5. Análisis descriptivo
6.3. Análisis Envolvente de Datos
6.2.1 To What Extent Graduates Endorse Career Adaptability
Four facets of the career adaptability construct proposed by Savickas (2005) and Hall (2004) are examined: career planning, decision making, career resilience and adaptability to changes. Findings reveal that recent tertiary graduates sampled generally have endorsed career adaptability to at least a considerable extent, which provides empirical evidence for Savickas’ (2005) career adaptability model that the construct can be effectively represented by the above-mentioned four factors, and then measured by
96
Likert-scales to locate individual levels or rates of graduates’ endorsement of these dimensions.
Findings indicate that recent tertiary graduates are concerned about their career plans to a considerable extent, which confirms the established literature that career planning is relevant to an individual’s future career orientation. Appendix 9 displays the mean scores of 337 participants for all items within each of the four factors of the career adaptability construct. It confirms that participants are concerned with their future career plans, enjoying the process of planning and meditating on their near future, while creating a career plan for themselves. Career planning is not as long term as it used to be under the career maturity construct, and it has become more flexible to changes in each person’s career context. However, they largely score lower in the item “I am extremely career minded” compared with other items, possibly due to the ambiguity in the meaning that this item might convey to them.
Regarding the career decision making factor, the results suggest that career indecision is not a prevalent problem among the participants. Upon analysing Figure 16 in Chapter 5 and Appendices 9 - 10, the mean scores of the four negatively worded items in the career decision making factor are 2.42, 2.68, 2.55 and 2.54, respectively, and the mean score of the total factor after calculating the reversed results is 3.43. This reveals that, in general, the participants do not feel confused about their decision making process, and most do not have the problem of serious uncertainty or indecisiveness about their career interests or career paths. Participants’ considerable level of career decision making does not concur with findings in some previous literature that career indecision is prevalent among college students and young people in transition (Vianen, et al., 2009). It would be valuable to investigate further the reasons for this reversal.
It is interesting that graduates’ career planning and decision making levels are similar, rather than negatively related as proposed by other researchers. Creed, Patton and Prideaux (2007) claimed that the lower decision making level of graduates would result in a higher career planning level, as indecisiveness had become a motivation for more career planning effort. However, findings showed that graduates could display a considerably high career planning level, with a similar high level of career decision making. This could be partially explained by Savickas’ (1997) career adaptability
97
model, that when decision making and planning are both included in the integrative construct of career adaptability, both can be taken into consideration and practiced simultaneously by career actors with sufficient motivation.
In respect of the other two factors of career adaptability construct, results also reveal that graduates’ career resilience and their adaptability to changes have both reached a relatively high status; this demonstrates that graduates are well able to rebound from setbacks and happenings in their career paths, and adjust themselves to the changing environment with an active attitude and self-esteem. For example, Appendix 9 recorded a mode of 4.00, with the mean score of participants’ adaptability to changes reaching 3.98, and this indicates a considerable level of capability to deal with changes. These findings disprove Vianen, Pater and Preenen’s (2009) conclusion that contemporary college graduates do not have enough readiness or skills to cope with the changing environment. This may be partially explained by sample differences, since Vianen et al’s sample composed of young graduates having little life and working experience and having significantly not improved their resilience and adaptability through experiencing and practice in the workplaces, while over one third of the participants of this study are mature students over 30 years old, who have learnt much from their experiences.
Finally, all the above findings support established literature that while the traditional career maturity concept about individuals’ career development has not been completely abandoned, the concept of career adaptability is increasingly endorsed (Savickas, 2005; Savickas, et al., 2009) For example, findings show that the mean scores of the factors of career resilience and adaptability to changes are slightly higher than that of career planning and decision making, which supports Savickas’ proposition (1997) that career adaptability, represented by an individual’s career resilience and ability to cope, should be more emphasised by contemporary career actors than career maturity (such as planning and decision making) in the process of continuously developing a satisfactory career.
98
6.2.2 Demographic Variables and Graduates’ Career
Adaptability
Gender does not cause any statistical significant difference in the mean scores of participants’ career planning and decision making, but it records significant differences on the mean scores of participants’ career resilience and their adaptability to changes. Although no significant difference has been found between male and female participants, females score slightly higher than males in career planning, which is consistent with earlier findings that females are more intuitive and make purposeful plans for their career (Buddeberg-Fischer, et al., 2003; Kelly & Cobb, 1991). In comparison, although no significant difference is found between males and females in the mean scores of career decision making, males score slightly higher than females in career decision-making, which could be explained by gender differences in locus of control, intuitive and emotional traits, and decision–making self-efficacy (Bubany, et al., 2008). However, statistically significant difference in the mean scores of career resilience and adaptability to changes is found between male and female groups, with males obtaining higher mean scores than females in both factors, with the gender variable having a small effect on such significant difference. Due to the lack of empirical studies in the measurement of graduates’ career resilience and adaptability, there were no qualified reasons to explain this finding here, and it is an interesting area for future research.
The variable of participants’ age ranges does not indicate any statistically significant difference in any factor other than career decision making in the construct of career adaptability. Results in Appendix 11 indicate that such significant difference mainly exists between the 25-30 years age group and the >30 age group, with age registering only as a minor effect in causing this significant difference. Participants in the >30 age groups score 3.53 as average, higher than the average score (3.19) of participants in the 25-30 group. This suggests that older people are more mature than younger people in terms of career decision making, which is consistent with the traditional career maturity theory. Also, this aligns with an earlier research finding that older adults are more positive with their decisions than younger adults (Kim, et al., 2008). More empirical
99
studies are needed to explore why age does not cause significant difference in graduates’ career planning, career resilience and adaptability to changes.
Participants’ main residence after graduation is the last variable that causes significant statistical difference in the career adaptability construct, more precisely, in the career decision making factor. Appendix 15 indicates that graduates residence in small/medium size NZ cities after gradation scores much lower than those living in NZ towns and rural areas on average, with a mean score of 3.37 for the former and 3.86 for the latter. However, as the residence variable only mildly affects the significant difference, the reason why it causes significant difference in career decision making between such two groups of participants is quite evasive, but cannot exclude statistical randomness in the present study.
Furthermore, no significant difference is found in different ethnicity groups in any of the four factors in this career adaptability construct, nor in groups divided by the highest qualifications gained when graduating, or the colleges from where participants graduated. Future research would contribute more empirical studies in these fields, so that results could be better compared and explained.