Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Introduction: Constructivism and social

constructionism in the career field
Richard A. Younga,*,1 and Audrey Collinb
a
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
b
De Montfort University, UK

Received 19 November 2003

Abstract

The impact of constructivism and social constructionism upon vocational psychology has
often been through the use of the more generic ‘‘constructivism.’’ In this article constructivism
is distinguished by its focus on how the individual cognitively engages in the construction of
knowledge from social construction which claims that knowledge and meaning are historically
and culturally constructed through social processes and action. The considerable ambiguity in
the use of these terms is also discussed. Their contributions, challenges, and opportunities to
the career fieldÕs dominant discourses are examined: the dispositions discourse, the contextu-
alizing discourse, the subjectivity and narrative discourse, and the process discourse. Broader
challenges and opportunities for the field are also noted. The historical construction of knowl-
edge, concern with language, action, and process problematize traditional understandings of
career. They raise opportunities to question fundamental assumptions, focus on context, cul-
ture, the person–environment interaction, and practice.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Constructivism; Context; Discourse; Epistemology; Historical construction; Language;

Meaning; Ontology; Practice; Social constructionism

*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1-604-822-2328.
E-mail address: richard.young@ubc.ca (R.A. Young).
1
Both authors have made equal contributions to this article.

0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005
374 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

1. Introduction

Constructivism and social constructionism separately, and subsumed under an

apparently generic or undifferentiated ‘‘constructivism,’’ have gained a substantial
presence in social science including psychology. It is the purpose of this article to
identify the contributions they have already made to the career field and the chal-
lenges and opportunities they offer it. It will also note how the articles in this Special
Issue, which represent a range of ‘‘constructivist’’ perspectives, take up some of these
challenges and opportunities.
Over the years, Savickas (1989, 1993, 2000; Savickas & Lent, 1994) have registered
the increasing inroads that ‘‘constructivism’’ has made into vocational psychology.
For example, in his review of the 1988 career counseling and development literature
(Savickas, 1989), he identified ‘‘constructivist’’ perspectives as new to the field, men-
tioning the ‘‘constructive-developmentalism perspective,’’ the ‘‘meaning-making par-
adigm,’’ ‘‘the family as interpretive system,’’ ‘‘family drama,’’ and ‘‘hermeneutical
inquiry.’’ He concluded that practitioners might wish to use these to ‘‘supplement
trait-and-factor vocational guidance’’ (p. 127). By 1993, Savickas (1993) had ob-
served that society was moving beyond positivism and objectivistic science in impor-
tant ways. He tentatively suggested that this step is towards ‘‘postmodern
interpretivism’’ (p. 208), so that ‘‘career counseling seems to be reforming itself in
an interpretive discipline’’ (p. 214). The several allusions to ‘‘constructivist’’ perspec-
tives during the debate on the possibility for converging the major theories of career
(Savickas & Lent, 1994) suggest that they may be established in the field. By 2000,
Savickas (2000) considered that it was in response to massive changes taking place
in the world of work that many of vocational psychologyÕs core concepts were ‘‘be-
ing re-examined and, in many instances transformed’’ (p. 58), leading to two
camps—though he saw them as complementary and collaborative—of ‘‘objectivism’’
and ‘‘constructivism.’’
‘‘Constructivism’’ has grown exponentially in psychology over the last 25 years
(e.g., Mahoney, 2003). One element of its context that has favored it is the domi-
nance of cognitivism as a paradigm within psychology (Driver-Linn, 2003); indeed,
it is regarded as the latest stage of development of cognitivism (Mahoney & Patter-
son, 1992). It has also been nurtured by the emergence of world views such as con-
textualism (Pepper, 1942) and postmodernism (Raskin, 2002; Sexton, 1997), which
have challenged the foundation of the discipline. Some of these challenges are em-
bodied in social constructionism which, sometimes disparagingly, has been called
postmodernist.
The emergence of ‘‘constructivism’’ in the career field is not due solely to the wide-
spread influence of cognitivism and postmodern thinking. It is being fostered and fa-
cilitated by the way in which career practitioners, seeking approaches that are closer
to the everyday situations of practice than those available to them through career re-
search and theory, have turned to the counseling and psychotherapy literature where
the influence of both constructivism and social constructionism has been significant
in recent years (e.g., Mahoney, 2003). The perceived gulf between theory/research on
one side, and practice/social policy on the other, which became ‘‘a major subtext of
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 375

