Does An Individual Enjoy Freedom Of Occupational Choice
“Why do working- class individuals continue to enter working- class, gender stereotyped jobs? Why do working- class boys look for heavy manual work (Willis 1977), in trades such as plumbing, electrical engineering and forestry? Why do working- class girls still swarm towards traditional female occupations, such as nursing and rarely for example, seek training as electricians, joiners, technicians and computer operators? We might expect that new production patterns, and new systems of education and training, coupled with the promise of lifting barriers to opportunity, might have dislocated the processes of class and gender reproduction of careers- but little has happened to counteract the influence of class race and gender on career choice.” (Wilson 2010: 51)
In view of the above statement, critically evaluate the contention that the individuals enjoy the freedom of occupational choice.
Occupational choice is without doubt one of the most important decisions an individual makes in their lifetime. Sofer (1973) reiterates this by stating that;
“It is often critical in determining…income; standard of living; health; self- esteem; social relationships; the quality of one’s life; and the environment one can provide for one’s family, including the chances of one’s children to enter particular occupations.”
(Williams 1974:15)
The above statement reflects how it is often perceived that if a person is satisfied within their working environment, then other aspects of their lives will follow on from this. Work plays a huge role in our life and we contribute a large majority of our time and effort to ensuring that we have chosen the right career, beginning from very early childhood when we embark into the education system, right through to when we leave school and decide where to go next.
The past twenty years have seen rapid advances in the theories of occupational choice, but to date there has been little agreement as to exactly how and why we preside in a certain occupation over another. More traditional theories sided with the belief that we either happen upon a certain role, or that it is down to the development of the individual thanks to a rational process of decision making. These concepts have recently been challenged by theorists who believe that alongside the developmental and chance aspects of occupational choice, there are structural factors which make a massive impact. The objective of this essay is to determine the extent to which an individual enjoys freedom of occupational choice. This will be addressed by firstly defining occupational choice, then exploring how the theory has developed, critically evaluating the contrasting opinions and providing necessary academic literature where needed. The essay will logically move through these theories in reference to the objective provided and then arrive at a conclusion, reviewing all of the above.
According to Watson (2003), occupational choice is an individualised process through which “the self concept grows as abilities, aptitudes and interests develop” (Watson 2003: 183). This definition has developed over many years after numerous studies have been conducted into occupational choice and its determinants. Preliminary theorists deemed it to generally rely on “chance events” whether they are planned or unplanned, that would eventually influence an individual to make certain decisions (Bright et al 2004: no page). This was referred to as the “happenstance” theory of occupational choice, which is now seen as highly inaccurate since it did not consider the individual and their personality alongside occurring events during their lifetime (Bright et al 2004: no page).
Back in 1951, Ginzberg et al carried out a major study into occupational choice which has become known as one of the originating theories on the topic. Ginzberg’s research focus was on the individual, and how by making decisions through defined life stages, the self concept is adapted. They deemed the process to be “largely irreversible” which has formed the basis of the argument for many critics (Slocum 1959:183). Super (1957) is probably the most notable critic of Ginzberg et al’s theory. He argues that elements such as values and previous research had been ignored (Slocum 1959:184) and he also believed that an individual is matched to an occupational role not only because of their character and merit, but also by the opportunities which are available at the time (Williams 1974:31). Super had recognised the more vocational aspect of occupational choice that a child is subjected to whilst growing up, such as work experience and changing job roles. Super’s work contained situational experiences that highlight more structural factors such as the socio- economic status of the child’s parents (Watson,T :2008:230) and the current availabilities within the labour market. Although Super’s work delved into the subject much deeper than the proceeding research by Ginzberg, it has limitations due to the way that it only highlighted the potential influence of parents and peers on a child- nor does he examine how this impact can be either positive or negative. The weaknesses of the two studies mentioned so far include that both were carried out on white middle class American males, and therefore cannot be considered to be a true reflection of developmental occupational choice. More valuable research would include information on both sexes, and also recognise the impact of different social class status in the United Kingdom.
Musgrave (1967), Mead (1934) and Miller and Form (1951) reinforce the latter point that the main drawbacks of Super’s studies was that he failed to fully recognise the significance of parental and peer influence on a child (Slocum 1959: 142-3). Musgrave (1967) took the work of Ginzberg and Super and applied a more sociological stance to give recognition to the way in which we as individuals learn, watch and observe even before entering the labour market, which helps to shape our perception of society (Watson 2003:183). He formulated four stages through which an individual passes; “pre-work socialisation”, “entry to the labour force”, “socialisation into the labour force” and lastly, “job changes” (Williams 1974:101). The pre work stage focuses on how children imitate adults by games such as doctors and nurses where they take on an imaginary job, and act out how they perceive the role to be. This role playing or “role-taking” as Miller and Form (1951) refer to it then develops in the second and third stages which cover the individual’s entry into a working environment and the career path they eventually decide on, whilst the fourth stage considers any changes that may happen occupationally (Slocum 1959:142). Role- playing shows the influence adults, and more specifically our parents can have on our career choice.
A more recent study into the importance of parental roles has been carried out by Dryler (1998). Although on a Swedish cohort, she confirmed that parents in a specific industry will encourage their child to follow in their footsteps. In addition to this, she discovered that the parent of the same sex as the child is more influential if they are in a particular line of work (Dryler 1998:394). There are similarities between the work of Dryler (1998) and Greico (1987). Greico recognised that some individuals are not merely influenced by their parents, but physically supported toward a certain job by being sponsored or recommended (Watson 2003:185). The work of Dryler (1998) and Greico (1987) mirrored earlier observations by Bandura (1977) and Kohlberg (1966) that focussed on “social learning” and “cognitive development”, theories that both acknowledge how children emulate their parents, specifically those of the same sex to themselves (Dryler 1998: 377). Interestingly, Dryler also denoted that if the parent and child are of different sex, then the opposite is true (Dryler 1998:394).
Whipp (1980) and Ram (1994) carried out research which is consistent with the findings of Dryler and Grieco, agreeing that a child can literally be pushed into a job of their parent’s choosing, which differs greatly from Ginzberg’s original theory that individuals have freedom of occupational choice. This also demonstrates how children are not necessarily exposed to all the career opportunities available, and that their parents can be a driving factor in limiting this. These findings also support the theories of Marshall, Swift and Roberts (1975) that ability is nurtured which Hollingshead (1949) suggested can relate to where our parent’s are situated in the class structure as to how a child portrays a particular job role, which will be looked at in more detail in the next section of this paper (Abercrombie and Warde 2003:141, Slocum 1959:147). However, it must be recognised that childhood observation of our parents may have totally the opposite impact, and a job role may be chosen simply to be different.
The research discussed so far has mainly focussed on the individual and our behavioural maturation alongside values and beliefs, and how these achieved roles affect our occupational choice. Whilst the work into the developmental aspects of occupational choice is invaluable, it does not help to fully explain the issues mentioned by Wilson (2010) and Willis (1977) in the question. Therefore it is necessary to look at how the theory has developed, and widened to incorporate structural factors which are outside of the individual’s control- also known as ascribed roles. Three advocates in the structural related factors field of theory are Roberts (1968), Kiel et al (1966) and Miller and Form (Furlong 1996: 561- 65, Williams 1974: 78 &97). They understand that whilst psychology plays a huge part in our occupational choices, we are often faced with issues including, the current economy, gender, ethnicity and class which will be now be analysed in more detail.
Traditionalists such as Kuh and Wadsworth (1991) believe that as individuals, we are born into one class- and it is very hard to migrate into other classes (Kuh and Wadsworth 1991: 537-555). In contradiction to this is the notion of social mobility, which is the ability of an individual to move from one class to another (Goodhart 2003). The Government is working hard to increase social mobility, and has appointed Alan Milburn to assist them further with their plans to eradicate the so called “barriers to opportunity” that Wilson (2010) refers to (Stratton 2010 and Wilson 2010). Hutton (2010) believes that the working class are simply not presented with as many opportunities as those in the classes above them, and Sennett and Cobbs (1972) went as far as to say that being working class creates psychological barriers – acknowledging how it may not only be economic difficulties that affect an individual (Reay et al 2001:855-74). Goldthorpe (2003) counteracts this, stating how the class system is in decline in Britain, whilst Goodhart (2009) observes that there is no viable way of measuring who belongs in what class therefore statistics on class mobility are often complex and flawed (Goldthorpe 2003:239, Goodhart 2009).
