit attempts to ignore, marginalize, or silence the voices of working-class and poor people (Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996; Milner, 1999). Classism is highly problematic in a field such as vocational psychology because work experiences tend to vary so much in relation to social class (Brown, Fukunaga, Umemoto, & Wicker, 1996; Fouad & Brown, 2000). In vocational psychology, classism is manifested by our use of theories and research methodologies
176
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
that rely on middle-class value systems. For example, much of vocational psychology has focused on the work lives of individuals with college degrees, without a corollary focus on the work experiences of individuals without postsecondary education (Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000). The focus on the nature of career choices, the prediction of career choices, and the adjustment of white-collar workers within organizations reflects the outward behavioral manifestation of a field that has left the working class out of its vision. Thus, even in cases where working-class students and adults are included in samples, the questions and issues that are addressed tend to reflect the concerns of individuals who have opportunities for meaningful and rewarding careers. While a systematic analysis of the reasons for the classism in our field is beyond the scope of this article, the implications of the nearly exclusive focus on middle-class and well-educated individuals are clear. We have neglected the vast majority of workers in our field, with clear consequences for the utility of our theories, instruments, and, indeed, our mission. As Tinsley (1994) pointed out, diversity in the ranks of scholars tends to be a major factor in generating needed research and theory development that will be maximally inclusive. Obviously, most scholars and theoreticians are not immersed in working-class culture; even if they came from such backgrounds, the social pressure to disavow this aspect of one’s culture is very prominent in current academic and intellectual circles. Hence we have a situation where the voices of working-class and poor people are not included in our discourse. In addition, we have not yet addressed how social class intersects with racism and sexism to create significant pockets of poverty around the globe. In order for our field to become truly inclusive, we need to find ways to (1) openly confront our own class biases and (2) actively include the input of people whose work lives do not reflect the volitional and orderly experiences of middle-class and college-educated individuals. Opportunities for Radical Transformation: Building an Inclusive Psychology of Working In constructing an inclusive psychology of working, we need to establish a map of the terrain of our inquiry. Despite initiatives to expand career development to include people of color (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999) and women struggling to deal with inequities in the labor market (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987), the intellectual foundation of an inclusive psychology of working is still not readily apparent. In the following section, I seek to create the scaffolding for the psychological analysis of working that builds on recent theoretical and methodological advances. Identification of relevant issues. As we have learned in relational psychology, empathy and experience-near connections to clients and research participants are critical factors in developing a deep understanding of life experience (e.g., Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991). Because individuals from middle-class and upper middle backgrounds primarily populate most of the scholarly ranks of academia, I argue that we are not in the position to identify the full agenda
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
177
of a psychology of working. Rather, we need to allow ourselves to confront our class biases and “think outside of the box” in order to construct a meaningful and relevant line of inquiry. I believe that two specific methods exist for creating an inclusive vocational psychology. First, we ought to expand our conceptual horizons so that we include a wider array of potential information in our considerations of work. Thus, we can consult with the rich literatures that have emerged in sociology (e.g., Borman, 1991; Wilson, 1996), education (e.g., Marshall & Tucker, 1992), economics (e.g., Reich, 1991), labor studies (e.g., Baron, 1991), and other fields in which the challenges of work are detailed. Many of these contributions have employed rigorous qualitative methods that also provide the participants an opportunity to give voice to their concerns about their work lives. A review of the narratives, for example, in the Borman and Wilson volumes, reflect concerns with survival and meeting basic needs that are not evident in contemporary discourse about careers. In addition, we can examine writings about work that have been recorded since humans learned how to document their thoughts. In this light, I believe that the testimony of a diverse spectrum of workers about their experiences, wishes, frustrations, and sources of joy is critically needed in a psychology of working. (A recent volume edited by Thomas, 1999, provides an outstanding collection of essays and vignettes about work and would be a very useful starting point for an inclusive psychology of working.) Second, we need to actively include poor and working class students and adults in our conversations about work. This can be accomplished by using openended questions in qualitative studies designed to explore the nature of work and its connection to other aspects of human experience. We can also ask individuals from poor and working-class backgrounds to join us at conferences and in research studies in order to ensure that our questions and methods are meaningful and relevant. The conceptual and methodological inclusiveness of the psychology of working. Another key attribute of an inclusive psychology of working is that it ought to be constructed in a highly integrative fashion. Indeed, the term “inclusive,” which frames my position, also pertains to the need to think in an explicitly integrative fashion about theory development and research methods. The study of working from a social scientific perspective is not new or is it original. Sociologists, in particular, have devoted extensive effort to understanding how social class, familial characteristics, and cultural factors impact upon one’s work life (e.g., Borman, 1991; Levinson et al., 1996; Wilson, 1996). A psychological analysis, in contrast, has the potential to enrich our thinking by focusing on the nature of working and how this experience interfaces with other aspects of human behavior and development. Thus, one way of defining an inclusive approach to the study of working is to stretch our conceptual horizons so that studies of working from across the social sciences are included. An inclusive psychology of working also will draw upon theoretical ideas emerging in other domains of psychology outside of the traditional purview of vocational psychology. Richardson (1993) offered some insightful ideas about the utility of
