Problems with and needs for interdisciplinary interactions in vocational guidance.

This article summarizes 10 presentations in a discussion group of the 2007 joint international symposium of the International Association for Educational and Vocational Guidance, Society for Vocational Psychology, and National Career Development Association held in Padua, Italy. This discussion group focused on interdisciplinary interactions in vocational guidance. The group engaged in dialogue to address the changing needs of world workers in die dynamic global economy by considering interdisciplinary research and practice implications. This article summarizes the major discussion topics and offers propositions for a way for the vocational guidance profession to move forward on these issues.

Researchers and practitioners from eight countries (Argentina, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) participated in a discussion on interdisciplinary interactions in vocational guidance at the international symposium of the International Association for Educational and Vocational Guidance, Society for Vocational Psychology, and National Career Development Association held in Padua, Italy. Consistent with the overarching goal of this joint symposium, this group engaged in international dialogue to address the changing needs of world workers in the dynamic global economy. The purpose of this discussion was to consider the interdisciplinary research and practice implications of the internationalization of educational and vocational guidance. This article summarizes the major discussion topics and offers propositions for a way for the vocational guidance profession to move forward on these issues.

Vocational guidance professionals are experiencing an increasing need to collaborate with experts from other fields, including economics, politics, and social and educational disciplines. Such interdisciplinary collaboration is thought to allow partners to examine difficult situations from divergent viewpoints to create an integrated collaborative environment and achieve innovative solutions to complex problems. The presentations that provided the stimulus for the discussion described the results of efforts to seek effective ways of combining the knowledge and skills of different professions to move the field forward. Hence, the goal of this group was to share knowledge and expertise regarding interdisciplinary solutions to global challenges in the research and practice of vocational guidance.

The Context of International Vocational Guidanre

Globalization processes, information technology, and subsequent workplace transformations have significantly changed the way people work. Although opportunities for education, training, and work have increased for some, they have remained inaccessible for a growing majority of people throughout the world (Aisenson & Aisenson, 2007). For these individuals, global transformations have meant job precariousness and unemployment (Paugam, 2000), differential distribution of resources and material goods, intensified social inequality and poverty, growing insecurity, violence, and marginalization (Aisenson & Aisenson, 2007). Messeri (2007) identified two major structural changes that have occurred in most countries: increased technology and increased mobility and multiculturalism. He noted significant changes in social and vocational roles and new forms of relationships.

In the current economic and vocational environment, educational and vocational guidance is forced to confront complex problems in which diverse factors and processes (e.g., identity, self-construction) interact. Moreover, each of these processes has unique cultural, societal, and psychological dimensions. These observations led group participants to conclude that no single discipline can effectively solve problems that involve such varied dimensions. Attempts to do so would decontextualize problems and lead to ineffective interventions and missed opportunities for policy development. Furthermore, Aisenson and Aisenson (2007) argued that interdisciplinary collaborations have a stronger voice, something that Hughes (2007) maintained is essential for demonstrating the impact of vocational guidance to both the general public and policy makers. Hughes also concluded that the profession needs to find better answers to key questions posed not only by the vocational guidance discipline but, what is more important, by others outside of the profession. Hence, a common theme in the discussion centered on the use of interdisciplinary approaches to move the discipline from outside the public view to center stage in public debates regarding labor market issues.

Definitions and Direction

One of the initial challenges faced by the group concerned the need for greater specificity in the definition of terms, particularly regarding the type of collaboration being sought across disciplines. The most frequent forms of collaboration apparent in the literature and discussed in the group included multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and interdisciplinary. Three working definitions were proposed by Collin (2007, p. 6):

Multidisciplinary: Bringing together perspectives from several disciplines to bear on an issue, but leaving those perspectives unchanged.

Transdisciplinary: Using or weaving together theories, concepts, and approaches from one or more disciplines as an overarching conceptual framework to address issues in a number of disciplines, such as vocational guidance, systems theory, or chaos theory.

Interdisciplinary: Collaboration leading to the integration of disciplines into a new, hybrid discipline.

Aisenson and Aisenson (2007) further suggested that interdisciplinarity provides a means to transcend the framework of just one area of knowledge in defining and approaching problems. Moreover, they asserted that interdisciplinary interaction is fundamental to achieve breakthroughs in theory and greater efficiency in practice.

Citing Schummer (2004), Collin (2007) maintained that disciplines comprise both cognitive aspects (i.e., a body of knowledge, which includes concepts, beliefs, and methods for increasing and securing knowledge, and values about judging the quality and importance of knowledge) and social aspects (i.e., a social body with effective rules and means for increasing, communicating, and teaching the body of knowledge as a way of self-reproduction). According to Collin, Schummer also indicated that social integration of people across disciplines is achieved via new infrastructure for communication, collaborative research, publication, and teaching.

Following an overview of the definitions of the various terms used in the interdisciplinary literature (Collin, 2007), the group participants concluded that collaboration between disciplines can take several forms. Collin suggested that the type of collaboration depends partly on whether an issue is a concern for one discipline only or for several, and partly on whether one discipline is interested in new perspectives from other disciplines or is prepared to revise its own basic assumptions in light of others.

Does Proximity Matter?

This topic dovetails with a discussion prompted by the paper presented by Hughes (2007), who urged consideration of the question "Does proximity matter?" Hughes used the concept of proximity as a mechanism for enabling reflection on the extent to which the working environment is fast changing and the influential factors that facilitate or impede working practices. With today's technology, organizational, academic, and professional silos (i.e., compartmentalized areas of information) no longer need to exist as they once did. Technology has broken down barriers and opened up many opportunities for collaboration. Hughes argued that the ultimate goal of the profession should be accessing and making effective use of tacit knowledge and harnessing expertise. She recommended that the vocational guidance community needs to be connecting actors (i.e., researchers and practitioners) at a distance, as well as face-to-face, so that innovation and new knowledge creation can take place. With an emphasis on knowledge creation rather than valuing positions of power, the dialogue becomes egalitarian and colleagues feel freer to learn from each other. Hughes highlighted the need to develop formal and informal networks and, through those networks, develop shared agendas.

Relational Models

There seemed to be some consensus that relational models are needed for successful collaboration. As discussed elsewhere (e.g., Blustein, 2001; Fletcher, 2000; Schultheiss, 2007), relational models emphasize related-ness to others as central to individual growth and workplace practices. This perspective highlights that people arc engaged in interrelational activity or action in social context. Therefore, relationship is an integral dynamic component of individual and group functioning.

Aisenson and Aisenson (2007) suggested using relational models for both posing and analyzing problems as a means of opening the way for a novel approach. They suggested that relational models could keep interdisciplinary interaction from turning into a battlefield in which different disciplines fight for supremacy. The group participants considered the importance of both virtual networks and face-to-face relationships and communication for successful collaboration. Given the strong current toward communication through technology', it now seems that face-to-face interaction is even more vital. Technology is a tool that requires a systematic network if it is to work properly.

Aisenson and Aisenson (2007) argued that practitioners need to critically analyze traditional categories of thought that have been used to study arid understand everyday phenomena that are encountered. This is consistent with an action theoretical perspective that focuses on ordinary action and everyday thinking (Valach & Young, 2007). From this perspective, joint action and projects require agreement among different perspectives concerning proposed goals and interventions. This is similar to what Valach and Young referred to as joint goal-directed process in which, through a relational process, social reality is jointly constructed.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates