Researching working class students and the career decision-making process
By Sue Hepworth, Senior Careers Adviser and Dr Paul Greenbank, Reader in Educational Development at Edge Hill University
Introduction
From February to May 2007, Sue Hepworth and Paul Greenbank of Edge Hill University undertook HECSU-funded practitioner research. The qualitative research project examined how students from working class backgrounds (defined as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled manual occupations) make career decisions. It is argued that such students are disadvantaged in the graduate labour market [1]. Our research looked at the rationale behind the approach adopted by students and whether this contributed to their disadvantage.
Research methodology
An initial survey of final year students from a range of subject areas studying at Edge Hill University resulted in the return of 165 questionnaires. This was followed by in-depth interviews with 30 students. The data from these interviews is currently being analysed.
Existing research
The literature on social class suggests that decision-making is likely to be influenced by a person’s class environment or ‘habitus’ and, in particular, by the economic capital (i.e. financial resources), social capital (i.e. networks) and cultural capital (i.e. values and dispositions) they possess [2]. As such, the working class are perceived to have limited financial resources [3] and lack ‘useful’ networks [4]. They are also said to lack a future orientation [5] and value informal rather than formal information [6], which militates against the adoption of a rational approach to career decision-making [7]. Finally, it is argued that the working class have low aspiration levels [8].
Findings
Our study suggests that the working class is not homogeneous and, therefore, the factors influencing career decision-making are in reality more complex and nuanced than is suggested by much of the existing literature. We should, therefore, be careful of making generalisations.
Despite the identified differences we did, however, distinguish some common themes:
- Role models drawn from a limited range of contacts had a powerful influence on students.
- Few students had started their job-search, often planning to ‘take a break’ in a lower level job for six to 18 months.
- Despite recognising their parents’ lack of knowledge, students did not use the Careers Centre, often because they did not ‘know’ the staff.
- Contrary to other research, students in our study had realistic career aspirations in terms of level, salary expectations and appropriateness to degree subject.
- Students lacked geographical mobility, preferring to stay in their home region.
- Career choices were often limited to jobs related to their degree or those done by people they know.
- Students lacked an understanding of the nature of the graduate labour market in terms of university status and competition for jobs.
- Students had often gained useful skills via extra-curricular activities, but had made little conscious attempt to develop their employability.
Conclusion
During the academic year 2007/8 our findings will be used to inform guidance at Edge Hill University via action research with the Careers Centre. We will consider practical issues such as how to help students to ‘know’ careers staff and how to factor in the influence of role models, as well as wider issues such as whether the heterogeneity of the working class militates against offering ‘extra help’ and whether we educate our students about potential ‘barriers’.
The research is due to be completed in 2008. For further information, please contact: hepworts@edgehill.ac.uk
Indicative references
1. Purcell, K., Morley, M. and Rowley, G. (2002) Employers in the New Graduate Labour market: recruiting from a wider spectrum of graduates, Employment Studies Research Unit/The Council for Industry and Higher Education, Bristol and London.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1997), ‘The forms of capital’, in A.H. Halsey et als (eds.) Education - culture, economy, and society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 46-58.
3. Pennell, H. and West, A. (2005), ‘The impact of increased fees on participation in higher education in England, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 127-137.
4. Pollard, E., Pearson, R. and Willison, R. (2004) Next Choices: career choices beyond university, Report 405, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
5. Robertson, D. and Hillman, J. (1997) Widening Participation in Higher Education for Students from Lower Socio-Economic Groups and Students with Disabilities (Report 6 for the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education), The Stationery Office, London.
6. Ball, S.J. & Vincent, C. (1998), ‘'I heard it on the grapevine’: ‘hot’ knowledge and schools choice’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 19, pp. 377-400.
7. Law, B. & Watts, A.G. (2003) The DOTS Analysis - original version, The Career Learning Network, Cambridge.
8. Furlong, A. & Cartmel, F. (2005) Graduates from Disadvantaged Families - early labour market experiences, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Polity Press, Bristol.
Copyright © 2002-2012 HECSU | Content last updated: Autumn 2007