178
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
developmental psychology to our thinking about work. Rather that considering other lines of inquiry as conceptual tools, I suggest that our task is actually more complex and ultimately more useful. Like Richardson, I agree that work represents one location within a life space, with clear interconnections to other domains of human experience. As such, I believe that we need to study work in its various contexts, including organizations, home, family, and culture. The task of these sorts of analyses would be to understand the complex interrelationships between work and other aspects of human life. These analyses would go a long way to contextualizing the psychological study of working, which is consistent with its integrative location in contemporary life (Blustein, 2001; Flum, 2001). In addition to including diverse conceptual sources from within psychology and other social sciences, I also believe that a psychology of working requires epistemological diversity. The need to include working class and poor individuals in our inquiry clearly fits with many postmodern critiques, which have argued for greater pluralism in our thinking (Savickas, 1993, 1995). In this context, I suggest that discovery-oriented qualitative methods will be particularly important, especially in developing an understanding of the work life of individuals who face limited opportunities. One of the most useful methods is grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which is a highly rigorous means of developing theoretical inferences from the voices of participants. Other methods of discovery based on observations, artifacts, discourse analysis, and narratives of participants are summarized in the Denzin and Lincoln (2000) volume, which reviews the broad landscape of qualitative research. While some of the impetus for this transformed vision of vocational psychology stems from postmodern analyses (Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1993), I believe that the stakes are too high to engage in an intellectual debate that may ultimately detract from our need to be maximally inclusive. In my view, there is room for logical positivist analyses that would be useful in testing existing hypotheses with working-class and poor people. Although I believe that major changes are needed in theory development, I am not necessarily suggesting that we need to disregard all of the knowledge obtained in the last 100 years. Indeed, many of the more fundamental notions about work that have emerged in the psychology of careers may in fact be relevant to a psychology of working. However, these assumptions need to be tested empirically with a broader range of the population. At the same time, postmodern and social constructionist analyses would be well-suited for the more challenging tasks of developing new and relevant ideas about the psychological nature of working. Implications of a Psychology of Working While it is difficult to envision the implications of an inclusive and integrative psychology of working, part of my vision has been constructed around my concerns with the overall utility of vocational psychological scholarship. In short, I hope that the psychology of working will have a significant impact in extending the impact of vocational counseling and in informing educational, labor, and family policy.
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
179
In the realm of counseling practice, I believe that the research that emerges from psychological analyses of working may provide the foundation for preventive and developmental interventions with poor and working-class youth and adults. The mismatch between the methods derived from traditional vocational psychology and the needs of poor and working-class clients has been well documented in the literature (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Smith, 1983). It is possible that the theoretical ideas that emerge from the psychology of working may yield greater relevance to the concerns of individuals whose families have not experienced traditional careers. An inclusive psychology of working also may have important implications for educational, labor, and family policy. By expanding our scope, we have an opportunity to research a wider array of issues that have relevance to poor and working class individuals who are grappling with major social challenges. For example, if we can link our efforts to educational reform initiatives on the school-to-work transition, we may be able to develop testable notions about ways to help students internalize the connection between doing well at school and having more control and volition in their work lives. In the realm of labor policy, we may be able to chart the effects of economic cycles on the lives of the working class and poor, who often feel the brunt of recessions more pervasively than do the middle class. These sorts of psychological studies may be particularly informative to government and business leaders, who tend to take more macro-level approaches to labor policy. An integrative psychology of working also may have significant implications for family policy. The existing body of work on the career development of women has already had a modest impact on such policies as family leaves and childcare legislation, although clearly more is needed in this realm (Fitzgerald & Weitzman, 1992). The application of a psychological analysis of working also may enrich the growing area of masculinity studies (Levant & Pollack, 1995), which seeks to understand how gender role socialization influences the development and expression of men’s behavior. By expanding our scholarship to include women and men who do not have opportunities for hierarchical and lucrative careers, we may be well positioned to assist in linking family and labor policy, thereby reducing artificial boundaries between highly interrelated aspects of modern life. In my view, an inclusive psychology of working will help to broaden the impact of our scholarship with the overall intention of improving the conditions of work and of enhancing opportunities for the poor and working class. Conclusion In closing, I have attempted to continue the important work that has been initiated by many colleagues who have sought to infuse a broader and more inclusive perspective into vocational psychology (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1993; Smith, 1983). I realize, naturally, that some readers may wonder how the traditional fields of vocational psychology and industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology would fare in relation to the psychology of working. From a structural perspective, I envision that both vocational psychology and I/O psychology will flourish as specialties within a broader psychology of working. With
180
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
the overarching rubric of the psychology of working, there is a likelihood of greater cross-fertilization of ideas and research findings. In addition, these mature specialties will benefit from an infusion of new ideas and concepts that may serve to link heretofore discrete constructs and theories. However, I think that the payoff of a fully engaged psychology of work is greater than the sum of its parts. The psychology of working will provide a needed intellectual home for the careful, integrative, and systematic analysis of the full range of work experiences in the 21st century regardless of an individual’s class, racial and ethnic identity, gender, sexual orientation, and culture. Moreover, I can envision a mature psychology of working leading to more integrative treatment programs and preventive interventions that will respect the seamless nature of life. Finally, the psychology of working may provide the critically needed scholarship to critique existing systems that function to circumscribe the vocational opportunity structure. I am confident that our collective energy, talent, and creativity will result in an expansion of our mission so that the full and diverse fabric of human diversity may enjoy a more meaningful and integrated work life. REFERENCES Baron, A. (1991). (Ed.) Work engendered: Toward a new history of American labor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Skills confidence inventory applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for 21st Century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179–192. Blustein, D. L., Juntunen, C. L., & Worthington, R. L. (2000). The school-to-work transition: Adjustment challenges of the forgotten half. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd. ed., pp. 435–470). New York: Wiley. Borman, K. M. (1991). The first “real” job: A study of young workers. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1996). (Eds.) Career choice and development (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Brooks, L., & Forrest, L. (1994). Feminism and career counseling. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 878–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, M. T., Fukunaga, C., Umemoto, D., & Wicker, L. (1996). Annual review, 1990–1996: Social class, work, and retirement behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 159–189. Carter, R. T., & Cook, D. A. (1992). A culturally relevant perspective for understanding the career paths of visible racial/ethnic group people. In H. D. Lea & Z. B. Leibowitz (Eds.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practice (pp. 192–217). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association. Davis, H. V. (1969). Frank Parsons: Prophet, innovator, counselor. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Notes from the margins: Integrating lesbian experiences into the vocational psychology of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 160–175. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Weitzman, L. M. (1992). Women’s career development: Theory and practice from a feminist perspective. In H. D. Lea & Z. B. Leibowitz (Eds.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practice (pp. 124–160). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association.
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
181
Flum, H. (2001). Relational dimensions in career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1–16. Fouad, N. A., & Brown, M. T. (2000). The role of race and class in development: Implications for counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379–408). New York: Wiley. Hartung, P. J., & Blustein, D. L. (in press). Reason, intuition, and social justice: Elaborating Parsons’ career decision making model. Journal of Counseling and Development. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: PAR. Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. Levant, R. F. & Pollack, W. S. (1995). (Eds.). A new psychology of men. New York: Basic Books. Levinson, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (1996). (Eds.). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. Marshall, R., & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of nations. New York: Basic Books. Meara, N. M., & Patton, M. J. (1994). Contributions of the working alliance in the practice of career counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 161–177. Milner, A. (1999). Class. London, UK: Sage. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (1999). Career development and systems theory: A new relationship. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Peterson, N., & Gonzalez, R. C. (2000). The role of work in people’s lives: Applied career counseling and vocational psychology. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Reardon, R. C., Lenz, J. G., Sampson, J. P., & Peterson, G. W. (2000). Career development and planning: A comprehensive approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Reich, R. B. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books. Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people’s lives: A location for counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 425–433. Richardson, M. S. (1996). From career counseling to counseling/psychotherapy and work Jobs, and career. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 347–360). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Savickas, M. L. (1993). Career counseling in the postmodern era. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 7, 205–215. Savickas, M. L. (1995). Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology: Convergence, divergence, and schism. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Savickas, M. L. (1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 326–336. Smith, E. J. (1983). Issues in racial minorities’ career behavior. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 161–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row. Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (1996). (Eds.). Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. Thomas, K. (Ed.). (1999). The Oxford book of work. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Tinsley, H. E. A. (1994). Construct your reality and show us its benefits: Comment on Richardson (1993). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 108–111.