In his own studies, Goldthorpe (2003) draws heavily from the previous work of Ginzberg and Super with relation to the self concept development theory, but is distinguishable by the way in which parental class is addressed in more depth and he also incorporates modern empirical evidence to support his work (Goldthorpe 2003: 234). Although he deems class as important, he makes clear that this is only in the entry and lower levels of the labour market (Goldthorpe 2003:238). This is supported by Layder et al (1991), Giddens (1984) and Blau et al (1956), who agree that an individual is affected by different factors at different times in their life, particularly when they enter the institution system and the job market (Watson 2003:184, Williams 1974: 31). Goldthorpe (2003) refers to the rich as “risk averse”, highlighted by the recent stock market collapse where high paid city bankers still received huge bonuses and pay packets after losing millions of the nation’s money in risky transactions. This translates the way in which the working class have to rely on education more heavily as they do not have as much to fall back on as their higher class peers (Goldthorpe 2003: 235). Pakulski and Waters (1996) disagree, stating that parents’ class makes no difference to their child’s eventual occupational choice (Abercrombie and Warde 2003:130).
In stark contrast to the earlier research, Garner (2008) states that social class is the single most influential factor in educational attainment, suggesting that our parent’s class is directly related to the grades we will eventually achieve, and also for what institution we gain them from (Garner 2008). Savage and Egerton (1997) and Westergaard (1995) agree with Garner (2008), claiming that children can do well in education purely because of the distribution of wealth (Abercrombie and Warde 2003:130-1). The Government seems to sit on the fence with regards to the impact of parental class on occupational choice; Nick Clegg and Harriett Harman are both of the opinion that whilst parents play a crucial role, ultimately class inequalities still remain (Stratton 2010, EHRC 2010)- explaining why the Government is taking such a stance on social mobility. The above discussion on social class shows how the stereotypical roles referred to by Willis (1977) may be undertaken by working class individuals purely due to the opportunities that are available to them and the class status inherited from their parents. Although Wilson (2010) suggests that this is still the case, the research mentioned has proved that this debate is not easily settled since there are strong arguments from either side by numerous theorists and influential figures.
Another structural factor which may affect an individual’s choice of occupation is that of gender. In today’s modern society, the hypothesis is that gender inequalities have been eradicated, but the National Equality Panel found recently that men are still paid up to twenty one percent more per hour than women who have the same job role and qualifications (EHRC 2010). This report has been devastatingly critiqued by numerous academics, including Saunders (2010) and Caldwell (2010) who both believe that the EHRC have confused the meaning of “inequality” with that of “prejudice and discrimination” (Caldwell 2010:7 and Saunders 2010:14). This demonstrates how, like class, gender is a hard topic to define and quantify, therefore its affects on occupational choice are very difficult to measure.
In 1984, Martin and Roberts looked at the relationship between gender and career choice, and found that a woman’s decision making process is related to the assumption that she will become a mother and therefore be more dedicated toward child rearing and domesticated duties (Watson 2003:192). This study suffers due to the fact that it is over fifteen years old and therefore cannot be considered as accurate in the present time. However, more recent work has been carried out by Riddell, Gaskell and Banks (1992), who discovered women are more likely to be pulled towards domestic subjects in early schooling (Abercrombie and Warde 2003:472), which illustrates how gender is already affecting occupational choice at a very young age by implying stereotypical roles to each sex . Although Riddell et al’s research is newer than Martin and Roberts’ it still has limitations because times have changed so much in the past ten years or so and it does not properly consider the aspirations of males compared to those of females.
