Before presenting the methods and results of this study, an examination of theoretical modes of analysis and previous research is necessary to better understand the underlying mechanisms of career decision-making processes. This literature review includes empirical studies relevant to examining career decision-making process that are grounded in the theoretical frameworks of CIP theory and SCCT. This is followed by existing studies on doctoral students’ career-related experiences to identify current understandings of this issue.
This chapter explores four themes related to the purpose of this study. The section begins with a discussion of doctoral students’ career development as a part of today's workforce and economic development strategies. From the perspective of workforce development, the review motivates why this particular population is important. In the subsequent section, a theoretical understanding of the career decision-making process is reviewed from the perspectives of CIP theory and SCCT. Within the context of SCCT, environmental influences, such as supports and barriers, are explored as they relate to the career choice process. The following section examines theory integration and the relationship between CIP theory and SCCT.
The next section reviews and critiques empirical studies grounded in both CIP theory and SCCT. Due to the lack of literature, focusing on doctoral students’ experiences related to the career decision-making process, the review of empirical studies grounded in CIP theory and SCCT mainly focuses on general student populations in higher education, such as undergraduate students. This review provides a basic understanding of what has been studied and the limitations of current research in relation to the career decision-making process. Then, the current research gaps existing in literature on doctoral students’ career choices are separately presented after
reviewing what is known about doctoral students’ career-related experiences. Finally, the chapter concludes by summarizing the highlights and limitations of current studies, discussing areas where further research is necessary, and identifying how this study will partially fill these needs.
Relevant scholarly publications were identified through the University of Illinois’ online library system, which provides access to major journals. In particular, ProQuest was selected to locate literature for review in this study because it simultaneously searches 80 electronic journals or databases (meta-search), including ABI/INFORM, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ERIC. The literature review first identified key search words for accessing relevant research. Based on the topic of study, major keywords used in this study included the following: career decision-making process, career choice, career decision, social cognitive career theory, cognitive information processing, environmental influences, career supports, career barriers, advisor relationship, advisee relationship, doctoral advisors, doctoral students, highly educated workers, knowledge workers, and knowledge workforce. These selected keywords were combined to search resources for this review via the title and article abstracts.
The criteria for selecting literature were limited to scholarly works in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Using the keywords indicated above led to the identification of 1,052 articles. After removing duplicates and non-scholarly publications, such as opinions, editorials, and book reviews, a total of 421 unique sources were reviewed based on their titles. After the review of titles, a total of 199 articles remained for the abstract review. As a result of the abstract review on the selected literature, a total of 127 articles were selected for the full paper review. In addition to this process of literature selection, related articles were added by reviewing references of the identified publications, such as frequently referenced articles (e.g., Hackett,
Lent, & Greenhause, 1991; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Brown, 1996; Lent et al., 1994, 2002; Sampson et al., 2004).
From the selected literature, various populations, including battered women, minority populations, such as Latinos, African Americans, undergraduate students, first-generation college students, individuals with disabilities, high school students, and adolescents of lower socioeconomic status, were examined by applying these theories to understand how career choices were made. In order to focus on doctoral students’ career experiences in this study, publications were chosen that addressed topics related to the career decision-making process.
This search effort produced a collection of theory-building literature and empirical research based on theory, primarily derived from research-oriented, peer-reviewed journals. This study was not restricted to a specific period of time or fields of publication.
Doctoral Students Development: Developing the Next Generation of Knowledge Workforce Today, knowledge workers increasingly influence economic growth as knowledge becomes the mainstay of all sectors (Ehin, 2008). A knowledge worker is defined as an internally sourced individual who creates value and new ideas by applying and transforming knowledge (Carleton, 2011; Drucker, 1994; Nickols, 2000). Such individuals “require formal education and the ability to acquire and apply theoretical and analytical knowledge [as well as] a habit of continuous learning” (Drucker, 1994, p. 62). Specifically, organizations express a strong need for advanced knowledge workers with a doctoral level education background equivalent (Lee & Boud, 2008; Meyer, 2013; Nerad, 2010; Paré et al., 2011). This particular workforce serves as a key driver of sustainable growth in a knowledge-based economy by creating knowledge through specialized research and effectively transforming knowledge (Meyer, 2013; Ruth & Tan, 2011; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007).
Despite an urgent need for this workforce, organizations continuously experience a shortage of knowledge workforce (Lehmann, 2009; Pobst, 2014; West, Bogumil, & Walter, 2000). This disparity prompts scholars and practitioners’ attention to the field of workforce development, such as HRD, in order to develop strategies to attract, retain, and develop talent (Carleton, 2011; Lehmann, 2009). In the past decade, scholarly and practical attention in HRD has been dedicated to understanding how to attract or retain knowledge workers within an organization (e.g., Aiman-Smith, Bergey, Cantwell, & Doran, 2006; Carleton, 2011; Doh et al., 2011; Ehin, 2008; Tampoe, 1993; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007). However, significantly less research in HRD aims to understand how to best train and develop the future knowledge workforce to satisfy the current shortage of knowledge workers. Such knowledge workforce scarcity at the organizational level may be partially addressed by educating doctoral students who are recognized as important for future generations of the advanced knowledge workforce (Lee & Boud, 2008; Meyer, 2013; Most, 2008; Nerad, 2010; Paré et al., 2011).
Recently, this workforce development perspective became more critical for both higher education and HRD due to workforce misalignment in a traditional academic labor market (Carlucci, 2013; Fuhrmann et al., 2011; Rudd & Nerad, 2015). There are too few tenure-track jobs for doctoral holders who are qualified to compete for them (Teitelbaum, 2008; Thune, 2009). Ultimately, this fundamental misalignment in job markets shifts career placement patterns of doctorates graduates (Rudd & Nerad, 2015; Wendler et al., 2012).
It is no longer the case that doctoral students may assume with any certainty that they will enter traditional career paths, such as faculty positions (Enders 2004; Gemme & Gingras, 2012; Nerad 2009). Rather, they need to prepare for a variety of careers, not just to become a tenure track faculty but also to teach and conduct research in government, industry, and non-profit
organizations (Nerad, 2010, 2011). This new workforce reality requires more diverse skills and abilities that were not traditionally emphasized in doctoral education, such as teamwork, communication, self-promotion, managing people, and budgeting finances (Lee et al., 2010; Nerad, 2010; Nerad et al., 2007; Rudd, Nerad, Morrison, & Picciano, 2008).
To prepare this knowledge workforce to obtain careers where they can utilize their talents as well as address challenges due to the scarcity of knowledge workers in government sectors and organizations (Banejee & Morley, 2013; Nerad, 2010), it is a critical moment for HRD to identify the needs of doctoral students for career guidance during a doctoral program based on an understanding of how career choices are made. Such research will investigate how to create opportunities to encourage doctoral students to make more informed career decisions based on their career interests so that they might engage in relevant learning opportunities and career interventions to prepare a successful transition from student role to professional role. Eventually, such research and practices enable doctoral graduates to maximize their abilities as advanced knowledge workers both inside and outside academia while meeting an evident need for knowledge workers for organizational and economic development (Nerad, 2010).
Theoretical Understanding of Career Decision-Making Process Grounded on CIP theory and SCCT
This section is designed to provide a theoretical foundation for this study by examining historical developments of theory and research with respect to how a career choice is made. Theoretical foundations of the CIP theory and SCCT are individually discussed. This discussion is followed by an exploration of potential interrelations between CIP theory and SCCT in terms of understanding the underlying processes through which individuals make career choices.
Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) theory. In order to strengthen the connection between practice and theory in the field of career development, the cognitive information processing (CIP) theory is developed and applied to career development and services (Peterson et al., 1991; Sampson, Lenz, Reardon, & Peterson, 1999; Sampson et al., 2000, Sampson et al., 2004). The aims of the CIP theory are to help individuals to make an appropriate career choice for the present while also helping them to learn skills related to career problem-solving and decision-making so that they can apply them to solve other career problems faced during their lifetime (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004). In particular, this theory integrates career problem-solving and decision-making processes to guide individuals through the career choice process.
The CIP theory is grounded on the following assumptions (Peterson, Sampson, Lentz, & Reardon, 2002; Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004): (1) a career choice involves an active interaction between thoughts and emotions; (2) career decision making is based on both career problem-solving and decision-making processes; (3) effective career decision-making requires individual’s knowledge and a cognition process of the knowledge; (4) career problem solving and decision-making are skills that can be improved through practice.
First, both thoughts (cognition) and emotion (affect) influence individuals’ career decision-making processes. When an individual makes a career choice, his or her emotions can hinder or motivate a certain choice. Thus, cognition and affect are inseparably linked in the making of a career choice. Another foundational assumption of CIP theory is that career problem solving and decision-making processes are necessary to making an effective, appropriate career decision. In CIP theory, a career problem is the career gap as a result of recognizing difference between where an individual is and where she or he wants to be (Sampson et al., 2004). Through
problem solving, individuals obtain information and apply it to cognitive strategies to make a career choice that can narrow their perceived career gap (Sampson et al., 2004). Decision making involves cognitive and affective processes to develop a plan specific action steps. Outcomes of decision-making are personal behaviors necessary for solving a career problem and accomplishing a career choice (Sampson et al., 1999).
Moreover, effective career decision making is built on the individual’s knowledge and a thinking process by applying the knowledge. According to CIP theory, knowledge is considered as “the content of career choice (what we know),” and thinking is described as “the process we use (what we need to do) to make choices” (Sampson et al., 2004, p.3). Lastly, CIP theory considers that career decision-making skills are something that people can develop and improve by practicing information-processing skills (Sampson et al., 2004).
Two core constructs of the CIP theory-based approach are as follows: (1) Pyramid of Information Processing, and (2) the Communication, Analysis, Synthesis, Valuing, and Execution (CASVE) cycle (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, & Reardon, 1992). The Pyramid of Information Processing describes the content of the career problem solving and decision making, including self-knowledge, occupational knowledge, decision-making skills, and meta-cognitions. The CASVE cycle illuminates the process of the career problem solving and decision making including the phases of communication, analysis, synthesis, valuing, and execution. By providing both the content (knowing) and process (doing) of career decision making, the CIP theory-based approach helps individuals to acquire clear criteria for monitoring their progress while making an appropriate career choice. Both constructs can be used alone to guide career decision making, or they can be integrated with other career theories, such as
Holland’s theory (e.g., Thrift, Ulloa-Heath, Reardon, & Peterson, 2012) and SCCT (e.g., Bullock-Yowell et al., 2012) to obtain greater understanding of career choice process.
Content of career decision making: The Pyramid of Information Processing. The
pyramid of information processing domains, regarding career decision making, is composed of three domains as presented in Figure 2.1 (Peterson et al., 1991; Sampson et al., 1999). The pyramid indicates key elements involved in making a career choice and what information is necessary for individuals to know when making a career decision (Sampson et al., 2004). The three domains include the knowledge domain, the decision-making skills domain, and the executive processing domain.
The base of the pyramid is referred to as knowledge domains, including what individuals understand about themselves and their current career options. Above the knowledge domains, the midlevel of the pyramid is related to the decision-making skills that individuals generally use to solve career problems and to make a career decision. Lastly, the executive processing domain is at the top of the pyramid. It involves metacognitions, such as how individuals’ cognitive factors influence the way they make a career choice. These thoughts can be negative and positive and ultimately, they play a critical role in how individuals respond to career decision-making process (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004).
Figure 2.1. Pyramid of information processing (adjusted from Sampson, Peterson, Lenz, & Reardon, 1992)
Knowledge domains: Knowing myself and my options. Knowledge domains include self- knowledge and occupational knowledge. These are foundations for the domains above it because individuals need to collect and reflect on information prior to making a career choice (Sampson et al., 2004). The key elements of self-knowledge (knowing myself) include individual’s values, interests, skills, employment preferences, and family situations (Peterson et al., 1991; Sampson et al., 2004). Values, according to the CIP theory, are referred to as something important for an individual to pursue a certain career or work path. Interests indicate individual’s preferences toward particular objects or activities. Skills are defined as particular behaviors that individuals perform well. Certain criteria that an individual desires to obtain (e.g., a particular location) or to avoid (e.g., working the night shift) are defined as employment preferences. Lastly, family situations can influence career choices and form part of employment preference (e.g., the desire to find career options where an individual can reside close to a significant other).
Individuals’ characteristics and past experiences typically form their perceptions on values, interests, abilities, and preferences. Individuals obtain more self-knowledge as they become mature and gain more life experiences. Their self-knowledge becomes clear by reflecting on what they have done previously and have learned about themselves (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004). Moreover, self-knowledge is kept in episodic memory (Tulving, 1984), which is composed of individual perceptions, rather than testable facts, and constructed as a set of episodes over time. Thus, the information stored in episodic memory is affected by how an individual interprets his or her past experiences (Sampson et al., 2004). For example, an individual is more likely to recall only the negative aspects of a certain skill if she or he experienced a humiliating failure in performing the activity required that skill. A person’s present emotions also impact episodic memory (Sampson et al., 2004). For instance, an individual who is currently depressed is more likely to remember negative experiences and generalize their current interests and skills in a limited manner.
Options knowledge (knowing my options) includes not just knowledge related to occupations but also knowledge of education and employment trends (Sampson et al., 1994; Sampson et al., 2004). Individuals accumulate occupational knowledge through their hands-on experiences and vicarious experiences. Although an individual obtains more knowledge of career options over time that is similar to nature of the self-knowledge, options knowledge is saved in semantic memory (Sampson et al., 2004) that is composed of testable facts, rather than individual perceptions. Thus, options knowledge is “not overly” (p.23) influenced by people’s perceptions of current emotional status (Sampson et al., 2004).
CASVE cycle: Knowing how I make a career decision. The decision-making skills domain is located at the middle of the pyramid. Decision-making skills involve applying
information collected from knowledge domains to solve career problems and make a career decision (Sampson et al., 1999). This includes the following aspects: a gap among one's current and desired position (communication), assessing one’s self and options (analysis), creating alternatives (synthesis), making a primary decision by prioritizing alternatives (valuing), and taking action to close the gap (execution). Detailed descriptions of each aspect of the cycle will be provided in the following section.
Executive processing domain: Thinking of my decision-making. The executive processing domain is at the top of the pyramid. It includes metacognitions that influence how individuals think and make career decisions (Sampson et al., 1999). Metacognitions include self-talk, self- awareness, monitoring, and control (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004). Self-talk is defined as the silent discussion that individuals have with themselves regarding their previous, current, and future capabilities to perform a certain task (Sampson et al., 1999). Self-talk can be either positive or negative. Positive self-talk encourages individuals to: 1) stay motivated when unexpected events happen during the career decision-making process, 2) keep away from distractions while remaining focused on making a good career choice, and 3) implement what they planned after a career choice is made. For example, an individual who is not sure how to get information necessary to make a career choice would think “I can make a good career decision because I know I can find career options right for me as soon as I get information” if his or her self-talk is positive. In contrast, negative self-talk typically makes the career decision-making process more difficult (Sampson et al., 2004). An example of an individual with negative self- talk would be “I cannot make a career choice right for me because I am always not good at making decisions alone.” Thus, it is critical for individuals to become aware of their negative
thinking to avoid the potentially harmful consequences (Sampson et al., 1999), which is related to another component of the executive processing domain: self-awareness.
Self-awareness refers to “the extent to which people are aware of themselves as they progress through the decision-making process” (Sampson et al., 2004, p. 24). This involves being aware of their thinking, emotions, and behaviors as well as the consequence of the interactions among them (e.g., how their self-talk might impact their career choice, Sampson et al., 1999). Monitoring refers to a person's ability to follow her or his progress through the career decision- making process. Control indicates a person's ability to be actively involved in the next proper career decision-making task. For example, people with effective monitoring and control abilities know when their tasks in a certain phase have been completed successfully so that they continue with next phase in the decision-making process (monitoring) while controlling negative thoughts that may cause difficulties completing tasks (control). People with effective monitoring and control abilities can distinguish between the “knowing” and “doing” aspects during the career decision-making process and keep track of them (Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2004). In other words, they clearly understand “what they know and what they need to know, as well as what they need to do” (Sampson et al., 2004, p. 49) during the sequences of process associated with their career choices.
Interrelations among three domains. All three domains of the pyramid are strongly related to one another from the top-down direction. The executive processing domain performs a key role in the function and content of all other domains (Sampson et al., 2004). For instance, an individual involved in negative self-talk might produce thoughts, such as, “I cannot decide what to do with my career because I am not good at making a decision, so I have to wait until my advisor tells me what career I have to choose.” In this case, she or he is more likely to avoid