Chapter 3
Empowering Life Choices: Career Counseling in the Contexts of Race and Class

Lisa Y. Flores

If we seek to incorporate the full richness of Parsons’ contributions, we need to ground our study of vocations in a broader understanding of social issues, with a focus on how interventions can help empower clients and change inequitable systems.

—Blustein, 2001, p. 174

There are four major goals of this chapter. First, I examine the historical and social factors that provided the impetus for the birth of the field of career development and resulted in six tenets based on Western European cultural values that have dramatically influenced our theory, research, and practice. Second, I briefly discuss the demographic and ethical imperatives for expanding the field of career development. Third, I examine critical individual differences constructs that are believed to impact the career development of culturally diverse individuals: worldview, acculturation, racial identity, and ethnic identity. And fourth, I outline the role of cultural context in all aspects of the career counseling process from recognition of the need for assistance through postcounseling follow-up. A number of excellent books are available that can provide information about the career development of individuals from diverse racial and ethnic groups or that focus on the implications of social class on the career development process. For example, Blustein’s (2006) The Psychology of Working: A New Perspective for Career Development, Counseling, and Public Policy and (2013) The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Working; Liu’s (2012) Social Class and Classism in the Helping Professions: Research, Theory, and Practice; Peterson and Gonzalez’s (2005) The Role of Work in People’s Lives: Applied Career Counseling and Vocational Psychology (2nd edition); and Walsh, Bingham, Brown, and Ward’s (2001) Career Counseling for African Americans are among the growing body of resources that provide helpful information in this area.

Definition of Terms

Although there appears to be considerable interchangeability in the literature related to word usage, in this chapter I use the terms ethnicity, race, culture, and social class as described below. Ethnicity, or ethnic origin, refers to a shared unique sociogeographical and cultural heritage. The sociogeographical customs (e.g., language, religion, food, dance, values, ceremonies) commonly associated with specific ethnic groups are passed down from one generation to the next. Examples of ethnic groups include Italian Americans, Sioux, Mexican Americans, Korean Americans, and African Americans.

In contrast, race has generally been defined in the social science literature in two ways: natural/biological race and social race. Natural race refers to a shared genotype or physiology that often is outwardly manifested in a group’s phenotype or physical characteristics, such as hair texture, body type, facial features, and skin pigmentation. Biologists and social scientists have long challenged the concept of natural race and have all but abandoned this usage. One reason for this desertion is the difficulty in defining a “pure” race; for example, the presence of offspring from “racially” different parents questions the validity of race as purely natural or biological. Moreover, social scientists have argued that one’s physiology is not related to social behaviors or personality styles.

Currently, most social scientists view race as a social construct; that is, race is socially defined within a particular society or nation. It is important to emphasize that the social construction of race is very much related to the society in which one lives. It is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States from other countries to indicate that they never identified with a racial group familiar to the United States. For example, an immigrant might say, “I never thought of myself as Latino until I moved here. We do not think of ourselves in that way in my home country.” Social race encompasses the shared sociohistorical experiences of a group of people (e.g., slavery and Black liberation movements for Blacks throughout the diaspora); shared experiences and social relationships between races significantly affect one’s beliefs, behaviors, and sociopolitical and economic conditions. In the United States, five major “racial” groups have been constructed: Native American, Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, Latina/o American, and White American. Within each of these social races are numerous ethnic groups, such as Cherokee, Chinese Americans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, and German Americans, respectively. White individuals have been identified as the majority race because they are the numerical majority in the United States, and, moreover, they have political and economic power.

Culture is an important concept that is related, but not equivalent, to race and ethnicity. In general, culture refers to the attitudes, values, norms, and behaviors of a social group. Members of cultural groups often acquire or learn the values and behaviors of their social group through a process of enculturation, or socialization within one’s group. However, even though someone can be categorized into a particular racial or ethnic group, he or she may not necessarily be culturally affiliated with the attitudes, values, or norms commonly associated with that group. For example, a person who is ethnically Mexican American may not identify with cultural customs commonly practiced within the Mexican American community.

In the United States, social class is a construct that is intricately linked to race and ethnicity. That is, the economic inequalities that exist in the United States are racialized; a disproportionate number of African Americans, Latinas/os, and Native Americans are poor, whereas a disproportionate number of Whites are among the financially elite (Lui et al., 2006). To date, social class has been almost exclusively defined around socioeconomic status and has included educational, occupational, and financial status. However, economic factors do not tell the whole story of social class. Recently there has been a call to go beyond defining social class as only socioeconomic status and to include issues such as lifestyle, power, and prestige (Diemer & Ali, 2009; Liu et al., 2004). These researchers argue that only when we examine the combination of economic and social status variables can we understand the effects of social class on a person’s career aspirations, choice, and development.

Social class has been demonstrated to affect a host of career-related variables, including perceptions of work (Chaves et al., 2004), career development progress (Blustein et al., 2002; Diemer & Blustein, 2006), and vocational expectations (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008; Lapour & Heppner, 2009). Until recently, social class has received little attention in the psychological literature (Fouad & Brown, 2000), particularly regarding the needs of poor clients (L. Smith, 2005); however, social class is a critical aspect in understanding the career development process of all clients regardless of their racial or ethnic group affiliation. Moreover, it is important to understand how social class influences everyone’s career options, both those who are financially privileged as well as those from working and lower class backgrounds (Heppner & Scott, 2004; Lapour & Heppner, 2009), and that we as career counselors explore how social class bias may influence our work with clients (Liu & Ali, 2005).

The Birth of the Field

In the quote that begins this chapter, Blustein (2001, p. 174) refers to calls from several scholars today that career counseling research and practice “return to its roots.” To better understand the reasons for this redirection, I provide a brief reminder about the historical roots of career counseling and the assumptions and practices that later developed out of those early roots.

The vocational guidance movement was born during a period of major transition in the country, and the movement developed largely in response to the social concerns of the time, which included tremendous population growth, migration to urban areas, high rates of immigration, and the introduction of child labor laws. This was a time when both economic turmoil and demographic change were coupled with the changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution and the need to train and place individuals into the labor force. Career services, originally operationalized by Frank Parsons in 1909, were designed to help European immigrants find their place in this new and vast country and its developing economic system. Thus, our roots were embedded in helping poor and marginalized groups. However, scholars have argued that later theoretical developments and subsequent research studies in the field have resulted in a practice that is largely geared toward a small, privileged segment of society: middle-class, educated, white-collar workers (Blustein, 2006; Fitzgerald & Betz, 1994; Richardson, 1993). Moreover, middle-class cultural values and beliefs have been reflected in the theoretical and intervention advances since the early 1900s. Next I highlight the ways in which these values have permeated the field.

Six Key Tenets

The European immigrants who were settling in the United States in the early 1900s sought to assimilate into American society, a society that encouraged exchanging one’s ethnic identity for another ethnic identity, that of the White American. These immigrants were striving to learn English and to become part of the American “melting pot,” in which Western European cultures blended together to create a new “White” culture. Against this backdrop, many of the antecedents of our current tenets about career development were formed. The six key tenets that were born out of this historical setting were based on the Western European experience and worldview, and they dramatically influenced the development of career theories, research, and practices in the United States. These six tenets are (a) universality; (b) individualism and autonomy; (c) affluence; (d) the structure of opportunity open to all who strive and the myth of meritocracy; (e) the centrality of work in people’s lives; and (f) the linearity, progressiveness, and rationality of the career development process.

The Tenet of Universality

An important assumption within the career development area is that theories and practices can be applied universally and that they adequately explain the career decisions of a wide range of individuals regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, gender, or nationality. Moreover, the constructs and terms that we use to understand the career development process are assumed to be defined similarly across groups. This universal bias can be problematic because it favors Western perspectives, and it fails to consider individual, cultural, contextual, and generational differences that may explain one’s career decisions.

Wrenn (1962) warned against cultural encapsulation that emphasizes a universal concept of what is healthy and normal behavior. In the United States, what has traditionally been considered healthy is centered on the Eurocentric tenets outlined in this section. This Eurocentric stance disregards cultural variation and assumes rigid uniformity (Sue & Sue, 2013). Some have questioned the validity of career theories, concepts, and instruments across cultural groups (e.g., Leong & Brown, 1995) and have called for more research with culturally diverse groups to determine culture-specific variables that may explain vocational behavior. At the same time, others have suggested that the theories are not the problem, but rather it is the manner in which career researchers and practitioners apply or test these theories (Hardin, 2007; Hardin, Robitschek, Flores, Navarro, & Ashton, 2013). Specifically, these researchers warned that career counselors and researchers may be narrowly operationalizing these theories and their related constructs to fit within a Western worldview, and if a broader and more culturally sensitive lens is used, the theories may be useful after all in understanding the career development of marginalized cultural groups in our society. Clearly, additional work is needed to determine which aspects of our theories and concepts are universal to all people, and more discussion is needed regarding how we can use these tools in a culturally sensitive manner with the diverse clients with whom we work.

The Tenet of Individualism and Autonomy

Another central tenet of career theory, research, and practice is the importance of the individual. The individual is the core unit and makes choices that ultimately shape his or her destiny. Western psychological theories emphasize separation and individuation from the family as a key developmental task. Virtually all traditional career theories focus on aspects of the self to determine career outcomes: How can we find a match between an individual’s interests and the work world? How can we help the individual strive for self-actualization? How can we help the client develop individual-based career and life goals? How can we help the individual develop self-efficacy beliefs that will inform his or her career decisions? How does one’s career define the self?

In career counseling we encourage the “healthy” developmental step of the adolescent separating from family and beginning to trust his or her own decision-making ability. Here, healthy is defined as part of the individuation process; that is, to be perceived as healthy one needs to separate from family and make individual decisions about one’s life. This tenet is consistently reflected in career theories, interventions, and assessments. For example, most career theories use concepts such as individual interests, goals, personality, skills, self-efficacy beliefs, or self-concepts to explain career decisions, and career interventions often consist of one-on-one sessions with an individual and a career counselor. Career counselors typically use assessment instruments that evaluate person factors and do not consider environmental variables that may have an effect on the individual. It should be as important to conduct an environmental assessment regarding the role of institutional barriers, family, teachers, and culture in the career decision making of culturally diverse clients.

Individualism and autonomy may not be relevant or meaningful for individuals from collectivist cultures. For members of groups with collectivist values, membership in the family or community is of primary importance, and members place great value on their collective group membership. Vocational decision making and life planning may occur in consultation with others in the community and with one’s community in mind, or the decision may be made by elders in the community. Thus, it may be a serious mistake to view this reliance on family support and collective decision making as being immature or overly dependent. This reliance is valued and respected in many Asian cultures, and studies have shown that family expectations, support, and obligations to the family are important in Asian Americans’ career development (Fouad et al., 2008). Career choices are thus weighed in terms of the potential contribution they would make or benefits they would have to the family or community as opposed to the individual. Empirical data support the observation that individualism and autonomy may not be as culturally relevant in career planning as collectivism or community for some Asian Americans (Hardin, Leong, & Osipow, 2001) and that some individuals from diverse racial and ethnic groups may make career decisions based on factors other than personal interests (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999) or self-efficacy beliefs (Flores & O’Brien, 2002).

The Tenet of Affluence

Another central tenet assumes a certain level of affluence on the part of the career client. Career development theory has at its core the assumption that individuals have the economic means to pursue their career interests and goals. This middle-class bias within the field (Liu & Ali, 2005; Richardson, 1993) has been pervasive in our career theories and approaches and is relevant to only a minority of people in the country. This tenet assumes that because of financial privileges, people are able to exercise a certain level of volition when making career choices (Blustein, 2006). Moreover, it assumes that prestigious occupations are ideal and that everyone in our society aspires to hold these jobs (Liu & Ali, 2005). Thus, the role of the career counselor is to assess interests, skills, and values and to help match individuals with appropriate, or high-status, career options. Those career options all have price tags, such as the cost of vocational–technical training, college, or relocating to where there are jobs in a chosen career field.

This tenet of affluence is not true for the majority of the world’s population, nor is it true for many individuals in the United States. It is particularly not true for the poor and working-class Whites and racial and ethnic minorities living in our country. For many individuals from lower social classes, career decisions are made based on the need to provide the basic necessities for the family. Thus, finding a job—any job—that pays for shelter, food, and clothing is what is important. Indeed, one study reported that poor and working-class adolescents from an urban high school in the northeast were more likely to perceive work as a means of making money versus an opportunity for personal development or implementing one’s identity (Chaves et al., 2004). Still, others might make career decisions based on factors other than salary, such as the quality of life it provides and the ability to spend time with family and/or children. The messages that one receives about work and working are largely shaped by family, and these messages can play an important role in how one approaches work as an adult (Fouad et al., 2008). The luxury of choosing a career to fulfill one’s personal identity or to express one’s interests is usually reserved for the college educated or financial elite. Very little is known about the interface between economic exploitation and racism experienced by racial and ethnic minorities and by Whites on career interests and development. Much more research is needed that elucidates the interaction between race and class as well as disentangles race from class to more fully understand the applicability of this tenet to both racial and ethnic minorities and White individuals.

The Tenet of the Structure of Opportunity Open to All Who Strive and the Myth of Meritocracy

This tenet emphasizes the construct of individual control in selecting, attaining, and ultimately being satisfied in a career field, and it contributes to the belief that we live in a meritocracy, or a society in which one advances because of individual merit. Those who operate under this assumption believe that the prestigious jobs in our society, along with wealth and resources, are distributed according to merit and effort. In essence, wealthy people accumulate their assets through hard work, whereas poor people get their just rewards because they are lazy. Thus, the assumption is made that the individual is in control of his or her efforts and that those who work hard enough can achieve the “American Dream,” a belief that is held by many people in the United States (F. Miller & Clark, 1997). This tenet is reflected in the ideology that you can “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and can make any occupational dream a reality.

In her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Ehrenreich (2001) described her undercover work at minimum-wage jobs in different cities around the United States. She reported that these jobs were strenuous and physically taxing and that her coworkers were among the most hard-working people she knew. Yet in spite of their hard work, many members of the working class have a difficult time making ends meet or moving up the social class ladder. McNamee and Miller (2004) challenged the belief that we live in a meritocratic society and suggested that a number of non-merit-based factors help to determine the jobs and other financial resources that one may accumulate. These non-merit factors include, but are not limited to, discrimination, social capital, inheritance, privilege, and unequal opportunities for quality public education. Career theorists have written about the role that non-merit variables, namely luck or happenstance, play in the career development process (Krumboltz, 1998; Krumboltz & Levin, 2004; Mitchell, Levin, & Krumboltz, 1999).

Color-blind racial ideology is a useful construct for underscoring the cultural relativity of this tenet. Specifically, individuals, groups of people, and systems that consciously or unconsciously operate from this ideological framework deny, distort, or minimize the role of racism (or classism) in people’s lives and assume that to achieve equity, all people should be treated the same. People who ascribe to racial ideology use this to advocate for the dissolution of affirmative action programs, which are under threat in several states today. Research has found that racial ideology is linked to beliefs about affirmative action (Bobo, 1998; W. A. Smith, 2006). Color-blind racial ideology helps to legitimize blaming the individual for his or her circumstances instead of blaming the institutional structures and policies that prevent a person from fulfilling his or her career aspirations (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000; Neville, Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001). In an ideal world, everyone would have the same opportunity to choose a career that would be personally meaningful, rewarding, and lucrative. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a society in which racism and class exploitation continue to exist, and these interlocking systems, in turn, structure an individual’s career choice.

This tenet ignores the toll that discrimination has taken in the creation of social, psychological, institutional, political, and economic barriers that seriously erode the control that many people in our society have over various facets of their career development. Instead, it puts the responsibility on the individual to succeed, and it blames the individual for not working hard enough if he or she does not succeed. Indeed, in our society stereotypes are rampant about poor people (Lott, 2002) and racial and ethnic minorities (Niemann, 1999). They obviously can have harmful effects on the recruitment, hiring, and retention practices within an organization when members of the system rely on these stereotypes when making decisions about or interacting with diverse employees. Stereotypes also can serve as major career barriers when members of these groups internalize these messages. Evidence of the effects of institutional racism is apparent when one reviews labor market reports. Specifically, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013a, 2013b), Whites are more likely than African Americans, Latinas/os, and Asians to hold managerial and professional positions. Furthermore, African Americans and Latinas/os earn less than their White and Asian American counterparts (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013c). It is important to be aware of the many ways in which institutional racism (e.g., income disparities, lack of representation of one’s racial or ethnic group among the employees or leaders in an organization) and individual racism (e.g., beliefs in stereotypes) may limit racial and ethnic minorities and persons from various social classes from examining or leaving an occupation or career field.

Sue and Sue (2013) proposed a four-quadrant model of locus of control (i.e., internal vs. external explanations for creating one’s fate) and locus of responsibility (i.e., person vs. system attribution for one’s life condition) that is helpful in career counseling with all clients regardless of race or social class. Most traditional career counseling approaches and interventions follow the internal control–personal responsibility philosophy, which is synonymous with the belief in one’s ability to pull oneself up by the bootstraps. Given the existence of prejudice and discrimination, many racial and ethnic minority group members and working-class individuals may legitimately perceive institutional barriers that may impede their career development. However, little empirical research has examined the effect of both personality variables and perceived institutional racism on the career choices and satisfaction of members of these groups. Thus, little is known about the interface between perceived locus of control and responsibility on career development based on one’s racial, ethnic, or social class background.

The Tenet of the Centrality of Work in People’s Lives

This tenet assumes that work plays a central and pivotal role in a person’s life and that it is thus critical to find a career that fulfills many of the person’s needs. Work is thought to make up the core of a person’s identity. Work provides the self-actualization that humans need to feel whole. Although the role of work is important in many people’s lives, it may not have the center stage position many career theorists and researchers may give it (Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 1993). This lack of centrality may be the case because of forms of oppression (racism, classism, sexism) or cultural values. For example, racial and ethnic minority group members may experience institutional racism in the workplace and thus view it as a hostile or nonaffirming environment for them as individuals. On a related note, poor and working-class individuals may feel their labor is being exploited, which further adds to feelings of alienation from work. Cultural values might also create a greater tendency for other life roles, such as family, church, or leisure activities, to take on a more central role. Little research has examined the role of culture in creating and emphasizing the salience of environments other than the work setting to provide centrality and identity affirmation in people’s lives. A greater understanding is needed regarding the intersecting effect of poverty and racial discrimination on the importance of work and in determining identity.

The Tenet of the Linearity, Progressiveness, and Rationality of the Career Development Process

Career counseling and one’s career development process are often described in orderly, rational, and linear terms, and this is clearly evident in Parsons’s (1909) formulation of the components of the three-part model for making a career choice: (a) an understanding of the self, (b) an understanding of the world of work, and (c) true reasoning of their relations. This linear progression has had a profound impact through the century and continues to provide a format for our current practice. Gelatt (1962, 1989) originally described the decision-making process as rational but later revised his thinking to incorporate flexibility, intuition, and irrationality. Thus, the efficacy of a linear, progressive, and rational approach for all clients, particularly racial and ethnic minority clients and clients who are poor and working class, is an important consideration for career counselors. Indeed, research has indicated that some individuals from diverse cultural groups do not experience their careers as either linear or rational (e.g., Gomez et al., 2001). Similarly, clients may approach counseling as a circular, rather than linear, process.

In today’s global economy, the assumed linear nature of the world of work is becoming less true for all workers. Unlike in the past, career changes are not uncommon, and workers can expect to hold a number of jobs in their lifetime and are expected to possess transferable skills that can be applied to a range of careers. As I discuss in more detail later in the chapter, many of these assumptions born in the early part of the last century may no longer be true for the majority of workers of this century. If career counseling is to be truly empowering for the increasingly diverse workforce, we must examine the present-day accuracy of our basic operating tenets.

Demographic and Ethical Imperatives

The demographic landscape in the United States has changed dramatically since the conception of the field. In the early 1900s, when the U.S. Census Bureau first started tracking population data, the United States had 75 to 90 million residents, the majority of whom were European immigrants. The most recent census count in 2010 indicated that the U.S. population includes 308.7 million people (Mackun & Wilson, 2011), and the population reflects a highly diverse group of people in terms of their cultural backgrounds (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). These population demographics are replicated in our social institutions, specifically the workplace and educational systems. As the demographic makeup of our society continues to shift, career counseling specialists can expect to work with a diverse group of clients. It is important that career counselors understand the implications of these demographic changes in their work and that they are knowledgeable of the professional and ethical obligations to provide effective career services to diverse individuals. The following statistics are provided to illuminate the changing demographics in the United States and the need to more fully attend to the career needs and development of culturally diverse clients:

In 2011, 15.9% of the population lived in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
The latest census data indicate that 16.3% of the population is Latina/o or Hispanic, making this the second largest racial or ethnic group behind Whites. Between 2000 and 2010, more than half of the U.S. population growth was attributed to the increase in the Latina/o population (Humes et al., 2011). The size of this group is expected to continue to rise dramatically in comparison to that of other groups, with the U.S. Census Bureau (2012b) projecting that Latinas/os and Hispanics will compose almost one-third of the population in 2060. The poverty rate among Latinas/os and Hispanics in 2011 was 25.8%, and their median income was $39,589 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
African Americans represent 12.6% of the population (Humes et al., 2011). In 2011, African American households had the lowest median income ($33,223) among all racial groups, which was about 62% of the average income in non-Hispanic White households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Their poverty rate in 2011 was 28.1% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
Although Asian Americans compose only 4.8% of the total population, they are one of the two fastest growing racial or ethnic groups in the United States. The government projects that Asian Americans will double in size between 2012 and 2060, when they are expected to compose 8.2% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b). Asian American households have the highest median income among all racial groups in the United States ($67,885) and had a poverty rate of 12.8% in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
Native Americans constitute 0.9% of the U.S. population (Humes et al., 2011). The poverty rate among Native Americans was 29.5% in 2011, the highest among all racial groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). In 2010, fewer than 1% of 4-year college degrees were awarded to Native Americans (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Although non-Hispanic Whites have the lowest poverty rate of any U.S. racial group at 11%, they represent 45% of people living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
The labor force is projected to become more racially and ethnically diverse. Labor force participation is expected to increase faster for Latinas/os and Hispanics, Asian Americans, and African Americans than for Whites; by 2020, Latinas/os, African Americans, and Asian Americans are expected to make up 40% of the labor force (Toossi, 2012).

If these projections are accurate and these demographic trends continue, in a few decades our society will be truly multiracial and multicultural, and no single racial or ethnic group will be a numerical majority. Today, almost 40% of our society is people of color (Latinas/os, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans), and it is projected that, collectively, they will compose the majority of the population in the United States by the middle of the century.

At the same time that we are seeing these demographic shifts, statistics indicate that significant disparities exist across these groups with regard to educational attainment, employment status, and earnings. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012a), a higher proportion of White adults (90%) reported at least a high school education, and Latinas/os had the lowest percentages with at least a high school diploma (61%). Moreover, Whites earn more money than Latinas/os and African Americans, and these disparities exist across all occupational fields and when education level is controlled (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). It should be apparent that education, profession, and salary are interconnected, and each plays a critical role in a person’s social and economic standing in the United States. For example, lifetime earnings increase and employment options expand with each progressive level of education.

What emerges from these data is a dramatic and profound need for career assistance for racial and ethnic minorities and persons from lower social classes as they more fully move and integrate into the schools and workplaces that have so long discriminated against and marginalized them. As mentioned by Blustein (2001) in the opening quote to this chapter, career counselors can play an important role in helping to rectify these social inequalities by providing culturally effective career services and by providing their diverse clients with information about and access to a broad range of educational training and career options. To affect our clients’ career development, it is important to understand how race and social class intersect for them. It is especially critical that career counselors understand that although racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented among the poor, a wide range of diversity exists within all racially and ethnically diverse communities.

Unfortunately, our existing knowledge base about the career development of racial and ethnic minorities is limited (Byars & McCubbin, 2001; Flores, Berkel, et al., 2006; Richardson, 1993). One of the early critics of the state of our research was Richardson, who noted that because the predominant orientation of theories and research was to White, middle-class individuals, the field had effectively marginalized the career development needs of racial and ethnic minorities and persons from lower social classes. According to an analysis of career development studies published in the leading U.S. vocational journals over a 36-year time span (1969–2004), only 6.7% of all studies (or a total of 281 articles) were related to the career development of diverse racial and ethnic groups in the United States (Flores, Berkel, et al., 2006). In addition, the career development literature has paid little attention to how social class affects the career decision process (Blustein, 2006; Diemer & Ali, 2009; Heppner & Scott, 2004; Liu & Ali, 2005; Richardson, 1993). To date, most of our knowledge about career development, career counseling, and career assessment has been based on studies conducted on White, middle-class individuals, and it is not proportionate to population demographics or labor force composition. We know much less about the considerably sizable groups as well as the fastest growing segments of our population, most notably individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and persons representing the broad range of social classes. More research is needed with culturally diverse samples in terms of race, ethnicity, and social class to assist in the development of culturally relevant theories and models and culturally effective career interventions for a broad range of individuals.

What is not explicitly articulated in the statistics just outlined is the ethical obligation to provide quality, culturally sensitive, and relevant career counseling to all clients. Several years ago, psychologists argued that the provision of services to persons of culturally diverse backgrounds by professionals not knowledgeable about providing services to such groups was unethical (Korman, 1974). In spite of this recognition, scholars have argued that mental health services have not been sensitive to culturally diverse clients, and they have suggested that a number of factors may contribute to service underutilization in culturally diverse communities, such as stigma on seeking help, lack of culturally competent professionals, and culture- and class-bound professional practices (Sue & Sue, 2013).