In 2000, Hakim demonstrated that preferences had changed dramatically, women were being offered more opportunities, and businesses had adapted to become more flexible towards them. She identified three “work life preference groups”; “home centred”, “work centred” and “adaptive”, claiming that most women in America and the United Kingdom could be placed into the adaptive group- therefore achieving a balance between their work and home lives (Watson 2003: 194). More recent studies have also found there to be a more wide range of job opportunities available to both sexes, with the armed forces being an example of how gender atypical roles have deteriorated. The Royal Air Force now offers over ninety percent of its roles to women, whilst the Navy and the Army have approximately three quarters of their roles available to both sexes (MOD, no date). This does however insinuate that not all opportunities are entirely equal- although progress has been made over the last century as attitudes have changed and women are looking for self fulfilment from their occupations (Watson 2003:194).
Formal institutions have often been blamed for the different educational development of boys and girls. Timperley and Gregory (1971) found that there were approximately four times as many females wanting to continue on in education after school, whereas males were more likely to go straight into the labour market (Wilson 1974:193). Timperley and Gregory’s paper would have been far more persuasive if it had been carried out in the last ten years and also if it had covered a nationwide cohort rather than just one particular area. Since this study, research has also begun to cover individual attitudes toward occupational roles, it cannot be said that women nowadays subscribe to the assumption that they will have children- many women are in fact the total opposite and careers are becoming first priority. Harper and Haq (2001), support this by stating that British women who “delay motherhood”, are likely to be more ambitious in terms of their educational and occupational achievements (Harper and Haq 2001:713). This can also be related to the way in which gender roles have in some cases switched altogether, with some men choosing to stay at home with the children whilst the woman of the household is the main breadwinner. However, this is hard to measure since studies cannot clarify individual aspirations and boys may not apply themselves as much as girls if they believe that the occupation they want to go into does not need high grades, particularly if they are looking at trades or the armed forces.
Although class and gender are two of the most prominently researched structural factors that may impact on an individual’s occupational choice, Wilson (2010) also mentions the issue of race. The afore mentioned EHRC report found that white working class boys and black Caribbean boys historically have bad attainment grades (EHRC 2010), whilst Haw (1998) concluded from her study that some staff were “confused” with regards to the treatment of Muslim pupils (Abercrombie and Warde 2003:474-5). Blackwell (2003), looked at the impact of ethnicity in greater detail, and implied that occupational choices in different ethnic groups can largely be related to “historical and political reasons”. She also noted that ethnic segregation in occupational roles is less than gender segregation, highlighting how differentials can be created by the individual, rather than by the market (Blackwell 2003:726-7). Most studies in racial impact on occupational choice have been slanted towards the opportunities available in the market, but it would be more useful if the authors had considered individualistic factors that relate to culture and political views. Taking into account the studies mentioned; it would seem that ethnicity is not a deciding factor of an individual’s occupational choice- and further studies could focus on whether this is true.
Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this paper, it is now possible to state that whilst an individual does have freedom of occupational choice to some extent, there are, as Wilson (2010) states, many factors which also have an impact. The findings of this essay suggest that when the individual proceeds through the development of self concept, they can be influenced by parents, peers, class, formal institutions, the current economy, gender and their ethnicity. Further work needs to be done to establish whether individuals in the present times are still impacted by the socio-cultural factors mentioned by Willis (1977), and also to attain whether aspirations are affected by opportunity availability. It is now more acceptable to see women in roles such as plumbing and engineering, but the impact of gender and class is still being argued. Structural factors are very much related to the individual in the sense that certain job roles have historically been filled by certain class origins or by a particular gender- and it has proven difficult to change people’s perceptions of certain careers. New government policies are attempting to eradicate inequalities, although it will be difficult to change individual attitudes and values towards certain jobs- especially in the tough economic climate that is being experienced due to the recession. Overall, it could be said that if an individual is given a fair and varied exposure to all job roles available, then it will be down to their own choice, but in reality this will be very hard to achieve because what may be a “good” job for one person, may not be perceived as that to another.
Word Count: 3260 words
(Excluding bibliography) References
Abercrombie, N. and Warde, A. (2000) Contemporary British Society. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press
Blackwell, L. (2003) ‘Gender and Ethnicity at Work: Occupational Seggregation and Disadvantage in the 1991 British Census’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 37, pp. 713-31 [online] Available at: [Accessed 16/11/2010]
Bright, J.E.H. et al. (2005) ‘The Role of Chance Events in Career Decision Making’ Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol 66, Part: 3: pp. 561-576 [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/11/2010]
Caldwell, C. (2010) ‘Inequality in a Meritocracy’ Financial Times, 30th January, p. 7 [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/10/2010]
Carol, A, Parry S. (1968) ‘The Economic Rationale of Occupational Choice’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1968. pp183-196 [online] Available from Business Source Premier < http://search.ebscohost.com.librouter.hud.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4455786&site=ehost-live> [Accessed 20/10/2010]
Chang, T.F.H. (2003) ‘A Social Pyshcological Model of Women’s Gender-typed Occupational Mobility ‘ Career Development International, Vol 8, Part: 1: pp. 27-39 [online] Available at: [Accessed 15/11/2010]
Dryler, H. (1998) ‘Parental Role Models. Gender and Educational Choice’ The British Journal of Sociology, Vol 49, Part: 3: pp. 375-398 [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/10/2010]
EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (2010) ‘How Fair is Britain? Executive Summary’ The First Triennial Review. EHRC [online] Available at [20/10/2010]
Furlong, A. et al. (1996) ‘Neigbourhoods, Opportunity Structures and Occupational Aspirations’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 30, Part: 3: pp. 551-565
Garner, R. (2008) ‘Social Class ‘Determines Child’s Success” The Independent, 18/09/2008, [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/10/2010]
Goldthorpe, J. (2003) ‘The Myth of Education Based Meritocracy- Why the Theory Isn’t Working’ New Economy, pp. 234-239 [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/10/2010]
Goodhart, D. (2009) ‘Oh Do Keep Up: Social Mobility Is Far From Dead’ Sunday Times, 26/07/2009
Harper, B. Haq, M. (2001) ‘Ambition, Discrimination, and Occupational Attainment: a Study of a British Cohort’ Oxford Economic Papers, Vol 53, Part: 4: pp. 695-720 [online] Available at: [Accessed 15/11/2010]
Hutton, W. (2010) ‘Extract: Them and Us: Politics, Greed and Inequality- Why We Need a Fair Society’ The Guardian, 26/09/2010, [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/10/2010]
Kuh, D. Wadsworth, M. (1991) ‘Childhood Influences on Adult Male Earnings in a Longitudinal Study’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 42, Part: 4: pp. 537-555 [online] Available at: [Accessed 16/11/2010]
Ministry of Defence (MOD) (no date) ‘Equality and Diversity in the Armed Forces’ [online] Available at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/EqualityAndDiversity/. Accessed 15/11/2010
Reay, D. et al. (2001) ‘Choices of Degree Or Degrees of Choice? ‘Class’, ‘Race’ and the Higher Education Choice Process’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 35, Part: 4: p. 855-874
Saunders, P. (1997) ‘Social Mobility in Britain: an Empirical Evaluation of Two Competing Explanations’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 31, Part: 2: pp. 261-288
Saunders, P. (2010) ‘Difference, inequality and unfairness: the fallacies, errors and confusions in the Equality and Human Rights Commission report- How Fair is Britain’ Civitas Online Report, October [online] < http://http//www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Saunders_EHRC_ReportBriefingOct2010> [Accessed 20/10/2010]
Slocum, W.L. (1959) ‘Some Sociological Aspects of Occupational Choice’ American Journal of Economics and Sociology. January 1959. pp 183-196 [online] Available from Business Source Premier < http://search.ebscohost.com.librouter.hud.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=15381182&site=ehost-live > [Accessed 19/10/2010]
Stratton, A. (2010) ‘Nick Clegg Outlines Plans For More Social Mobility’ The Guardian, 18/08/2010, [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/10/2010]
Watson, T.J. (2003) Sociology, Work and Industry. 4th ed. London: Routledge
Williams, W.M. (1974) Occupational Choice. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD
Willis, P.E. (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House
Wilson, F.M. (2010) Organisational Behaviour and Work. a Critical Introduction. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge
