lecturer in the School of Business and Economics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Polly’s previous work as an educator, counsellor and career consultant has informed her principal interest of career development. Her PhD, from The University of Auckland, is on “Career Communities”; she has published on this and on contemporary career development. Her current research interests include practical applications of the Intelligent Career Card Sort, dual career couples and the contribution of career communities.
Professor of Management at the Sawyer School of Management, Suffolk University, Boston. He has written and researched widely on the subject of careers, including as editor of the Handbook of Career Theory (1989), The Boundaryless Career (1996) and Career Frontiers (2000). Michael is also a co-author of The New Careers (1999) and of a series of articles into the application of “intelligent career” principles in the contemporary economy. His research focuses on alternative ways to link between individual career theory and collective action. Michael holds MBA and PhD degrees from Cranfield University, UK.
Social science research is at an interesting juncture. Its accepted tradition, stemming from the physical sciences, involves an « objective,
logical and systematic method of analysis devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge » (Lastrucci, 1963: 6). However, this
“traditional science” methodology has come under increasing scrutiny.
An alternative “new science” approach (Wheatley, 1992) suggests
recent physical science views of shifting, interdependent and self-organizing relationships provide alternative inspiration. Moreover, this
alternative approach suggests a range of new ways to think about
careers research (Bird, Gunz and Arthur, 2002, this issue).
Kuhn (1970: 36) describes traditional science— “normal” science—presuming a puzzle metaphor. The presumption is that problems can be
reduced to distinct forms such as crosswords or jigsaw puzzles. In
these puzzles the parts remain the same, only fit together one way,
and are fixed in relation to each other. The puzzle metaphor suggests
that careers will unfold through prevailing organizational or institutional parts, namely jobs. However, the jigsaw puzzle metaphor does not
work very well any more for many of the problems intriguing much of
the contemporary scientific community, even though in Kuhn’s terms
this may still be “normal” (i.e., non-paradigm-shifting) science. Those
problems—reflecting ideas in chaos theory, complexity theory and
non-linear systems (e.g., Holland, 1996; Capra, 1996)—involve seeing
the relationships between the parts, as well as the larger pattern that
the relationships create, as constantly changing. Such views resonate
with contemporary ideas about how adaptive, self-organizing career
processes contribute to the economic and social world (Weick, 1996).
The traditions of social science research place the contemporary
careers researcher on the horns of a dilemma. Can changing relationships be explored through methodologies which presume that those
relationships will endure? Can a supposedly non-linear world be reconciled with the linear assumptions on which most social science
methods are based? Can these methods be adapted to accommodate
interdependence rather than assuming separate independent and
dependent variables? Even if the methods are adaptable, how will the
adaptations be seen by the gatekeepers—the academic supervisors
and journal reviewers—of social science research? Does the common
distinction between quantitative and qualitative research help or hinder
the troubled researcher? This paper will explore how questions such
as these were experienced in a recent career research project.
The purpose of the research project, begun in 1995, was to develop an
understanding of individuals’ subjective careers based on a new conception of the career, namely the “intelligent career” (Arthur, Claman
and DeFillippi, 1995). This conception was inspired by previous work
on the subjective side of the career (e.g., Schein 1978; Barley, 1989),
reflecting the meaning that people ascribe to their own career situations, in contrast to the objective career reflecting the normative roles
and sequences of roles suggested by prevailing organizational and
occupational structures. The subjective career involves the internal
interpretation of personal experiences, the internally perceived place
of work in the whole of one’s life context, and the internal sense an
individual makes of the unfolding of events over time (Barley, 1989).
The subjective side has been broadly argued to be increasingly significant as individuals are called on take greater responsibility for both the
direction and interpretation of their unfolding careers (Arthur and
Rousseau, 1996a; Hall, 1996). We anticipated that the subjective
career data we sought might well be elicited through a card sort technique, known as a “Q-sort, ” and described to offer « a fundamental theory of subjectivity, beginning and ending with expressions of self-reference » (Ozer, 1993: 104).
This is not a conventional research paper. Our primary aim is not to
report on the findings of a research project. Rather, our aim is to
describe the difficulties we encountered and the learning we drew as
the project progressed. In particular we will attempt to show how several of our difficulties stemmed from the application of traditional social
science assumptions. We will then turn to suggest that “new science”
offers an alternative set of assumptions more compatible with our
research purpose, and with the conception of career behind it. We will
close by encouraging careers researchers to take the ideas of new science to heart, rather than to be constrained by the increasingly questionable assumptions to which traditional social science adheres.
Our point of departure was the intelligent career (Arthur et al., 1995),
originally conceived as a response to Quinn’s (1992) ideas about
“intelligent enterprise.” Quinn’s “new paradigm” saw company success
stemming from the perpetual accumulation and conversion of “intellectual resources” into desired customer outputs (Quinn, 1992: 213).
He envisioned a turbulent environment, including a turbulent employment environment, as a permanent rather than passing feature of the
economy companies faced. He also described employment as “voluntary” in that « the best people [didn’t] have to work for [any] particular
company, » staying only as long as they wanted to be there (Quinn,
1992: 151). The challenge for both company and career adaptation
concurred with other viewpoints asserting that employment mobility
would be an enduring and important feature of the emerging economy
(Bridges, 1994; Drucker, 1994).
Quinn’s work overlaps with a broader set of ideas linking company success to the underlying “core competencies” through which the company does its business (D’Aveni, 1994; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994).
These competencies fall into three distinct categories concerned with
a company’s culture, know-how and networks respectively (Hall,
1992). Briefly, culture encompasses the dominant values and beliefs
through which a company functions, know-how involves a company’s
accumulated skills and expertise, and networks represent the relationships through which a company participates in the economic marketplace.
The intelligent career framework responds to these categories by suggesting three corresponding “ways of knowing”—labeled knowing-why,
knowing-how, and knowing-whom (Arthur et al., 1995). The framework
takes Quinn’s and other writers’ assertion of “voluntary” employment to
heart. Accordingly, the career actor is seen as a temporary investor in
his or her present company, rather than as subservient to the company’s proclaimed (and often shifting) goals and objectives. The three
ways of knowing may be briefly described as follows.
Knowing-why relates to company culture, and involves themes of individual motivation, the construction of personal meaning, and the
expression of identity through work. Knowing-why further incorporates
attitudes to and accommodation of a person’s family, and sentiments
about other non-work aspects of life that affect career choice, adaptability and commitment.
Knowing-how links to overall company know-how, and reflects the
skills and expertise a person brings to his or her work situation. However, people may well bring, or may wish to develop, broader knowing-how competencies than their present job demands. People may therefore be expected to seek to change their work arrangements to
enhance future career opportunities and employability.
Knowing-whom involves the internal and external relationships that
contribute to a company’s networks. Some relationships are prescribed by the company’s job expectations, others grow from less formal beginnings. Connections to other company departments, suppliers, customers and so on can support people’s career purposes, as
can contacts with family, friends, and professional acquaintances.
It is fundamental to the intelligent career framework that the three ways
of knowing are interdependent. For example, a person’s (knowing-why) career motivation can be expected to influence his or her further
investment in (knowing-how) expertise, as well as in (knowing-whom)
relationship-building to help develop that expertise. In turn, fresh
expertise and new relationships can be expected to influence future
(knowing-why) motivation, and so on. It is also fundamental that the
interactions will change over time. Yesterday’s (knowing-why) enthusiasm or (knowing-how) learning agenda or (knowing-whom) affiliations
can be expected to change in the light of subsequent experience. The
intelligent career view sees people, like their employer companies, to
be engaged in perpetual adaptation.
Each of these three types of knowledge also has interrelated referents:
the job, the company, the professional domain, and the industry. Again
as careers develop, one or other of these domains may be salient to
the individual. In addition, learning in one domain may contribute to
knowledge in another.
As previously stated, the intention of the research project was to
explore subjective career data, based on the intelligent career framework. The preliminary plan for the project was as follows. The initial
research participants would be MBA graduates, an accessible local
population that was predictably already adjusting to “voluntary”
employment principles (Kotter, 1995). Preliminary evidence of the population’s career concerns would be gathered from a series of case
studies. These would precede three focus groups with MBA graduate
participants, which would draw on the intelligent career framework in
promoting participants’ discussion of their own career behavior. The
focus group transcripts would provide the raw data from which two
methodologies would be developed. In the first, a traditional paper and
pencil questionnaire covering each of the intelligent career domains
was developed. The data from this was analyzed through factor analytic techniques. Second, the same data from the focus groups together with the insights developed from the factor analysis data were used
to develop items to be used in a card sorting exercise. It was felt that
these alternative methods would provide useful triangulation of the
concepts implied by intelligent career theory. In addition, we expected
that the traditional questionnaire and the card sort items would provide
a convergent picture of the careers involved 
When the project was launched the first
Over the course of the ensuing research, several experiences reflected a tension between traditional social science principles and the
authors’ aspirations. These involved the initial adoption of factor analysis, the further interpretation of factor analysis results, the principles
underlying a relevant branch of social science research called Q-methodology, the approach to scoring the card sort results, and the
distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodologies 
One other issue that could not be
addressed here is....
These experiences are described below.
Adopting factor analysis: The research proceeded smoothly through its
case study, focus group and questionnaire phases. A content analysis
of the focus group transcripts suggested a total of 87 prospective card
sort items, broken down into 35 knowing-why, 26 knowing-how and 26
knowing-whom items respectively. Example items were: “I want to contribute to innovation at work” (knowing-why), “I pursue skills and knowledge specific to my occupation” (knowing-how), and “I develop and
maintain relationships inside my industry” (knowing-whom). The items
were included on a questionnaire distributed among current MBA students (the student were all part-time, and therefore active in their own
careers). Ninety-five students responded out of 110 approached.
Our first attempt at factor analysis was a conventional one, to enter all
of the questionnaire items into the factor analysis at the same time
(Harman, 1976). The results were not encouraging; there was only limited evidence for three distinct knowing-why, knowing-how and knowing-whom dimensions. Our next conventional approach was to ask the
analysis to confirm a three-factor solution, but again the results failed
to provide the distinctions sought. The items that loaded together
included items representing more than one of the three ways of knowing that our framework assumed. However, we saw these results to be
consistent with our expectations, inasmuch as the intelligent career
framework anticipated the kind of interdependence among knowing-why, knowing-how and knowing-whom items that the factor analysis
had found. This led to the first predicament: the conflict between our
underlying theory and the restrictions imposed by the formal factor
We then proceeded to investigate each of the knowing-why, knowing-how and knowing-whom arenas separately. Now we saw a much clearer picture. Most of the factors derived could be readily interpreted and
labeled from visual inspection of their constituent items. The analysis
of the knowing-why variables produced twelve factors, using 26 of 35
items, covering such topics as social contribution, innovation, flexibility, concern for family, work atmosphere, and influence over others. The
anlaysis of the knowing-how variables produced ten factors, using 23
of 26 items, covering for example distinctive skills, project activities,
working with others, coaching, and strategic thinking. The analysis of
knowing-whom variables produced ten factors, using 24 of 26 items,
such as feedback, external work relationships, internal company support, industry support and mentoring (Tables 1, 2 and 3) 
All data in Tables 1 to 3 are from Parker (1996: 144-148)..... The
opportunity for visual inspection of the factor analysis results also
allowed for further reflection on exceptional cases where the suggested links among a factor’s variables appeared unclear.
As already noted, we did not envision a questionnaire as the end result
of the research. We understood that forced-choice questionnaires
risked « missing or misinterpreting meaning from the respondent’s
(subjective) frame of reference » (McKeown and Thomas, 1988: 23).
Our interest was merely exploratory, in that we sought to investigate
and learn from the factor analysis data. However, the normative procedures of factor analysis, this time in association with established
questionnaire design practices, created further tension. The normative
approach was based on a traditional science goal of identifying and
distinguishing among separate theoretical dimensions. Accordingly, it
suggested the deletion of problem items, reflected in “non-loading”
variables excluded from the factors identified, or in single-factor variables that did not fall into any larger pattern (Bryman and Cramer,
1994). Similarly, it suggested dropping “complex variables” that were
incorporated into more than one of the factors suggested (Tabachnik
and Fidell, 1989).
Table 1 - Factor Analysis Results: Knowing-why
.889 making a contribution to society
.815 doing something useful for others
.604 being trustworthy at work
.578 deriving personal meaning from my work
.838 contributing to innovation at work
.806 experimenting with new activities and ideas
.535 being enterprising in my work
.526 being open to future opportunities
.763 working in a competitive environment
.799 having flexibility to organize my daily schedule
.660 having flexibility in long term planning of my work
.635 having autonomy to develop new ideas
.570 being adaptive to a changing environment
.809 sharing work & life responsibilities with my partner
.784 providing for my family
6: Supportive work
.825 working in a supportive atmosphere
.590 working for a firm that reflects my values
.759 maintaining predictability in my work arrangements
.737 maintaining stability in my present location
.850 seeking & maintaining employment security
.667 gaining external approval through my work
.600 working in an industry that matters
10: Personal ambition
.834 having employment to suit my lifestyle
.629 fulfilling personal goals through my work
.788 exerting influence over a changing environment
.710 exerting influence over others
Table 2 - Factor Analysis Results: Knowing-how
1: Skills and knowledge
.906 pursuing and maintaining qualifications specific to my industry
.809 pursuing and maintaining qualifications specific to
.691 developing skills and knowledge valued by my industry
.691 pursuing and maintaining qualifications specific to
2: Distinctive Skills
.897 pursuing and maintaining qualifications that make
me distinctive from others
.895 developing skills and knowledge that make me
distinctive from others
.777 gaining training & development that prepares me
for my current job
.727 working with individuals from whom I can learn
.586 developing skills and knowledge that are valued by
4: Working with others
.848 being better able to work with other people
.738 being able to resolve differences with other people
.586 being able to bring out the best in other people†
.714 working on projects rather than a continuous job
.712 doing a job as part of a meaningful project
.550 performing meaningful projects within my job
.856 being a better leader
.668 being open to fresh ideas
.733 being a better coach to other people
.562 becoming more responsive to external change
8: Developing new
.746 becoming better able to work under pressure
.551 developing generalized rather than specialized skills
9: Strategic thinking
.749 becoming a strategic thinker
.586 being able to bring out the best in other people†
10: Job situations
.759 working in job situations from which I can learn
The suggested deletions did not concur with our underlying concern
with the intelligent career, or more broadly with the subjective career.
Our theory suggested that people would not necessarily conform to
pre-determined dimensions of behavior, but instead would ascribe
their own meanings to the items involved. Dropping the problem items
would have denied people the opportunity to ascribe meaning to these
in the next stage of the research. We sought to develop a card sort that
would elicit these meanings. We were therefore reluctant to drop the
problem items, especially in cases where we recalled the enthusiasm
with which certain focus group participants had spoken about the
issues involved. For example, a normative response to factor analysis
would have been to drop items such as the single-factor variable that
did not meet the cutoff factor loading “I want to work in a competitive
environment” (knowing-why), the non-loading variable “I seek training
and development beyond my current job” (knowing-how), and the complex variable “I develop and maintain relationships with previous
employers” (knowing-whom). Yet in all three cases we had evidence
that these items held distinct importance for some of the research participants.
Table 3 - Factor Analysis Results: Knowing-whom
1: Learning through
.737 using relationships to get feedback on my skills
.715 spending time with people from whom I can learn
.646 identifying and reaching people from whom I can
.644 using relationships to gain feedback on my abilities
.617 developing and maintaining relationships with
others in my occupation
.608 using relationships to gain feedback on my performance
.590 using relationships to acquire new information†
2: Gaining support
.855 getting to know people who will advance my
.836 developing relationships to access new information
.618 gaining support from people outside my company
.586 getting to know people who can act as mentors
.550 using relationships to acquire new information†
.868 spending time with people who can learn from me
.820 giving access to people who can learn from me
4: Company specific
.859 gaining support from people inside my company
.684 developing relationships with people inside my
5: External relationships
.751 developing and maintaining relationships with family
.593 developing and maintaining relationships with
outside my company
.532 developing and maintaining relationships with
.823 developing and maintaining relationships to provide
.550 using relationships to gain feedback on my potential
7: Work relationships
.810 developing and maintaining relationships with
others in my industry
.793 developing and maintaining relationships with
A different kind of problem occurred when factor analysis results suggested that we merge items into a single construct when our theory
suggested otherwise. For example, the factor analysis merged the
three (knowing-how) items “I pursue skills and knowledge specific to
my company, ” “I pursue skills and knowledge specific to my occupation, ” and “I pursue skills and knowledge specific to my industry.” However, from the intelligent career standpoint company, occupation and
industry were three distinct contexts that could attract distinct kinds of
career investments (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994). (A case in point
would be the mobile high-technology worker seeking cutting-edge
occupational experience rather than particular company or industry
experience.) We found the opportunity provided by factor analysis to
consider data such as this to be genuinely helpful. We deliberated over
the observation that only a minority of questionnaire respondents—all
of them still MBA students—made the distinctions between three kinds
of career investment that our theory suggested. We reflected back on
the previous focus group discussions we had heard. We recalled the
strategies that experienced people had described to seek out transferable knowledge and preserve employability. We concluded that a
minority of questionnaire respondents could be harbingers of change,
proponents of new forms of career whose differences might be highlighted rather than neglected. We therefore chose in this instance not
to proceed as factor analysis would suggest, that is we chose not to
combine the items indicated 
This does not mean that our sample
The goal of eliciting data about the subjective side of people’s careers
led us to consider the use of the Q-sort methodology (Stephenson,
1953). (The qualifier “Q” is meant to distinguish the person-centered
methodology from the population-centered “R-methodology” where R
indicates regression analysis.) Q-methodology involves a process similar to the one we anticipated when our own card sort would be complete. People are asked to select and rank cards based on the underlying meaning and importance that the card sort items hold for the person. The method has been described as serving « the scientific study
of human subjectivity », that is, of « a person’s communication of his or
her point of view » (McKeown and Thomas, 1988: 12). We were further
intrigued by Q-methodology because of its proponents’ discomfort with
factor analysis. For example, Stephenson’s (1953: 3) original work
argued that factor analysis « assumes that everyone has the same psychological attribute in some degree, » and that the factor analysts’ pride
in “pure objectivity” had interfered with the possibilities for new theory
What we found was that the Q-sort originator’s enthusiasm for exploring the person’s subjective perspective had not been universally sustained. In particular, one prominent branch of Q-methodology has
departed from Stephenson’s concern with the subjective self. This
branch, underlying the development of the California Psychological
Inventory, firmly locates the psychoanalyst or counselor as “judge” of
the person’s responses (Block, 1978). The associated Q-sort technique is described to provide « a convenient means of objectifying the
impressions and personality formulations of observers » (Block,
1978: 4, italics added), while neglecting participants’ own interpretations. According to this technique, a person’s subjective view is « simply a curiosity piece and not a datum of science » (Block, 1978: 35).
This is clearly inconsistent with our own focus on the subjective career,
and thereby on the person as the “judge” of his or her own career
Q-methodology also provided an established method for weighting the
importance of successive card sort selections, assuming a two-tailed
normal statistical distribution, to provide summary group data (Carr,
1992). This was important to us, since at the time we were concerned
to develop a methodology to capture inter-subjective data—namely,
shared meanings among people whose careers exhibited common
characteristics that we sought to study 
We worked on this methodology along
with Kerr Inkson.... The basic idea, inspired by
recent developments on focus group thinking (Krueger and King,
1998), was to share the most important card sort selections with a
focus group of representative participants. We needed a consistent
way of determining not only the frequency of selection but also the relative importance, based on people’s individual rankings, of the card
sort items, a problem with which the proponents of Q-methodology had
However, we could not apply the Q-methodology approach directly. Its
assumption of a two-tailed normal distribution derives from a longstanding recommendation to develop a “balanced design” of cards,
namely equal numbers of opposite kinds of statements (Stephenson,
1953). For example this would involve including an equal number of
statements about job mobility as about job stability, it would also
involve an equal number of statements about working alone or working in collaboration. In turn, the research participant would be asked to
provide a set of cards with equal numbers reflecting both positive and
negative responses, to cover both ends of the underlying dimensions
By this stage of the project we had moved beyond our original sample
and developed the card sort to allow respondents to choose from a
total of 111 items. The card sort required up to 45 minutes to complete,
and we asked for only positive responses, that is to select the items
that were most descriptive of a person’s present career behavior. We
anticipated a practical problem in extending the time to complete the
card sort to incorporate the balanced set approach. This however was
not the main reason for our decision. We wanted to focus on the attraction the person felt toward alternative opportunities for determining her
or his career progression. To put it another way, our focus was on the
investments people were making in their careers rather than the
investments they were not making. Moreover, we saw our card sort
bringing a social psychological focus, concerned with the interplay, or
mutual attraction, between people and the kind of career situations
they sought out. The idea of a balanced set didn’t appeal to us.
In the circumstances, we chose to modify the traditional two-tailed
weighting system that had been derived for the balanced set
approach. We used the same assumption of a normal distribution, and
we predicted the size of our card decks as if a full balanced set of items
had been included. We then came up with a weighting system based
on that predicted size. We saw our modification as respectful of both
the social psychological approach we adopted and previous Q-sort traditions. However, we felt vulnerable to the reaction we might receive
from established Q-sort users. This, we feared, would mirror the same
kind of conventional thinking we had found in factor analysis, and
press us to assume a series of separate (and therefore two-tailed)
There was a concern that the items
were derived from....
One of our hopes for the card sort was that it would help in the gathering of inter-subjective data, namely shared understanding « occurring
between or among (or accessible to) two or more separate subjects or
conscious minds » (Dreier, 1996: 107). For this purpose, we were trying out a methodology, initially with management consultants and sexual abuse counselors, based on aggregate group data. The approach
involved identifying the most important card sort items across the
group as a whole, and then feeding this information back to a focus
group of the workers in question. In turn, the workers would be asked
to discuss and interpret the meaning behind the items. The methodology would have the advantage over a straightforward focus group in
that the act of administering the card sort captured critical subjective
career data, and in turn obliged the focus group to concentrate on that
in their discussion.
We determined the most important card sort items based on which
cards carried the highest average weight. However, we also gave the
focus groups information about the frequency with which the same
cards were chosen. Both data points appeared to be useful. The
weights appeared to help the groups’ allocation of time, and the relative attention they paid to each item that they were asked to discuss.
The frequencies gave a clearer sense of how often the selected cards
were chosen among the workers in question. The focus groups themselves were characterized by a high level of energy among their participants, so that people persisted in the search for shared interpretations.
However, we now came upon an obstacle from an unexpected quarter.
A sympathetic reviewer of the work nevertheless recommended that
we disregard the one-tailed weighting system that we had developed.
The recommendation appeared to reflect the reviewer’s own identification with qualitative research as a separate and distinct area of
inquiry from quantitative research. The recommendation also seemed
to reflect a political argument: Why invite the gatekeepers of quantitative social science methodology to criticize the research on their own
terms? Why not simply exclude those gatekeepers from the conversation? Why not just report the most frequently selected items? We
seemed caught in the middle of an argument between traditional quantitative social science and its qualitative opponent. However, we did not
see the logic in joining either side of the argument to the exclusion of
For the reasons described above, we had now adapted traditional
science methods—spanning both factor analysis and Q-methodology—to our own purposes. Along the way we discovered that we
were not alone in our discomfort with what “normal” social science
seemed to be requiring of us; we encountered support for our
approach in a well-regarded reference source on traditional social
science techniques. Specifically, Nunnally and Bernstein (1994:
330) suggest that factor analysis « is useful only to the extent that it
aids in the development of principles of human behavior. » They also
suggest that « there has been a tendency to overdo the mathematical requirements of factor analysis » resulting in « a bad case of “the
tail wagging the dog.” » The authors propose that the experimenter
should simply ask « How much will this help in my program of
research? » (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994: 330). However, the
established practice that we had encountered over the course of our
study seemed very much out of sympathy with these authors’ recommendations.
By this time we had also field-tested our preliminary version of the card
sort with over 350 clients, either individually or in pilot workshops
(where clients worked together, under supervision, in discussing their
card sort selections) (Parker, 1997). The feedback we got from that
testing was encouraging. Most respondents reported that the card sort
helped them bring to the surface and express their most pressing
career concerns, and that the range of cards was adequate for that
purpose. The subjective career was evident in some of the sharp distinctions in the way people spoke about the same card sort item. The
three ways of knowing made intuitive sense for people in the way that
they reflected on their career past and anticipated the future. They
could see, for example, how the impact and interplay of their (knowing-why) enthusiasm and (knowing-whom) experiences of mentoring modified their subsequent (knowing-how) career investments, and how
these in turn played back on earlier investments. Our field experience
led us to ask if we might find greater support for our work outside the
domain of traditional social science.
The difficulties described above drew us toward alternative social science arguments that would better support our work and through it the
elicitation of the subjective side of the career on which we were
focused. At this juncture three sets of arguments appealed to us. One
was to join in with the critics of traditional social science methodologies, another was to join the proponents of qualitative research, while
a third was to adopt “new science, ” much like Wheatley (1992), as a
We were not alone in feeling the constraints of traditional science
guidelines. Earlier proponents of the subjective career had been
harshly criticized by Wilensky (1961: 523) who urged that we
« define career in structural terms [as] a succession of related
jobs, arranged in a hierarchy of prestige, through which persons
move in an ordered (more-or-less) predictable sequence. » As a
result even proponents of the subjective career were cautious
about its place in the research agenda, conceding « problems in
terms of validity and reliability of measurement » in the data that
could be collected (Stebbins, 1970: 42). However, the price for
such caution may be considerable. Sutton and Staw (1995: 380)
suggest it has given rise to a community of social science
researchers who are « primarily trained in data collection techniques and the latest analytical tools, not the nuances of theory
building. » They add that those researchers’ inclinations are to fit
concepts and arguments around « what has been measured and
discovered [instead of appreciating] that major contributions can
be made when data are more illustrative than definitive. » (Sutton
and Staw, 1995: 380).
