Children's Career Development: Metaphorical Images of Theory, Research, and Practice

The Career Development Quarterly September 2008 • Volume 57 75

© 2008 by the National Career Development Association. All rights reserved.

Children’s Career Development: Metaphorical Images of Theory, Research, and Practice

Mark Watson Mary McMahon

This summative article discusses 5 invited contributions on children’s career de-velopment. The authors of these articles were asked to consider the status quo of children’s career development, issues facing this field, and future directions. Several emergent themes focused on theory, research, and practice and their interactive potential in children’s career development. Suggestions for future direction in the study of children’s career development include the need for greater contextualiza-tion and interdisciplinary collaboration, the revision and innovation of theory, and the need for organizing frameworks for theory, research, and practice.

Hedecidedtoopenthedooragainandletinsomelight.—C. S. Lewis (1975, p. 31)

In the introductory article to this special section on children’s career devel-opment, McMahon and Watson (2008) review the persistent call in recent decades for a more comprehensive, integrative, and holistic approach to career theory, research, and practice in the study of children’s career development. They describe the need for a greater focus on process issues and the need to embed children’s career development within life span career development. In addition, the present inadequate recursiveness between theory, research, and practice and the consequences this has had for practical intervention in the earlier phases of career development have been identified. It is clear that the career literature on children is both disparate and generally lacking in depth (Watson & McMahon, 2004).

The aim of this special section was to invite prominent scholars in the field of children’s career development to consider these challenges. Specifically, invited contributors were asked to reflect on three themes: the status quo of children’s career development literature, the issues facing the field, and the future directions that could be considered. Two of the articles provide a more conceptual understanding of the needs in the field (Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2008; Schultheiss, 2008), two articles provide examples of programmatic research that is responsive to these needs (Helwig, 2008; Tracey & Sodano, 2008), and one article describes proposed program-matic research (Porfeli, Hartung, & Vondracek, 2008).

The current summative article explores the five invited contributions in relation to the suggested themes. We believe that the status quo of children’s

MarkWatson,DepartmentofPsychology,NelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversity,PortElizabeth,SouthAfrica;MaryMcMahon,SchoolofEducation,TheUniversityofQueensland,Brisbane,Queensland,Australia.Correspondenceconcerningthisarticle should be addressed to Mark Watson, Department of Psychology, NelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversity,POBox77000,PortElizabeth,6031,SouthAfrica(e-mail:[email protected]).

76 The Career Development Quarterly September 2008 • Volume 57

career literature is predominantly a description of the present issues that the field faces. Thus, the invited responses are grouped within two themed sections: the status quo of children’s career development literature and the future direction that theory, research, and practice should take.

Looking Through the Keyhole: The Status Quo of Children’s Career Development

In their article, Porfeli et al. (2008) reopen the door on the neglected status of children’s career development and how critical such neglect is considering that the foundations for future career development are laid at this developmental stage. The neglect has existed since the inception of career psychology, and Porfeli et al. point out that the goals described by Parsons (1909) and Münsterberg (1913) remain largely unaddressed. It seems that although the movement toward a career developmental approach turned the focus from a static to a process conception of ca-reer development, the focus within the career development literature has remained predominantly static with a skew toward adolescence and adulthood. Further compounding this situation, in our opinion, is the skewed U.S. and middle-class population base upon which much of the literature on children’s career development is presently based. This point has also been made by Schultheiss (2008). In many senses, the literature on children’s career development remains in its infancy, particularly in terms of its lack of attention to process dimensions, compared with the maturation of the career literature that has focused on later developmental stages.

This review of the status quo of children’s career development is described in terms of theory, research, and practice. These are not independent aspects of the career literature, and the authors recognize the interactive, recursive relationship that should occur between these three dimensions and refer to this where appropriate.

A persistent theme that emerges from the articles is the lack of an organizing theoretical framework that informs both theory and practice (Hartung et al., 2008; Porfeli et al., 2008; Schultheiss, 2008). Thus, although Schultheiss identifies the life span developmental focus of the career literature on children as a strength along with its interdisciplin-ary nature, she also identifies its weakness in that the career literature is not theory driven. Schultheiss comments that there is a lack of detailed research on children’s career development that is founded on theory. Tracey and Sodano’s (2008) article demonstrates how career research of children can provide support for theoretical conceptualizations, such as Holland’s (1997) view of vocational interests. Porfeli et al. express other concerns about the extant theoretical frameworks that inform research and practice, pointing to the lack of consistent operational definitions of career constructs and the consequent threat this creates in terms of the validity of research findings and career interventions.

There are divergent suggestions about the application of career theory to research and practice in children’s career development. Schultheiss (2008) alerts the field to the possibility that basing research and career programs on established career theories could produce blind spots in its understanding of children’s career development. She points to the fact that much of career theory as it presently stands is based on retrospec-


tive introspection, a peeping backward through the keyhole rather than an entering through the door. As such, the study of children’s career development based on extant theory may be guided by a conceptual framework that is less appropriate for children and more appropriate for older developmental ages. This framework suggests that much of the field’s understanding of children’s career development may be founded on adopted and sometimes adapted career constructs from other ca-reer developmental phases. In addition, this raises a related issue as to whether current theoretical accounts of children’s career development are related to a childhood that is past or significantly different from the world in which children presently develop and, if so, how appropriate these theories are as a basis for future research of and program develop-ment for children’s career development.

Although they identify similar issues to those of Schultheiss (2008), Hartung et al. (2008) propose a different solution, that is, a research approach grounded in one theory. The authors suggest a theoretical model founded on career construction theory, and they propose that the construct of career adaptability may be a useful framework for systemati-cally informing both research and practice within the field of children’s career development. This framework provides four developmental lines of career adaptability, some of which reflect on earlier theoretical formula-tions, such as the concept of career control and Roe’s (1956) earlier work on parent–child relationships. The authors’ concept of career curiosity indicates how failure to stimulate this activity in childhood can lead to foreclosure in adolescent career decision making. This concept suggests the expansion of the boundaries of career exploration rather than a nar-rowing down of options (such as occupational gender stereotyping) at a developmental stage when such expansion is developmentally more appropriate career behavior. A further example of embedding research findings in conceptual frameworks is found in the long-term research program of Tracey and his colleagues (Tracey, & Darcy, 2002; Tracey, Lent, Brown, Soresi, & Nota, 2006; Tracey & Robbins, 2005; Tracey, Robbins, & Hofsess, 2005; Tracey & Rounds, 1993; Tracey & Sodano, 2008; Tracey & Ward, 1998). Tracey and Sodano’s review of this pro-gram of research provides an excellent example of how such research can be conceptualized within a framework that defines the process of interest stability and change over time.

Emerging from the discussion of career theory and children’s career development is a related conceptual issue about childhood itself (i.e., what phase of childhood to focus on and how childhood should be currently understood within the postmodern context in which children develop). Porfeli et al. (2008) offer a rationale for commencing longitudinal re-search in middle to late childhood, referring to middle childhood as the dawn of vocational development. This raises the question of how early is too early to begin researching children’s career development. Clearly, middle childhood may be a more pragmatic developmental phase to research given the requirements of most research, such as the literacy levels of research participants.

Another conceptual issue in the field’s understanding of children’s career development is the changing nature of childhood itself. Although there is explicit recognition of the changing nature of work, there is little explicit discussion of childhood itself in the career literature. Har-


tung et al. (2008) discuss the possibility that there is less of a cultural moratorium involving freedom from work and responsibility for the present generation of children. This issue raises questions again about established career theory. For instance, is Super’s (1957, 1974, 1990) conception of childhood in earlier decades generationally removed from childhood experiences of the present decade?

The introductory article to this special section refers to the concerns of two recent major reviews of research on children’s career development (Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2005; Watson & McMahon, 2005). The articles in this special section identify similar concerns to these reviews. There is a sense of déjà vu when reading the invited contributors’ com-ments on children’s career development research because they introduce a research agenda with a long-standing history. This raises the question of why historically identified issues related to children’s career research remain essentially the same issues today. For instance, there is consistent criticism of the lack of a theoretical and organizing framework within which to conduct research on children’s career development (Hartung et al., 2008; Schultheiss, 2008).

This lack of an organizing framework has contributed to another major issue in career research on children—that of the diverse and fragmented research base that presently informs the field’s understanding of children’s career development. Related to this issue is the call for research to be conducted contextually, particularly in terms of life span developmental theory (Schultheiss, 2008). Although there is evidence of interdisciplin-ary contextualization in research on children’s career development, it seems difficult to translate this into an interdisciplinary body of research when the research appears in a wide range of academic journals, thus increasing the fragmented dissemination of research findings.

There is a persistent theme identified in most articles concerning the fact that theory does not inform research and practice and that research does not inform theory and practice (e.g., Porfeli et al., 2008). Hartung et al.’s (2008) article on a rationale for research on children’s career de-velopment provides a potential framework for interrelating research with theory and practice. They introduce several dimensions around which extant and future research could be analyzed, including the constructs of career exploration, career awareness, vocational expectations and aspira-tions, vocational interests, and career maturity/career adaptability.

There are several issues raised about career practice as it relates to children’s career development. Common to most of these issues is the isolation of practice from theory and research as well as the effectiveness of career intervention as it currently stands. Porfeli et al. (2008) point to the gap between career interventions at an elementary school level and the research that should inform such interventions. They argue that such a gap reinforces the identified gap between school and work and between school counseling practice and developmental science.

There are other gaps evident in career practice and children’s career development. Schultheiss (2008) notes the gap between research and the policy initiatives that drive career intervention. This gap results in career programs for children that are not well informed about how children are socialized and how they develop an orientation to the world of work within family, school, and community contexts. This state of affairs prob-ably contributes to another point that Schultheiss makes: Career guidance


programs often fail to meet the national guidelines set for them. Porfeli et al. (2008) identify another gap between career development intervention in elementary schools and the commitment of school resources to such efforts. These authors argue that this gap creates significant barriers to the career development of all children but particularly for those children who face an accelerated transition into the workforce.

Research has frequently made recommendations related to career in-tervention. For example, Tracey and Sodano (2008) are able to identify suitable times for career intervention as well as the content to be ad-dressed in this intervention. However, there remains a lack of empirical research to validate career interventions at the elementary school level, a situation identified by Porfeli et al. (2008) as another issue that has an impact on career practice and children’s career development. One reason for this is the lack of assessment tools with which to conduct evaluations as well as the questionable validity of extant instruments that attempt to provide such validation. Where research has focused on career intervention at the elementary school level, results have not always been encouraging. Helwig’s (2008) article describes longitudinal research that indicates that, retrospectively, interventions at this developmental level were found to be of less help than originally perceived.

There is a need to become more proactive in interrelating research and practice in children’s career development. Porfeli et al. (2008) believe that such proactivity could prevent career exploration foreclosure in children in general and in minority group children in particular. The authors further state that this proactivity could also stimulate academic performance in elementary school children through promoting more explicit connections between school and thinking and between work and doing, thus closing several gaps identified earlier in this article.

Unlocking the Door: The Future Direction of Children’s Career Development Theory, Research, and Practice

The contributions to this special section provide conceptual ways forward for the study of children’s career development. In addition, practical examples (e.g., Helwig, 2008; Tracey & Sodano, 2008) of how status quo issues may be addressed are provided as well as illustrations of the type of research that is possible and is needed.

Several contributors call for the study of children’s career development to be contextualized within an interdisciplinary framework. Schultheiss (2008) calls for interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, and Hartung et al. (2008) similarly call for the influence of other disciplines, such as de-velopmental psychology, developmental sociology, life span development, and developmental systems theory, among others. Furthermore, practical examples of how to contextualize children’s career development are pro-vided in this special section. For example, both Tracey and Sodano’s (2008) and Helwig’s (2008) research links childhood to adolescence, albeit in the case of Tracey and Sodano, this is only in relation to interest development. Tracey and Sodano also contextualize their findings on girls’ interest scores to recognized transition points in the educational system. This type of con-textualization has important practical implications because it suggests that career intervention is needed at key points within the educational system.


There is some diversity in suggestions for the future direction of theory and children’s career development. Several authors call for the revision of extant theory. Porfeli et al. (2008) suggest that a critical step in advancing the career theory of children is to identify extant core theoretical constructs with the development of sound instruments to measure these constructs. Tracey and Sodano (2008) provide a practical example of research that is responsive to the need to find out whether extant theory applies to children. They found support for a trait conceptualization of interests such as is proposed in Holland’s (1997) theory. Schultheiss (2008) also considers extant theory and suggests that revision of such theory could be a way forward. However, Schultheiss suggests that a more radical step may be required in that there is a need to start at the beginning again in formulating a new theoretical framework within which to understand children’s career development. Schultheiss proposes that there is an opportunity at this point to provide discovery-oriented theory building that is based on qualitative research. This suggests that although the regeneration of extant theory is one possibility, going back to the drawing board, as Schultheiss phrases it, could lead to the generation of new theory and the reinvigoration of the field.

Central to these suggestions for theory building is the question of whether children’s career development should be researched from an existing theoretical base or whether a new theory needs to be developed founded on a research base. It seems to us that this is a theoretical dilemma that the field needs to engage in more vigorously. It raises questions as to whether existing career constructs may constrain the field’s thinking of children’s career development, on the one hand, but it also suggests that a theory specific to children may make developmental contextualization with later career stages more difficult to achieve.

Underpinning the debate about the future direction of this theory is the possibility that an intensified focus on children’s career developmental theory (and, indeed, on the career research of children) may create a new, disparate body of research and theory that will mirror the present fragmented status of the career literature. It alerts the field to the possibility that the greater unity sought in the career literature on children may diminish the potential richness of a more disparate body of theory and research.

As with the discussion on theory, there is a call for future research to embed contextual and interdisciplinary frameworks within children’s career development. Schultheiss (2008) calls for multidisciplinary partners that would provide a context inclusive of other disciplines as well as provide organizing dimensions and constructs for future research and practice. She suggests collaborative intervention-based research that is inclusive of developmental psychology, developmental-contextual models, and family influences, among other disciplines.

The discussion of a contextual framework for the study of children’s career development goes beyond a discussion of the potential theory base. One focus of discussion is on what research of children’s career development should be related to. There is a call from several authors to relate research more closely to theory and for research to provide frameworks within which their findings can be understood. Tracey and Sodano’s (2008) research provides an example of how research can be grounded in theory as they explore interest stability within four overlapping conceptions of interest development. This research also offers a useful framework for reviewing research on vocational interests.


Several other contexts are suggested to which future research could be more closely related. Schultheiss (2008) indicates that the future research of children’s career development needs to be related to the educational curriculum and that there is a need for research at both a systems level and an individual level of intervention. There is also a consistent call for future research to be more inclusive of other population groups, such as children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, different ethnic groups, and groups with special needs. Tracey and Sodano’s (2008) research provides a good illustration of diversifying the research focus to different ethnic groups.

Related to the discussion of a broader research base are the calls for a re-focus in research methodology. The dominance of cross-sectional research on children has been recorded in other reviews of children’s career research (Hartung et al., 2005; Watson & McMahon, 2005). Most contributions to this special section reemphasize the critical need for longitudinal research if a meaningful understanding of children’s career development is to be established. Indeed, there are two excellent examples of research of a more developmental nature (Helwig, 2008; Tracey & Sodano, 2008).

There also is a related discussion about assessment. Porfeli et al. (2008) believe that the identification of a core set of instruments would be a critical step in implementing longitudinal research. They propose the development of a Web-based instrument that is theoretically eclectic. Schultheiss (2008) suggests that qualitative research, particularly in grounded theory, offers other assessment possibilities. Helwig’s (2008) use of a qualitative interview provides an example of the possibilities offered by qualitative research of a longitudinal nature.

There is general agreement about the critical need to promote career interventions at the elementary school level. Porfeli et al. (2008) state that such interventions should engage children in the process of career exploration so that children may establish a healthy orientation to the world of work. The authors argue that early intervention would help reinforce the connections between school and work and, in so doing, have a favorable impact on later student development. The recognition of the importance of early career intervention is also related by several authors to research and theory. Tracey and Sodano’s (2008) research demonstrates the relationship between research and intervention in their identification of the timing and nature of the intervention needed. Simi-larly, underlying the four theoretical developmental lines proposed by Hartung et al. (2008) is the importance that career program intervention can play in enhancing and stimulating career adaptability. However, on a cautionary note, Helwig (2008) suggests that career intervention may not always be as beneficial as may be imagined or hoped.

ConclusionIt is evident from this special section that concerns raised about the pres-ent and future status of the literature on children’s career development persist. The view through the door remains limited. The invited articles reinforce the fact that the field continues to describe children’s career development from a restricted and limiting base, whether this base be theoretical, research, or practice. It is also clear that there are consistent efforts to address and redress these concerns. These efforts remain largely


uncoordinated at present, thus perpetuating the disparate nature of career theory, research, and practice in this field that has been identified as an issue. One way forward is to address the call made in several articles in this special section for interdisciplinary and international collaboration that may provide a more cohesive and substantial body of literature. The present special section is an example of how prominent scholars can collate their perceptions and research into a more cohesive body of work. This would be even more beneficial if accounts were encouraged that are relevant in other countries and cultures in order to achieve a richer understanding of children’s career development. The willingness to examine issues in the field of children’s career development that are highlighted in this special section is a strength of the field.

The outcomes of bringing together a number of authors to reflect on the status quo and future directions in children’s career development theory, research, and practice have some parallels with those of the convergence project of the early 1990s (Savickas & Lent, 1994). Specifically, although no agreement has ultimately been reached on a way forward, the value may lie in the process of opening the door on a discussion that may “help nurture a sense of shared mission . . . that promotes convergence as well as diversity” (Lent & Savickas, 1994, p. 270).

As evident in the contributions to this special section, there is no one clear direction forward. Indeed, it may be oversimplistic to think that there could be one direction in a field that is as diverse and complex as children’s career development and in which there is still so much to learn. Thus, there may be multiple ways forward that, to some extent, may seem paradoxical. For example, the disparate nature of the extant research could be perceived as a weakness because it reflects a lack of depth and could also be viewed as a strength illustrative of the breadth of topics in which research has begun and could be furthered. Furthermore, the lack of a theory base for research is seen as a weakness, yet it may be construed positively because it leaves the door open to test the ap-plicability of extant theory or to develop new theory related to children’s career development. In addition, although the field may be criticized for what it has not done, what it has done reflects remarkable resilience in an area that has traditionally been undervalued and underfunded. Although it is likely that a disparate range of research will continue into the future, it is hoped that future research may also incorporate greater attention to the issues raised in this special section.

The contributions to this special section certainly open the door fur-ther and throw light on the issues that need to be addressed and on the way forward in the field’s understanding of children’s career develop-ment. The door needs to be more widely opened, however, if the field is to proactively address the remediation of career behaviors of later developmental stages that are too often grounded in a narrower, more stereotypical career awareness and exploration in childhood.

ReferencesHartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2005). Child vocational development:

A review and reconsideration. JournalofVocationalBehavior,66,385–419.Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2008). Career adaptability in child-

hood. TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,57, 63–74.


Helwig, A. A. (2008). From childhood to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal career development study. TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,57, 38–50.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Makingvocationalchoices:Atheoryofvocationalpersonalitiesandworkenvironments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Lent, R. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1994). Postcript: Is convergence a viable agenda for career psychology? In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergenceincareerdevelopmenttheories:Implicationsforscienceandpractice (pp. 259–271). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Lewis, C. S. (1975). Thelion,thewitch,andthewardrobe. London: Collins.McMahon, M., & Watson, M. (2008). Children’s career development: Status quo and

future directions. TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,57, 4–6.Münsterberg, H. (1913). Psychologyandindustrialefficiency.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Parsons, F. (1909). Choosingavocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Porfeli, E. J., Hartung, P. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2008). Children’s vocational develop-

ment: A research rationale. TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,57, 25–37.Roe, A. (1956). Thepsychologyofoccupations. New York: Wiley.Savickas, M. L., & Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). Convergenceincareerdevelopmenttheories:

Implicationsforscienceandpractice. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2008). Current status and future agenda for the theory, research,

and practice of childhood career development. The Career Development Quarterly,57, 7–24.

Super, D. E. (1957). Thepsychologyofcareers. New York: Harper & Row.Super, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Measuringvocationalmaturityforcounselingandevaluation.

Washington, DC: National Vocational Guidance Association.Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown,

L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Careerchoiceanddevelopment:Applyingcontemporarytheoriestopractice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tracey, T. J. G., & Darcy, M. (2002). An idiothetic examination of vocational interests and their relation to career decidedness. JournalofCounselingPsychology,49, 420–427.

Tracey, T. J. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2006). Adherence to RIASEC structure in relation to career exploration and parenting style: Longitudinal and idiothetic considerations. JournalofVocationalBehavior,69, 248–261.

Tracey, T. J. G., & Robbins, S. B. (2005). Stability of interests across ethnicity and gender: A longitudinal examination of Grades 8 through 12. Journal of VocationalBehavior,67, 335–364.

Tracey, T. J. G., Robbins, S. B., & Hofsess, C. D. (2005). Stability and change in ado-lescence: A longitudinal analysis of interests from Grades 8 through 12. Journal ofVocationalBehavior,66, 1–25.

Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s vocational interest models: A structural meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin,113, 229–246.

Tracey, T. J. G., & Sodano, S. M. (2008). Issues of stability and change in interest de-velopment. TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,57, 51–62.

Tracey, T. J. G., & Ward, C. C. (1998). The structure of children’s interests and compe-tence perceptions. JournalofCounselingPsychology,45, 290–303.

Watson, M., & McMahon, M. (2004). Children’s career development: A metatheoretical perspective. AustralianJournalofCareerDevelopment,13, 7–12.

Watson, M., & McMahon, M. (2005). Children’s career development: A research review from a learning perspective. JournalofVocationalBehavior,67, 119–132.

Documents

Children's Career Development: Metaphorical Images of Theory, Research, and Practice