Career Khapova Arthur 2010 Gestão de Carreira

Prévia do material em texto

http://hum.sagepub.com/
Human Relations
 http://hum.sagepub.com/content/64/1/3
The online version of this article can be found at:
 
DOI: 10.1177/0018726710384294
 2011 64: 3 originally published online 10 November 2010Human Relations
Svetlana N Khapova and Michael B Arthur
Interdisciplinary approaches to contemporary career studies
 
 
Published by:
 http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
 
 
 The Tavistock Institute
 can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for 
 
 
 
 
 
 http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: 
 
 http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: 
 http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: 
 
 http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: 
 
 http://hum.sagepub.com/content/64/1/3.refs.htmlCitations: 
 
 What is This?
 
- Nov 10, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record
 
- Jan 6, 2011Version of Record >> 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
human relations
64(1) 3–17
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726710384294
hum.sagepub.com
Interdisciplinary approaches to 
contemporary career studies
Svetlana N Khapova 
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Michael B Arthur
Suffolk University, USA
Abstract
This is the opening article in a Human Relations special issue on ‘Interdisciplinary approaches 
to contemporary career studies’. After introducing a story of an ‘exceptional – but real’ 
career, we argue for an urgent shift toward greater interdisciplinary inquiry. We reflect on 
the story to describe differences in the way each of psychology, sociology, social psychology, 
and economics views the concept of career. We turn to explore what career researchers, 
representing each of the above social sciences, might not see on their own. In contrast, 
we highlight how social scientists can move toward a) appreciating the limitations of our 
separate approaches, b) introducing more appropriate research methods, c) maintaining 
a wider cross-disciplinary conversation, and d) better serving the client – the person – 
in our future research. We continue with a preview of the remaining five articles in this 
special issue, and propose that these can serve as stimuli for a wider conversation. 
Keywords
careers, economics, interdisciplinary inquiry, psychology, social psychology, social science, 
sociology 
Introduction 
Let us begin with a career story. Azeem Ibrahim, age 32, has been featured in the inter-
national press as one of the richest men in the UK (e.g. Home, 2008). Born to an 
emigrant Pakistani family and raised in Glasgow, Scotland, he began his career helping 
Corresponding author:
Svetlana N Khapova, Amsterdam Business Research Institute, Faculty of Economics and Business 
Administration, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: skhapova@feweb.vu.nl
human relations
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
4 Human Relations 64(1)
in his family’s shop, but the shop went bankrupt soon after a supermarket opened nearby. 
The family, with seven children, had to leave their home and move into subsidized pub-
lic housing – a ‘council house’ in British terminology. Ibrahim turned the time he would 
have worked in the shop to examine other investments. Toward the end of high school 
he made £2000 on the privatization of Railtrack, the company charged to maintain 
Britain’s previously nationalized rail network. He used the money to travel around the 
Middle East, Africa, and the Far East, then went to study in France to develop his inter-
est in philosophy. Upon his return to the UK he took a job in information technology in 
London. He continued his education at night, pursuing an MSc in strategic studies and 
later an MBA. 
Ibrahim and a partner soon identified an opportunity to set up a consulting com-
pany that outsourced IT services to India. From there, he went on to pursue further 
opportunities that led him to develop new business interests in imports and exports, 
maritime insurance, private banking, a building society and even a hedge fund, all 
before his 32nd birthday. In 2006, with a self-made fortune of 60 million pounds, he 
was the youngest person on both the Sunday Times Scots’ Rich List and Carter 
Anderson’s UK Power 100 list. In 2007, he became the youngest member of the Bank 
of Scotland Asian Power 100, also produced by Carter Anderson, which described 
him as one of the most influential and highest-achieving people in Britain. The same 
year he was included in the Observer Courvoisier Future 500 – a definitive list of the 
nation’s most forward-thinking and brightest young innovators. In December 2007, a 
Scottish Parliament motion congratulated him for his contribution to the country and 
in April 2008 he accepted the Lloyds TSB and KPMG Business and Commerce 
Excellence Jewel Award. 
Today, Ibrahim devotes much of his time to his charitable activities, tackling prob-
lems as diverse as family and marriage breakdown in Scotland, postgraduate education 
for Bosnian students, and providing clean drinking water in disaster areas. He has also 
been engaged in political advising to the Brown (UK) and Obama (USA) governments 
on new policy initiatives and resource development. He lives with his pediatrician wife 
Hena and daughter, Sophia, on the shores of Lake Michigan. He is also a frequent visitor 
to his office in Dubai, and to his family in Glasgow. Ibrahim’s story is interesting for this 
introductory article – to a Human Relations special issue on ‘Interdisciplinary approaches 
to contemporary career studies’ – for several reasons: 
1) It illustrates the uniqueness of his career, even compared to his six brothers and 
sisters. 
2) It signals his personal aspirations and talents, fast career track, taste for intellec-
tually stimulating activities, and desire to give back to society. 
3) It reflects multiple social roles – for example, as a businessman, a researcher, and 
a philanthropist.
