Theory Of Career Construction Psychology Essay

Theory Of Career Construction Psychology Essay The purpose of this case study is to apply Savickas Theory of Career Construction to a volunteer client Yelonda J. Complete a narrative interview using the structured interview questions in the Career Style Interview, and employing the six steps. Discuss interpretations, observations and obtain her feedback. The theoretical foundation of Career Construction theory (CCT) has its beginnings from Constructivism, and according to Sharf (2009) Constructivism is a psychological approach that has developed out of a postmodern philosophical position. It has been stated the Postmodernism period was a reaction to modernism, in that it highlighted differences in individual views rather than a one-sided, rational scientific view of modernism. (Sharf 2009) Constructivist saw individuals as creators of their own destiny, and constructivist counselors sought to help clients discover that meaning and resolve any discrepancy. (Sharf 2009) According to (Sharf 2009, p316) the constructivism approach was greatly affected by the changing of the work environments in the 1970s. Employees were no longer staying with one position for their whole work life, as companies were becoming less loyal to employees and watching out for own bottom-line by downsizing their workforce to part-time. Employees soon discovered they needed to take charge of their future and looked to career counselors for help. According to (Busacca, 2007) constructivist career counseling attempts to answer one question how can an individual negotiate a lifetime job changes and not lose a sense of self? Career construction theory (CCT) came about to help individuals develop meaning out of their career choices and actions. CCT address how an individuals career is made from its personal and social constructs. These constructs are not actual real reality, but an individuals representation of that reality. CCT defines career as an objective and subjective construct. Objectively speaking, career is a listing of positions from the past to present. Subjectively, career is the personal meaning or a pattern of experiences form past, present, future. (Savickas, 2005, p43) CCT is made of three distinct perspectives and each seeks to determine how the individual views their life and career working together. (Busacca, 2007) These perspectives also help career counselor see how each individual views, makes adjustments and creates from their life experiences. These perspectives are life theme, career adaptability, and vocational personality. The Purpose and the Suppositions The purpose of CCT is to help the individual discover the subjective meaning in their work. In helping the individual discover this type of meaning, Career construction approach (CCA) stress the importance of the relationship between the individual and the counselor. Life themes In the previous career development theory we covered, Hollands inventories were used to obtain critical information about the individual, and make predictions of a career path and likely hood of success. Career Construction theory takes advantage of individual narrated stories to discover meaning behind the content. (Busacca, 2007) It has been stated pattern is the primary unit of meaning. By consciously organizing and binding together these discrete experiences, a unifying life theme patterns (Savickas 2005, p 58) pattern becomes a fundamental and essential way of being because it provides a way for individuals to see themselves and what is important in the world. (Savickas, 2005 p58) During a session an individual is encouraged to tell of work positions, experiences and develop a story linking career related experiences from the past to the present. The individual becomes the focus of attention as they narrated the counselor through their work and life stories. The counselor plays a less active role and listens for patterns in the individuals stories and life theme should begin to surface. (Busacca, 2007) Career Adaptability Once an individual has discovered a life theme, how they go about coping with the process of connecting with social expectations and how they construct their careers is the next step. (Savickas, 2005) Career counselors begin to ask questions of the individual such as How did you decide on that career? This is an important question to ask, because it relates to how the individual is choosing to cope or react to their social expectations. (Savickas 2005) stated adaptation was the interaction of self and society and it is this interaction where an individual develops their attitudes, beliefs, problem-solving and coping mechanisms. He went on to discuss four stages of adaptation resources. These resources are concern, control, curiosity and confidence. (Savickas, 2005) During the career concern stage, a career counselor focuses on whether an individual was concern about their future. A statement commonly made by individuals in this stage would be Do I have future. A lack of career concern has a likelihood of becoming indifference which usually reflects a feeling of pessimism about the future. Career concern is important because I it helps the individual to relate their current activities to future endeavors. The goal of this stage is the building of continuity of past and future career activities. (Savickas, 2005) (Busacca, 2007) The career control stage, a career counselor focuses on whether the individual feels or believes they are responsible for their careers. A statement commonly made by individuals in this stage would be Who owns my future? The lack of career control has a likelihood of becoming career indecisiveness and can lead to attitudes of indecision. The goal of this stage is deciding by clarifying choices. (Savickas, 2005) (Busacca, 2007) The career curiosity stage, a career counselor focuses on whether the individual discovered fit between self and the world of work. A statement commonly made by individuals in this stage would be What do I want to do with my future? The lack of career curiosity has the likelihood of becoming naÃÆ'Â ¯ve about work options. The goal of this stage is exploration, learning about self and clarifying values. (Savickas, 2005) (Busacca, 2007) The career confidence stage, a career counselor would focuses on whether the individual displayed self esteem, self efficacy and encouragement. A statement commonly made by an individual in this stage would be Can I do it? A lack of career confidence has a likelihood of becoming unmotivated and unwilling to obtain goals. The goal of this stage is increase self acceptance, develop problem solving abilities and encourage the willingness to try even when things look dark. (Busacca, 2007) (Savickas, 2005) Vocational Personality According to (Savickas, 2005) an individuals personality begins in the family, neighborhoods, and school. As that individual grows up, their characteristics are displayed everyday while doing housework, completing hobbies and playing games. CCT views these characteristics possibilities or hypothesis to explore for the discovering meaning. Unlike Hollands RAISEC which use an objective person-environment fit, CCT uses a subjective approach in demonstrating to the individual how they are similar to others in a given field, and share common feelings and ideas about work related activities. Account of Session with Yelonda J. Observations of Yelonda J. Counseling Session with Yelonda J.

The role of judgement in The Outsider :: English Literature

The role of judgement in The Outsider The actions of Meursault, the protagonist in The Outsider by Albert Camus, are characterized by irrationality. For example, there is no clear logical reason for his decision to marry Marie or to kill the Arab. â€Å"That evening, Marie came round for me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said I didn’t mind and we could do if she wanted to† (Camus 44). However, the idea that things sometimes happen for no reason is disturbing and threatening to society, because, as a logical conclusion from that, individual existence could have happened for no reason and would therefore be purposeless. Hence, society always attempts to find logical reasons for everything. In this novel, society superimposes its rational nature upon Meursault’s irrational character, which has the consequence of society making judgements upon Meursault that are false, because the judgements do not agree with his irrational personality. The prosecutor’s speech and the meetings between the magistrate and Meursault will be used as examples to show this. Before getting into them, it must be explained that the prosecutor and the magistrate both symbolize society, since they are part of the court, which stands for society as a whole. The idea of a court already represents very much society, since the law functions as the will of the people, and the jury sits in judgement on behalf of the entire community. But Camus clearly emphasizes upon this image of â€Å"court-as-society† in this novel by making almost all of the characters from the first half reappear to witness in the trial: The warden and the caretaker from the home, Thomas Pà ©rez, Raymond, Masson, Salamano, Marie and Cà ©leste. First of all, the fact that the prosecutor interprets Meursault’s irrational action of killing the Arab in a rational way shows that society imposes its rational character upon Meursault’s irrational personality. â€Å"[Meursault retelling the prosecutor’s argument] I’d asked him for his gun. I’d gone back with the intention of using it. I’d shot the Arab as I’d planned. I’d waited. And ‘to make sure I’d done the job properly’, I’d fired four more shots, deliberately and at point-blank range and with some kind of forethought† (96). The prosecutor provides here a rational explanation for Meursault’s murder of the Arab, that is, he explains how every step that lead to the murder was planned by Meursault. However, nothing in Meursault’s narrative explains why he shot the Arab (let alone that there would be evidence in his narrative that he planned the murder), which suggests that there is no rational explanation for his action. Thus, the fact that the prosecutor, who represents society, interprets here Meursault’s

How useful are the views of Anzac soldiers at Gallipoli suggested in Source A, B and C

All the sources are useful because even though they may not be reliable, they show the people's opinion of the Gallipoli campaign. Sources that show peoples opinion can be used to explore how the solders felt through out the wars. Source A was published in 1916, just one year after the Gallipoli campaign. This makes it a primary source, which could mean that its more reliable as it was written nearer the time, and details have had less time to be forgotten. It was made on the Gallipoli peninsular, which shows that the artist had an eye witness account this would mean he was relying on his own knowledge not someone else's. Although it as created by an Australian artist, which might mean it, is biased or exaggerated because he might want to make the Australians look better, it shows both the good and bad side of the war. The cartoons show two ANZAC soldiers as they looked during the Gallipoli campaign. The first cartoon shows a man in a large over coat, shoes that are to big for him, a gun, he's yawning and has skinny legs. The large coat and shoes that are to big for him suggest that the supplies aren't getting through and they are very low on resources so he has to use anything he can get. The skinny legs also show that there is a lack of food and that the soldiers are very weak. I know from my own knowledge that supplies weren't getting through and that food supplies were very low. Also there were thousand of flies, which infected the food so that the little food that was left was not edible. The title â€Å"another hopeless dawn† shows the soldiers feel that they are not getting anywhere and that they are not going to progress anywhere with the knew day. The source is quite reliable and is useful because it shows an actual account of the soldier's time in Gallipoli and is not over exaggerated to make them look better as it shows the positives and negatives. Therefore it can be use to show how the conditions affected the soldiers, it also shows what the soldiers looked like during the war. Source B is useful because it provides a historical account. However it maybe bias as an Australian writes it and he might want to make his army look better. It is a secondary source so it might be more reliable because there might be more sources available. Also the people who have written the sources he's based his book on have had time to recover from the shock they may have suffered and write the sources more accurately. I know part of it is truthful and is reliable, as I know that the citizen soldiers were trained from an early age for military. It is also similar to the feeling in Britain – † to be left behind was unthinkable. So we know that this part is truth and reliable. However, part of the source is unreliable as it is just one man's opinion (John Kegan). â€Å"New Zealanders skills with the rifle and spade would win them a reputation as the best soldiers in the war during the 20th Century. † We know this is not true as the New Zealanders lost their battle at the Gallipoli campaign to the Turks. As the British and French troops won most of their battles during the first and Second World War it could be argued that they were the stronger and better troops of the 20th Century. It also says in the source â€Å"†¦ ormidable offensive power, as the Turks were soon to discover† we know this is not true as they lost to the Turks. I also know the landings at Sulva bay went wrong for the ANZAC troops and also the landings at ANZAC cove and Cape Helles beach failed. This shows they cannot be the â€Å"formidable offensive power† the author makes them out to be and that he is maybe exaggerating what happened to make it his troops sound better. This source can be used as an insight as to what happen when the new Zealanders got called up to war, and what the New Zealand people thought of their troops. Source C is written by a reporter, but it is not clear as to what country he is from, the way he talks about the Australians suggest that he is not from Australia, but is impressed by them. He seems to over exaggerate the part they played in the war and the way they dealt with it. This would suggest the source is unreliable as it is his own opinion not actual facts. This source shows what some people thought of the Australians â€Å"it was great to watch them as they went†. It shows the high moral and ANZAC spirit that was present through the campaign, I know this is probably true because is very similar to what happened in Britain through out the first and second war there was arguably very high British spirit. It also has some inaccurate points i. e. ‘absolutely unaffected by the bullets' – this cannot be true as many troops were killed by bullets. I know that there were 200,000 allied casualties and some of these were from the ANZAC troops, therefore they weren't unaffected by bullets. This source is best used as an opinion and insight into what was thought of the Australians rather than as reliable account of what actually happened. In conclusion Sources A, B and C are useful in different ways. Source A is the most reliable and accurate account of what actually happened and could be used to show what actually happened. Source B and C is best used as opinions of what happened, where the truth may have been exaggerated or distorted. It can be used to show an account from the ANZAC point of view and how their people felt towards the campaign.

What Is a Khan

Khan was the name given to male rulers of the Mongols, Tartars, or Turkic/Altaic peoples of Central Asia, with female rulers called khatun or khanum. Though the term seems to have originated with the Turkic peoples of the high inner steppes, it spread to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan  and Persia through the expansion of the Mongols and other tribes. Many of the great Silk Road oasis towns were ruled by khans during their heyday, but so were great city-states of the Mongol and Turkic empires of their age, and the rise and fall of khans subsequently have greatly shaped the history of Central, Southeast and Eastern  Asia  Ã¢â‚¬â€ from the brief and violent Mongol khans to the modern rulers of Turkey. Different Rulers, Same Name The first known use of the word khan, meaning ruler, came in the form of the word khagan, used by the Rourans to describe their emperors in 4th to 6th century China. The Ashina, consequently, brought this usage across Asia throughout their nomadic conquests. By the middle of the sixth century, Iranians had written reference to a certain ruler called Kagan, the king of the Turks. The title spread to Bulgaria in Europe around the same time where  kans  ruled from the 7th to 9th centuries.   However, it wasnt until the great Mongol leader Genghis Khan formed the Mongol Empire — a vast khanate spanning much of South Asia from 1206 to 1368 — that the term was made popular to define rulers of vast empires. The Mongol Empire went on to be the largest land mass controlled by a single empire, and Ghengis called himself and all his successors the Khagan, meaning Khan of Khans. This term carried over to different spellings, including the name Ming Chinese emperors gave their minor rulers and great warriors, Xan. The Jerchuns, who later founded the Qing dynasty, also used the term to denote their rulers. In  Central Asia, the Kazakhs were ruled by khans from its  founding in 1465 through its  breaking into three khanates in 1718, and along with modern-day Uzbekistan, theses khanates fell to Russian invasion during the Great Game and its subsequent wars in 1847. Modern Usage Still today, the word khan is used to describe military and political leaders in the Middle East, South and Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Turkey, especially in Muslim-dominated countries. Among them, Armenia has a modern form of khanate along with its neighboring countries. However, in all of these cases, the countries of origin are the only people who might refer to their rulers as khans — the rest of the world giving them westernized titles like emperor, tsar or king.   Interestingly, the main villain in the hit franchise series of films, comics books Star Trek, Khan is one of the main super-soldier villain and arch-nemesis of Captain Kirk.