The Influence of Family of Origin on the Career Development of Outstanding Women with Disabilities in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of family of origin on the career development of women has attracted the attention of both researchers and practitioners in the counseling and rehabilitation fields in the past decades (Hartung, 2002; Huang & Sverke, 2007; Larson & Wilson, 1998; Noonan, Gallor, Hensler-McGinnis, Fassinger, Wang, & Goodman, 2004; Szymanski & Parker, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). From a developmental contextual perspective, researchers indicate that career development is an interactive process where the individual both influences and is influenced by the social, cultural, and physical features of his or her environment (Brown, 2002; Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Family is an essential part of an individual's environment. For many individuals, relationships with family members are some of the most potent and significant relational experiences in their lives (Whiston & Keller, 2004). A body of published research indicates that family contextual factors such as parents' occupations and parents' encouragement and support are influential factors on the career development of women without disabilities in the U.S. (Blustein, 1997; Brown, 2004; Hartung, 2010; Larson & Wilson, 1998; Pearson & Bieschke, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). However, there has been very little research focused specifically on the career development of women with disabilities (WWDs), particularly, in the area of family influences on the career development of WWDs in developing countries. The literature indicates that women with disabilities face greater discrimination in society (Banks & Kaschak, 2003; Groce, 1997; Habib, 1995; Heumann, 2003; Russo & Wehmeyer, 2001; United Nations, 2013). In the U.S., WWDs often encounter challenges to maintain overall health due to society's physical and attitudinal barriers (Chevarley, Thierry, Gill, Ryerson, & Nosek, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Nosek, 2010; Nosek, Howland, Rintala, & Young, 2001; Parish & Huh, 2006; Parish & Ellison-Martin, 2007; Smith, 2008; Smith & Ruiz, 2009). Several national and statewide surveys indicated that WWDs experienced limited access to healthcare compared to women without disabilities (Chevarley et al, 2006; US Department of Health & Human Services, 2000). This lack of access to primary care led to recurrent, but often prevent able, health problems which, in turn, affected education, career development, employment, and quality of life for WWDs (Hampton, Ordway, & Zhu, 2010; Iezzoni, Davis, Soukup, & O'Day, 2002;Nosek, 2010; Shigaki, Hagglund, Clark, & Confoti, 2002; Thierry & Cyril, 2004; US Department of Health & Human Services, 2000). Furthermore, a number of barriers to the career development of WWDs have been implicated by researchers. These barriers include anti-disability prejudice from others (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991; Lindstrom, Johnson, Doren, Zane, Post, & Harley, 2008), family issues (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991; Lindstrom et al., 2008), gender (Fine & Asch, 1988; Lindstrom et ah, 2008), lack of education (Szymanski & Parker, 2006), environmental barriers (Conyers, Koch, & Szymanski, 1998; Nosek et ah, 2001; Szymanski & Parker, 2006), lack of social support (Danek, 1992), and stress (Crewe & Clarke, 1996). Similar problems are faced by WWDs in China. Currently, China is experiencing a transition marked by rapid economic growth and profound social changes (e.g., the gap between the rich and poor, particularly those with disabilities). These changes have encouraged policy makers to reconsider disability-related issues from a social stability perspective. Equal education and employment for WWDs are topics in the 2010-2020 National Education Strategic Plan (the Ministry of Education, 2010) and in the mass media. However, career development opportunities for Chinese people with disabilities including women are still bleak. Many individuals with disabilities are limited by society's low expectations of them and the general belief that people with disabilities do not have the capability or skills to work towards a challenging career in a field of their choice. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".