4) It suggests the influence of various people, experiences, and social settings – for 
example, his father, his family’s shop, a council house, and his connections today.
5) It makes clear that his career is not only an individual phenomenon, but also that 
it creates social and economic outcomes. 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 5
If Ibrahim’s career is interesting, what would it mean to study that career? What 
theories would help us to explain the complexities and implications of his career moves? 
What methodologies could we use? And how could we apply our answers not only to this 
one career but also to other careers?
For better or worse, the answers to the above questions vary according to the disci-
plinary perspective that we choose to adopt. From a psychological perspective, we would 
want to examine Ibrahim’s personality and motivation. From a sociological perspective, 
we would be interested in how society and its institutions have influenced his career – 
and in his further role in the creation of new institutions. From a social psychological 
perspective, we would note his relationships with business partners, parents, and his cur-
rent family, and look for imprints of his learning experiences on future actions. From an 
economic perspective we would focus on Ibrahim’s financial gains, on his own behalf 
and for his companies, and we might also take an interest in the economic impact of his 
charitable work. We can imagine separate disciplinary logics also being applied for other 
social sciences, such as anthropology or political science, although we don’t have the 
space to explore those here. The fundamental point is that eachsocial science would look 
at Ibrahim’s achievements differently, and each would struggle to relate to other social 
science perspectives. Each might see Ibrahim as exceptional, but none would see him, to 
borrow the language of Glasgow Herald writer Collette Douglas Home (2008), as 
‘exceptional – but real’. 
The aim of this special issue is to encourage the fuller examination of ‘exceptional – 
but real’ careers. All careers are exceptional in that they differ from other careers, and all 
careers are real in that they evolve through some distinctive combination of circum-
stances relevant to one disciplinary perspective or another. However, in a dynamic, 
knowledge-driven world it makes less sense to leave each of the social sciences to its 
own devices. Instead, we need to study the dynamism through which contemporary 
careers unfold. To put it another way, we need to study the links among careers, com-
munities, occupations, organizations, industries, and the global knowledge-driven 
economy, thus calling for interdisciplinary inquiry into careers. 
We begin this special issue by examining different disciplinary views of the concept 
career. We then turn to exploring what career researchers, representing each social 
science, might not see in separation: distinct bodies of knowledge, different research 
approaches, limited cross-disciplinary learning, and confusion over the client of career 
research. We respond to these four issues, illustrating the potential that interdisciplinary 
inquiry holds for the greater understanding of contemporary career phenomena. We con-
clude by briefly previewing the five further contributions to this special issue, and antici-
pating the opportunity for wider future debate. 
What do different social sciences see? 
Let us look, in turn, at the above-mentioned psychological, sociological, social psycho-
logical, and economic views of the career. In doing so, we will adopt a common defini-
tion of career as ‘the evolving sequence of a person’s work experiences over time’ 
(Arthur et al., 1989: 8; Gunz and Peiperl, 2007).
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
6 Human Relations 64(1)
Career from a psychological perspective 
The psychological perspective stems from the original Greek terms psykhe (‘breath’, 
‘spirit’, or ‘soul’) and logia (‘the study of’) (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010). Thus, 
from a psychological perspective the career is seen as a sequence of work experiences as 
experienced by the person. The person in turn is seen as ‘the decision maker in whom all 
of the personal and social forces are brought together’ (Super, 1990: 203). Two basic 
psychological views have been developed and followed by career theorists over the 
years. One stems from vocational guidance theories and reflects an interest in how indi-
vidual differences, such as psychological types (Jung, 1921), personality factors 
(Goldberg, 1981), individual values (Super, 1984), or vocational interests (Holland, 
1958) predict work outcomes. Another view originates from humanistic theories, which 
predict that individual needs – concerned according to Maslow (1954) with progressive 
safety, security, social, esteem, and ‘self-actualization’ needs – predict work outcomes. A 
more recent psychological view focuses on the protean career (Hall, 1976, 2002), con-
cerned with the person’s capacity for adaptation through the exercise of autonomy, self-
invention, and self-direction (Khapova et al., 2007). 
What would psychologists see in Ibrahim’s story? Vocational guidance thinkers 
might see a clear fit between his early interests, as expressed in his Railtrack invest-
ment, and his subsequent business and investment interests. Didn’t those interests, after 
all, set him apart from his six siblings? And didn’t they anticipate his later enthusiasm 
for launching his own consulting company, and going into merchant banking and hedge 
funds? Proponents of humanistic theories might focus on how the nature of his work 
has provided for fulfillment of a range of human needs. Isn’t his success testament to 
the importance of ‘higher order’ needs, for example, in the autonomy he claimed from 
the time he first set up his own business and in the self-esteem that appeared to flow 
from and become reinforced by his early business successes? In contrast, protean career 
advocates might see his ability to ‘change shape’ in the sequence of jobs he was able to 
perform, from IT consultant to banker to hedge fund manager. Isn’t he an ideal example 
of the protean career and the qualities a person needs to sustain such a career over the 
long term?
Career from a sociological perspective 
The sociological perspective is derived from the Latin socius (‘companion’) and (again) 
the Greek logia (‘the study of’) and focuses on the nature of society (Online Etymology 
Dictionary, 2010). Careers are relevant if their study can help to ‘interpret the meaning 
of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action 
proceeds and the effects which it produces’ (Weber, 1991: 7). The late French sociologist 
Pierre Bourdieu (1977) was a pioneer in examining this relevance. Leaving the search for 
causal relationships aside, there has been an ongoing debate in sociology about the duality 
of the relationship between structure and agency, that is, about reciprocal questions con-
cerning how much each of individual agency and social structure influence one another. 
The elaborations of the Chicago School and its adherents have seen the career as a 
‘Janus-like concept’, pointing on the one hand to the meanings individuals make of their 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 7
career situations, and on the other hand to institutional forms of career participation 
(Barley, 1989). More recently, writers have worked with Giddens’s (1984) ideas about 
structuration, which addresses how people’s everyday actions reinforce and reproduce 
social structures ‘via the very means whereby they express themselves as actors’ 
(Giddens, 1984: 2). Sociologists have also been busy in developing social network theo-
ries, distinguishing between strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973) and examining 
structural holes (Burt, 1992). 
What would sociologists see in Ibrahim’s story? Traditional sociologists would notice 
a person who has been shaped by social groups in which he has been socialized. Didn’t 
his emigrant status, Pakistani background, Muslim religion, and experiences with coun-
cil house living all contribute to his emergent self? In contrast, Chicago School thinkers 
would pay more attention to the new institutions that he helped to form. Didn’t his behav-
ior give rise to an IT company and other companies, to his various charitable initiatives, 
and to his later emergence as a political confidant? These, though, would remain as snap-
shots of a larger social world. Proponents of structuration would work hardest on these 
‘institutionalizing’ forces, and seek to develop a larger picture of their emerging tapestry. 
Doesn’t the behavior of Ibrahim and others like him explain a great deal about our emer-
gent social situation? Can we not see patterns in his and other people’s careers that help 
us explain the emergence of our social institutions? Finally, sociologists would seek to 
understand his growing network, and the opportunities (and constraints) his network 
brought to his career.
Career from a social psychological perspective 
The social psychological perspective concerns the study of the relations between people 
and groups. This area of behavioral science is considered to be the most interdisciplinary, 
and involves both psychological and sociological perspectives. From a psychological 
perspective, the concern is with how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influ-
enced by the actual,imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport, 1985). From a 
sociological perspective, the concern is with the individual and group in the context of 
larger social structures and processes, such as social roles, race, class, gender, ethnicity, 
and socialization. In career studies, the first (a psychologically driven) focus is repre-
sented by theories of a) career enactment (Weick, 1996), b) career construction (Savickas, 
2005), c) cognitions about oneself (such as self-efficacy) (Bandura, 1977) and d) rela-
tions with others, such in mentoring arrangements (Kram, 1985). The second (sociologi-
cally oriented) focus is represented by theories of, for example, peer learning (Vygotsky, 
1978), employees’ organizational solidarity (Sanders et al., 2006), multicultural career 
development (Osipow and Littlejohn, 1995), and the influence of ethnic identification 
(e.g. Cross, 1994).
What would social psychologists see in Ibrahim’s story? From a psychological per-
spective, social psychologists would see how Ibrahim’s proactivity reflects his family’s 
emigrant background, and a need for survival in the newly adopted environment. Hasn’t 
his early career start working in his family’s shop prompted him to learn more about 
investing? Or, from an enactment perspective, wasn’t he continuously exhibiting agency 
in his behavior? Wasn’t it because he wanted to explore and learn from the new business 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
8 Human Relations 64(1)
opportunities that he created so many new firms, foundations, and initiatives? From a 
sociological perspective, social psychologists would see how Ibrahim’s cultural relation-
ship to Pakistan (through his parents) comes back in his early development and later 
career. Didn’t he choose to travel to the Middle East, Africa and the Far East after his first 
significant paycheck? Doesn’t his first serious business of outsourcing to India relate to 
his ethnic roots? Given its large expatriate Pakistani community, isn’t his ethnic identifi-
cation behind his opening an office in Dubai? 
Career from an economics perspective 
The term economics comes from the Greek oikonomikos – literally, ‘household rules’ 
(Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010) – and is the social science that analyzes the produc-
tion, distribution, and consumption of scarce resources. Economic resources are generally 
divided into four categories: land, labor (or human resources), capital, and entrepreneur-
ship (McClintic and Cengage, 2001). Career studies are most concerned with the latter 
three categories, that is with: i) physical and mental labor used for the production of goods 
and services; ii) human capital reflecting the knowledge and skills that allow humans to 
produce; and iii) entrepreneurship, as the ability to bring resources together to produce a 
better product or service. The first category is reflected, for example, in strategic human 
resource management theories concerned with the achievement of organizational goals 
(Jackson and Schuler, 1995; Wei, 2006). The second category is reflected in human capital 
theories (Becker, 1964), which focus on the stock of competences and knowledge people 
gain through education and experience, and that bear economic value. The third category 
is reflected in studies of entrepreneurial careers (e.g. Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007), and 
careers in social entrepreneurship (e.g. Tams and Marshall, this issue). 
What would economists see in Ibrahim’s story? They would see him as a valuable 
resource for the UK economy, and even the global economy. Didn’t he generate a fortune 
of £60m and establish a bank, a maritime insurance service, a building society, and a 
hedge fund, among other companies? Isn’t he the principal person behind the financial 
success of these companies? Economists would also see valuable human capital reflected 
in his MSc and MBA degrees, and experiences gained through his business and 
philanthropic endeavors. Aren’t those stocks of education and experience reflected in 
the success of his companies and foundations? Economists would further see an excep-
tional entrepreneur. Didn’t he begin his career in traditional entrepreneurship aimed at 
personal gain? Didn’t he continue to make strategic choices that would benefit his per-
sonal career? Isn’t he also the one who today engages in social entrepreneurship, and 
runs charities that address a diversity of social issues?
In summary, if left to their own devices, psychologists would see Ibrahim’s career 
unfolding in his own mind. Sociologists would see it as a sequence of roles available to 
him in society. Social psychologists would see it as the interplay between Ibrahim and his 
immediate environment. Finally, economists would see it as an economic resource. 
However, none of these separate groups of researchers would be likely to offer any 
broader interpretation of Ibrahim’s career. It is like the old Indian story about six blind 
men asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of its 
body. By each touching just one part of the body, the men reported that the elephant was 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 9
like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan, or rope. ‘Though each was partly in the right … all 
were in the wrong!’ (Saxe, 1881). In our story, the elephant is Ibrahim’s career. 
The limitations in what we see
If we are to better understand Ibrahim’s ‘elephant’ it is likely to involve two steps. The 
first, as in the old Indian story, is to better understand what career researchers represent-
ing each social science may not see, rather than merely enjoying what they do see. 
The first thing career researchers may not see is how little knowledge sharing between 
social science disciplines is taking place. Career researchers often present their work at 
separate meetings and conferences. They publish their work in different journals often 
representing separate disciplinary backgrounds. According to Jacobs and Frickel (2009), 
despite global efforts to introduce more interdisciplinary research in the social sciences 
in general, authors’ most recent references still come from work in the same or similar 
disciplines. In contrast, references outside the respective discipline come from more 
dated articles. Economics has been observed to be the most insular of all social sciences, 
with only 18.7 percent of references based on research outside of economics (Jacobs and 
Frickel, 2009). We submit that career research also falls short in its pursuit of interdisci-
plinary research (Arthur, 2008).
The second thing career researchers may see is how selective each discipline has been 
in its studies. In psychology, it is believed many phenomena can be investigated by sim-
ply asking people how they think or feel (Smith, 2008). As a result, researchers have 
often relied on questionnaires, interviews and/or naturalistic observation to collect psy-
chological data. Sociologists have used both quantitative and qualitative methods 
(Denzin, 2009). On the quantitative side, overlapping with psychology, researchers have 
made heavy use of regression, scaling and clustering. On the qualitative side, researchers 
have used ‘conversational analysis’ and ‘interpretive strategies’ (Abbott, 2001: 10). 
Social psychologists have used experiments, surveys, and observational techniques, 
depending on the phenomena under investigation (Dunn, 2009). Economists have used 
quantitative techniques focusing on time series (Brockwell and Davis, 2009) and multi-
dimensional panel data (Baltagi, 2008). The separate patterns behind these approaches 
have made it difficult to compare data across the respective disciplines, thus encouraging 
even more disciplinary specialization.
A third concern involves the cross-disciplinary work already undertaken. Much ofthis 
involves selective collaborations, such as those created in the two main branches of 
social psychology, or in behavioral economics (e.g. Mohanty, 2010) or economic sociol-
ogy (e.g. Kyriacou, 2010), which seek to marry economics with psychology and sociol-
ogy, respectively (e.g. Tomer, 2007). While each of these collaborations may open up 
fresh insights, they also open up their own arenas for debate in the conferences and jour-
nals with which they affiliate. We may worry that these selective collaborations may add 
to the further fragmentation of inquiries, rather to any wider interdisciplinary debate.
A further concern is ‘Who is the client of career research?’ Drawing on our introduc-
tory story, is it Ibrahim? Is it the companies and foundations that profited from his career 
undertakings? Is it society at large that benefits socially, economically, and politically 
from Ibrahim’s contributions? We submit that the client of career research is first of all 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
10 Human Relations 64(1)
Ibrahim, or in broader terms, the person. It is the person whose work experiences are 
captured in the definition of career – ‘the evolving sequence of a person’s work experi-
ences over time’ (Arthur et al., 1989: 8). It is the person – individually or collectively – 
for whom most inquiries in social science are concerned. As Busch (2000) puts it, ‘those 
affected by the operations of a particular domain of civil society should be presumed to 
have a say in its governance’ (pp. 26–27). Do we not owe our clients synthesized knowl-
edge in a way that is useful to the practice of their work? Do we not owe them a more 
complete view of their careers, to give them greater insight into how to develop, behave, 
and grow over time?
Let us not exaggerate the point. There has been a growth in the pursuit of interdisciplin-
ary studies over recent years (Jacobs and Frickel, 2009). There has also been a proliferation 
of professional schools (especially management schools) and related journals – including 
Human Relations – supporting interdisciplinary research. However, disparate reviewer 
preferences and feedback can still make this kind of work more risky to pursue (Pautasso 
and Pautasso, 2010). Social scientists may have become better at selectively promoting 
interdisciplinary work, but not necessarily better at seeing the breadth of the work that 
they collectively produce.
What we might see together
What if we were to pursue a more open interdisciplinary exchange about careers? How 
might we benefit? What might we see together? To answer these questions let us turn to 
the four themes discussed in the previous section: a) sharing our knowledge, b) doing 
separate research enquiries, c) learning from cross-disciplinary work already undertaken, 
and d) serving the client of career research. 
Together, we might see that by pursuing interdisciplinary research we can do a better 
job in advancing knowledge about careers. We would attend each other’s conferences, 
and draw on each other’s work promoting more communication and collaboration across 
the disciplines. These actions could lead us to better understanding of ‘incompatible 
styles of thought, research traditions, techniques, and language that are difficult to trans-
late across disciplinary domains’ (Jacobs and Frickel, 2009: 47). We would also be better 
able to contribute to establishing evaluation criteria for interdisciplinary work (e.g. 
Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer, this issue) and to develop a new generation of reviewers 
who are open to this kind of research. Despite the recent growth in interdisciplinary stud-
ies, ‘discipline-specific ways of producing theory and methods are still the bedrock of 
peer evaluation’ (Mallard et al., 2009: 22). Interdisciplinary research requires new mod-
els for evaluating the new ‘cultures of evidence’ that are emerging from interdisciplinary 
endeavors (Klein, 2006).
We might also see that together we could do better research. Instead of conveniently 
studying correlations among variables through cross-sectional study designs, we could 
move forward to studying careers as phenomena or series of observable events that 
happen to career actors over time (Roe, 2008). In turn, this would bring us to develop-
ing theories better suited to reflect career interactions of contemporary workers (e.g. 
Inkson and King, this issue), and prompt us to apply more appropriate research 
approaches (e.g. Slay and Smith, this issue). How useful is it to offer descriptive and 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 11
normative models of career stages, if we can learn little about matters such as when a 
career stage starts, what happens within the stage, how long it takes, and how events 
during this stage relate to each other (Roe, 2008)? Interdisciplinary research calls for 
other ways of collecting data: they may involve recording verbal accounts (narratives), 
film, video and audio tracks, etc.; they may also involve deliberate time-sampling, the 
use of unobtrusive data collection methods, and the creation of relatively long time-
series (Roe, 2008).
Furthermore, we might see that disciplinary fragmentation through higher specializa-
tion could do more harm than good. An instructive example comes from what many see 
as overspecialization in the field of medicine during the 20th century. It is claimed this 
has deprived physicians of their ‘holistic vista’ and reduced the patient to a ‘case’ 
(Christodoulou, 2010). Overspecialization has also removed the medical field from its 
early conception by the ancient Greek Hippocrates: ‘The patient, not the disease, was to 
be treated, and to treat the patient well, the physician was to examine him or her as a 
whole, not merely the organ or body part in which the disorder was located’ (Wofford 
et al., 1994: 697). What would we want our career research to mean if we were to con-
tinue our separate specializations? Would we want our ‘patients’ – career actors – to 
suffer from our separate and disconnected research advances?
Finally, we might see that collaboration could bring us closer to the broader meaning 
of social science, and to serving our client well. Like their cousin the physical sciences, 
the social sciences tended toward ‘big science’ in the second half of the 20th century, in 
the aftermath of the Great Depression and the Second World War, as the world searched 
for remedies to measure social performance, such as national income and productivity 
figures (Steckel, 2007). As this article goes to press, we are living through another crisis 
with global implications, yet ‘big science’ no longer seems so attractive. We may do bet-
ter to encourage a diverse group to talk with another, and in turn move to toward greater 
synergy through the integration of ideas, concepts, tools, and theories for the benefit of 
society (Eby and Allen, 2008). Looking across the disciplines, in either basic or applied 
research, ‘is supposed to integrate knowledge and solve problems that individual disci-
plines cannot solve alone’ (Jacobs and Frickel, 2009: 47). Career studies defined as ‘a 
perspective on social enquiry’ (Gunz and Peiperl, 2007: 4) might offer the meeting place 
that we need. 