182
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. H. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House. Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (Eds.). (1992). Interpreting career: Hermeneutical studies of lives in context. Westport, CT: Prager. Received March 1, 2001
Extending the Reach of Vocational Psychology: Toward an Inclusive and Integrative Psychology of Working David L. Blustein Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College This article, which represents a contribution to the 30th anniversary issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, seeks to extend the reach of vocational psychology by charting the course for an integrative and inclusive psychology of working. Building on Richardson’s (1993) foundation of work as a location for counseling psychology practice and inquiry, I employ a sociopolitical analysis and a theoretical and methodological framework to further the development of a psychology of working. The goal of a psychology of working is to include the work lives of all citizens in our scholarship, not simply the well educated and affluent. Using both a moral and intellectual rationale, I present several key elements of an inclusive and integrative psychology of working that emerge out of the strengths of current vocational psychology, such as the focus on diversity and the advent of feminist thought. The article concludes with a discussion of how a psychology of working can serve to advance the integration of existing social scientific studies of work as well as to promote greater application of our efforts in practice and public policy. °C 2001 Academic Press
By most standards, vocational psychology is a vigorous and relevant scholarly domain, with sophisticated research studies, elegant theories, and a rich set of implications for counseling and assessment practice. The strengths of vocational psychology are evident in the development of new theoretical models (e.g., Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Reardon, Lenz, Sampson, & Peterson, 2000), important new psychological measures of interests and related attitudes (e.g., Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996), and exciting practice directions (e.g., Meara & Patton, 1994; Patton & McMahon, 1999). However, building on the quiet rumblings and criticisms that have appeared in journals and books (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999; Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000; Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1995), I believe that our field is in need of a major transformation. The rationale for this transformation is based on the observation that we have developed an elegant science about the work lives of a small proportion of individuals who live in relative affluence in Western countries. Yet, our research has essentially neglected the work lives of the rest of humanity who work primarily to fulfill their basic needs The author expresses his gratitude to Anna P. Chaves, Matthew A. Diemer, Laura A. Gallagher, and Donna P. Schultheiss for their helpful comments on this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to David L. Blustein, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Campion Hall-315, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: [email protected]. 171 0001-8791/01 $35.00 C 2001 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
172
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
and/or to care for their children and other family members. Building on the position advanced by Richardson, I believe that our field has not adequately attended to most of the people who work on our planet for whom questions of job satisfaction are secondary to the fundamental desire to secure their place of residence and obtain nourishment. In this 30th anniversary issue of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, I seek to expand on Richardson’s recommendations by offering a sociopolitical analysis and a wider theoretical and methodological framework to strengthen the nascent infrastructure of an inclusive psychology of working. For this assignment, the authors of this special issue were asked to focus on “the study of vocational behavior and its development in careers, particularly emphasizing issues of occupational choice and work adjustment” (M. Savickas, personal communication, August, 2000). As I propose in this article, I believe that our mission needs to be expanded considerably to generate an inclusive and integrative psychology of working. My argument is based on both moral and intellectual considerations. The basic assumptions of much scholarship in our field are that people exercise volition when making vocational choices and that they have an opportunity to express their self-concepts in the world of work (Holland, 1997; Super, 1957). In my view, the notion that people seek out occupations that are consistent with their interests and values represents one of the few mutually consensual tenets that scholars from diverse theoretical positions can endorse (Brown & Brooks, 1996). However, the opportunity to express one’s inner values, interests, and abilities at work is actually a very recent phenomenon in human history. As work tasks expanded and automation reduced the need for manual labor in many industrialized nations, a small minority of the human population developed vocational lives that have allowed for meaningful self-expression consistent with interests and abilities. However, most people in the world engage in work that is often not intrinsically interesting and may even be denigrating to their self-concepts (Smith, 1983; Thomas, 1999). Rather than continuing to focus on the work lives of well-educated and affluent middle- and upper middle-class workers, I propose that we apply the evident talents of our field to the rest of humanity, who very likely struggle with many aspects of their work lives. To continue to ignore workers whose lives do not follow the career narrative of the latter part of the 20th century would risk creating a line of inquiry that does not serve the full breadth of human experience. From an intellectual perspective, extending the reach of vocational psychology to the realm of a psychology of working may help our field become conceptually richer, more explanatory, and ultimately more applicable to a wider array of individuals. In addition, a psychology of working has the potential to provide the overarching rubric that may allow for greater integration between vocational psychology, organizational psychology, and other related lines of inquiry in the social sciences (e.g., occupational sociology and labor economics). Furthermore, the movement from vocational psychology to a psychology of working will foster greater appreciation of diverse methodologies as well as an appreciation of new theoretical ideas. The transformation that I advocate does not seek to disavow the
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
173