Whatever the leanings of other researchers, our own research interests resonated with Weick’s (1989: 524) argument that the « contribution of social science does not lie in validated knowledge, but rather
in the suggestion of relationships and connections that had previously not been suspected, relationships that change actions and perspectives. » As our research project was underway these sentiments
were echoed by Turner (1997: xiv) who argued that individual freedom
to act preceded the discovery of new meanings, which in turn preceded further actions. Therefore, the « mathematical science of statistics (…) the most sophisticated and widely used tool of social science
[gave] a severely limited picture of social systems » (Turner,
We drew encouragement from these arguments, but their influence
over the kind of career research being sanctioned appeared limited.
The great majority of published research on careers still emphasized
objective career rather subjective career phenomena (Arthur and
Rousseau, 1996a). Meanwhile, the work of Turner (1997) and others
suggested different possibilities.
As we have already noted, the criticisms of the traditional social science methods coincided with a trend towards alternative qualitative
research. Enthusiasts for this kind of research were increasingly
challenging the traditional science view that interpretive methods
were « unreliable, impressionistic and non-objective » (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1994: 5). One encouraging strand of qualitative research
came from the field of participative inquiry. According to its originator,
this also stands « in marked contrast to orthodox social research »
(Reason, 1994: 332) in its emphasis on the subjective self. Participative inquiry, like the concept of the intelligent career, envisions the
interplay of people’s subjective and objective worlds evolving over
time, and sees this evolution occurring through « the reflective action
of persons and communities » (Reason, 1994: 333). To constrain
people’s opportunities for reflection, based on the strictures of traditional social science, therefore seemed counterproductive. To paraphrase Reason (1994: 325) it would have excluded data that may
have been most important to the thinking and interpretation of the
career actors themselves.
The voices of qualitative social science researchers frequently traced
back to the Chicago school of sociology, from where much of the theory underlying the subjective career first originated (Barley, 1989).
Other voices traced back to overlapping ideas of Berger and Luckman
(1966) on the social construction of reality, or of Bateson (1972) on a
subjectively-constituted world. Yet other voices spoke for the importance of personal choice and agency in economic activity (Ellig and
Thatchenkery, 1996). The common factor was one of the subjective
self as a critical contributor to career behavior and its outcomes for
both self and society. All of these voices appeared to be congruent with
the concept of the intelligent career, but incongruent with the orthodoxy
of traditional science that would restrict how people might describe
Our discomfort with traditional social science, and our search for support for our research interests drew us toward “new science, ” what
Wheatley (1992: ix) has called the territory of « hypotheses and discoveries in biology, chemistry and physics that challenge us to
reshape our fundamental world view. » New science thinking directly
challenges the suitability of traditional reductionist methodologies that
once dominated the physical sciences (Gleick, 1987). By analogy, it
also challenges the suitability of the traditional methodologies used in
the social sciences (Mathews, White, and Long, 1999). New science
supports a primary focus on the whole rather than the parts, and
thereby a systems focus, accommodating the dynamic properties that
have been described as « a recurring preoccupation of social theory
over the centuries » (Cohen, 1999: 374). As a result, certain social science writers are now adopting the language of this new (physical) science as an « intriguing [new] way to think about the world » (Tetenbaum, 1998: 32).
Most applications of new science we found used its ideas metaphorically, to suggest new descriptions of how the social world might function (Kiel and Elliott, 1996; Church, 1999). Metaphors play a key role
in shaping our conception of phenomena through their « formative
impact on language, on the construction and establishment of meaning, and on the development of theory and knowledge » (Morgan,
1993: 277). For example, social system elements have been viewed to
exhibit the new science principle of interdependence, meaning that
people (and so careers) mutually affect each other instead of being
tied to a one-way cause-effect sequence (Goerner, 1995). Variety and
disorder, in contrast to linear relationships, have been seen as « a feature of the social life world itself rather than of bad behavior [or] imperfect social controls… » (Young, 1996: 220). The elements of the social
world have also be described to be self-organizing, that is to create
their own order from “human agency, ” namely acting on our own
behalves, as « the grounding point for all human and human-impacted
activity » (Loye, 1995: 26). The generation of fresh energy is seen to
underlie the process through which « humans individually and collectively try to bring the world into their orbit of control » (Baker,
We found encouragement in the words of the previously cited writers.
We were also encouraged by their shared appetite for alternative
methodologies that would be concerned, as one authorship team put
it, to « seek out and understand the nonlinear dimensions of social life
lying just below the surface of seemingly staid, equilibrated institutions
and groups » (Harvey and Reed, 1996: 321). What troubled us now
was the choice that faced us. It appeared largely as a direct choice
between quantitative and qualitative methodologies. In taking the qualitative path, we could usefully adopt “new science” ideas in a
metaphorical sense to describe the phenomena under study. However, that path would stop short of tackling the principles on which traditional social science was based. We wanted to do more in confronting,
rather than (as we saw it) circumnavigating those principles.
It is clear—as this volume attests—that we are engaged in a much larger debate than we can resolve here. Social science research is only at
the beginning of a protracted and uncertain journey into the application
of “new science” thinking (Harvey and Reed, 1996, Lewin, 1999).
Until that journey has progressed, we are largely stuck with the social
science research tools we have. However, our experience suggests
that misunderstandings can be reduced, and more diverse research
experiments encouraged, if we can move toward a shared understanding of the principles underlying “new (social) science” research
endeavors. In this regard we have recently been introduced to the
work of Cilliers (1998), a philosopher whose careful treatment of one
branch of “new science, ” complexity theory, invites attention. Cilliers
stands back from the tangle of recent engagement with new science
ideas to suggest a set of ten properties, drawn from complexity theory, which he sees underlying what he calls the « complex social systems » of social and economic life (Cilliers, 1998: 3-7, 119-121). We
found his work a helpful reference point for the sharpening of our own
ideas, as well as for its engagement with post-modernism, a popular
inspiration for the proponents of alternative research methods (Clegg,
Hardy and Nord, 1996). We were also encouraged by early reactions
to Cilliers’ work, including complimentary words from an eminent
philosopher of science describing it as « cogently argued, important
and original » and another philosopher’s review that it exhibited « a considerable command of both post-modernism and the scientific fields
under discussion » 
The first review comes from Mary
Hesse, widely respected....
We found a modified set of seven of the properties Cilliers describes
to be particularly relevant to the difficulties we have reported here. We
describe those seven properties below, and briefly relate each of them
to the problems we encountered.
The fundamental element in complex social systems is the person.
Moreover, a « large number of elements [such as] the economically
active people in a country » (Cilliers, 1998: 3, 6) are necessary for a
system to be understood in complex systems terms. Also, with a large
number of elements (and therefore of careers), conventional analytic
methods of understanding become increasingly impractical.