Contributions in this special issue 
The goal of the special issue was to invite contributions that would demonstrate the 
potential that interdisciplinary inquiry holds for the greater understanding of contempo-
rary career phenomena. Our call for papers indicated a particular interest in more imagi-
native approaches that would lead us beyond the constraints of traditional research 
approaches, and would involve: i) greater variation in methodologies, ii) a wider research 
agenda, iii) more longitudinal research designs, and iv) more instructive interdisciplinary 
conversations.The call for papers yielded 21 high-quality manuscripts that were sub-
jected to Human Relations normal review process with one additional criterion. Referees 
were explicitly asked to consider the manuscripts’ potential for promoting interdisciplin-
ary inquiry in our future work. 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
12 Human Relations 64(1)
As a result of this review process, five manuscripts were ultimately selected to 
accompany this introduction to the special issue. Below we offer a brief overview of each 
of the five articles, and of how connections between the articles might contribute to a 
wider interdisciplinary conversation.
The article by Katharina Chudzikowski and Wolfgang Mayrhofer builds on a socio-
logical base, the ‘grand theory’ of the late Pierre Bourdieu’s work. However, instead 
of speaking to other sociological thinkers, the article suggests five ‘touchstones’ – 
contextuality, structure and agency, boundaries, dynamics, and methodology and meth-
ods – to advance interdisciplinary dialogue on careers. As a result, Bourdieu’s work 
becomes an example of how grand social theories can ‘describe and explain the overall 
functioning and dynamics of a given social order’ while inviting new research to 
address the details in a more systematic way. The authors also suggest that the same 
might be done with other grand theories – such as those of Coleman (1990), Giddens 
(1984) and Luhmann (1995) – and encourage researchers not to be discouraged in their 
work. They extend a ‘blue flower’ – a symbol of 18th-century Romanticism – as a 
symbol of an elusive but worthy goal, as encouragement to career scholars to pursue 
their interdisciplinary ends.
The next article by Kerr Inkson and Zella King highlights two competing points of 
departure, out of psychology and economics respectively. They argue that the first under-
lies a ‘vocational’ view of careers, while the second underlies what is now known as 
‘strategic human resource management’. They report that the two views have remained 
largely distinct from one another, and that proponents of each view have rarely addressed 
the ‘contested terrain’ on which they both stand. As a solution to this interdisciplinary 
standoff, the authors propose a ‘psychological contract’ model, in which both individuals 
and organizations invest knowledge capital in the other with a view to obtaining long-
term returns. In this model, various ‘loci of contestation’ – for example, about whether 
individual career investments generate adequate returns for the employer – become 
exposed. In turn they become more amenable to interdisciplinary resolution.
In the next article, Barbara Lawrence suggests that allegiance to one particular disci-
pline can often leave ‘money on the table’ in the sense that the data may already contain 
more information than the researcher takes away. She takes a single data set from a large 
organization and applies a series of ‘if-what’ questions to those data. If someone from 
another academic tradition were studying the data, what might he or she say? If the story 
were told from multiple perspectives, what would the narrative look like? If more than 
one tradition is warranted, what are the mechanisms that connect them? Specifically, she 
examines three stories about the associations between social context and career out-
comes. The stories are: a different disciplines (psychology or sociology) story, a multiple 
disciplines story, and an interdisciplinary story. The results suggest that the separate dis-
ciplines story does least well in interpreting the data. The best career satisfaction out-
come results from the multiple disciplines story, whereas the best performance and salary 
outcomes result from the interdisciplinary story.
The last two articles both address the structure versus agency ‘touchstone’ introduced 
by Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer. The article by Holly Slay and Delmonize Smith uses 
narratives written by 20 prominent African American journalists (Terry, 2007) who 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 13
discuss what it means to be both Black and a reporter. This ‘extreme case’ of journalists 
working before and through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, allows for a richer 
understanding of how long-term relationships, social context, and life events are used to 
construct coherent professional identities. In particular, the evidence points to a profes-
sional identity construction process involving redefinition – of stigma, of the profession 
and of the self – for people who ‘must navigate multiple and competing identities to 
achieve professional identity’.
The article by Svenja Tams and Judi Marshall also examines structure versus agency, 
this time with an emphasis on ‘responsible careers’, which in some way seek to change 
the host social system. In sympathy with Inkson and King, they challenge any singular 
dependence on an economic perspective. Instead, they define responsible careers as 
‘careers in which people seek to have an impact on societal challenges such as environ-
mental sustainability and social justice through their employment and role choices, stra-
tegic approaches to work and other actions’. They present data drawn from interviews 
with 32 individuals engaged in organizational fields of corporate responsibility, social 
entrepreneurship, sustainability, and social investing, and offer a dynamic model of 
responsible career behavior. By integrating psychological intentions and institutional 
context in their model, the authors show responsible careers as continually evolving, 
sometimes precariously, and as dynamically enacted in relation to pluralist, shifting 
landscapes.