Several areas should be considered to facilitate placing career counseling in cultural context(s) and to provide culturally sensitive career services. Specifically, the field of career counseling has been criticized for using culturally biased assessment tests that were originally developed on White Americans and that may or may not be valid for racial and ethnic minorities (Flores, Spanierman, & Obasi, 2003; Fouad, 1993). When assessing an instrument’s cultural validity, one should consider the following criteria: (a) the extent to which the items are culturally relevant for the population, (b) the extent to which the semantic meaning of the items is similar for each culture, and (c) the extent to which the interpretation of the instrument is similar across populations (Paniagua, 1994). Models of career development also have been criticized for not including critical cultural variables, such as immigration disruption, racial discrimination, or poverty (Fouad & Bingham, 1995; Leong & Brown, 1995). Furthermore, some major career theories were built on the basis of primarily White middle-class men (e.g., Super’s 1953 Middletown study), and the practices and assessments that are tied to these theories are based on the Eurocentric worldview and underlying tenets that characterized the field at its inception. The validity of many of these models for persons of color and persons across the social class spectrum is largely untested. Thus, it is critical that career counselors align their practices in accordance with professional ethical standards (e.g., National Career Development Association, American Psychological Association) and that career counselors possess the requisite knowledge, awareness, and skills (Hargrove, Creagh, & Kelly, 2003; Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) to become proficient at providing services within cultural contexts. A recent study found that while professional career counselors self-reported above-average multicultural counseling competencies, assessments of their responses to specific career counseling practices were evaluated as being low on multicultural knowledge and skills (Vespia, Fitzpatrick, Fouad, Kantamneni, & Chen, 2010). While valuing, affirming, and being aware of diversity and differences is an important foundation for working with diverse career clients, it is important that career counselors receive ongoing training and feedback regarding their application of multicultural knowledge and skills in career counseling practice.

Individual Difference Variables: Worldview, Acculturation, and Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

When career counselors view their clients broadly as members of a specific cultural group, they risk relying on group stereotypes and may overlook the variables that make each client unique. Given the tremendous amount of within-group variability across all cultural groups, it is vital to consider individual difference variables when providing career counseling. Multicultural career research studies have been criticized because they are often designed to test between-group differences (in this case, middle-class Whites serve as the normative group against which others are compared) or because they ignore within-group factors and assume uniformity within groups (Leong & Flores, 2013; Worthington, Flores, & Navarro, 2004). In addition to the differences that exist across cultural groups based on gender, age, social class, sexual orientation, and ability status, career counselors should take note of the culture-specific variables that are gaining considerable theoretical and empirical support, such as worldview, acculturation, racial and ethnic identity, cultural values, and generation status. Understanding clients in terms of these culture-specific variables can lead to more culturally informed and sensitive career counseling interventions. These individual difference variables may affect each stage in the career counseling process, from the initial acknowledgment of the need for career assistance to the close of career counseling. Each of these constructs can be applied to clients from any cultural or socioeconomic background; however, research on these constructs has typically been conducted with specific cultural groups (Cokley, 2007). In this section, I review the cultural constructs of worldview, acculturation, and racial and ethnic identity and briefly highlight findings from career development research in these areas.

Worldview

Probably the broadest of these three individual difference variables is the construct of worldview. Worldview is defined as the frame of reference that a person uses to interpret and define events and make decisions and comprises a person’s attitudes and values (Sue & Sue, 2013). Worldview is typically acquired via the enculturation process. That is, a person learns how to perceive his or her relation to self, community, and the world through cultural socialization into a racial, ethnic, or social class community. Although worldview consists of several components, such as group identity (cultural consciousness), individual identity (individual vs. collective self-concept), beliefs (assumptions), and language (communication patterns; Dana, 1993), critical elements of worldview consistently discussed in the literature concentrate on value dimensions. A value orientation reflects cultural components of the decision-making process, such as the relationship between people and nature (mastery over vs. harmony with), time orientation (future, present, past), interpersonal relations (individualistic, collateral), mode of activity (doing, being, being-in-becoming), and human nature (good, bad, neutral; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Our value orientation in each of these areas is highly influenced by our cultural background and life experiences.

An assessment of these components of worldview with a career client can assist us in delivering services and the client in conceptualizing his or her career concerns. Worldviews may influence many aspects of one’s career development as well as the career counseling process. Thus, it is critically important that we as career counselors examine our own worldview, because it may influence the questions that we ask, the interventions that we select, and our goals for counseling. Moreover, a career counselor’s worldview orientation can also affect the pace and timing of career choice and the actual occupational content of job choices. The six basic tenets described in the beginning of this chapter reflect the worldview embraced in many Western European cultures; as I have noted, these tenets have shaped current career research theory and practice. To understand how worldviews may shape the career counseling process, consider a Native American woman seeking career counseling who has a present time orientation, values collateral relationships, and prefers a being-in-becoming activity dimension. Career counseling practice is future oriented (career goals, future career selection), relies heavily on individualistic values (individual choice, interests, goals), and expects that an individual will take control of his or her career development process and make a decision that is best for him or her. These differences between the Native American woman and career counseling practice are likely to manifest in counseling and may lead to premature termination or dissatisfaction with counseling if the career counselor does not modify the process to better fit the client’s worldview orientation. Given the value of family and community and their role in the career decision-making process of U.S. racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., Flores, Robitschek, Celebi, Andersen, & Hoang, 2010; Fouad et al., 2008; Pearson & Bieschke, 2001), a culturally sensitive career counselor might consider using constructivist approaches, such as career narratives and family genograms, instead of the conventional career practices of setting individual career goals and completing traditional career assessments (interests, self-efficacy measures).

Acculturation

Acculturation is often used to understand individual differences within a specific ethnic group. Acculturation has been largely defined as a multidimensional psychosocial process that occurs when members of two or more cultures come into contact with one another. However, there is some debate as to whether all groups in a multicultural society undergo the acculturation process or if the process is unique to members of the nondominant culture (Berry, 2002). According to acculturation theory, as a result of coming into contact with other cultural groups, individuals from each group learn the cultural values and practices of a new culture while maintaining some degree of cultural affiliation to their traditional culture (Berry, 2002). The adaptation that occurs during acculturation can be either psychological (personal feelings about one’s group membership) or sociocultural (relationships that are formed within or outside one’s cultural group; Berry, 2002), and aspects of culture that are affected by acculturation include language, friendship patterns and social affiliations, customs, music, and food preferences. Acculturation models and assessments have generally been developed to describe and measure the adaptation process of individuals with ancestry from Mexico (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), Asia (Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987), Africa (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996), and Latin America (Marin & Gamba, 1996; Norris, Ford, & Bova, 1996). Pan-ethnic acculturation measures are also available (Stephenson, 2000).

Acculturation models in the psychology literature have evolved over the past 20 years (Kim & Abreu, 2001), and today, bidimensional or multidimensional models of acculturation are widely recommended (M. J. Miller & Kerlow-Myers, 2009). In a multidimensional model, a person can be oriented to varying degrees to more than one culture (own culture, host culture, other cultures) at the same time. In essence, individuals can selectively maintain or discard certain traits from their traditional or new cultures depending on the adaptive utility of the trait. According to Berry’s (1980) model, two broad queries can help career practitioners to determine a client’s level of acculturation: (a) To what extent does the person wish to maintain his or her cultural heritage in regard to language, self-identity, and way of life? and (b) To what extent does the individual have contact with the dominant culture and want to participate in the dominant culture’s practices?

Responses to these questions can help career counselors place individuals in one of four acculturation strategies. The first strategy, integration or bicultural, is characterized by wanting to maintain one’s own culture while having daily interactions with other groups. An adult client who moved to the United States from Taiwan as a teenager may have learned to speak English fluently yet still speaks Mandarin with her family and practices traditional customs at home. In terms of her career, a career counselor may want to help her seek a job that builds on her strengths as a bicultural and bilingual person. Research has shown that integration strategies lead to more mentoring experiences (Nguyen, Huynh, & Lonergan-Garwick, 2007) as well as higher income levels (Valdivia et al., 2008) than other strategies. Another strategy is assimilation, which includes wishing to give up one’s own cultural identity to become more a part of the dominant group. For example, a young man may ask to be called John instead of his given name, Juan, to distance himself from his Mexican heritage and may try hard to get rid of his Spanish accent. He believes that he will be accepted at school and work if he is oriented toward the dominant culture. Research has suggested that high orientation toward the dominant culture is related to career self-efficacy (Byars-Winston, Estrada, Howard, Davis, & Zalapa, 2010; Flores, Navarro, Smith, & Ploszaj, 2006; Flores et al., 2010; Patel, Salahuddin, & O’Brien, 2008; Rivera, Chen, Flores, Blumberg, & Ponterotto, 2007), career choices (Flores & O’Brien, 2002; Tang et al., 1999), and educational goals (Flores, Navarro, & Dewitz, 2008; Flores, Ojeda, Huang, Gee, & Lee, 2006). The third strategy, separation, describes wanting to retain one’s own cultural identity and not interact with the majority group. A Latino or African American high school student may choose to attend a Hispanic-serving institution or a historically Black institution, respectively, to be immersed in a learning environment that reflects his or her cultural values and to be educated with other students and faculty from his or her cultural group. Empirical findings have found that orientation toward one’s culture of origin is related to career self-efficacy (Flores et al., 2010) but unrelated to setting educational aspirations (Flores et al., 2008; Flores, Ojeda, et al., 2006). Finally, marginalization distinguishes persons by the fact that they are interested neither in maintaining their own ethnic identity nor in interacting with the dominant group. Individuals characterized by this acculturation strategy might include gang members or individuals belonging to religious sects who adopt an entirely new identity based on their membership in this group.

Understanding more about an individual’s level of acculturation may help describe and explain critical aspects of vocational behavior. Research studies have found that acculturation influences the work experiences and career development of racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans). Specifically, acculturation is related to a host of variables, such as career decision making self-efficacy (Patel et al., 2008), career self-efficacy (Rivera et al., 2007), career maturity (Hardin et al., 2001), family conflict about education and careers (Chung, 2001), job satisfaction (Leong, 2001), and employment skepticism (Valentine, 2006). In addition, one study found that work supervisors provided higher performance evaluations to acculturated employees (Leong, 2001). Because each of these career variables can play a strong role in work-related decisions, adjustment, and satisfaction, acculturation becomes a critically important area to assess when working with a culturally diverse client.

Acculturation level may also explain aspects of the career counseling process, including help-seeking behavior, counselor preference, levels of disclosure, and expectations of the career counselor and the counseling process in general. Traditional career interventions may be most appropriate for clients who are highly acculturated, whereas situating career interventions in a cultural context would be essential for clients who more closely adhere to their traditional cultural practices. For example, it seems appropriate to apply “traditional” career interventions with a fourth-generation Chinese American woman who was raised in a small, predominantly White, Midwestern community. However, this application does not preclude consideration of other class or culture-related concepts, such as social class worldview and racial identity, in devising an intervention plan.

Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

A number of theorists and researchers throughout the past 3 decades have proposed and investigated models of racial and ethnic identity development (e.g., Cross, 1971; Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Helms, 1984, 1990, 1995; Phinney, 1992). In the multicultural career literature (Byars & McCubbin, 2001; Flores, Berkel, et al., 2006), the examination of racial identity or ethnic identity is a widely used and culturally specific approach for examining within-group differences.

Racial identity and ethnic identity are two distinct constructs. Racial identity entails understanding oneself in a racially oppressive environment and describes how a person is socialized to think about his or her own racial group as well as other racial groups. Racial identity models assume that by virtue of living in an oppressive society, people develop attitudes and identities about racial groups (Helms, 1990). Racial identity development models have received increasing attention over the past 20 years, and models exist to describe a nonlinear process by which Whites and persons of color cycle through different stages or statuses that are distinguished by the specific attitudes people hold about their own racial group membership and those of other groups. Ethnic identity, in contrast, refers to how one self-identifies in terms of an ethnic group. Ethnic identity has been assessed via self-report measures pertaining to one’s ethnic identity search and belonging and commitment to activities within a group (Phinney, 1992).

The Civil Rights Movement served as an impetus in the emergence of racial identity development theories. Cross’s (1971) nigrescence theory was the first framework to describe the development of racial consciousness among Blacks. This theory has served as a foundation for a host of racial identity development models, all of which describe a developmental process whereby individuals increasingly become aware of racial oppression and of themselves as racial beings (Cross, 1971; Helms, 1990, 1995). Racial identity is a dynamic interplay between an individual’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral attitudes and his or her environment.

The number of stages or statuses associated for each model, the description of each status, and the desired outcomes vary across models. For example, Cross’s (1971) theory includes five stages (pre-encounter, encounter, immersion–emersion, internalization, and internalization–commitment), Helms’s (1990, 1994) model for people of color includes five statuses (contact, dissonance, immersion/emersion, internalization, and integrative awareness), and Helms’s (1995) White racial identity model has six statuses (contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion/emersion, and autonomy). The outcomes associated with White identity development models generally describe the process of increasing racial awareness, the acknowledgement of racial oppression, and the ways in which one has benefited from this oppression. Conversely, the process for persons of color in the United States evolves from being in a state of obliviousness about racial issues to shedding the internalized negative messages about their racial group to making a commitment to all oppressed groups (Helms, 1995). It is important to note that these statuses are not mutually exclusive and that an individual may hold attitudes that are consistent with all of the statuses; however, the strength of these attitudes will differ across statuses and environments.