stellar contributions that we have made in our first century. Instead, I seek to place existing vocational psychology within its implicit social and economic context. My hope in this article is to create a compelling vision for our discipline that embraces the full gamut of work experiences. Embarking on this journey will help to reinvigorate vocational psychology for the 21st century, rendering contributions that are increasingly central in future scholarship and maximally useful for practitioners and policy analysts. The conceptual foundations for an inclusive psychology of working exist both within the early beginnings of vocational psychology (e.g., Davis, 1969; Parsons, 1909; Savickas, 1999) and in current discussions about the impact of race (e.g., Helms & Cook, 1999), social class (e.g., Blustein, Juntunen, & Worthington, 2000), gender (e.g., Brooks & Forrest, 1994), disability status (e.g., Szymanski, & Parker, 1996), and sexual orientation (e.g., Fassinger, 1996) in human development. As part of this anniversary issue of Journal of Vocational Behavior, I explore the potential within vocational psychology for a transformed vision that is broadly inclusive with respect to its demographic scope, conceptual foundations, research methods, and policy and practice agendas. The Lessons of Frank Parsons One useful place to begin mapping out the mission of a psychology of working is actually in the origins of our discipline. As Hartung and Blustein (in press) articulated, Parsons (1909), who is often credited with contributing to the development of vocational guidance, initiated his work within the social reform efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. For Parsons, vocational guidance was embedded in an agenda that sought to empower poor and working-class individuals. In addition, Parsons was very much concerned with the maldistribution of wealth that left so many individuals with few resources to negotiate a rapidly changing workforce (Davis, 1969). His early innovations in vocational guidance were offered, in part, as a means of helping immigrants and other marginalized groups gain access to a meaningful place in the labor market. Following the groundbreaking work of Parsons (1909), a significant body of early vocational psychological research was devoted to the work experiences of poor and working-class adolescents and adults (see Savickas, 1999, for a review of some of this research.) Yet somehow, the focus of vocational psychology had shifted in the second half of the 20th century. The decades that followed World War II years led to a sort of “tunnel vision” for our field, with the majority of scholarly attention devoted to the work lives of middle-class students and adults who have access to resources and the opportunity structure (cf. Richardson, 1993). The result of this dramatic circumscription of our focus in vocational psychology has been a reduction in our overall inclusiveness. The development of vocational appraisal tests, career choice and development theories, and intervention strategies in most Western countries tended to assume that people had considerable choice in their lives, regardless of their circumstances. In effect, this transition decontextualized Parsons’ early contributions by ignoring the social reform aspects of his work in
174
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
vocational guidance (Hartung & Blustein, in press). If we seek to incorporate the full richness of Parsons’ contributions, we need to ground our study of vocations in a broader understanding of social issues, with a focus on how interventions can help empower clients and change inequitable systems. As I argue next, the foundation for the psychology of working is embedded in a number of relevant lines of inquiry, which, when considered collectively, represent a major strength of our field. Building from our Strengths Despite the focus on careers of middle-class students and adults, a number of scholars and practitioners in vocational psychology have been attempting to widen the net of vocational psychology to include individuals who do not have access to the opportunity structure (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000; Richardson, 1993). An important early contribution by Smith (1983) presented a compelling case regarding the struggles that people of color have had in finding work that allows for self-concept implementation. She argued that many jobs for African Americans and other members of visible racial and ethnic minority groups present a direct challenge to their dignity and self-concepts rather than a means of self-expression. In fact, the multicultural movement has forced psychology in general, and vocational psychology in particular, to rethink some core assumptions about what is considered to be normative behavior and how we actually construct our perceptions of knowledge (Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999). For example, the notion of the individual who works autonomously and behaves competitively in the world of work is viewed in some cultures as inconsistent with collectivist norms (Carter & Cook, 1992). Similarly, the infusion of feminist thinking into vocational psychology has provided our field with a striking lesson about how social mores and prejudices can disadvantage a substantial proportion of workers in our culture (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Brooks & Forrest, 1994). Other criticisms of vocational psychology have emerged from scholars who have examined the work lives of individuals with disabling conditions (e.g., Szymanski & Parker, 1996). Further concerns about the utility of vocational psychology have been voiced in relation to sexual orientation (e.g., Fassinger, 1996). In addition, the recent interest in the school-towork transition for non-college-bound students has immersed our discipline in an area that had been relegated to the sidelines for many decades (e.g., Blustein et al., 2000). Furthermore, the emerging interest in social constructionist and postmodern analyses of vocational behavior has given voice to workers whose experiences have not been center stage in our inquiry (e.g., Savickas, 1993; Young & Collin, 1992). When considered collectively, these critically important contributions facilitated the construction of an explicitly contextualized analysis of the career development process, which has effectively enriched our view of how individuals interact with their work-related tasks and responsibilities across the life span. However, Richardson’s (1993, 1996) contributions, in my view, have been most instrumental in developing a case for a more radical analysis of our efforts,
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
175
methods, and objectives. Richardson argued that vocational psychology needs to open its horizons to embrace work in all of its forms and manifestations as opposed to the study of careers, which she argues is nested in a middle-class and culturally encapsulated framework. In these critically important publications, Richardson articulated a compelling challenge for counseling psychologists to locate their interests and concerns in the realm of work. Richardson (1993) defined work broadly to encompass human activity that is initiated “ ... for individual success and satisfaction, to express achievement strivings, to earn a living ... to further ambitions and self-assertions ... and to link individuals to a larger social good” (p. 428). This definition clearly charts a different direction for our field; Richardson’s position seeks to break out of the middle-class bias that has characterized many of our underlying assumptions in recent decades. Indeed, Richardson’s contributions have fertilized the soil for a transformation in vocational psychology. Building on this foundation, I propose a more explicit sociopolitical analysis and a richer theoretical and methodological framework to facilitate the development of a comprehensive, inclusive, and