the convergence project’’ (Lent & Savickas, 1994, p. 263) referred to earlier, is, ac-
cording to Savickas (1994), reconciled in the ‘‘[c]onstructivist philosophy of science’’
(p. 239).
Although it can be concluded that ‘‘constructivism’’ is now firmly established in
this field, it is taking time to agree upon definitions and usage. This is evident in
the way in which the material that was labeled ‘‘constructivist’’ in Brown and Brooks
(1996) is re-named ‘‘social constructionist’’ in Brown (2002). Meanwhile, according
to Raskin (2002), ‘‘[o]ne comes across so many varieties of constructivist psychology
that even the experts seem befuddled. Terms like Ôconstructivism,Õ Ôconstructionism,Õ
and ÔconstructiveÕ are employed so idiosyncratically and inconsistently that at times
they seem to defy definition’’ (p. 2). This is not because constructivism and social
constructionism cannot be distinguished from one another. The former focuses on
meaning making and the constructing of the social and psychological worlds through
individual, cognitive processes while the latter emphasizes that the social and psycho-
logical worlds are made real (constructed) through social processes and interaction.
However, this simple distinction masks the variety and heterogeneity both within
and between them—due in part to differing epistemologies and ontologies—which
serve to blur the distinction. Hence, in order to understand the contributions of these
perspectives to the career field, we first attempt to unpack ‘‘constructivism’’ by exam-
ining both constructivism and social constructionism. However, where appropriate,
we shall adopt RaskinÕs (2002) practice of referring to plural ‘‘constructivisms.’’

2. Constructivism

Constructivism is a perspective that arose in developmental and cognitive psy-

chology, and its central figures include Bruner (1990), Kelly (1955), Piaget (1969),
von Glaserfeld (1993), and Vygotsky (1978). Constructivism proposes that each in-
dividual mentally constructs the world of experience through cognitive processes. It
differs from the scientific orthodoxy of logical positivism in its contention that the
world cannot be known directly, but rather by the construction imposed on it by
the mind. However, it is generally considered to share positivismÕs commitment to
a dualist epistemology and ontology. Thus, it represents an epistemological perspec-
tive, concerned with how we know, and by implication how we develop meaning.
These processes are internal to the individual—integrating knowledge (or meaning)
into pre-existing schemes (assimilation) or changing the schemes to fit the environ-
ment (accommodation) (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Mahoney (2002) built on Piaget
and Kelly for his ‘‘defining themes of constructivism’’ (p. 747). He considered that
the self is ‘‘a complex system of active and interactive self-organizing processes’’
(p. 748) directed towards self-organization and order, ‘‘embedded in social and sym-
bolic contexts’’ (p. 748), and seeking to achieve ‘‘balance between ordering and dis-
ordering processes’’ (p. 749).
Within the overall constructivist family, there are several differing positions.
Three are frequently mentioned (e.g., Gergen, 1999, 2001b). Radical constructivists
like von Glaserfeld (1995) interpret that it is the individual mind that constructs
376 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

reality. More moderate constructivists, like Kelly (1955) and Piaget (1969), acknowl-
edge that individual constructions take place within a systematic relationship to the
external world. Finally, social constructivists, such as Bruner (1990) and Vygotsky
(1978), recognize that influences on individual construction are derived from and
preceded by social relationships. Although this last position has some similarity to
that of social constructionism, it differs because of its dualist assumptions. However,
these dualist assumptions are not as central to scientists in other disciplines who take
on constructivismÕs mantle. For example, Damasio (1999) argued against the tradi-
tional separation of mind and body, reflecting an increasingly common case against
dualism. Similarly, Bruner (1990), by focusing on acts of meaning, tried to overcome
the dualism of mind and culture and biology and physical resources.
Martin and Sugarman (1999) contended that the failure of constructivism lies in its
reliance on ‘‘an individually sovereign process of cognitive construction to explain
how human beings are able to share so much socially, to interpret, understand, influ-
ence, and coordinate their activities with one another’’ (p. 9). Essentially, their point is
that constructivism posits a highly individualistic approach without reference to so-
cial interaction, contexts, and discourses that make self-reflection, meaning-making,
autobiography, and hence career, possible. To some extent, this failure is being ad-
dressed as social constructivists (Bruner, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978) move to more social
explanations and the dualist assumptions of constructivism are challenged.

3. Social constructionism

Social constructionism is like the constructivist family in recognizing Kant (1781/

1998) as its intellectual progenitor, but contrasts with it in having a social rather than
an individual focus. It takes the view that ‘‘knowledge in some area is the product of
our social practices and institutions, or of the interactions and negotiations between
relevant social groups’’ (Gasper, 1999, p. 855). Generally put, social constructionism
contends that knowledge is sustained by social processes and that knowledge and so-
cial action go together. It is less interested, or not at all interested, in the cognitive
processes that accompany knowledge. Martin and Sugarman (1999) suggested that
attention to these processes in social construction shrouds the construction of knowl-
edge as an interactional and rhetorical process and reifies and externalizes the mental
world which itself is constructed through discourse. This stance that is critical of
knowledge construction is another distinction between social constructionism and
the constructivist family.
Social constructionism differs in other ways, too. It derives from multidisciplinary
sources: sociology (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Mead, 1934), literary studies, and
postmodern approaches (e.g., Derrida, 1982, 1998; Foucault, 1970). More signifi-
cantly, the differences between these two perspectives (and indeed between social
constructionism and the traditional positivist understandings in psychology gener-
ally), run much more deeply for some social constructionists than the difference be-
tween a social and an individual orientation. Unlike the dualist assumptions of the
constructivist family, the ontological position that social constructionism invokes is
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 377

