Lesbian and Gay Career Development and Super's Life-span, Life-space Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary goal of the present study was to examine the influence of sexual minority identity on the career decision and trajectory of 15 lesbian women and 14 gay men, between the ages of 18-57. Next, the phase of career development and the social context of these participants were examined through the lens of Super's (1990) life-span, life-space theory of career development. Three main findings emerged from this study. First, although oppressive forces, such as heterosexism, homophobia, and discrimination pervasively influence the career development of sexual minorities, there is evidence of a process by which they mediate the impact of these influences on career development, namely, by minimizing exposure to homophobia, maximizing exposure to affirming professional and personal supports, and by capitalizing on strength and resilience gained over the course of developing a sexual minority identity. Next, although participants' phase of career development was consistent with what Super's (1990) life-span theory would predict, factors related to sexual orientation and homophobia influenced how they maneuvered within and between these phases. Finally, the situational determinants-portion of life-span theory were determined to have limited efficacy for describing the social context within which sexual minorities choose and pursue careers, as it does not take into consideration the systemic heterosexism and homophobia that qualify the life-space of sexual minority persons. The addition of oppression as an over-arching influence on the life-space of marginalized persons in general, and sexual minority persons in particular, is proposed. Limitations of the present study, as well as implications for research and counselling practice are presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".