theories
for careers and citizenship
LIFE - A USERS
MANUAL
New times and new challenges demand new ideas. Careers work and citizenship
are not short of ideas; although we should beware of unthinkingly clinging
to the familiar - we need new theory. But who knows where that might lead
us?
We are thinking species - building theories of how things work is our
fingerhold on survival. It is an academic word, but theorising is a very
practical activity - working out what is going on, how it works and what
you can do about it. There is nothing so practical as a good theory -
much too important to be left to academics.
Theories
have three elements:
> they describe matters;
> they explain how things got this way;
> they hunch what can be done about them.
The
hunch is the hypotheses. Careers-work helpers need useful hypotheses about
what can be done. And we need them checked out - thats what research
is for.
Why do we need all this? Without some supportable hunch concerningwhat
happens if..., getting out of the bed in the morning would be a
serious gamble - let alone running a citizenship or Connexions programme.
learning
for living
It
is a pretty basic thought, but its worth repeating that the big
purpose for education is not to push people back into their culture, or
through our examinations, or up to a government target - it is to enable
them to know what to do in their lives.
One of the most influential bits of theoretical thinking for for citizenship
and career is the DOTS analysis.
S - self awareness,
asking who am I?
O - opportunity awareness, where am I?
D - decision learning, what I will do?
T - transition learning, how will I cope?
DOTS often appears in four columns, so that you can tick things off. They
diagnose the range of coverage in a programme..
Lists like these are better at describing what happens than why they happen.
But DOTS was never intended to be a complete theory, it was meant only
to help helpers plan what their programmes should cover.
And it has been good at that. Good enough that there are DOTS derivatives.
The best known is this one, from the DfES:
S - self-development,
asking who am I?
E - career exploration, where am I?
M - career management, how will I now move on?
The last line combines the T and S in DOTS. But,
for a lot of people, hanging in until they can move
on may feel more real than making decisions and managing
transitions.
All of these ideas can also be used to plan for education-for-citizenship.
There are motivations and skills in worthwhile citizenship (put them in
the S column); and settings and roles for engaging them (O);
there are political dilemmas to be faced (D); and their consequences
to be managed (T).
So DOTS aint out-of-date yet. If you take a look at the original
version (available on this site, see below) youll see that it can
give a pretty complete account of the ground to be covered for by careers
work and - potentially - for education for citizenship.
But coverage isnt everything.
how
to learn - in the right order
DOTS
talks mainly about what people need to learn for career and citizenship:
it does not say how they learn it. And the how-to-learn? question
is every bit as important as the what-to-learn? one. And getting
more important all the time.
Asking how-to-learn pushes two issues up the theoretical agenda: they
are issues for (1) process and for (2) progression.
The process issues
are: how do people gather enough information and impressions?,
'how do they sort it all into useful order?, nobody can go
into detail about everything, so how does anybody know what particularly
to probe?, and - then - how do they know what to do about
it?
.
The progression issues
are; how do we get the foundations for learning in place?,
how soon should we be doing that?, how does this basic
learning lead to a basis for sustainable action?, and - so - 'how
do we know when the process is well-enough completed?' .
Process issues ask, not about what people learn, but about how they learn
it. Progression issues ask, not for lists, but for a story - about how
people get started, how they develop that early learning, and how they
know when theyve done enough.
The theory which puts all of this into the careers-work and citizenship
picture is the SeSiFU analysis.
Se - sensing,
asking have you got enough to go on?
Si - sifting, have you got this sorted into usable order?
F - focussing, do you know where to go into things in more
detail?
U - understanding, can you see the probable effects of what
you now mean to do?
In order to take this thinking seriously, youd need to agree that
- when things go badly - it is not always because of bad information,
it is often because of the way people gather and make sense of information.
The most telling example of how things can go badly is in the formation
of stereotypes. Stereotyping self and others - on gender, race and class
lines - is learned from early childhood; and yet it is one of the most
damaging influences on both career and citizenship. And unlearning stereotypes
wont come from dispensing neutral or corrective
information. The SeSiFU diagnosis calls for a deeper and more demanding
re-learning process.
Now we have two dimensions: (1)
a DOTS-range of coverage and (2) a SeSiFU-reach towards understanding
- a basis for action.