generally understood as anti-essentialist and anti-realist (Burr, 1995), although this

remains a matter of debate. For example, Gergen (2001b) argued that social con-
structionism and realism are two sides of the same coin: ‘‘these discourses require
each other for their intelligibility,’’ and ‘‘they acquire meaning through the existence
of difference’’ (p. 22). As an epistemology, social constructionism asserts that knowl-
edge is historically and culturally specific; that language constitutes rather than re-
flects reality, and is both a pre-condition for thought and a form of social action;
that the focus of enquiry should be on interaction, processes, and social practices.
Corollaries of the social construction of knowledge are indeterminacy, polyvocality,
the need for contextualization, and ‘‘pragmatics’’ (Gergen, 2001b, p.121). Impor-
tantly, social constructionism does more than say that something is socially con-
structed: it points to the historical and cultural location of that construction.
Social constructionism covers a range of views from acknowledging how social
factors shape interpretations to how the social world is constructed by social pro-
cesses and relational practices. Indeed, it is appropriate to speak of a family of social
constructionisms. Zuriff (1998), for example, distinguished a metaphysical from an
empirical social constructionism, the latter, in his view, being compatible with objec-
tive social science. In addressing the field of organizational psychology, Hosking
(2002) posited a relational constructionism, seeing ‘‘all constructed realities and re-
lations, as produced and emergent in relational processes’’ (p. 7). Further distinc-
tions are made between contextual and radical constructionisms (Madill, Jordan,
& Shirley, 2000).
Most social constructionisms overtly challenge orthodox, positivist assumptions.
Moreover, as Gergen (2001b) pointed out, ‘‘For the constructionist, all claims to
knowledge, truth, objectivity or insight are founded within communities of meaning
making—including the claims of constructionists themselves. At the level of metath-
eory, most constructionist scholarship has been critical’’ (p. 2). Thus, he regarded it
as the ‘‘intellectual sinew’’ that ‘‘bind[s] together the sweeping dialogues of discon-
tent in the social sciences,’’ such as ethnomethodology, feminist theory, labeling the-
ory, and critical theory. Indeed, there is a kind of unmasking that can be attributed
to social constructionism, particularly as what is unmasked is seen not to be the nat-
ural state of affairs, but constructs that have possibly served in the exploitation of
various individuals and groups for a assortment of reasons. Hence, social construc-
tionism has been used in various ways in psychology, from providing accounts of or-
dinary people (Harre & Secord, 1972) to challenging oppressive and ideological uses
of psychology (Armistead, 1974; Brown, 1973).
Furthermore, Gergen (2001b) said that social constructionism ‘‘asks a new set of
questions—often evaluative, political, and pragmatic—regarding the choices one
makes’’ (p. 2). He pointed out that some social scientists use it ‘‘as an empirically
viable theory’’ concerning the generation of knowledge in all social and cultural do-
mains. Moreover, ‘‘constructionist dialogues are triggering dramatic developments
in methodology’’ (p. 3), such as narrative, collaborative, ethnographic, and perfor-
mance methods which are influencing practices outside academia, ‘‘emphasizing di-
alogue, co-construction, collaboration, community building, narrative, and positive
visioning’’ (p. 3).
378 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

The family of social constructionisms has emerged from the efforts of individ-
ual authors both to use the critical dimensions of social constructionism and to
come to terms with inconsistencies in its main claims. For example, Cromby
and Nightingale (2002) noted that some social constructionists rely on the notion
of language to the exclusion of what is outside of language. Another focus of
criticism has been the question whether, or the extent to which, one can stand
outside the world to know or critique it. Social constructionists such as Gergen
(2001a) have suggested that positivists cannot use the rigours of science to found
their objective knowledge of the world. But can social constructionists found their
knowledge of the world on some other basis that is not equally open to chal-
lenge? Finally, Martin and Sugarman (1999) have raised the problem of how hu-
man agency and change are possible in a world that is socially, historically, and
culturally constructed.

4. Ambiguities

To identify the contributions, challenges and opportunities for the career field of-
fered by constructivism and social constructionism, we sought to distinguish these
two perspectives clearly. However, apart from consensus that they differ on whether
construction is an individual cognitive or a social process, there is little agreement on
what else defines and distinguishes them. Rather, there are continuing debates on
their relative epistemologies and ontologies. Some use ‘‘constructivism’’ in a generic,
or undifferentiated sense, apparently ignoring ontological and epistemological issues.
Others generate new sub-varieties of the perspectives, such as social constructivism
which shares several features of social constructionism. Yet others have used the
two terms interchangeably (Burr, 1995; Gergen, 1999). Thus, there is considerable
ambiguity. This ambiguity may exist because these two perspectives have emerged
only relatively recently, and are perhaps still evolving. This particularly seems to
be the case with social constructionism. Or it may be the result of theorists bending
conceptual frameworks to their own ends, just as practitioners struggle to apply the-
ory. However, perhaps it should not be assumed that greater clarity could necessarily
be achieved over time. Just as, according to Burr (1995, p. 2), there is a ‘‘family re-
semblance’’ or ‘‘fuzzy sets’’ between the differing views within social constructionism,
so also there may be to some extent between the two perspectives. In effect, the two
families of constructivism and social constructionism may both yet prove to belong
to the same extended family.
Nevertheless, we can identify some of the features of constructivisms that can be
recognized as particularly salient in contributing to the construction of career, as a
construct in theory, research, and practice and in peopleÕs lives. These features are
that meaning is constructed in a social, historical, and cultural context, through ac-
tion and discourse in which we form relationships and community. These features
allow us to address how career is constructed, to be critically aware of the process
of career in its historical and cultural context, and to use career practice to inform
career theory and research.
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 379

