Blog 4

In my last blog post, I discussed how I appreciated the progression of the use of genograms in schools because as the concept was implemented more frequently, it was also tweaked to fit certain students correctly. I feel the same appreciation for Savickas’s article. In the very first paragraph I wasn’t sure how I felt about the idea of objectifying career decision-making. This may be quite a bit of a stretch, but the idea seemed almost communistic in its proposed idea of looking at client’s decisions as numbers and placements on a scale instead of actually looking into them personally. This thought of mine was quickly diffused when I read on to see the progression of the positivist’s theory. I thought it was very interesting how Savickas showed that it is possible to measure a client’s decision-making skills (or lack thereof) statistically while still paying attention to their individual needs. This was explicitly shown in the category titled “Indecision as Multidimensional Concept” (1995, pg. 365). In this section, Savickas shows that positivist thinkers have moved forward greatly from the archaic (my word, not his) notion that it is possible to simply place clients into the categories “decided” or “undecided” without acknowledging that the undecided people have a multitude of reasons behind their indecision, and those reasons must be explored in order to counsel properly (1995).

            I had a hard time following Savickas’s transitions between discussing the positivist perspective and constructivist one. I had to do some searching online and found an article by Andre Donnell which helped me to see that positivism has to do more with focusing on researching theories regardless of who is asking the question and who is being asked, while constructivism focuses more on individuals and their perception (1999, para. 1). While these definitions were helpful, it made me even more confused about where Savickas was differentiating between the two. I’m wondering if positivism is the theory that I really do not like and it was the constructivist view that I subscribed to.

            By the time I got to “Indecision as a Subjective Experience” (Savickas, 1995, p. 365) I was hooked on constructivism for sure. Everything I’ve said previously stands true, I am just not sure if I was using the correct term (Help, Dr.Baker!). It was fascinating to think of indecision as someone “losing their place” (1995, p. 365) instead of the claims from earlier psychologists about indecisive people being emotionally immature (1995, p. 364). This phrase was so relatable because I feel, especially at this point in my life I have a lot of friends who are feeling uncomfortable with not having a great job right out of college, or disappointed for not applying or getting accepted to a graduate school. It is a time for questioning and feeling lost, which is such an appropriate time for a career counselor to step in and give guidance.

Donnell, A. (1999). The philosophy of science and its implications for astrology.     Retrieved from http://www.aplaceinspace.net/Pages/AndrePhilosophy   ofScience.html

Savickas, M. L. (1995). Constructivist counseling for career indecision. The Career      Development Quarterly, 43(4), 363-373