Scholars have hypothesized that racial identity attitudes may be linked to the career development of racial and ethnic minorities because of the racial climate in our society as well as the educational and work settings (Byars & Hackett, 1998; Cokley, Dreher, & Stockdale, 2004; Helms & Piper, 1994). It is important to note that these statuses may play an important role at different stages of the career development process and that they may be connected to a number of factors that inform one’s career decisions. For example, clients who have strong attitudes that are consistent with the pre-encounter status may be largely oblivious to racial elements of the work world and may internalize negative evaluations from a supervisor that are contradictory to prior feedback without recognizing that the negative feedback may be rooted in the supervisor’s biases and stereotypes. Individuals with attitudes that are characteristic of the immersion/emersion status may be distrustful of non-Black coworkers, and, consequently, this may affect perceived job satisfaction. Finally, persons who exhibit attitudes that are consistent with higher statuses may recognize that the additional work-related stressors that they experience may be related to pressure to prove themselves in a predominantly White work environment and may work to promote a multicultural workplace environment.

A few empirical studies have tested the relations of racial identity and associated constructs to career-related variables. Studies with African American samples have suggested that more developed racial identity attitudes are related to vocational identity (Jackson & Neville, 1996), life role salience (Carter & Constantine, 2000), and social cognitive variables (Byars-Winston, 2006; Gainor & Lent, 1998) but are unrelated to career decidedness (McCowan & Alston, 1998), number of occupations considered by a sample of high school students (Lease, 2006), and grades or standardized test scores (Awad, 2007). In addition, racial identity attitudes predict, over and above demographic variables such as age and gender, career development among African American students (Jackson & Neville, 1996). Racial identity has also been empirically linked to career maturity among Asian Americans (Carter & Constantine, 2000) and to work-related values among Whites (Carter, Gushue, & Weitzman, 1994).

An important area of research has focused on the relationship between racial attitudes and counseling skills. Preliminary studies have suggested that higher statuses of racial identity are associated with higher levels of self-reported multicultural counseling competencies (Middleton et al., 2005; Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings, 1994). It is important that White career counselors be trained to be aware of their racial identity attitudes and how they might be related to the career counseling process, as these attitudes may have implications for the delivery of culturally sensitive career counseling to culturally diverse clients.

Ethnic identity may also play an important role in the career development of culturally diverse clients; however, the empirical literature in this area is thin. Findings with racially/ethnically diverse samples have indicated that ethnic identity was positively related to career decidedness, indecisiveness, comfort and career choice importance (Duffy & Klingaman, 2009), and career decision making self-efficacy (Gushue, 2006; Gushue & Whitson, 2006b; Rollins & Valdez, 2006), and it had an indirect effect on career planning outcome expectations via self-efficacy (Gushue, 2006). However, ethnic identity was not related to career-related self-efficacy in samples of African American students (Gushue & Whitson, 2006a) or racially diverse students (Byars-Winston et al., 2010). Although more research is needed to understand the connection between ethnic identity and career decisions, career practitioners are encouraged to assess a client’s ethnic identity to understand how career decisions may have formed in relation to group affiliations and pride.

The Career Counseling Process Through the Lens of Culture

Culture is a critical factor in career counseling and career development and should be used both as a filter to understand the client and as a factor that may affect each phase of the process. What follows is a description of some of the culturally salient aspects of each phase in the career planning process outlined in Chapter 1. It is vital that career counselors engage in an ongoing exploration of their own cultural values and how these values may influence their work with clients who are racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and culturally similar to or different from themselves. To assist with this exploration process, readers should examine their worldviews, racial and ethnic identities, and social class attitudes throughout their professional development, as these attitudes are likely to change through life experiences.

Phase 1: Client Goal or Problem Identification, Clarification, and Specification

Identification—Opening and Forming the Working Alliance

It is critical from the outset that counselors have an awareness of the myriad ways in which culture may influence a person’s career development. Given the vast array of different cultural contexts a client may bring to the career counseling session, Leong’s (1993) construct of creative uncertainty serves as a good place to begin. Even if we are uncertain about each client’s cultural background and values and how these may have influenced the career counseling process, Leong reminds us to remain creative in our approach to helping the client. The more our knowledge and awareness of culturally relevant factors can inform our practice, the more creative we can be.

Along with the need for creativity comes the need to develop a strong working alliance with the client at the onset of counseling to prevent early termination (Bingham & Ward, 1994; Fouad & Bingham, 1995). Meara and Patton (1994) suggested that one reason for premature termination among career clients in general may be a lack of attention to the working alliance. Thus, regardless of the cultural background of the counselor and the client, there is a need to establish rapport with the client in a way that helps the client feel bonded with the counselor. This early connection can set the stage for the collaboration and mutuality necessary for effective career counseling to take place. The working alliance may also be facilitated by the counselor communicating an understanding and validation of the client’s life experiences and by the counselor communicating a willingness and excitement about the client’s life and future options.

At this opening phase in career counseling it may be helpful to try to assess the client’s level of “racial salience,” or the extent to which the individual perceives race to be influential in the career planning process, including in perceived work options, level of occupational stereotyping, and career decision making (Helms & Piper, 1994). It is also important to examine the client’s level of class salience and how his or her current or previous social class identity may impact career development. All of this information can help to shape the discourse of career counseling.

Clarification—Gathering Client Information

Gathering information about the client should include assessing the culture-specific variables and individual differences discussed earlier. This assessment should extend beyond the traditional use of tests and inventories to incorporate qualitative assessments and interviews to understand various aspects of the client (Lonberg & Hackett, 2006; Ponterotto, Rivera, & Sueyoshi, 2000; Subich, 1996). The use of genograms (Gibson, 2005; Sueyoshi, Rivera, & Ponterotto, 2001), life and career narratives (Clark, Severy, & Sawyer, 2004; Galindo, Aragon, & Underhill, 1996), multicultural checklists (Ward & Bingham, 1993), vocational card sorts, and career/life timelines can be particularly useful approaches for gaining a better understanding of a client. Filtering this information through a cultural context and understanding how one’s career development has been shaped by this cultural context (Blustein, Coutinho, Murphy, Backus, & Catraio, 2011; Heppner & Fu, 2010; Leong, Hardin, & Gupta, 2010) is an important skill for career counselors. In addition, the race/gender ecological model of career development discussed in Chapter 2 provides a template for helping the client examine the macro- and microsystems affecting his or her career development. For example, an assessment of the client’s racial identity status as a microsystem influence is very important to understanding many of the dynamics of the career counseling process. This assessment of racial identity status can be accomplished with one of the racial identity scales or through a less formal verbal assessment based on the counselor’s thorough understanding of the various racial identity statuses. Counselors would benefit from reading recent chapters on social class worldview, acculturation, and racial and ethnic identity and special journal issues that have been devoted to multicultural career counseling and assessment (e.g., Journal of Career Assessment, Volume 2, Number 3; Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 44, Number 2; The Career Development Quarterly, Volume 50, Number 4; Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, Volume 33, Number 3; Journal of Career Development, Volume 34, Number 3; Journal of Career Development, Volume 37, Number 1). As Helms (1994) indicated, to understand a client’s racial identity status, the counselor may be able to assess how the client integrates racial information into his or her career self-conception, which may be a critical factor in effectively providing career planning assistance. It is especially important to examine how a client’s racial identity might affect such constructs as racial salience in job selection, strategies for dealing with racism in the work environment, work adjustment, and work satisfaction.