5. Contributions, challenges, and opportunities

We shall now highlight some of the contributions that constructivisms are making
to the career field and identify the challenges and opportunities they offer it. To en-
able us to do this, we represent the field through its dominant ‘‘discourses,’’ which
reflect the way we talk, think, and act about career: a dispositions discourse, a con-
textualizing discourse, a discourse of subjectivity and narrative, and a process dis-
course. Based on SavickasÕs (2001) four levels of career theories, they largely
capture how career has been constructed at this moment in time in Western indus-
trialized societies. Discourses are not single, unitary or bounded perspectives, but
fairly fluid frames, that enable us to hold thoughts, discussion, and action together
in a way that is meaningful for a particular purpose at a particular time. Hence other
discourses, such as sociological and organizational discourses, could also be recog-
nized. We also identify broader challenges and opportunities that constructivisms
raise for the career field.

5.1. The dispositions discourse

The dispositions discourse is based on the notion of matching internal traits to oc-
cupational characteristics. Its power arises from its claimed cross-situational consis-
tency and stability over time, that is, for adults, traits remain relatively the same
across different contexts and over periods of time (Swanson, 1999). This discourse took
root during the last century as Taylorism extended the division of labor by fragmenting
jobs into their basic elements and sought workers to match the re-designed jobs. The
dispositions discourse is supported by the highly respected results of sophisticated psy-
chometric tests, making it virtually immune to challenge on scientific grounds.
In recent years, these traits, their formation, and how we understand them have
come to be seen by some from a constructivist perspective (e.g., Cochran, 1990; Sa-
vickas, 1993). However, constructivisms also challenge this discourse. One challenge
is to their epistemology and ontology and another is to their accompanying commit-
ment to positivist research methodologies, which Kidd (this issue), focusing on emo-
tion in career, discusses. Some, particularly social constructionists, assert the
processual nature of self (e.g., Mahoney, 2003), the contextualized and historical na-
ture of knowledge, and the significance of language as a pre-condition for thought
and a form of social action, and thereby contest some of the discourseÕs key claims.
Stead (this issue) points out that social constructionism highlights how the core con-
structs of career psychology, such as personality and vocational interests, are not
necessarily universal but unexamined cultural constructions. Considerable uneasi-
ness has long been expressed about the assumptions underpinning the concept of
the individual (e.g., Collin & Young, 1986; Richardson, 1993). Although this con-
cern has become to some extent swept up with the postmodern, feminist, and mul-
ticultural critiques in psychology, it has also been given a rationale, discourse, and
methodologies by constructivisms.
However, Savickas (2003) saw social constructionism as enriching rather than
challenging. He pointed out that vocational interests and their measurement are
380 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

socially constructed and that psychometrics and standardized psychological tests

have contributed significantly to the social construction of the dispositions discourse.
For example, he proposed considering interests as a reflection of social participation,
as a manifestation reflective of internal processes that guide action, and as a social
artefact generated in relationship and community. Such proposals suggest consider-
able opportunity for social constructionism to contribute further to the dispositions
discourse.

5.2. The contextualizing discourse

In contrast to the decontextualized and relatively focused dispositions discourse,

this discourse locates individuals, their concerns and actions, and career, within their
social, economic, cultural, historical, temporal, and other contexts. Hence it ad-
dresses a wide range of disparate topics, for example, the situational and psychoso-
cial variables of SavickasÕs (2002) ‘‘career concerns,’’ which extend the person into
the social environment; and includes issues such as at-risk youth, organizational
change, school-work transitions, and the multicultural context.
Constructivisms, particularly social constructionism, have played their part in
contextualizing career issues. For example, Chartrand, Strong, and Weitzman
(1995) identified it as one of three perspectives on the interactional (person–environ-
ment interaction) approach in vocational psychology, and Collin (1997) discussed
how individual and career are interwoven with their context. But, social construc-
tionismÕs concern with how the person, in constructing self, also constructs society,
is also implied in considerations of the relationship between career and institutions
and the social order. This is seen in BarleyÕs (1989) explanation of structuration,
which is how ‘‘institutions jointly ÔconstituteÕ and are Ôconstituted byÕ the actions
of individuals living their daily lives’’ (p. 52), and exemplified in SaxenianÕs (1996)
description of careers in Silicon Valley. The relationship between person and society
is also reflected in MignotÕs (this issue) discussion of how personal acts of meaning-
making give rise to social consequences so that the personal and social aspects of ca-
reer are a duality, one immediately displacing the other. Social constructionism may
also be throwing a longer shadow over the field, encouraging a greater awareness of
the significance of context as, for example, in the nature-nurture interaction in Gott-
fredsonÕs (2002) theory of circumscription and compromise, and other approaches
that recognize the way that social meanings influence the construction of career.
With its explicit attention to the cultural, historical, and political contexts in
which career theory, research, and practice exist, and to the significance of language
and discourse, social constructionism allows the contextualizing discourse to un-
cover issues of power and ideology in career. This is seen in some treatments of gen-
der, such as Hopfl and Hornby AtkinsonÕs (2000) challenge to taken-for-granted
constructions of male and female careers in the theories of career. It opens up the
recognition of rhetoric in career, as seen in Collin (2000), Collin and Young
(2000), and Gowler and Legge (1989), and of career ideologies (Richardson,
2000). Cohen, Duberly, and Mallon (this issue) show how the play of power and
ideology is uncovered in the accounts people give of their careers. Moreover, as
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 381

Coupland (this issue) identifies, social constructionism allows us to see how people
draw on, and indeed deploy or deny, common and organizational understandings
of career to construct their own account.
There are considerable opportunities for social constructionism in particular to
make further contributions to this discourse. It informs the notion of embedded
and relational selves (Blustein, 1994; Blustein et al., 2001) which throws a new
light on traditional understandings in career theory. Blustein, Schultheiss, and
Flum (this issue) regard social constructionism as a ‘‘challenging springboard’’
to reconceptualize the space shared by work and relationships. They point out
that it yields alternative discourses on working experiences. This perspective could
also enhance the person–environment approach that already has a substantial his-
tory in vocational psychology. Through its recognition that career and career
counseling are culturally constructed, and that indigenous psychologies are needed
(Stead, this issue), it could also make a significant contribution to understanding
the many issues of diversity that have hitherto been largely neglected in the liter-
ature of career.

5.3. The discourse of subjectivity and narrative

Career represents a unique interaction of self and social experience. This discourse
concerns that interaction from the perspective of the individual. It addresses how the
individual constructs self over time, and in context, and includes self-definition, self
and agency, purpose, and subjectivity; as well as particular forms of construction
such as narrative, autobiography, life story, and the subjective career. It is hence par-
ticularly open to the influences of constructivisms with their focus on the construc-
tion of meaning.
For many years, the notion of the subjective career, conceived by sociologists,
represented this concern with the individualÕs perspective (Goffman, 1959; Hughes,
1937; Stebbins, 1970). Phenomenology has been one way to study it (e.g., Collin,
1986; OÕDonovan-Polten, 2001; Teixeira & Gomes, 2000). The emergence of con-
structivisms in the field provided other effective and accessible conceptualizations
and methodologies; the features common to constructivisms that we identified earlier
are particularly pertinent to this discourse. The construction of self and narrative in
its various forms relies on the construction of meaning in temporal and social con-
texts and in relationship with others.
KellyÕs (1955) personal construct theory has been a significant ‘‘constructivist’’ in-
fluence, giving theorists, researchers, and practitioners the framework and method-
ology to identify, for example, the constructs that individuals use to anticipate and
interpret the role that work plays in their lives (e.g., Neimeyer, 1992; Parr & Nei-
meyer, 1994). A different influence is captured in social cognitive career theory (Lent
& Hackett, 1994) which emphasizes the ‘‘person [as] shaper of his or her experience’’
(p. 98). CochranÕs (1997) narrative approach based on constructivism is another sig-
nificant contribution to this discourse. Bujold (this issue) elaborates on the contribu-
tion that constructivism brings to career through narrative, and Cohen et al. (this
issue) demonstrate that of social constructionism.
382 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

Some versions of social constructionism (e.g., Gergen, 2001b) have presented a

critical challenge for career by undermining notions of self, agency, and choice,
key assumptions for autobiography and narrative. Frie (2003) countered the charac-
teristically postmodern loss of self and agency with the suggestion that confusing an
essentialist notion of the self with subjectivity does not eradicate self-experience. So-
cial constructionismÕs recognition that meaning is constructed through language in
context is of particular relevance to this discourse. This perspective emphasizes the
need in career theory, research, and practice to attend to the language people use
to interpret themselves and their situations, to their talk, and accounts (e.g., Hopfl,
1992; Murray, 1992). This attention to language challenges the way that individualsÕ
experiences are interpreted and recorded by traditional theorists and researchers who
work with uniform, universal—that is, decontextualized—meanings. Associated with
its attention to language is social constructionismÕs acknowledgement of the signifi-
cance of discourse. Coupland (this issue) treats individuals as discourse users, and
uses discourse analysis (Potter & Wetherall, 1987) to show how they account for
their career. Blustein et al. (this issue) discuss the significance of language in the dis-
course about relationships and work. Mignot (this issue) discusses how social con-
structionism favors projectivity over subjectivity and objectivity, focusing on the
self in action rather than introspection or observation, so that a non-linear form
of representation—metaphor—is needed for career.

5.4. The process discourse

This discourse addresses the processes by which a career develops, such as deci-
sion making (e.g., Gati, 1986), cognitive and social processes (e.g., Lent, Brown, &
Hackett, 2002), and lifespan development (e.g., Super, 1980), and that facilitate that
development in counseling and other interventions (e.g., Subich & Simonson, 2001).
In contrast to the three previous discourses, which have focused largely on what is
constructed, this discourse addresses the way construction occurs.
Constructivisms have much to contribute to this discourse because they place a
considerable emphasis on process (e.g., Mahoney, 2003; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), al-
though, according to Hacking (1999), the clear distinction that is lacking in social
constructionism generally between construction as a product and as a process can
also be seen to some extent in constructivism. However, this distinction is clearer
in the career field because of its explicit attention to practice. Indeed, constructivisms
have a strong affinity with practice, concerned as it is with interventions in the career
process, with the validity of the individualÕs perspective and interpretation, and the
negotiation of meaning between counselor and client. The challenge for career
researchers and theorists is to focus on process in career explanations in such a
way that will allow practitioners to make use of theories that are heuristic for their
practice.
Constructivisms, if not explicitly invoked, are sometimes implied in work on pro-
cesses in the career field, such as exploration (e.g., Flum & Blustein, 2000; Super,
1957), and values (e.g., Brown, 2002). HeinzÕs (2002) ‘‘biographical agency,’’ self-
socialization through the microdynamics of individual agency in varying social
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 383

contexts across time, is another example of the constructivist approach to the process
of construction in career. An explicitly constructivist perspective informs the ‘‘career
construction’’ theory of Savickas (2002), a major revision of SuperÕs (1953) theory of
vocational development.
Several voices in this discourse refer to constructing as an individual process,
whereas Young, Valach, and Collin (2002) follow social constructionism in high-
lighting meaning construction as a social process taking place through joint action.
In this issue, Young and Valach analyze their research on parent–adolescent joint
projects to illustrate the construction of the young personÕs career. They also discuss
how their action theory both reflects and develops social constructionism.
In their different ways, constructivisms challenge the basis of career development
theories (Super, 1953, 1980; Super, Savickas, & Super, 1996), which is that there is a
normative and predictable developmental sequence of ages and stages. According to
Mahoney (2003), constructivism regards human development as a process that is dy-
namic and dialectical, embracing both variability and disorder. At the same time, so-
cial constructionismÕs assertion that knowledge is historically and culturally specific
questions the existence of a stable and orderly environment, which is implied by the
notion of normative development. It further challenges the assumption that an indi-
vidual could be judged objectively and evaluated against such a normative sequence,
and so undermines the concept of ‘‘career maturity.’’
Constructivisms recognize that construction is an active process, that individuals
acting together in large and small groups, and in concert with history, culture, and
other broad factors, jointly construct the world in which they participate. Part of the
construction of career, for example, the emergence of new intentions in subjective ex-
perience that Richardson (this issue) sees as crucial to how people construct their
lives in changing times, takes place through language and narrative in dialogue with
counselors and other practitioners. Influential exponents of ‘‘constructivist’’ counsel-
ing are Neimeyer (1993), who has used KellyÕs (1955) personal construct theory, and
Peavy (1992), who considered that counselors have to pay attention to relationship,
agency, meaning making, and negotiation. CochranÕs (1997) approached the process
of constructing a career as a narrative process that occurs both within and outside of
counseling. Bujold (this issue) looks on narrative as a process as well as a product,
and emphasizes how counselors use narrative to facilitate the meaning-making pro-
cess of their clients.
The closer relationship with practice that constructivisms bring to career theory
and research challenges theorists and researchers to re-frame their self-identity and
work together reflectively and in new ways, giving the opportunity for more relevant
work (Collin, 1996). If social constructionism could integrate a strong conceptuali-
zation and data-based research with findings that could be transferable to practice,
it could make considerable contributions to practice.

5.5. Broader challenges and opportunities

Constructivisms also unsettle traditional frameworks. Not only do they generate

contributions, challenges, and opportunities that are not easily classifiable into those
384 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

discourses, that fall between them, or that apply to all of them equally, but they also
challenge the discourses themselves. Social constructionism in particular comes at
the field from a new perspective, and poses considerable challenges to some of its
key constructs: self, agency, and choice. One response from vocational psychology
has been to attempt to assimilate these new perspectives and widen the basis of
the mainstream theories (e.g., Kidd, this issue; Savickas, 2000). A different response,
exhibited in different ways by Richardson (this issue) and by Young and Valach (this
issue), is to wrestle with social constructionism itself, developing it in new directions.
Yet another response would be to take the opportunity it offers to provide a frame-
work in which the traditional canons of career could be examined (e.g., Savickas,
2003). Hence constructivisms are not only enriching the traditional canon of career
by widening and deepening it; social constructionism has the potential to re-frame
the canon itself, as our adoption of ‘‘discourses’’ to represent the field exemplifies.

