Career Development of People With Disabilities: Self-Determination as a Skill Set or a Mind-Set?

Introduction

Calvin is a 19-year-old high school senior with severe visual impairment. Upon his graduation, he wants to go to college and study finance to work in a large investment bank. However, his parents and teachers are skeptical about his pursuit of this career path, as they think being a financial analyst does not fit well with his disability. Instead, they want him to become a special education teacher or a vocational rehabilitation counselor who teaches and helps those who are with similar difficulties. They think it is the most realistic option that he can choose to make his life easier. Calvin does not know what to do but decides to follow the advice, giving up the dream that he has had for a long time.

This short story (Kwon, 2017) is an illustration of what many people with disabilities still experience during their career transitions. Work and career are not only a means for people to make a living but also an expression of self-actualization. People seek meaning and purpose in their lives through work, and this is equally the case for people with disabilities. For work to be a path for self-fulfillment, the choice must be based on the interests and passion of an individual. However, our society does not allow much room for people with disabilities to enact their capacity to make their own decisions in the name of protection and guardianship (Gragoudas, 2014; Martinis, 2015). As shown by Enright (1996), a disability status is significantly related to self-doubting career beliefs and career indecision. Such a self-constraining attitude of people with disabilities is less likely to lead to a wider range of career choices that consider the various strengths, personalities, and aspirations that one may possess (Dipeolu, 2009). The self-limiting career practice of people with disabilities is a ramification of our society imposing what is thought to be good for the lives of people with disabilities, without paying sufficient attention to their voices (Martinis, 2015). This is problematic if we are to really create a society where all individuals, regardless of the level and shape of their abilities, can fully participate with their own will and determination.

Also, as work environments have become more uncertain and complex than ever before, the ability to identify intricate problems, critically analyze them, and develop creative solutions are regarded as key characteristics of qualified, competent job candidates with and without disabilities (Gragoudas, 2014; Ju, Zhang, & Pacha, 2012). Gragoudas (2014) further asserted that the ability to self-advocate is especially required for people with disabilities because they often encounter situations where they need to request reasonable accommodations in obtaining and sustaining gainful jobs. Therefore, successful employment as well as grounded career choice is highly dependent on the extent to which people with disabilities are empowered and thus can exercise self-determination in their different vocational trajectories (Agran & Krupp, 2011; Dipeolu, 2009). That is, as people with disabilities develop their capacity to establish self-directed goals, explore available choices, evaluate actions taken, and be responsible for their consequences and future steps, they are more likely to thrive in their lives, work with greater independence, and experience subjective well-being (Hartung & Taber, 2008; Martinis, 2015).

With this recognition, some researchers have investigated ways in which educators and vocational counselors can assist people with disabilities in developing their self-determination. For example, Shogren et al. (2016) examined the impact of the Self-Determined Career Development Model (SDCDM) with 197 people with disabilities and found that the participants’ level of autonomy showed a significant change over time in the treatment group. Another study undertaken by Sheftel, Lindstrom, and McWhirter (2014) evaluated the effectiveness of Motivational Enhancement Group Intervention (MEGI), which was designed based on the ecological model of career development to identify various internal and external barriers to the career development of youth with disabilities and provide them with opportunities to conduct active career searches. The data collected from 137 high school students with disabilities revealed significant changes in the participants’ vocational self-efficacy, self-determination, and outcome expectations. In addition to designing and implementing interventions that aim for increasing self-determination, Rowe, Mazzotti, Hirano, and Alverson (2015) emphasized the importance of accurate transition assessment of young adults with disabilities as it not only provides an opportunity for students to learn more about themselves but also guides teachers and service providers in better helping them navigate possible academic and career options.

However, one major limitation that these studies have in common is that they view self-determination as a skill set that individuals can acquire. Although educators and vocational counselors can promote the self-determination of people with disabilities to some extent by enhancing their pertinent knowledge and behaviors, a deeper approach seems to shed light on how one can develop this trait more fundamentally and sustainably. Therefore, in this article, I adopt Kegan’s (1982, 1994) constructive-developmental theory with the goal of explaining why certain individuals behave in more self-determined ways than others and thus how we can reconceptualize the career development of people with disabilities. I think, by providing insights into the underlying mechanism of human development, this compelling adult development theory has a great potential to improve the career counseling, education, and development practices for people with disabilities.