In addition to gathering client information, this is also a phase of providing information that may be useful to the client. Particularly if the client is at a less developed racial identity status, he or she may be unaware of structural barriers in the career development process. Thus, it is important that the counselor help the client become aware of these barriers and discuss ways to circumvent these obstacles should they occur. The counselor may also point out the roles of the sociopolitical environment, culture, and social class in shaping individuals’ self-concepts. This information will lay the groundwork for future discussion about how environmental and cultural factors may influence important aspects of the client’s career development process.

Specification—Understanding and Hypothesizing About Client Information and Behavior

In attempting to gain greater specificity with the client, the counselor might explore, when appropriate, the roles that poverty, sexism, racism, or discrimination may have on both the client’s self-efficacy concerning his or her probability of succeeding in the traditional labor market and the outcomes he or she perceives to be possible. The counselor may also explore the gendered, racialized, and classist nature of vocational self-concept and how it may influence job options. The counselor may further explore how perceptions of the vocational self may influence an individual to compromise his or her career choices in ways that may be detrimental. For example, if a client indicates low educational aspirations, the counselor should seek to understand the source of these low aspirations and attempt to widen the educational and occupational options the client is considering. Given the overrepresentation of African Americans and women in social occupations, the counselor may explore whether these are authentic interests or if the person is following socialized expectations for traditional careers. In addition, this phase of counseling may include the counselor testing hypotheses about culture-specific variables that may explain the client’s vocational behavior. In particular, it may be helpful to examine how culture-specific variables can enhance the counselor’s and client’s understanding of the career development process. Culture-specific variables can be examined as unique strengths that the client brings to the career planning process and eventually to the workplace setting.

Phase 2: Client Goal or Problem Resolution

Taking Action

Some writers in the field of multicultural counseling (Sue & Sue, 2013) have indicated that some racially and ethnically diverse clients prefer directive- and action-oriented approaches to counseling rather than insight- or reflective-oriented approaches (Fusick & Bordeau, 2004; Okonji, Osokie, & Pulos, 1996), although these preferences may differ based on race, ethnicity, gender, acculturation, and social class. Almost no studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of career interventions with culturally diverse clients (M. T. Brown, Yamini-Diouf, & Ruiz de Esparza, 2005; S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000; Heppner & Heppner, 2003); however, many recommendations can be drawn from the extant multicultural counseling and career literatures. For example, research has found evidence that racial and ethnic group differences exist in perceived career opportunities and perceived career barriers, with racial and ethnic minorities reporting fewer career options and more perceived barriers than their White counterparts (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005). Given the tremendous impact environmental barriers have on racially and ethnically diverse and poor individuals’ career development, it may be very important in this phase to help clients identify those aspects of the process that are within and beyond their personal control. This may be especially helpful for those clients who are living in poverty. It may also be very helpful to talk directly with clients about ways of overcoming certain barriers in the career planning and job search processes.

In addition, it may be particularly helpful to provide opportunities for culturally diverse clients to take part in group interventions, as some writers have indicated that this reinforces the collectivist worldview and allows individuals to connect with others from similar backgrounds who are experiencing similar career challenges (Bowman, 1993; Clark et al., 2004; Shea, Ma, & Yeh, 2007). In the action phase, this may take the form of a career exploration group or a job club, whereby individuals come together and provide support, leads, and resources as well as normalize the fears and feelings that may accompany these important life transitions. This may also be an appropriate time to introduce the client to culturally similar role models in a variety of career fields to expand awareness of possible career fields and to increase self-efficacy beliefs.

It may also be beneficial to include the family in the action phase, either by directly involving them in parts of the process or by inquiring about how the family would view particular options the individual is considering. Clients might be encouraged to use their immediate family, extended family, or community as resources in their career planning process. Delivery systems might include holding career planning workshops in community centers and collaborating with community leaders in the design and implementation of career planning services. This may be particularly advantageous for people living in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods with little access to transportation.

Some writers have indicated the importance of the counselor emphasizing clients’ abilities to generate knowledge about themselves and to act on their own behalf in locating appropriate role models and developing networks. Although advocacy on the client’s behalf is definitely warranted when the client is having difficulty negotiating predominantly White work environments, the more counselors emphasize client-generated rather than counselor-generated knowledge, the more self-efficacy and strength the client is likely to feel (Hawks & Muha, 1991).

Developing Career Goals and Plans of Action

The career counseling process continues with the development of an individual career plan. This specific plan can serve as a road map for a client as he or she navigates the action phase of the process. Here the counselor can help the client examine at a more micro level how to take action steps and how to overcome potential obstacles. For some of the action steps, the counselor may need to play the role of advocate for the client in the larger employment and educational system. The counselor can also help the client to creatively devise a repertoire of possible responses to situations of racism, classism, and discrimination that the client may face. At this stage, the lack of linearity in the process may become evident as the client sees the need to reevaluate and revisit previous steps. It is especially important at this time that the career counselor reinforces the client’s decision-making style and unique strengths.

Evaluating Results and Closing the Relationship

This is the phase in which the counseling session is evaluated from both a content (what we did) and a process (how we did it) perspective. During this phase the counselor can emphasize the client’s strengths and proficiency at various aspects of the career planning process. This is also a time to welcome clients to return if they need further help or assistance. This is especially important for culturally diverse clients for a couple of reasons. For one, Fouad and Bingham (1995) argued that many times individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds may ascribe expert or even familial status to the counselor. Returning to counseling after termination may be perceived as a failure or loss of face, especially for Asian American clients, and thus may be very difficult for the client. Thus, it is important that the counselor normalize coming back to counseling and help the client see it as simply a part of what often occurs in counseling relationships. Another reason for emphasizing the possibility of the client’s return is the likelihood that the client will be met with race-related obstacles (racism, discrimination) and will need further assistance. If a strong relationship has been built between counselor and client, this is a natural place for the client to return and get help instead of having to develop an entirely new relationship with another counselor.

Closing Thoughts

In sum, it is imperative that each phase of the career planning process be examined through the filter of culture. Although much of what is included in each phase may be similar, cultural contexts can bring different needs to these phases that, when attended to, can lead to more effective and empowering career counseling. However, when the cultural context is ignored or unattended, counselors can do a great disservice to their culturally diverse clients. The more awareness and knowledge counselors have about culture-specific variables, the more equipped they will be to provide the best quality service and help empower the life choices of all people.