QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative Research

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction3

Background3

Chapter 2: Literature Review8

Career Theory from a Vocational Perspective9

Historical Influences10

Chapter 3: Methodology15

Research Design15

Data Collection Method16

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings17

Interview 1: Megan's Interview17

Interview 2: Hritik Interview17

Chapter 5: Conclusion18

References20

Appendix21

Appendix 121

Appendix 247

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

The sociological perspective on careers focuses on the social structures, cultural norms, and institutions that define, direct, and constrain people's actions at the societal level, as well as how those structural forces shape individuals' behaviour as they navigate through institutions, professions, and occupations. Careers work on occupational and professional boundary definition, mobility, status assignment, and constraints on occupational choice has roots in early sociology. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Max Weber (1864-1920) contributed to some of the most seminal early theoretical work in careers, most notably that of Everett Hughes.

Durkheim's contribution to the careers literature focused on the nature of the relationship between the individual and societal structure, the importance of the division of labour to collective and individual identity, and the importance of occupational identity and association to the organization and integration of society. The Division of Labour in Society posited that individuals tend toward increasing functional specialization as society becomes increasingly industrialized, and these shifts change the foundation of social solidarity from individuals sharing similar functions within a community to individuals dependent on one another within a highly organized division of labour. This division of labour strongly determines individuals' occupational lives and identities.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith were also preoccupied with the division of labour in industrial society. However, Durkheim did not argue that its effect on workers necessarily implied class conflict, as did Marx, and he was more concerned with its effects on social cohesion than was Smith (though Smith was more ambivalent about the societal effects of capitalism than one would assume given contemporary memory). The main concern with division of labour was how it leads to excessive specialization, dangerous in particular when accompanied by social inequality. Division of labour supports social integration only when specialization is not accompanied by an unjust division of status. When people are required to narrow the scope of their everyday professional activities to atomistic proportions, individuals begin to suffer from anomie, or alienation from their social collective, which undermines the stability of the collective. Durkheim's work on the division of labour translates well from the societal to the organizational level, what he terms the “corporative” level, which he sees as an important secondary source of social cohesion, mediating between the societal level and the individual level. His work reminds organizational theorists to pay attention to how career boundaries and job scope within organizations play an important part in determining the cohesiveness of organizational groups and in developing organizational norms.

Occupational groups also play an important role in Durkheim's work, in particular for their capacity for moral influence, rivalling the influence of the family as a source of collective morality and group identity and as protection against the alienating aspects of post-industrial life. As professional life has overtaken other sources of individual identity, Durkheim's work on occupational groups ...