6. Conclusion

This Special Issue provides a broad range of articles that address constructivism
or social constructionism in career. These perspectives are increasingly discussed and
used in the social sciences possibly signaling a shift that is occurring in them, and in
science more broadly. Hence, it is timely for this examination of these perspectives in
the career domain. The differences between constructivism and social construction-
ism are not definitive. However, both have already made worthwhile contributions
to this field and, while they still present challenges, they also offer opportunities that
are likely to advance the field further, or to change it.
The authors in this Special Issue have treated constructivism and social construc-
tionism separately. However, we also recognize that these perspectives share a com-
mon heritage and may continue to evolve into a new, more integrated perspective
from which career can be considered. The implications for our theory, research
and practice, based on a different appreciation of action, language, context, relation-
ship, meaning, culture, and career itself, are substantial.

References

Armistead, N. (Ed.). (1974). Reconstructing social psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barley, S. R. (1989). Careers, identities, and institutions: the legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. In
M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 41–65). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in sociology of
knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Blustein, D. L. (1994). The question of self and identity in career development. In M. L. Savickas & R. W.
Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 139–
154). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Blustein, D. L., Fama, L., Finkelberg, S. L., Ketterson, T. U., Schafer, B. M., Schwam, M. L., Sirin, S., &
Skau, M. (2001). A qualitative analysis of counseling case material: Listening to our clients. The
Counseling Psychologist, 29, 240–258.
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 385

Blustein, D. L., Schultheiss, D. L., & Flum, H. (this issue). Toward a relational perspective of the
psychology of careers and working: A social constructionist analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Brown, D. (2002). Introduction to theories of career development and choice: Origins, evolution, and
current efforts. In D. Brown & Associates, Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 3–23). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1996). Introduction to theories of career development and choice: Origins,
evolution, and current efforts. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and development
(3rd ed., pp. 1–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, P. (Ed.). (1973). Radical psychology. New York: Harper and Row.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bujold, C. (this issue). Constructing career through narrative. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Chartrand, J. M., Strong, S. R., & Weitzman, L. M. (1995). The interactional perspective in vocational
psychology. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory,
research and practice (pp. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cochran, L. (1990). The sense of vocation: A study of career and life development. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Cochran, L. (1997). Career counseling: A narrative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, L., Duberly, J., & Mallon, M. (this issue). Social constructionism in the study of career: Accessing
the parts that other approaches do not reach. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Collin, A. (1986). Career development: The significance of the subjective career. Personnel Review, 15,
2228.
Collin, A. (1996). Rethinking the relationship between theory and practice: Practitioners as map readers,
map makers—or jazz players? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 67–81.
Collin, A. (1997). Career in context. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 437–448.
Collin, A. (2000). Epic and novel: The rhetoric of career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of
career (pp. 163–177). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Collin, A., & Young, R. A. (1986). New directions of theories of career. Human Relations, 39, 837–
853.
Collin, A., & Young, R. A. (2000). The future of career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of
career (pp. 276–300). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, C. (this issue). Career definition and denial: A discourse analysis of graduate traineesÕ accounts
of career. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Cromby, J., & Nightingale, D. J. (2002). Social construction as ontology: Exposition and example. Theory
and Psychology, 12, 701–713.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original
work published in 1972).
Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
Press (Original work published in 1967).
Driver-Linn, E. (2003). Where is psychology going? Structural fault lines revealed by psychologistsÕ use of
Kuhn. The American Psychologist, 58, 269–278.
Flum, H., & Blustein, D. L. (2000). Reinvigorating the study of vocational exploration: A framework for
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 380–404.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.
Frie, R. (2003). Introduction: Between modernism and postmodernism: Rethinking psychological agency.
In R. Frie (Ed.), Understanding experience: Psychotherapy and postmodernism (pp. 1–26). London:
Routledge.
Gasper, P. (1999). Social constructivism. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd
ed., p. 855). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gati, I. (1986). Making career decisions—A sequential elimination approach. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 33, 408–417.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
386 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