From the privileged position of having read all six of the articles in this issue, 
including our own introduction, it is encouraging to witness how much the authors 
have already begun to speak to one another. This introduction calls for an overall 
interdisciplinary approach in future career studies. Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer 
respond to that call, suggest a way forward, and urge others not to give up on a wor-
thy cause. Lawrence looks to existing methodologies and shows we are likely to 
have overlooked interdisciplinary phenomena. Inkson and King reveal frequently 
unrecognized interdisciplinary conflict behind our assumptions. Slay and Smith 
show how one particular population has pushed beyond conflict in constructing their 
professional identities. Finally, Tams and Marshall offer complementary insights 
about ‘responsible careers’ – into which category the Slay and Smith data clearly 
seem to fall.
The point here, though, is not to extend the exchanges among any limited group of 
authors, but rather to open the debate for wider conversation. It is a conversation in 
which we warmly invite the reader to participate. 
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Julia Richardson for her timely feedback on an earlier version of this article, and to 
Stephen Deery, Human Relations Editor-in-Chief, for supporting the idea of this special issue since 
we first discussed it in 2007. Thanks also to the talented members of Human Relations’ editorial 
office – Claire Castle, Vandana Nath, and Alice Ellingham – who helped so much to make this 
special issue a reality. Thanks especially to all the reviewers who supported our work with their 
critical, timely, and constructive reviews. Finally, thanks to all readers who invest time engaging 
with this special issue. We hope you find it useful.
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
14 Human Relations 64(1)
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or 
not-for-profit sectors. 
References 
Abbott A (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press. 
Allport GW(1985) The historical background of social psychology. In: Lindzey G and Aronson 
E (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill, 1–46.
Arthur MB (2008) Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary inquiry. Human 
Relations 61(2): 163–186.
Arthur MB, Hall DT and Lawrence BS (1989) Generating new directions in career theory: The case 
for a transdisciplinary approach. In: Arthur MB, Hall DT and Lawrence BS (eds) Handbook of 
Career Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7–25.
Baltagi BH (2008) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 
Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological 
Review 84(2): 191–215.
Barley SR (1989) Careers, identities, and institutions: The legacy of the Chicago School of 
Sociology. In: Arthur MB, Hall DT and Lawrence BS (eds) Handbook of Career Theory. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–65. 
Becker GS (1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference 
to Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. London: Cambridge University Press. 
Brockwell PJ and Davis RA (2009) Time Series: Theory and Methods. New York: Springer Verlag.
Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press.
Busch L (2000) The Eclipse of Morality. Science, State, and the Market. New York: Aldine De 
Gruyter. 
Christodoulou G (2010) Conceptual explorations on person-centered medicine 2010: Moral theo-
ries and medicine for the person. International Journal of Integrated Care 10(Suppl.): e018.
Chudzikowski K and Mayrhofer W (2011) In search of the blue flower? Grand social theories and 
career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Human Relations 64(1).
Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 
Cross WE (1994) Nigrescence theory: Historical and explanatory notes. Journal of Vocational 
Behaviour 44(2): 119–123. 
Denzin NK (2009) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New 
Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction
Dunn DS (2009) Research Methods for Social Psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eby LT and Allen TD (2008) Moving toward interdisciplinary dialogue in mentoring scholarship: 
An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72(2): 159–167. 
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldberg LR (1981) Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality 
lexicons. In: Wheeler L (ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: 
SAGE, 141–165.
Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 15
Gunz H and Peiperl MA (eds) (2007) Handbook of Career Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hall DT (1976) Careers in Organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hall DT (2002) Careers In and Out of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Holland JL (1958) A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of Applied 
Psychology 42: 336–342. 
Home CD (2008) From a Glasgow council house to dinner at the White House. Herald Scotland, 
28 June, available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-a-glasgow-council-house-to-
dinner-at-the-white-house-1.883472.
Inkson K and King Z (2011) Contested terrain in careers: A psychological contract model. Human 
Relations 64(1).
Jacobs JA and Frickel S (2009) Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of 
Sociology 35: 43–65. 
Jackson SE and Schuler RS (1995) Understanding human resource management in the context 
of organisations and their environment. In: Spence JT, Darley JM and Foss DJ (eds) Annual 
Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 237–264.
Jung CG (1921) Psychologische Typen. Zürich: Rascher.
Khapova SN, Arthur MB and Wilderom CPM (2007) The subjective career in the knowledge 
economy. In: Gunz H and Peiperl M (eds) Handbook of Career Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
SAGE, 114–130. 
Klein JT (2006) Afterword: The emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary 
research evaluation. Research Evaluation 15(1): 75–80.
Kram KE (1985) Mentoring at Work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. 
Kyriacou AP (2010) Intrinsic motivation and the logic of collective action: The impact of selective 
incentives. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(2): 823–839. 
Lawrence BS (2011) Careers, social context and interdisciplinary thinking. Human Relations 64(1).
Luhmann N (1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 
McClintic A and Cengage G (2001) Economics. Encyclopedia of Business and Finance. 
Available at: http://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/economics (accessed 10 
October 2010).