Constructive-Developmental Theory as a Framework to Promote Self-Determination

As can be assumed from its name, constructive-developmental theory rests on two theoretical streams of thought: constructivism and developmental psychology. Constructivism posits that reality is not objectively given to us, but we interpret and make meaning of it. Thus, our meaning-making structure determines the way we understand ourselves (subjectivity), our relationships with others (intersubjectivity), and larger systems in which we are embedded (objectivity), which results in distinct action patterns. With this epistemological perspective, developmental psychology suggests that our meaning-making structure evolves along its unique stages throughout human life. Kegan (1982, 1994) explained this lifelong development of meaning-making structure in five stages of consciousness: (a) impulsive, (b) empirical, (c) interpersonal, (d) institutional, and (e) interindividual. The first two stages of mind are generally found in children and adolescents, and the latter three stages of mind are regarded as phases of adult development. Put differently, Kegan (1982, 1994) called these three levels of adult development traditional (socialized mind), modern (self-authoring mind), and postmodern (self-transforming mind). Analyzing these stages of consciousness based on the level of dependency, we can say that the socialized mind is dependent, the self-authoring mind is independent, and the self-transforming mind is interdependent. In what comes next, these three stages of adult development will be briefly outlined, followed by a discussion of their implications for the career development of people with disabilities.

First of all, adults with socialized minds overemphasize others’ needs over theirs (Kegan, 1982, 1994). They prioritize and are guided by the values and expectations of people, groups, and institutions that they think are of most importance to them. Therefore, people at this stage are good citizens, yet without the ability to speak up for their own thoughts and perspectives in relationships with others. In the next stage, people begin to understand themselves as independent entities who are not significantly affected by external relationships with others anymore (Kegan, 1982, 1994). What is crucial now for them is their internal needs, desires, values, and reasons in making decisions or actions. They establish their own filters of interpreting the world and are capable of sorting out others’ feedback in terms of its significance for them. Moving toward the self-transforming mind, people are able to see the limits of their inner system and the value of understanding the world from the system perspective that constitutes parts of self-authoring individuals or subsystems (Kegan, 1982, 1994). They acknowledge that their minds, egos, and identities are not fixed but fluid enough so that they can evolve and change as they go through new experiences and relationships, and make new meanings out of them. They realize the possibility and necessity of the coexistence of self and others as they now have the capacity to view the larger integrated system as a whole. To make a simple distinction between these three stages of mind from a first person point of view of a person with a disability, the socialized mind cares about the norms and values of society (you), the self-authoring mind is driven by one’s own beliefs and values (I), and the self-transforming mind transcends the dichotomization between the two (we) (Torbert, 1991).

For the purpose of this article, the characteristics of a socialized mind and a self-authoring mind are worth noting. As asserted, implicitly or explicitly, people with disabilities are socially taught to pursue careers that seem to be easy or safe for them (Martinis, 2015). Returning to the example of Calvin provided earlier, the underlying reason that parents and teachers advised him to become a special education teacher or a vocational rehabilitation counselor rather than a financial analyst is because it fits better with the traditional norms and values of society, ones that in many cases encourage the participation of people with disabilities only in areas where the majority of them have already entered. For society and work organizations as well as parents and teachers who support people with disabilities, assisting people with disabilities with a minimal level of uncertainty is a less disorienting way of integration, thereby justifying and steering people with disabilities to simply follow the career preparation processes that predecessors took without giving them opportunities to seriously think about what those career paths mean in a personal sense. Shah’s (2005) study on young people with disabilities demonstrated how educational systems, which are supposed to fully accommodate the unique needs and desires of people with disabilities, contradictorily constrained their career aspirations and decision making. As such oppressive practices are repeated, people with disabilities are socialized to comply with the prescribed norms and values of society, lose voice and ownership, and fail to fully reflect their various internal motivations in career choices.

However, although it might be perceived as risky for people with disabilities to confront an oppressive reality and find new ways of being in society, such developmental suffering will result in a true sense of independence and self-determination. Mezirow (1991) described this process of one’s expansion of consciousness as transformative learning. He argued that we can experience a profound perspective change that involves radically different ways of seeing and acting upon the world around us by critically reflecting on taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions. Transforming old habits of mind that have uncritically accepted what has been offered socially, people with disabilities can explore, with greater autonomy, career options that might have been previously even beyond their capacity to consider. For example, Calvin would be empowered enough to challenge the societal discourse that has labeled him as less suited to be a financial analyst and limited his career aspirations. After sufficiently gathering information regarding existing career options and, more importantly, critically reframing the given situation with an increased awareness of reality, he may pursue becoming a financial analyst by overcoming his socialized, self-limiting mind-set. Or he may end up choosing a career to become a special education teacher or a vocational rehabilitation counselor as advised by others. However, whether he becomes a special education teacher, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, or a financial analyst is not the matter of importance here. Regardless of career outcomes, career choices that are based on critical, self-authoring examinations of alternative possibilities and available resources are totally different from those without such reflective practices.

Applying Constructive-Developmental Theory to Career Construction Theory

So far, I have problematized the current practice of career development of people with disabilities, which has too often overlooked the developmental potential of self-determination as a mind-set, and provided constructive-developmental theory as an alternative framework to enhance self-determination. Now, I make the case to apply this adult development theory to career construction theory as a way of offering a new conceptual model of career development of people with disabilities. First proposed by Savickas (2005), career construction theory is based on constructivism, unlike previous career development techniques, which operated under positivism. From the modern perspective of the process of career development, it has been viewed as a static and linear one, justifying career counselors’ treatments of clients to classify them according to predetermined occupational categories (Holland, 1997). However, as society has become more fast-changing and multidimensional than ever before, the need for adapting to the demands of uncertain and unstable labor environments has increased, and the process of career development has started to be seen as a dynamic and non-linear one (Kenny, Blustein, & Meerkins, 2018). In addition, as more people have begun to pursue their real vocational passion and greater job satisfaction, the capacity to reflect on past career-related experiences and reframe them in ways that best meet their internal desires as well as the external demands of an individual has become increasingly necessary.

Called upon because of these dramatic changes in the world of work, career construction theory states that an individual’s career develops through his or her interpretation or meaning-making of their own life and career situations (Savickas, 2005, 2012). Thus, this theory in essence is developmental as well as constructive (Hartung & Taber, 2008). The shared epistemological positions of both career construction theory and constructive-developmental theory allow us to understand them synthetically. In particular, career construction theory provides us with a specific context under which the current argument is being made and a potential method by which our goal can be accomplished. Constructive-developmental theory provides us with a specific lens through which we can understand the phenomenon of development that takes place in the career domain of one’s lifelong learning and growth.

Methodologically, the practice of career construction can take a form of narrative (Del Corso & Rehfuss, 2011; Hartung & Taber, 2008; McMahon & Watson, 2013; Savickas, 2012). Instead of using career assessment tools that measure an individual’s fit with certain occupations in a compartmentalized manner, narrative enables people to have congruity and totality in their life themes and vocational identities (Savickas, 2005, 2012). By constructing a holistic autobiographical story and articulating it with one’s own words, people gain opportunities to understand themselves context-sensitively, to become authors of their own lives, and to actively initiate career transitions. The process of people reflecting on and reframing their dislocated, challenging, and unsatisfactory past and present helps them articulate their desired future scenarios (McAdams, 2001). The role of career counselors is to identify how clients are currently constructing their stories and assist them in deconstructing those stories so that they can reconstruct new stories that fulfill their needs (Savickas, 2012). Researchers have used several different methods, such as storytelling (McMahon & Watson, 2013), creative writing (Lengelle, Meijers, & Hughes, 2016), and pictorial symbols (Taylor & Savickas, 2016), to facilitate clients’ narratives, reflections, changes, and purposeful actions. After all, the ultimate goal of career construction is to help clients by themselves, in partnerships with career counselors, build a spirit of redemption rather than contamination, successfully navigate complex career dilemmas, and become heroes of their own lives (Del Corso & Rehfuss, 2011).

Discussion and Implications

All put together, the point I intend to make is that career development of people with disabilities should focus more on developing self-determination as a mind-set rather than a skill set by helping them reconstruct new career stories in light of their larger life themes. I argue that the careers attained by people with disabilities will be significantly improved both quantitatively and qualitatively as more of them build their capacity to differentiate a socialized mind and internalize a self-authoring mind (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Specifically, people with disabilities will be able to take more unconventional career paths and eventually expand their career options. The increased coherence and unity within one’s life stories will also enhance the overall self-efficacy, confidence, life satisfaction, and subjective well-being of people with disabilities (Hartung & Taber, 2008; Kenny et al., 2018). Kwon’s (2017) narrative is a good example that illustrates the career construction of a person with a disability, from a socialized mind to a self-authoring mind.

Of course, such an effort to developmentally transform does not undermine the value of people with disabilities gaining technical knowledge and skills to become independent human beings (Sword & Hill, 2003); however, the intent of the argument is that there is a gap in and a need for understanding and developing the self-determination of people with disabilities as a mind-set in their career development. For people with disabilities, who are still being asked to conform to the norms and values of the family, community, society, and culture that they are part of, a deep shift in their meaning-making capacity accomplished through career construction (construction–deconstruction–reconstruction) will help them better focus on careers that they are passionate about and can excel at, regardless of the different forms and levels of ability they possess. For educators and vocational counselors of people with disabilities, it is imperative to help people with disabilities see that their current narratives may be subject to external influences and place their own passions, interests, and values at the center of newly constructed career stories. Ideally, the practice of disability inclusion should strive for the state of interdependency between people with disabilities and society rather than prioritizing one over another (e.g., society in a socialized stage and people with disabilities in a self-authoring stage) so that both parties can flourish in the long run (Kwon & Nicolaides, 2017); yet, it is beyond the scope of this article to describe what that might look like.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to provide an innovative approach to reconceptualizing the self-determination of people with disabilities in their career development. By applying constructive-developmental theory to career construction theory and putting this into practice through the method of narrative, it is expected that more people with disabilities will be able to grow their worldviews and become profoundly self-determined in their career choices. In my opinion, this conversation is a call for a paradigm shift in the career development of people with disabilities. I hope this work will open up the eyes of educators and vocational counselors of people with disabilities and fundamentally reshape the way we have understood the self-determination of people with disabilities.