Training career practitioners.

This article summarizes 8 presentations from Group 8 on the theme "Training of Researchers and Practitioners," which were part of the 2007 joint symposium of the International Association for Educational and Vocational Guidance, Society for Vocational Psychology, and National Career Development Association held in Padua, Italy. Three themes representing challenges for the profession emerged from the presentations: (a) the need for public policies addressing career development, (b) the need for greater competency standardization, and (c) the need to create innovative training programs. Discussion group participants presented creative strategies for addressing these challenges.

Career practitioners provide services that include career assessment, career counseling, career planning, job search skills training, and career coaching. It is no coincidence that the increased attention being given to career services comes at a time when the nature of work is changing dramatically. Ongoing corporate downsizing, technological advances, growing numbers of dual-career couples, a global economy, and a burgeoning contingent workforce all represent changes in the work experience for many people. Those involved in training career practitioners must be knowledgeable about such changes because they represent challenges confronting workers as they attempt to manage their careers effectively. Knowing the challenges confronting workers enables career practitioners to construct interventions that are relevant to the current context. Similarly, training experiences provided to current and future career practitioners must constantly be updated and adjusted so that trainees have relevant knowledge, awareness, and skills to provide effective career interventions. The latter challenge provided the focus for this symposium discussion group.

To provide a bit of context, this discussion group was diverse in multiple ways. Most obviously, participants represented five national contexts. Obviously, national contexts differ regarding the career services offered and the training requirements for career practitioners. Some countries have a relatively long history of providing career services (e.g., the United States, Canada, England), while in other countries such services are relatively recent (e.g., China, Japan, India, Korea). Moreover, political, social, cultural, economic, religious, and other factors influence the career development tasks people encounter, the career concerns they experience, and, therefore, the services they require. Thus, it would be naive to assume that there is, or should be, uniformity in the training that career practitioners receive. Uniqueness of national contexts requires career practitioners to develop specific competencies to respond to their respective settings. Discussions in this group reflected the uniqueness of some contexts, the similarities across many contexts, and the creativity that career practitioners and those engaged in training career practitioners demonstrate as they attempt to meet the needs of diverse student and client populations in a wide range of practice settings.

Factors Influencing Career Practitioner Preparation

Collectively, the presenters in this discussion group highlighted the many factors driving the training of career development personnel in countries throughout the world. Specifically, participants addressed three main challenges that influence career practitioner preparation directly and indirectly: (a) the need for public policies addressing career development, (b) the need for greater competency standardization, and (c) the need to create innovative training programs.

The Need for Public Policies Addressing Career Development

Across nations, provinces, states, and municipalities, career policies and regulations (or the lack thereof") influence the delivery of career services, stipulate the nature of career service delivery requirements, and determine which segments of the population receive services. These factors, in turn, influence career practitioner training. In many countries, public policies supporting career development constitute mandates for services and reflect a dedicated sense of priority toward workforce development. For example, the Australian government's career development policies demonstrate national respect for and commitment to worker career preparation, adaptability, and workforce sustainability. In contrast, public policies in the United States tend to focus on macroeconomic workforce employment and training issues, with attention to workers primarily limited to employment rather than career development. Often, as is the case in the United States, a general lack of understanding regarding the specific services career practitioners offer limits the capacity to develop strong career development policies and regulations. When stakeholders (e.g., consumers, legislators) experience confusion regarding career services, the profession as a whole is weakened. This issue is not limited to the United States. For example, Buyukgoze, Guneri, and Koydemir (2007) noted the confusion that exists among the public and school personnel (e.g., teachers, administrators) in Turkey regarding the roles and functions of school counselors (the primary providers of career services to students in prekindergarten through Grade 12). It is evident from the discussion group deliberations that workers throughout the world need more and better career assistance and that most countries need to pay greater attention to workforce occupational and career optimization. Although there are efforts under way to provide a more unified voice within the field regarding the need for public policies supporting career development, it seems clear from discussions in this group that there is much more work to be done in the public policy and career development arena.

This is an issue for the training of career practitioners because it is reasonable to suggest that the impetus for creating public policies that support career development services is most likely to emerge from those who care the most (and have the most understanding) about delivering quality career services to the greatest numbers of people. Although there are many consumers, potential consumers, and other advocates for career services who must be included in the public policy process, career practitioners represent the group that is best positioned to identify the type of services needed and the populations most in need of services.

Engaging in effective professional advocacy requires career practitioners to demonstrate core skills essential to the advocacy process. Typically, however, career practitioner training programs have focused solely on individual and, to a lesser degree, group career interventions as the preferred modes of service delivery. Although, for many reasons, this emphasis makes sense, it does not justify the lack of training in core public policy advocacy competencies.

To engage in advocacy effectively, career practitioners must be able to identify client or student strengths; identify cultural, social, and economic factors influencing the client or student; help the client or student to identify the external barriers that are affecting his or her development; train students or clients in self-advocacy skills; help students or clients identify indicators of systemic oppression; and help students or clients develop and implement self-advocacy action plans (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2003).

Career practitioners must also learn competencies related to helping students or clients access required services. Often, these competencies take the form of environmental interventions that practitioners must perform on behalf of their clients or students (e.g., when a business does not provide appropriate accommodations for persons with a physical disability or if clients are denied employment benefits to which they are entitled). In some instances, practitioners must engage in community collaboration to eradicate environmental barriers to student or client career development. In addition, there may be the need for practitioners to engage in the political process to help elected officials become aware of the need for career services and the importance of public policies to support those services. These competencies include those that involve being able to collect useful data to demonstrate accountability and effectiveness.

Clearly, those engaged in the training of career practitioners must consider advocacy competencies as critical to the work of career practitioners. In many cases, being able to use these skills effectively can mean the difference between whether career services are available or unavailable. When career practitioners are not trained to engage in advocacy, then many factors that inhibit career development go unaddressed.

The Need for Greater Competency Standardization

An important dimension of advocacy is the capacity to communicate clearly regarding the roles and functions of career practitioners. Embedded in this type of communication is an understanding of the competencies required for effective career services delivery. Competency documents such as those promulgated by the Canadian Counselling Association (Sheppard, Schulz, Shepard, Lehr, & Martin, 2009), the International Association for Educational and Vocational Guidance (IAEVG; 2003), and the National Career Development Association (NCDA; 1997), constitute fundamental bases for career development practitioner training and have direct implications for preparation curricula and programs. Accreditation standards, such as those of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (2001), guide preparation requirements and, thus, influence the future of the counseling profession generally, as well as career counseling specialty programs specifically, by providing a stamp of approval for accredited counseling programs that provide training for career counselors. One of the many challenges regarding competency identification across national contexts relates to clarifying which competencies should be part of all career practitioner training and which competencies are more unique to specific contexts. For example, the U.S. model of master career counselors' possessing at least a master's degree plus relevant experience in career counseling may not apply to settings in which less rigorous and less extensive training programs are the norm. Despite this limitation, there is still the possibility of identifying core competencies in all national contexts (e.g., the need for career counselors to be conversant in career theory and assessment approaches).

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates