Career empowerment: a qualitative exploratory investigation of perceived career control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals perceive control over their careers. While careers are increasingly understood to be agentic, agency and control are often assumed rather than explicitly conceptualized. Therefore, there is a need to investigate how people perceive the control they have in order to better understand the role of agency and subjective control in career-related behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 participants from diverse occupations and demographics (e.g. age and gender). The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings We identified seven unique themes, namely autonomy, impact, meaning, competence, clarity, growth and support. Research limitations/implications This qualitative study provides a detailed exploration of perceived career control, which we then label “career empowerment.” The findings can improve our understanding of career-related behaviors and outcomes. Practical implications Practical implications pertain to career counseling and organizational support for individuals in achieving their career goals. Originality/value While existing career theories predominantly focus on proactive career behaviors and capabilities, the concept of perceived career control as preceding proactivity encourages future research into the full spectrum of active and passive behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".