Part of our struggle with the normative use of factor analysis was its
reductionist approach to understanding people, rather than accommodating or celebrating individual uniqueness as the “intelligent career”
framework suggests. Moreover, if we shift for a moment from social
systems to the person as a system, we can find further support in Cillier’s work. In his view of the human brain and its problem-solving
capacities, Cilliers (1998: 26-35) describes a process based on « connectionism » and interdependence among the brain’s components. The
description aligns much more comfortably with our idea of interplay
among the three “ways of knowing” than it does with the search of traditional factor analysis for separate, and usually orthogonal, dimensions.
People are engaged in constant interaction. Interactions are “rich” in
the sense that one person is typically influenced by a number of other
people. Interactions provide for the transfer of information, as occurs
among economic agents—that is, as occurs among people with overlapping career interests.
In our conception of the intelligent career, we saw dynamic interaction
occurring through a person’s knowing-whom network of relationships.
We also believe that information flowing through this network of relationships would affect a person’s knowing-how career-relevant skills
and knowing-why career-relevant motivation. Our framework once
more seems compatible with a complex social systems approach, but
incompatible with the formal structure of factor analysis. For others that
were presently established in the research community, the evidence of
interdependence among our proposed dimensions was seen as undermining our theoretical position.
Non-linear interactions are a precondition for complex social systems,
and in turn for self-organization. This means that elements cannot be
reliably combined into a smaller number of categories, as they usually
are combined in traditional analytic approaches. One consequence of
nonlinear interactions is that small causes (that is, taking a course
because it fit into one’s schedule of having all courses on Monday and
Tuesday, which resulted in falling in love with a subject area, which
resulted in declaring a major, which in turn resulted in a career in that
domain) can have large effects, and vice-versa.
Here, we simply repeat a point already made. Our approach was not
concerned with finding linear associations, for either the individual person (as career actor engaging through the three ways of knowing) or
for the social system (as it was shaped through peoples’ interdependent career behaviors). Our approach therefore tried to make more
selective use of the available methodologies of traditional social science, and in particular more selective use of factor analysis. In doing
so we sought to avoid any presumption of linear relationships.
People usually interact with their immediate neighbors through local
clusters. However, this does not preclude either the people or their
host clusters from producing large, and non-linear, system-wide
Here we are particularly grateful for Cilliers’ insight. We mentioned
earlier that part of our intended research project was to develop a
methodology to elicit inter-subjective data—that is, shared meanings
stemming from what Cilliers calls local clusters. We used focus
groups to draw out these meanings, and through them an appreciation of the cluster’s mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998) with the larger career systems with which they were engaged. Our choice to
weight and report aggregated card sort results to focus group members appeared helpful to the members’ conversations, and consistent
with Cilliers’ view about the extent of local cluster interactions. In other
words, Cilliers’ view affirms our weighting system approach, rather
than suggesting we avoid it for fear of any academic gatekeeper’s
Feedback loops are essential to the survival of complex social systems. Both positive and negative forms of feedback are necessary.
These lead to people’s reflection and self-transformation (and in turn
At both the intra-personal level (among the three ways of knowing) and
the inter-personal level (among career actors), our approach accommodated the basic idea of feedback loops. However, our approach fell
foul of the assumptions of linear correlation that underlie factor analysis and other established quantitative social science methods. Despite
the widespread appreciation of feedback loops in the physical sciences, they have not been widely recognized in what are seen as the
traditional “objective” methodologies of social science (Kerlinger,
Recent developments in longitudinal
analysis and structural.... Thus, although we found traditional science methods useful
and adaptable to our purpose, we were discouraged from using them
by representatives of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
Complex systems are usually associated with living things, and interact with other complex systems. Conceptions of “closed” company or
occupational or national career systems are framed by their observers,
rather than characteristic of the systems themselves.
Our intelligent career approach, and its extension of the underlying philosophy that people are mobile and—to paraphrase Quinn (1992:
151)— « don’t have to work for any single company » respect this view.
However, the tradition of career theory reflects a pattern of what may
be characterized as “closed system” approaches, based on assumptions of people staying in the occupations or organizations in which
they currently work. We can only resort to conjecture along the lines of
the previously cited work of Sutton and Staw (1995), and suggest this
may occur because of the way social scientists have been trained. It
may be a regrettable secondary effect that this training interferes with
the acceptance of alternative research designs.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS OPERATE UNDER CONDITIONS FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM
Social systems require a constant flow of energy to survive and evolve.
The dynamics of supply and demand, including labor market dynamics
affecting careers, prevent any prospect of equilibrium. From a complex
systems perspective, equilibrium is « another word for death » (Cilliers,
Once more, this property concurs with the underlying conception of the
adaptive, motivation-driven, knowledge-seeking and relationship-centered conception of the intelligent career that underlay our research
project. It differs from the assumption we encountered that underpins
traditional methodologies, concerning both the psychology of the person (possessing relatively static, orthogonal attributes) and the environment (the supposedly enduring host company or occupational or
economy-wide employment system) in which the person’s career
In sum, Cilliers provides encouragement for the intelligent career view
at the same time as he challenges the assumptions of the traditional
social science principles we faced in our research project. The question emerges “What is the point of engaging with social science
methodologies whose assumptions are inconsistent with the research
being undertaken?” Our answer—and emphatically so given the
dearth of present alternatives—is to be more selective about the way
the methodologies are applied. To draw an analogy from the physical
sciences, Einstein’s theory of relativity may have superseded Newton’s
laws, but Newtonian tools still serve much research very well.
In our experience, we found the same for the tools of traditional social
science. We were grateful to have access to them, and found it helpful to adapt them to our research agenda. It was in the assumptions of
the academic keepers of the tools where our problems lay. We submit
that, in the light of complexity theory and other “new science”
advances, these assumptions are becoming increasingly inappropriate. They are too often the tail that wags the dog.
We have described how the “discipline” of traditional science raised
obstacles to our research program. We found exploratory factor analysis was useful. However, the mainstream position on the use of factor analysis was problematic. It was inconsistent with the interdependence among the three ways of knowing that our underlying (intelligent
career) theory predicted. We also found that the recommended way of
dealing with problem items, notably “non-loading” and complex factors,
was insensitive to our concern to represent and investigate the subjective career, a cornerstone of our theoretical approach. We found Q-methodology to be helpful. However, we were troubled by a prominent
development that sought to “objectify” the interpretation of results, and
by a “two-tailed” weighting system insensitive to our purpose. We identified with a range of arguments from qualitative methodologies, and
found those beneficial in interpreting our use of traditional social science techniques. However, the arguments included a suggestion to
avoid the techniques of traditional social science, rather than adapt
them in the way we had done.
Our problems stemmed from long-standing assumptions of traditional
quantitative social science, in particular regarding equilibrium, linear
relationships and objectivity of the findings reported. In contrast, we
found the ideas of “new science” more supportive. At least at a
metaphorical level, non-linear systems, interdependence, self-organizing and other related concepts seemed more consistent with the
assumptions underlying the intelligent career framework. We turned to
a philosophical interpretation of one branch of “new science, ” complexity theory (Cilliers, 1998), and found seven properties of complex
social systems relevant to our work. These properties affirmed our
investment in the research undertaken, and in the selective use of traditional social science methodologies we had made.
To close, we submit that, as with physical science, the methodologies
developed from the ideas of traditional social science can still be useful. However, we submit that this use ought not to be constrained by
what seem to be increasingly questionable theoretical assumptions.
Careers research can still use established methodologies to explore
alternative “new science” principles. We hope it will be allowed to do
Endnote: We are deeply indebted to Kerr Inkson for his exceptional insight and
unswerving support as supervisor of the research that this paper reports, and to Hugh
Gunz and Martin Evans for the painstaking editorial help they gave us before this article
went to press.
Arthur, M. B., P. H. Claman,
and R. J. DeFillippi 1995
Intelligent Enterprise, Intelligent
Careers, Academy of Management
Executive, 9 (4): 7-20.
Arthur, M. B.,
and D. M. Rousseau 1996a
Introduction: The Boundaryless Career
as a New Employment Principle, in M.
B. Arthur and D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
The Boundaryless Career: A New
Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era, New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 3-20.
Arthur, M. B.
and D. M. Rousseau 1996b
The Boundaryless Career: A New
Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era, New York, NY: Oxford
Baker, P. L. 1993
Chaos, Order and Sociological Theory,
Sociological Inquiry, 63 (2): 123-149.
Barley, S. R. 1989
Careers, Identities and Institutions: The
Legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology, in M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, and B.
S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of
Career Theory, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 41-65.
Bateson, G. 1972
Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New
York, NY: Ballantine.
Berger, P. L.,
and T. Luckmann 1966
The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge,
Bird, A., H. Gunz,
and M. B. Arthur 2002
Careers in a Complex World: The Search
for New Perspectives from the “New
Science”, M@n@gement, 5 (1): 1-14.
Block, J. 1978
The Q-sort Method in Personality
Assessment and Psychiatric Research,
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bridges, W. 1994
JobShift: How to Prosper in a Workplace without Jobs, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
and D. Cramer 1994
Quantitative Data Analysis for Social
Scientists, revised edition, London:
Capra, F. 1996
The Web of Life: A New Understanding
of Living Systems, New York, NY:
Carr, S. C. 1992
A Primer on the Use of Q-technique
Factor Analysis, Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25: 133-158.
Clegg, S. R., C. Hardy,
and W. R. Nord 1996
Handbook of Organizational Studies,
Cilliers, P. 1998
Complexity and Postmodernism:
Understanding Complex Systems, London: Routledge.
Cohen, M. 1999
Commentary on the Organization Science Special Issue on Complexity,
Organization Science, 10 (3): 373-376.
D’Aveni, R. 1994
Hypercompetition: Managing the
Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering,
New York, NY: Free Press.
DeFillippi, R. J.,
and M. B. Arthur 1994
The Boundaryless Career: A Competency-Based Perspective, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 (4): 307-324.
Denzin, N. K.,
and Y. S. Lincoln 1994
Entering the Field of Qualitative
Research, in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Dooley, D. 1984
Social Research Methods, Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dreier, O. 1996
Re-Searching Psychotherapeutic Practice, in S. Chaiklin and J. Lave (Eds.),
Perspectives on Activity and Context,
New York: Cambridge University Press,
Drucker, P. F. 1994
The Age of Social Transformation,
Atlantic Monthly, 274 (5): 53-80.
and T. J. Thatchenkery 1996
Subjectivism, Discovery, and Boundaryless Careers: An Austrian Perspective, in M. B. Arthur and D. M.
Rousseau (Eds.), The Boundaryless
Career: A New Employment Principle
for a New Organizational Era, New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 171-
Gleick, J. 1987
Chaos: Making of a New Science, New
Chaos, Evolution, and Deep Ecology,
in R. Robertson and A. Combs (Eds.),
Chaos Theory in Psychology and Life
Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 17-
Hall, D. T. 1996
The Career Is Dead—Long Live the
Career: A Relational Approach to
Careers, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, R. 1992
The Strategic Analysis of Intangible
Resources, Strategic Management
Journal, 13 (2): 135-144.
and C. K. Prahalad 1994
Competing for the Future, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Harman, H. H. 1976
Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd edition,
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Harvey, D. L.,
and M. Reed 1996
Social Science as the Study of Complex Systems, in L. D. Kiel and E.
Elliott (Eds.), Chaos Theory in the
Social Sciences: Foundations and
Applications, Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press, 295-323.
Heckscher, C. 1995
White-collar Blues: Management Loyalties in an Age of Corporate Restructuring, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Holland, J. H. 1996
Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds
Complexity, Reading, MA: Helix Books.
Inkson, K. 1995
Effects of Changing Economic Conditions on Managerial Job Change and
Careers, British Journal of Management, 6 (3): 183-194.
Inkson, K., J. Pringle,
and M. B. Arthur 1996
The Enactment of Careers, Paper presented at the British Academy of Management, University of Aston, September.
Kerlinger, F. N. 1986
Foundations of Behavioral Research,
3rd edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Kiel, L. D.,
and E. Elliott 1996
Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences:
Foundations and Applications, Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Kotter, J. P. 1995
The New Rules. How to Succeed in
Today’s Post Corporate World, New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Krueger, R. A.,
and J. A. King 1998
Involving Community Members in
Focus Groups, Focus Group Kit, vol. 5,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Lastrucci, C. L. 1963
The Scientific Approach: Basic Principles of the Scientific Method, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Lewin, A. Y. 1999
Application of Complexity Theory to
Organization Science, Organization
Science, 10 (3): 215-215.
Loye, D. 1995
Prediction in Chaotic Social, Economic,
and Political Conditions: The Conflict
Between Traditional Chaos Theory and
the Psychology of Prediction, and
some Implications for General Theory,
World Futures, 44 (1), 15-31.
Mathews, K. M., M. C.
White, and R. G. Long 1999
Why Study the Complexity Sciences in
the Social Sciences?, Human Relations, 52 (4): 439-462.
and D. Thomas 1988
Q Methodology, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. 1993
Successful Focus Groups: Advancing
the State of the Art, Newbury Park, CA:
Nunnally, J. C.
and I. H. Bernstein 1994
Psychometric Theory, 3rd edition, New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ozer, D. J. 1993
The Q-sort Method and the Study of
Personality Development, in D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey,
and K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying Lives
Through Time: Personality and Development, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 147-168.
Parker, P. 1996
The New Career Paradigm: An Exploration of Intelligent Career Behavior
among MBA Graduates and Students,
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Auckland: The University of Auckland.
Parker, P. 1997
Eliciting the Subjective Career, Paper
presented at the Australian and New
Zealand Academy of Management
Conference, Melbourne, December.
Parker, P. 2000
Career Communities, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Auckland: University of Auckland.
and M. B. Arthur 2000
Careers, Organizing and Community, in
M. A. Peiperl, M. B. Arthur, R. Goffee,
and T. Morris (Eds.), Career Frontiers:
New Conceptions of Working Lives,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 99-
Quinn, J. B. 1992
Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and
Service Based Paradigm for Industry,
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Reason, P. 1994
Three Approaches to Participative
Inquiry, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Schein, E. H. 1978
Career Dynamics: Matching Individual
and Organizational Needs, Reading,
Spurrett, D. 1999
Book Review of “Complexity and Postmodernism, ” South African Journal of
Philosophy, 18 (2): 258-274.
Stebbins, R. A. 1970
Career: The Subjective Approach,
Sociology Quarterly, 11 (1): 32-49.
Stephenson, W. 1953
The Study of Behavior: Q-technique
and its Methodology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stevens, J. 1986
Applied Multivariate Statistics for the
Social Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sutton, R. I.,
and B. M. Staw 1995
What Theory Is Not, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3), 371-384.
Tabachnick, B. G.,
and L. S. Fidell 1989
Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd edition, New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Tetenbaum, T. J. 1998
Shifting Paradigms: From Newton to
Chaos, Organizational Dynamics,
26 (4): 21-32.
Turner, F. 1997
Chaos and Social Science, in R. A.
Eve, S. Horsfall, and M. E. Lee (Eds.),
Chaos, Complexity and Sociology:
Myths, Models and Theories, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, xi-xxvii.
Weick, K. E. 1989
Theory Construction as Disciplined
Imagination, Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4): 516-531.
Weick, K. E. 1996
Enactment and the Boundaryless
Career: Organizing as We Work, in M.
B. Arthur and D. M Rousseau (Eds.),
The Boundaryless Career: A New
Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era, New York: Oxford University Press, 40-57.
Wenger, E. 1998
Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning and Identity, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wheatley, M. J. 1992
Leadership and the New Science:
Learning about Organization from an
Orderly Universe, San Francisco, CA:
Wilensky, H. L. 1961
Orderly Careers and Social Participation: The Impact of Work History on
Social Integration in the Middle Mass,
American Sociological Review, 26 (4):
Young, T. R. 1996
Chaos Theory and Social Dynamics:
Foundations of Postmodern Social Science, in R. Robertson and A. Combs
(Eds.), Chaos Theory in Psychology
and the Life Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ:
When the project was launched the first
author was a graduate student in an urban
business school with a substantial population of local MBA alumni and MBA students that made the research project viable.
As a graduate student, her work would be
subject to both internal advisors’ and external assessors’ approval of her research program, and of its appropriateness in the field
of social science research. We mention this
because of the subsequent challenges involved in conducting and reporting the research. The second author was a visiting professor when the research project began, and
an originator of the intelligent career
approach (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994;
Arthur, Claman and DeFillipi, 1995). We
will tell our story as it happened, citing the
academic references we drew upon at the
time, so that the reader may better relate to
the experiences reported.
One other issue that could not be
addressed here is the problem of exploring
what we believe to be a dynamic situation
through a snapshot—that is data collected
at one point in time. We recognize this
limitation of our research but view this
episode of data gathering as the first in a
planned set of follow-up investigations.
All data in Tables 1 to 3 are from Parker (1996: 144-148). A normative factor
analysis following recommended methodological guidelines was performed on the
variables within each of the knowing-why,
knowing-how, and knowing-whom categories. Accordingly, factors were extracted
for each category to account for at least
70% of the total variance in the results
obtained (Stevens, 1986, Tabachnik and
Fidell, 1989). The most effective solutions
came from 12 factors accounting for
75.7% of variance (knowing-why), 10 factors accounting for 80% of variance (knowing-how) and 10 factors accounting for
83.6% of variance (knowing-whom). A
cutoff factor loading of .526 was established in accordance with guidelines for
smaller samples provided by Stevens
(1986: 344). Complex variables are shown
each time they exceed the cutoff factor
This does not mean that our sample
was inappropriate. It does mean, as suggested earlier, that different people had different meanings for their card selections;
differences that were washed out using the
traditional factor analytic techniques.
We worked on this methodology along
with Kerr Inkson during 1997, and first
presented it in early 1998. A paper based
on that presentation has since been published (Parker and Arthur, 2000), and a PhD
dissertation extending the methodology
has since been completed (Parker, 2000).
There was a concern that the items
were derived from a local and perhaps
idiosyncratic MBA population, and therefore of limited applicability to a larger
population of workers. An exercise was
conducted to explore (then) recent sources
about the changing nature of work and
careers, focusing on Harvard MBAs (Kotter, 1995), middle managers (Heckscher,
1995), the broader restructuring of work
(Bridges, 1994) and emerging contributions to the exploration of boundaryless
careers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996b).
There was also an opportunity to inspect
reported motivations behind 200 job situations explored in a concurrent national
study (Inkson, Pringle and Arthur, 1996).
As a result the items retained after factor
analysis were refined and additional items
were added, culminating in 40, 36 and 35
items under each of the knowing-why;
knowing-how and knowing-whom headings respectively.
The first review comes from Mary
Hesse, widely respected author of Revolutions and Reconstructions in Philosophy of
Science and appears on the Cilliers book
jacket. The second review comes from
Recent developments in longitudinal
analysis and structural equation modeling
are beginning to find their way into our
This paper reflects on the first author’s attempts to adapt traditional social science methods to her own purpose. The research involved developing a methodology to explore the subjective career, concerned with people’s internal, self-referential views of their unfolding career experiences. The paper describes a series of problems encountered along the way, stemming directly or indirectly from the rigidity of traditional science assumptions. In contrast, the authors find encouragement in contemporary ideas about “new science, ” and its imagery of a self-organizing, non-linear and interdependent world. The journey leads to philosopher Paul Cilliers’ principles of complex social systems, which provide an alternative, and more affirming, platform for the kind of research undertaken.