integrative psychology of working. However, one obstacle in the evolution of a psychology of working exists in our collective collusion about social class issues in our theory and inquiry. Indeed, I believe that our inherent confusion about social class has functioned to create a highly circumscribed scholarly agenda that has not been sufficiently inclusive or relevant. As I argue next, integrating Richardson’s notions about work with a class-based analysis of current scholarship offers the potential to yield a renewed vision of our work that captures the essence of Parsons’ true mission in establishing a science and practice of vocational psychology. The Threat of Classism Richardson’s (1993) critique of vocational psychology opened a needed dialogue about the middle-class bias that is inherent in a study of careers. Despite Tinsley’s (1994) rejoinder to the Richardson position about the prevalence of studies on working-class adults in organizational psychology, I believe that vocational psychology has functioned in recent years with an inherent class bias. In order for a psychology of working to be relevant to the vast majority of individuals who work across the globe, we need to address how social class functions in all aspects of vocational development. In my view, our specialty, like much of applied psychology, has been profoundly shaped by classism, which remains a major stumbling block in the growth of a relevant and comprehensive psychology of working. Classism refers to prejudicial beliefs about individuals based on their social class; typically, it encompasses implicit or explicit attempts to ignore, marginalize, or silence the voices of working-class and poor people (Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996; Milner, 1999). Classism is highly problematic in a field such as vocational psychology because work experiences tend to vary so much in relation to social class (Brown, Fukunaga, Umemoto, & Wicker, 1996; Fouad & Brown, 2000). In vocational psychology, classism is manifested by our use of theories and research methodologies
176
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
that rely on middle-class value systems. For example, much of vocational psychology has focused on the work lives of individuals with college degrees, without a corollary focus on the work experiences of individuals without postsecondary education (Peterson & Gonzalez, 2000). The focus on the nature of career choices, the prediction of career choices, and the adjustment of white-collar workers within organizations reflects the outward behavioral manifestation of a field that has left the working class out of its vision. Thus, even in cases where working-class students and adults are included in samples, the questions and issues that are addressed tend to reflect the concerns of individuals who have opportunities for meaningful and rewarding careers. While a systematic analysis of the reasons for the classism in our field is beyond the scope of this article, the implications of the nearly exclusive focus on middle-class and well-educated individuals are clear. We have neglected the vast majority of workers in our field, with clear consequences for the utility of our theories, instruments, and, indeed, our mission. As Tinsley (1994) pointed out, diversity in the ranks of scholars tends to be a major factor in generating needed research and theory development that will be maximally inclusive. Obviously, most scholars and theoreticians are not immersed in working-class culture; even if they came from such backgrounds, the social pressure to disavow this aspect of one’s culture is very prominent in current academic and intellectual circles. Hence we have a situation where the voices of working-class and poor people are not included in our discourse. In addition, we have not yet addressed how social class intersects with racism and sexism to create significant pockets of poverty around the globe. In order for our field to become truly inclusive, we need to find ways to (1) openly confront our own class biases and (2) actively include the input of people whose work lives do not reflect the volitional and orderly experiences of middle-class and college-educated individuals. Opportunities for Radical Transformation: Building an Inclusive Psychology of Working In constructing an inclusive psychology of working, we need to establish a map of the terrain of our inquiry. Despite initiatives to expand career development to include people of color (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Helms & Cook, 1999) and women struggling to deal with inequities in the labor market (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987), the intellectual foundation of an inclusive psychology of working is still not readily apparent. In the following section, I seek to create the scaffolding for the psychological analysis of working that builds on recent theoretical and methodological advances. Identification of relevant issues. As we have learned in relational psychology, empathy and experience-near connections to clients and research participants are critical factors in developing a deep understanding of life experience (e.g., Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991). Because individuals from middle-class and upper middle backgrounds primarily populate most of the scholarly ranks of academia, I argue that we are not in the position to identify the full agenda
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
177
of a psychology of working. Rather, we need to allow ourselves to confront our class biases and “think outside of the box” in order to construct a meaningful and relevant line of inquiry. I believe that two specific methods exist for creating an inclusive vocational psychology. First, we ought to expand our conceptual horizons so that we include a wider array of potential information in our considerations of work. Thus, we can consult with the rich literatures that have emerged in sociology (e.g., Borman, 1991; Wilson, 1996), education (e.g., Marshall & Tucker, 1992), economics (e.g., Reich, 1991), labor studies (e.g., Baron, 1991), and other fields in which the challenges of work are detailed. Many of these contributions have employed rigorous qualitative methods that also provide the participants an opportunity to give voice to their concerns about their work lives. A review of the narratives, for example, in the Borman and Wilson volumes, reflect concerns with survival and meeting basic needs that are not evident in contemporary discourse about careers. In addition, we can examine writings about work that have been recorded since humans learned how to document their thoughts. In this light, I believe that the testimony of a diverse spectrum of workers about their experiences, wishes, frustrations, and sources of joy is critically needed in a psychology of working. (A recent volume edited by Thomas, 1999, provides an outstanding collection of essays and vignettes about work and would be a very useful starting point for an inclusive psychology of working.) Second, we need to actively include poor and working class students and adults in our conversations about work. This can be accomplished by using openended questions in qualitative studies designed to explore the nature of work and its connection to other aspects of human experience. We can also ask individuals from poor and working-class backgrounds to join us at conferences and in research studies in