Two dimensions offer more ways of describing, explaining and anticipating
things. They therefore also give us a more complete diagnoses of what
might go wrong, and more ways to put them right. Such complexity is troublesome;
but - if it is well founded - it is also power.
If you take a look at the account of NewDOTS (available on this site,
see below) youll see that it is raises big issues for realistically
enabling learning-to-learn.
contacting
an inner life
Once you start thinking, there is no knowing how far you can go. We started
with lists of information, but we are moving into a world of impressions,
intuitions, early learning, family and neighbourhood pressures, cultural
beliefs, points of view, feelings... and conflicts. Can you imagine career
or citizenship without them?
All
are part of an inner conversation - making sense of experience. This conversation
must stay in touch with world out there; but much of it will
also build up a mental map and where I am in it - that I build in
here. And so - like every character in every story - we are all
forever moving between objective' and subjective versions
of whats going on?'.
O - objectively
- talking in terms which have much-the-same meaning for everybody. If
we could not do that, then no shared citizenship - or work with others
- would be possible.
Su - subjectively: - getting to what is important to
you, thinking and feeling in terms which are your own. This makes a difference
to what you do and say to other people.
It is another dimension. Weve found that learning-for-life needs
a range, a reach; now we find that learning-for-life needs a depth. It
is the sheer range, reach and depth of learning needed for contemporary
living that gives Connexions and education-for-citizenship their significance.
They cut across traditional programmes, and they demand networks of help
capable of working in these more dynamic terms.
If you take a look at new thinking for careers work and citizenship (available
on this site, see below) youll see how and why that is so.
lists
and stories
In a way we have government policy to thank for this: Connexions, and
education-for-citizenship demand new thinking. But there are deeper explanations
in changes in how economy and technology now alter the way people manage
work and their citizenship.
However, policy and change do not come with batteries included - we have
to power-up ourselves. And there are two important new sources for what
we have to do. One is rooted in improved observations of how we, as a
species, think-and-feel our way to action. The other offers a deeper understanding
of the relationship between identity and culture. We are being offered
new insights into both our nature and our nurture - which we should not
ignore.
Speaking of nature, it proves to be natural to understand
what is going on through stories. Gossip is, it seems, deep in the species.
And narrative theory provides us with a whole new set of questions about
learning for life.
Pe - people,
asking who is involved here?, who else?, how
do they influence each other? and what feelings does this
uncover?
L - location, what beliefs and values do these people have?,
what roles do they play?, who is in a position to get
things moving?, who are "insiders", and who "outsiders"?
Ta - talk, what are they thinking?, what do they
say to each other each other?, is anybody paying any attention?,
...or is everybody stuck?
E - events, whats happening?, why?,
whos version of the story is getting most acknowledgement?,
is that version all that there is to say?, is luck playing
a part here?
Pu - purpose, can anybody see any point to this story?,
are there other points-of-view?, who wants to get what
out of this?
You can safely disregard any theory which can't point you to useful practice;
but narrative theory does seem to be talking about what people actually
do - in both career and citizenship. And its implications for practice
are radical. They also give a lot of credibility to the work of mentors,
social workers, youth workers, and teachers of narrative subjects,
in developing what we must do to help.
DOTS has been kind to people who like worksheets and schedules. It has
fostered a culture of lists. But the new century is drawing us towards
a culture of stories. There are implications here for practitioners, managers,
researchers and theorists. If you take a look at narrative theory (available
on this site, see below) youll find some suggestions about possible
directions for those developments.
Weve come a long way and if you are not confused you are simply
not paying attention. But there is a bright side: we can have more ways
of understanding what happens, and what to do about it, than we had before.
Complexity is power. So think on.
Or, we could, of course, make a grab at simplicity, by getting rid of
some of the dimensions, or - at least - some of the factors. If you think
it can be done, use the (tongue-in-cheek) diagram. Your task (if you decide
to accept it), it to erase what you think can safely be disregarded.
Well?
You are in
the magazine section of the The Career-learning Café - www.hihohiho.com
WHERE
NOW?
take
a (last?) look at DOTS
find how SeSiFU made NewDOTS
entertain the possibility of a
Post-DOTS analysis
|
back to café career magazine
- in touch articles
|
|