Careership: a sociological theory of career decision making

In the current discourse on the transition from school to work, career decision‐making has a pivotal but paradoxical position. Sociological literature emphasises the dominance of socially‐structured pathways, whilst policy‐making operates on assumptions of individual freedom to choose. In this paper we draw on the work of Pierre Bourdieu to present a new model of career decision‐making, given the shorthand title of ‘careership’. There are three completely integrated dimensions to the model. These are (i) pragmatically rational decision‐making, located in the habitus of the person making the decision; (ii) the interactions with others in the (youth training) field, related to the unequal resources different ‘players’ possess; and (iii) the location of decisions within the partly unpredictable pattern of turning‐points and routines that make up the life course. This model avoids the twin pitfalls of implicit social determinism or of seeing (young) people as completely free agents.     

Professor Terence McLaughlin 1949–2006

Terry McLaughlin's death earlier this year came as a devastating shock to all his many friends. He will be remembered by all as a gifted scholar whose lifelong commitment to education was etched in his every thought, word and deed. The list of his achievements in the educational world is a long, honourable and deeply distinguished one, including a notable period of editorial duty on CJE from 1992 to 2003. Terry will be remembered with profound affection and respect by all those who were fortunate enough to know him. For each one of us, his memory will forever be a joy, and his example an enduring inspiration. The following lines are extracted from the address given at his memorial service at St Edmund's College, Cambridge on 11 April 2006.     

Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning

This paper argues that much contemporary educational policy makes assumptions about learning that are directly contradicted by the best research and theorising of learning that has occurred over the last decade and more. This worrying mismatch is largely attributable to adherence by policy makers (and other key stakeholders such as employers), to ‘common sense’ notions of learning transfer. In fact, these ‘common sense’ notions of transfer have increasingly been discarded even in the learning transfer literature. However, we go further in arguing that transfer is a totally inappropriate metaphor for thinking about most learning, but especially for vocational learning. Accepting that thought about learning inevitably involves metaphors, we consider the merits and otherwise of various other learning metaphors including participation and construction. We conclude that the conceptual flaws of transfer can be avoided by employing alternative metaphors. The value of our recommended alternative is illustrated by its power to illuminate data on learning collected from various research projects.     

Influence of schizotypy on responding and contingency awareness on free-operant schedules of reinforcement

Schedules of reinforcement typically produce reliable patterns of behaviour, and one factor that can cause deviations from these normally reliable patterns is schizotypy. Low scorers on the unusual experiences subscale of the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences performed as expected on a yoked random-ratio (RR), random-interval (RI) schedule of reinforcement, with significantly higher rates of responding on the RR schedule than in the RI schedule. However, high scorers in UE showed no such differences between response rates between the RR and RI schedules. In addition, contingency awareness scores were high, and did not differ in low UE scorers for both types of schedule, whilst awareness scores differed significantly between the schedules in high UE scorers, with more awareness of the RR schedule than the RI one. These results suggest that, as well as being unable to differentiate between the RR and RI schedules in terms of response rates, high UE scorers are also unable to verbally describe the RI schedule parameters.