order to ensure that our questions and methods are meaningful and relevant. The conceptual and methodological inclusiveness of the psychology of working. Another key attribute of an inclusive psychology of working is that it ought to be constructed in a highly integrative fashion. Indeed, the term “inclusive,” which frames my position, also pertains to the need to think in an explicitly integrative fashion about theory development and research methods. The study of working from a social scientific perspective is not new or is it original. Sociologists, in particular, have devoted extensive effort to understanding how social class, familial characteristics, and cultural factors impact upon one’s work life (e.g., Borman, 1991; Levinson et al., 1996; Wilson, 1996). A psychological analysis, in contrast, has the potential to enrich our thinking by focusing on the nature of working and how this experience interfaces with other aspects of human behavior and development. Thus, one way of defining an inclusive approach to the study of working is to stretch our conceptual horizons so that studies of working from across the social sciences are included. An inclusive psychology of working also will draw upon theoretical ideas emerging in other domains of psychology outside of the traditional purview of vocational psychology. Richardson (1993) offered some insightful ideas about the utility of
178
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
developmental psychology to our thinking about work. Rather that considering other lines of inquiry as conceptual tools, I suggest that our task is actually more complex and ultimately more useful. Like Richardson, I agree that work represents one location within a life space, with clear interconnections to other domains of human experience. As such, I believe that we need to study work in its various contexts, including organizations, home, family, and culture. The task of these sorts of analyses would be to understand the complex interrelationships between work and other aspects of human life. These analyses would go a long way to contextualizing the psychological study of working, which is consistent with its integrative location in contemporary life (Blustein, 2001; Flum, 2001). In addition to including diverse conceptual sources from within psychology and other social sciences, I also believe that a psychology of working requires epistemological diversity. The need to include working class and poor individuals in our inquiry clearly fits with many postmodern critiques, which have argued for greater pluralism in our thinking (Savickas, 1993, 1995). In this context, I suggest that discovery-oriented qualitative methods will be particularly important, especially in developing an understanding of the work life of individuals who face limited opportunities. One of the most useful methods is grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which is a highly rigorous means of developing theoretical inferences from the voices of participants. Other methods of discovery based on observations, artifacts, discourse analysis, and narratives of participants are summarized in the Denzin and Lincoln (2000) volume, which reviews the broad landscape of qualitative research. While some of the impetus for this transformed vision of vocational psychology stems from postmodern analyses (Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1993), I believe that the stakes are too high to engage in an intellectual debate that may ultimately detract from our need to be maximally inclusive. In my view, there is room for logical positivist analyses that would be useful in testing existing hypotheses with working-class and poor people. Although I believe that major changes are needed in theory development, I am not necessarily suggesting that we need to disregard all of the knowledge obtained in the last 100 years. Indeed, many of the more fundamental notions about work that have emerged in the psychology of careers may in fact be relevant to a psychology of working. However, these assumptions need to be tested empirically with a broader range of the population. At the same time, postmodern and social constructionist analyses would be well-suited for the more challenging tasks of developing new and relevant ideas about the psychological nature of working. Implications of a Psychology of Working While it is difficult to envision the implications of an inclusive and integrative psychology of working, part of my vision has been constructed around my concerns with the overall utility of vocational psychological scholarship. In short, I hope that the psychology of working will have a significant impact in extending the impact of vocational counseling and in informing educational, labor, and family policy.
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
179
In the realm of counseling practice, I believe that the research that emerges from psychological analyses of working may provide the foundation for preventive and developmental interventions with poor and working-class youth and adults. The mismatch between the methods derived from traditional vocational psychology and the needs of poor and working-class clients has been well documented in the literature (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Smith, 1983). It is possible that the theoretical ideas that emerge from the psychology of working may yield greater relevance to the concerns of individuals whose families have not experienced traditional careers. An inclusive psychology of working also may have important implications for educational, labor, and family policy. By expanding our scope, we have an opportunity to research a wider array of issues that have relevance to poor and working class individuals who are grappling with major social challenges. For example, if we can link our efforts to educational reform initiatives on the school-to-work transition, we may be able to develop testable notions about ways to help students internalize the connection between doing well at school and having more control and volition in their work lives. In the realm of labor policy, we may be able to chart the effects of economic cycles on the lives of the working class and poor, who often feel the brunt of recessions more pervasively than do the middle class. These sorts of psychological studies may be particularly informative to government and business leaders, who tend to take more macro-level approaches to labor policy. An integrative psychology of working also may have significant implications for family policy. The existing body of work on the career development of women has already had a modest impact on such policies as family leaves and childcare legislation, although clearly more is needed in this realm (Fitzgerald & Weitzman, 1992). The application of a psychological analysis of working also may enrich the growing area of masculinity studies (Levant & Pollack, 1995), which seeks to understand how gender role socialization influences the development and expression of men’s behavior. By expanding our scholarship to include women and men who do not have opportunities for hierarchical and lucrative careers, we may be well positioned to assist in linking family and labor policy, thereby reducing artificial boundaries between highly interrelated aspects of modern life. In my view, an inclusive psychology of working will help to broaden the impact of our scholarship with the overall intention of improving the conditions of work and of enhancing opportunities for the poor and working class. Conclusion In closing, I have attempted to continue the important work that has been initiated by many colleagues who have sought to infuse a broader and more inclusive perspective into vocational psychology (e.g., Carter & Cook, 1992; Richardson, 1993; Savickas, 1993; Smith, 1983). I realize, naturally, that some readers may wonder how the traditional fields of vocational psychology and industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology would fare in relation to the psychology of working. From a structural perspective, I envision that both vocational psychology and I/O psychology will flourish as specialties within a broader psychology of working. With
180
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
the overarching rubric of the psychology of working, there is a likelihood of greater cross-fertilization of ideas and research findings. In addition, these mature specialties will benefit from an infusion of new ideas and concepts that may serve to link heretofore discrete constructs and theories. However, I think that the payoff of a fully engaged psychology of work is greater than the sum of its parts. The psychology of working will provide a needed intellectual home for the careful, integrative, and systematic analysis of the full range of work experiences in the 21st century regardless of an individual’s class, racial and ethnic identity, gender, sexual orientation, and culture. Moreover, I can envision a mature psychology of working leading to more integrative treatment programs and preventive interventions that will respect the seamless nature of life. Finally, the psychology of working may provide the critically needed scholarship to critique existing systems that function to circumscribe the vocational opportunity structure. I am confident that our collective energy, talent, and creativity will result in an expansion of our mission so that the full and diverse fabric of human diversity may enjoy a more meaningful and integrated work life. REFERENCES Baron, A. (1991). (Ed.) Work engendered: Toward a new history of American labor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Skills confidence inventory applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for 21st Century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179–192. Blustein, D. L., Juntunen, C. L., & Worthington, R. L. (2000). The school-to-work transition: Adjustment challenges of the forgotten half. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd. ed., pp. 435–470). New York: Wiley. Borman, K. M. (1991). The first “real” job: A study of young workers. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1996). (Eds.) Career choice and development (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Brooks, L., & Forrest, L. (1994). Feminism and career counseling. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 878–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, M. T., Fukunaga, C., Umemoto, D., & Wicker, L. (1996). Annual review, 1990–1996: Social class, work, and retirement behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 159–189. Carter, R. T., & Cook, D. A. (1992). A culturally relevant perspective for understanding the career paths of visible racial/ethnic group people. In H. D. Lea & Z. B. Leibowitz (Eds.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practice (pp. 192–217). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association. Davis, H. V. (1969). Frank Parsons: Prophet, innovator, counselor. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Notes from the margins: Integrating lesbian experiences into the vocational psychology of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 160–175. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Weitzman, L. M. (1992). Women’s career development: Theory and practice from a feminist perspective. In H. D. Lea & Z. B. Leibowitz (Eds.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practice (pp. 124–160). Alexandria, VA: National Career Development Association.
INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING
181
Flum, H. (2001). Relational dimensions in career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1–16. Fouad, N. A., & Brown, M. T. (2000). The role of race and class in development: Implications for counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379–408). New York: Wiley. Hartung, P. J., & Blustein, D. L. (in press). Reason, intuition, and social justice: Elaborating Parsons’ career decision making model. Journal of Counseling and Development. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: PAR. Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. Levant, R. F. & Pollack, W. S. (1995). (Eds.). A new psychology of men. New York: Basic Books. Levinson, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (1996). (Eds.). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. Marshall, R., & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of nations. New York: Basic Books. Meara, N. M., & Patton, M. J. (1994). Contributions of the working alliance in the practice of career counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 161–177. Milner, A. (1999). Class. London, UK: Sage. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (1999). Career development and systems theory: A new relationship. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Peterson, N., & Gonzalez, R. C. (2000). The role of work in people’s lives: Applied career counseling and vocational psychology. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Reardon, R. C., Lenz, J. G., Sampson, J. P., & Peterson, G. W. (2000). Career development and planning: A comprehensive approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Reich, R. B. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books. Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people’s lives: A location for counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 425–433. Richardson, M. S. (1996). From career counseling to counseling/psychotherapy and work Jobs, and career. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 347–360). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Savickas, M. L. (1993). Career counseling in the postmodern era. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 7, 205–215. Savickas, M. L. (1995). Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology: Convergence, divergence, and schism. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Savickas, M. L. (1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 326–336. Smith, E. J. (1983). Issues in racial minorities’ career behavior. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 161–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row. Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (1996). (Eds.). Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. Thomas, K. (Ed.). (1999). The Oxford book of work. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Tinsley, H. E. A. (1994). Construct your reality and show us its benefits: Comment on Richardson (1993). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 108–111.
182
DAVID L. BLUSTEIN
Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. H. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House. Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (Eds.). (1992). Interpreting career: Hermeneutical studies of lives in context. Westport, CT: Prager. Received March 1, 2001