Mallard G, Lamont M and Guetzkow J (2009) Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemo-
logical differences in peer review. Science Technology Human Values 34(5): 573–606. 
Maslow A (1954) Motivation and Personality, 1st edn. New York: Harper & Row.
Mohanty MS (2010) Effects of positive attitude and optimism on employment: Evidence from the 
US data. Journal of Socio-Economics 32(2): 258–270.
Online Etymology Dictionary (2010) Available at: http://www.etymonline.com. 
Osipow SH and Littlejohn EM (1995) Toward a multicultural theory of career development: 
Prospects and dilemmas. In: Leong F (ed.) Career Development & Vocational Behaviour of 
Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, 251–262.
Pautasso M and Pautasso C (2010) Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review 
18(2): 227–237. 
Roe RA (2008) Time in applied psychology: The study of ‘what happens’ rather than ‘what is’. 
European Psychologist 13(1): 37–52.
Sanders K, Flache A, van der Vegt G and van de Vliert E (2006) Employees’ organizational 
solidarity within modern organizations: A framing perspective on the effects of social embed-
dedness. In: Fetchenhauer D, Flache A, Buunk AP and Lindenberg S (eds) Solidarity and 
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
16 Human Relations 64(1)
Prosocial Behavior. An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. New 
York: Springer Science+Business Media, 141–156.
Savickas ML (2005) The theory and practice of career construction. In: Brown SD and Lent RW 
(eds) Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work. Hoboken, 
NJ: John Wiley, 42–69. 
Saxe JG (1881) The Poems of John Godfrey Saxe Highgate Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton, 
Mifflin and Company. 
Schjoedt L and Shaver KG (2007) Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: A test of the pull and 
push hypotheses using the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics data. Entrepreneurship 
Theory & Practice 31(5): 733–752.
Slay H and Smith D (2011) Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the 
negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations 64(1).
Smith JA (ed.) (2008) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 2nd edn. 
London: SAGE.
Steckel RH (2007) Big social science history. Social Science History 31(1): 1–34.
Super DE (1984) Perspective on the meaning and value of work. In: Gysbers N (ed.) Designing 
Careers: Counseling to Enhance Education, Work and Leisure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 
27–53. 
Super DE (1990) A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In: Brown D, Brooks 
L and Associates (eds) Career Choice and Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 
Publishers, 197–261. 
Tams S andMarshall J (2011) Responsible careers: Systemic reflexivity in shiftinglandscapes. 
Human Relations 64(1).
Terry W (2007) Missing Pages: Black Journalists of Modern America: An Oral History. New 
York: Caroll and Graf. 
Tomer JF (2007) What is behavioral economics? Journal of Socio-Economics 36(3): 463–479.
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, 
MA: Harvard University Press. 
Weber M (1991) The nature of social action. In: Runciman WG (ed.) Weber: Selections in 
Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7. 
Wei L (2006) Strategic human resource management: Determinants of fit. Research and Practice 
in Human Resource Management 14(2): 49–60.
Weick KE (1996) Enactment and the boundaryless career: organizing as we work. In: Arthur MB 
and Rousseau DM (eds) The Boundaryless Career. New York: Oxford University Press, 40–57. 
Wofford JL, Wilson MC and Moran WP (1994) The promotion of generalism in medicine: 
Renaissance or recycling? Journal of General Internal Medicine 9(12): 697–701.
Svetlana N Khapova is Associate Professor of Career Studies and Director of Doctoral Education 
at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She also holds a Visiting Professor position at 
ESMT – European School of Management and Technology in Berlin, Germany. She was recently 
elected as Chair of the Careers Division of Academy of Management. Her research interests center 
on career behaviors of contemporary employees and their implications for organizations and soci-
ety at large. Her work has been published in Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of 
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Career Development 
International, and a number of edited volumes. [Email: skhapova@feweb.vu.nl]
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Khapova and Arthur 17
Michael B Arthur is Professor of Management at Suffolk University, Boston, USA. His principal 
research interests focus on contemporary career arrangements within the global knowledge econ-
omy. His books include the Handbook of Career Theory (edited with Douglas T Hall and Barbara 
S Lawrence; Cambridge University Press, 1989), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment 
Principle for a New Organizational Era (with Denise Rousseau, Oxford University Press, 1996), 
The New Careers: Individual Action & Economic Change (with Kerr Inkson and Judith K Pringle, 
SAGE, 1999), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives (with Maury Peiperl, Rob 
Goffee and Tim Morris; Oxford University Press, 2000), Career Creativity: Explorations in the 
Remaking of Work (with Maury Peiperl and N Anand; Oxford University Press, 2002), and most 
recently Knowledge at Work: Managing Career, Community and Company-Based (with Bob 
DeFillippi and Robert Defillippi; Blackwell Publishing, 2006). He has written and spoken widely 
on the subject of contemporary, knowledge-driven careers in the global economy. He was the 2006 
recipient of the Academy of Management’s Everett Hughes Award for lifetime achievement in 
career studies. [Email: marthur@suffolk.edu]
 at CAPES on April 29, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from