Chapter 2

Nathan Scarbrough

Chapter 2: Trait-and-Factor Theory and Developmental Theories of Career Choice and Development

                May I begin by stating that the title of this chapter is a mouthful?  Even my abridged version requires the reader to spend a few extra seconds in order to piece together what’s about to be discussed. Seriously, I read it, and was like, “Whoa.  This is going to be a hard read.”

Moving on…

                One thing I particularly liked about this chapter, as well as our discussions in class, is that they both defined what makes a theory good, popular, and accurate.  I have a couple of uneducated friends that saw a Youtube video about a study which claimed to have empirically proved that water can hold emotions.  Essentially, it claimed that if you yelled angry curse words at a cup of water, then drank it, you would get sick.  It bothered me to no end to unsuccessfully debate why the data and theory were flawed. Had I read this chapter before-hand, I might have been more successful.  This book explains that it’s important to consider the funding source of the research, how well defined the constructs making up the theory are, how easily the theory can be interpreted, the potential for further research on the theory, the body of research and empirical data supporting the theory, and the comprehensiveness of the theory is in terms of how many demographics it can be applied to (for starters, these are just the factors that stood out the most to me.  More factors are listed in our power points and chapter 2).

The thing I enjoyed most about this chapter is how the author not only defined some theories for us, he took strides to specify which theories best fit which groups of people.  I’ve considered some of my own assumptions regarding why people choose certain careers and what makes them feel ultimately satisfied or dissatisfied with their choice. My exploration of my own ideas, combined with this book’s thorough description of theories with strengths and weaknesses of each, has led me to grow a preference for certain theories in this chapter, and perhaps more important, an attitude of wariness towards others.

Because I’ll be at my word limit by the end of this paragraph, I choose to go out debating my view that postmodern theories are silly and contribute very little to the world of science.  That being said, I think that the stance taken by constructivist theorists is an important one because it questions the validity of data gathered in positivist theories, however, I still believe that postmodern theorists went too far.  For example, postmodernists would state that cause and effect relationships cannot be determined.  As a huge believer in determinism, I think that this statement goes against what I would consider to be logical.  I understand that some relationships simply have too many factors affecting the outcome for them to be considered predictable, but I would argue that these things are only unpredictable at the present time.  I think science itself grows as we attempt to label and give weight to contributing factors in order to accurately to predict these outcomes, and our knowledge builds every time this is attempted.  I think data can be generalized, and although it may lose some accuracy in the attempt, does not totally abandon its merit. I do not think a researcher’s values should have any part to play in the experiment, and I do believe individuals can be studied outside the context in which they function, if the extraneous factors are taken into account.  There are a few more bones I have to pick with postmodern theorists, but I’ll save those for class. Let me know what you all think before I get too carried away here.