Gergen, K. J. (2001a). Psychological science in a postmodern context. The American Psychologist, 56, 803–
813.
Gergen, K. J. (2001b). Social construction in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22, 123–142.
Gottfredson, L. (2002). GottfredsonÕs theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In D.
Brown & Associates (Eds.). Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85–148). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gowler, D., & Legge, K. (1989). Rhetoric in bureaucratic careers: Managing the meaning of managerial
success. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 437–
453). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harre, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heinz, W. R. (2002). Transition discontinuities and the biographical shaping of early work careers. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 60, 200–240.
Hopfl, H. J. (1992). Great expectations? Toward an understanding of the life plan. In R. A. Young & A.
Collin (Eds.), Interpreting career: Hermeneutical studies of lives in context (pp. 15–30). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Hopfl, H. J., & Hornby Atkinson, P. (2000). The future of womenÕs career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young
(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 130–143). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hosking, D.M. (2002). Constructing change: A social constructionist approach to change in work (and
beetles and witches). Katholieke Universiteit Brabant. Available: http://www.geocities.com/dian_ma-
rie_hosking/oratie.html Accessed 14 November 2002.
Hughes, E. C. (1937). Institutional office and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 43, 404–413.
Kant, I. (1998). In P. Guyer & A. W. Wood (Trans. and Eds.). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1781).
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kidd, J. M. (this issue). Emotion in career contexts: Challenges for theory and research. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown & Associates,
Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1994). Sociocognitive mechanisms of personal agency in career development:
Pantheoretical prospects. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development
theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 77–101). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Lent, R. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1994). Postscript: Is convergence a viable agenda for career psychology?
In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for
science and practice (pp. 259–271). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist,
contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. The British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1–20.
Mahoney, M. J. (2002). Constructivism and positive psychology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 745–750). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Constructive psychotherapy: A practical guide. New York: Guilford.
Mahoney, M. J., & Patterson, K. M. (1992). Changing theories of change: Recent developments in
counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 665–
689). New York: Wiley.
Martin, J., & Sugarman, J. (1999). The psychology of human possibility and constraint. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mignot, P. (this issue). Metaphor and Ôcareer.Õ Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Murray, K. D. (1992). The construction of a moral career in medicine. In R. A. Young & A. Collin (Eds.),
Interpreting career: Hermeneutical studies of lives in context (pp. 31–47). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Neimeyer, G. J. (1992). Personal constructs in career counseling and development. Journal of Career
Development, 18, 163–173.
Neimeyer, R. A. (1993). A appraisal of constructivist psychotherapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61, 221–234.
 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388 387

OÕDonovan-Polten, S. (2001). The scales of success: Constructions of life–career success of eminent men and
women lawyers. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Parr, J., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Effects of gender, construct type, occupational information, and career
relevance on vocational differentiation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 27–33.
Peavy, R. V. (1992). A constructivist model of training for career counselors. Journal of Career
Development, 18, 215–229.
Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Piaget, J. (1969). Judgement and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Potter, J., & Wetherall, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
London: Sage.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructiv-
ism, and social constructionism. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Exploring
constructivist psychology (pp. 1–26). New York: Pace University Press.
Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in peopleÕs lives: A location for counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 40, 425–433.
Richardson, M. S. (2000). A new perspective for counsellors: From career ideologies to empowerment
through work and relationship practices. In A. Collin & R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp.
197–211). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, M. S. (this issue). The emergence of new intentions in subjective experience: A social/personal
constructionist and relational understanding. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Savickas, M. L. (1989). Annual review: Practice and research in career counseling and development, 1988.
Career Development Quarterly, 38, 100–134.
Savickas, M. L. (1993). Career counseling in the postmodern era. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An
International Quarterly, 7, 205–215.
Savickas, M. L. (1994). Convergence prompts theory renovation, research unification, and practice
coherence. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories:
Implications for science and practice (pp. 235–257). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century. In A. Collin &
R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 53–68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Savickas, M. L. (2001). Toward a comprehensive theory of careers: Dispositions, concerns, and narratives.
In F. T. L. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contemporary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor
of Samual H. Osipow (pp. 295–320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown
& Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Savickas, M. L. (2003). The social construction of vocational interests. In R. A. Young & A. Collin (Co-
chairs), Social constructionism and career theory, research, and practice. Symposium conducted at the
111th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, 7–10 August.
Savickas, M. L.& Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). Convergence in career development theories: Implications for
science and practice. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Saxenian, A. (1996). Beyond boundaries: Open labor markets and learning in Silicon Valley. In M. B.
Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era (pp. 23–39). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sexton, T. L. (1997). Constructivist thinking within the history of ideas: The challenge of a new paradigm.
In T. L. Sexton & B. L. Griffith (Eds.), Constructivist thinking in counseling practice, research, and
training (pp. 3–18). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stead, G. B. (this issue). Culture and career psychology: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Subich, L. M., & Simonson, K. (2001). Career counseling: The evolution of theory. In F. T. L. Leong & A.
Barak (Eds.), Contemporary models in vocational psychology (pp. 257–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. The American Psychologist, 8, 185–190.
388 R.A. Young, A. Collin / Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2004) 373–388

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction to vocational development. New York:
Harper and Row.
Super, D. E. (1980). The life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 13, 282–298.
Swanson, J. L. (1999). Stability and change in vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane
(Eds.), Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use (pp. 135–138). Palo Alto, CA:
Davies-Black.
Teixeira, M. A. P., & Gomes, W. B. (2000). Autonomous career change among professionals: An empirical
phenomenological study. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 31, 78–96.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1993). Learning and adaptation in the theory of constructivism. Communication and
Cognition, 26, 393–402.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Young, R. A., & Valach, L. (this issue). The construction of career through goal-directed action. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Young, R. A., Valach, L., & Collin, A. (2002). A contextualist explanation of career. In D. Brown &
Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 206–252). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Zuriff, G. (1998). Against metaphysical social constructionism in psychology. Behavior and Philosophy, 16,
5–28.